Attack on gun rights begin anew~

Canceled2

Banned
Gun surprise: 2nd Amendment advocate says ban on high-capacity clips passes muster By Michael Isikoff
NBC News National Investigative Correspondent

A leading gun rights advocate says there is no constitutional barrier to restricting the sale of high-capacity gun magazines such as the one used by accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner and that such proposals are justified to prevent “looney tunes” from committing more gun massacres.
Robert A. Levy, who served as co-counsel in the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case that established a Second Amendment right to bear arms, said there was no reason the court’s decision in that case should apply to the purchase of high-capacity gun magazines.

“I don’t see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines,” Levy said in an interview with NBC. “Justice (Antonin) Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute.”

The comments by Levy, chairman of the board of the libertarian Cato Institute, come as Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York is preparing to circulate a bill Thursday to ban the sale or transfer of high-capacity magazines. Supporters took Levy’s comments as a sign that at least one gun rights advocates might be open to the idea.

“For somebody like him to say this is significant,” said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a leading gun control group. Levy had been one of the lead lawyers for gun rights advocates in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case in which the Supreme Court overturned a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun ownership and affirmed for the first time that the Second Amendment encompassed an individual right to own firearms.
There is little doubt that any gun control proposal will face tough sledding in the Congress. A spokesman said today that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is against the idea. One leading gun rights group, Gun Owners of America, posted a statement on its website this week denouncing “liberal politicians flocking like vultures” to gain political advantage from the Tucson tragedy by proposing gun control measures.

But gun control groups argue that measures like one being proposed by McCarthy in the House (and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who is sponsoring a similar bill in the Senate) are so modest and reasonable that they could gain traction. Law enforcement officials have noted that Loughner’s high-capacity magazine substantially increased the lethality of his rampage. Witnesses said he was able to get off at least 31 shots without reloading and was only wrestled to the ground when he tried to reload with another high-capacity magazine. The manufacture of such magazines were prohibited under the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, but that law lapsed in 2004, and gun experts say the sale of such magazines have since proliferated.

President Obama, during his 2008 campaign, supporting reinstating the assault weapons ban, but abandoned the idea as politically impractical after taking office. This week, the White House has declined to respond to requests for comment on whether the president would support a restriction on high-capacity magazines.

Although he is strongly opposed to most gun control measures, Levy said in this case “as a policy matter” restricting access to high-capacity magazines such as the 33-round one used by Loughner makes sense.
“It may stop a few of these looney tunes,” Levy said. While saying that he saw it as a “close call," he said that a restriction of “10 to 15 rounds makes sense.”
 
we have forgotten the intent of the constitution and the statists on both sides of the aisle prefer it this way.

If the Founders had known about automatic weapons, do you think they would have made laws restricting their use? One can only guess...I think where there is a will there is way, but making it harder for people who are crazy to obtain weapons might help in some way. I have no answers, just a lot of frustration and embarrassment that this happens so often in our country.
 
we have forgotten the intent of the constitution and the statists on both sides of the aisle prefer it this way.

I read that they found 31 shell casings at the site of the shooting. Would that not mean Loughner was able to reload at least once? WTF do these idiots think that putting limits on guns will stop nuts intent on mass murder??? I'll just never get that.
 
I agree with the legislation. Are you opposed to reasonable?

But gun control groups argue that measures like one being proposed by McCarthy in the House (and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who is sponsoring a similar bill in the Senate) are so modest and reasonable that they could gain traction. Law enforcement officials have noted that Loughner’s high-capacity magazine substantially increased the lethality of his rampage.
 
I agree with all those who were carrying there and the brave people, they would have jumped him after he fired a shot or two!
 
If the Founders had known about automatic weapons, do you think they would have made laws restricting their use? One can only guess...I think where there is a will there is way, but making it harder for people who are crazy to obtain weapons might help in some way. I have no answers, just a lot of frustration and embarrassment that this happens so often in our country.

no, there is no way in hell they would have prohibited automatic weapons to the people. It was their intent via the 2nd Amendment that the PEOPLE (that's you, me, and your aunt millie) be as equally armed as any standing army.
 
I agree with the legislation. Are you opposed to reasonable?

But gun control groups argue that measures like one being proposed by McCarthy in the House (and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who is sponsoring a similar bill in the Senate) are so modest and reasonable that they could gain traction. Law enforcement officials have noted that Loughner’s high-capacity magazine substantially increased the lethality of his rampage.

reasonable, in this instance, only means 'how far can we limit your natural rights'.
 
no, there is no way in hell they would have prohibited automatic weapons to the people. It was their intent via the 2nd Amendment that the PEOPLE (that's you, me, and your aunt millie) be as equally armed as any standing army.

Tell us you should be able to purchase a Stinger, drive an Abrams, and ski behind a nuclear sub, all fully-armed.
 
no, there is no way in hell they would have prohibited automatic weapons to the people. It was their intent via the 2nd Amendment that the PEOPLE (that's you, me, and your aunt millie) be as equally armed as any standing army.

Was that before or after we had a standing army ourselves? I truly don't remember when we left behind the militia and formed an army. Also, refresh my memory, were the Fathers for or against having a standing army, thanks!
 
Tell us you should be able to purchase a Stinger, drive an Abrams, and ski behind a nuclear sub, all fully-armed.

if a stinger would be used against american citizens, then yes we should be able to buy and possess stingers. If tanks can be used against american citizens, then we should be able to own tanks. and if nuclear subs would be used against american citizens, then hell yes we should be able to get them.

what part of 'we the people' being the sovereign power over the government are you having a hard time in understanding?
 
Was that before or after we had a standing army ourselves? I truly don't remember when we left behind the militia and formed an army. Also, refresh my memory, were the Fathers for or against having a standing army, thanks!

the founding fathers knew that a standing army was a bane to liberty. that is why in all of their writings, they constantly tried to reassure the ratifiers that no standing army could ever be superior in strength to the people.
 
if a stinger would be used against american citizens, then yes we should be able to buy and possess stingers. If tanks can be used against american citizens, then we should be able to own tanks. and if nuclear subs would be used against american citizens, then hell yes we should be able to get them.

what part of 'we the people' being the sovereign power over the government are you having a hard time in understanding?

Haven't tanks been used against US citizenry before? Who can afford atank, you would have to have several people as investors.
 
Haven't tanks been used against US citizenry before? Who can afford atank, you would have to have several people as investors.

yes, tanks have been used against US citizens before, and even though it's against the law via posse comitatus, the government has always protected itself legally through extra judiciary means. So, with that in mind, how does the citizenry then protect itself from a government that doesn't obey the laws it writes?
 
yes, tanks have been used against US citizens before, and even though it's against the law via posse comitatus, the government has always protected itself legally through extra judiciary means. So, with that in mind, how does the citizenry then protect itself from a government that doesn't obey the laws it writes?

I really don't know, I have always thought that we were pretty much fucked if the military turned on its own. The only hope would be street to street fighting as has been used in Iraq to fight the US forces. What do you think?
 
if a stinger would be used against american citizens, then yes we should be able to buy and possess stingers. If tanks can be used against american citizens, then we should be able to own tanks. and if nuclear subs would be used against american citizens, then hell yes we should be able to get them.

what part of 'we the people' being the sovereign power over the government are you having a hard time in understanding?

You're a fucking radical whack job.
 
hummmm we know abortion was illegal during our Founders time and not considered a "right to privacy" for women to kill their unborn...just hummmmmmmm~
 
I really don't know, I have always thought that we were pretty much fucked if the military turned on its own. The only hope would be street to street fighting as has been used in Iraq to fight the US forces. What do you think?

it's a numbers game. As it stands, there are about 4 million service members total. about a million law enforcement officers. Unless the feds recalled every military member to combat a revolution here, we can expect to face maybe 3 million armed military members. There's no hope in a front line to front line fight, so it would certainly result in guerrilla warfare. It would then be just a matter of crushing the morale of the standing army. sniper fire and night time raid and run skirmishes is what would be needed.
 
Back
Top