Guns, Insurance, and alcohol

[ExpressLane]

Bans on high capacity ammunition clips are constitutional. Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to overturn local ordinances banning them.

I don't see any connection between keeping a military battlefield innovation out of the hands of civilians, and a person having the sovereign right to control their own body.

Its a different SCOTUS now. New York just had a gun law that had stood for over 100 years overturned.

 

[Cypress]

Its a different SCOTUS now. New York just had a gun law that had stood for over 100 years overturned.

So you assert judicial precedence and case law mean nothing, and whenever the Supreme Court has more mainstream and liberal justices, Roe v Wade can just be reinstated, and we can go back to the pre-2008 judicial maxim that gun ownership is not a private individual right.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You don't have a constitutional right to high capacity ammunition clips combined with a semi -automatic rifle.

There is no legitimate civilian need for that kind of weapon.

I could kill you with a traditional hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver. But it would be more challenging to quickly kill and maim dozens of unwitting victims with those weapons.

That's what we're talking about, mass murder of dozens of victims.

It's obvious you know little about firearms.

This is a clip of ammunition:

This is a magazine holding ammunition

Clips make it convenient to load magazines which are then used in the firearm to feed rounds for firing.

Aside from that, that cat is already out of the bag. Anyone can 3D print magazines for firearms now, and getting the springs made is a snap.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Two simple proposals:

1. All gun owners must purchase liability insurance for every weapon they own. No insurance, no gun.
2. If you have had a DUI in the last five years, or multiple DUI convictions, no gun.

I'm pretty sure that would effectively keep an AR-15 out of the hands of an 18 year old with no training.

Discuss.

I agree. And if you're careless and your weapons are stolen or otherwise misused because you did not secure them, your insurance policy won't pay to cover your loss -- and you won't be able to buy another policy (or gun) for two years.

It wouldn't have stopped Murderboy Rittenhouse though. He got an older friend to buy his murder weapon for him. So add a rider to that -- if you buy a gun and insurance policy for someone else, YOU are criminally liable for any crimes they commit with it.

 

[ExpressLane]

So you assert judicial precedence and case law mean nothing, and whenever the Supreme Court has more mainstream and liberal justices, Roe v Wade can just be reinstated, and we can go back to the pre-2008 judicial maxim that gun ownership is not a private individual right.

Certainly a possibility. Elections have consequences.

 

[ExpressLane]

I agree. And if you're careless and your weapons are stolen or otherwise misused because you did not secure them, your insurance policy won't pay to cover your loss -- and you won't be able to buy another policy (or gun) for two years.

It wouldn't have stopped Murderboy Rittenhouse though. He got an older friend to buy his murder weapon for him. So add a rider to that -- if you buy a gun and insurance policy for someone else, YOU are criminally liable for any crimes they commit with it.

The Supreme Court just shot down a 100 year old law that put an unconstitutional burden on gun ownership. Your insurance would be shot down for the same reason.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

the pre-2008 judicial maxim that gun ownership is not a private individual right.

that is historically and factually incorrect

 

[RB 60]

Bans on high capacity ammunition clips are constitutional. Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to overturn local ordinances banning them.

I don't see any connection between keeping a military battlefield innovation out of the hands of civilians, and a person having the sovereign right to control their own body.

This discussion is not about abortion. Quit moving the goalposts when you're defeated in dialogue.

 

[Cypress]

It's obvious you know little about firearms.

This is a clip of ammunition:

In movies, television, popular culture clip has always used colloquially and interchangeably with magazine.

It wasn't until recent years that gun huggers started freaking out and having schoolgirl meltdowns about the proper use of grammar.

The point still stands that as a civilian you have no legitimate need for a 30 or 45 round magazine. Being able to masturbate over your Rambo fantasies is not sufficient justification for you to need to have access military innovations designed for battlefield conditions.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

In movies, television, popular culture clip has always used colloquially and interchangeably with magazine.

It wasn't until recent years that gun huggers started freaking out and having schoolgirl meltdowns about the proper use of grammar.

The point still stands that as a civilian you have no legitimate need for a 30 or 45 round magazine. Being able to masturbate over your Rambo fantasies is not sufficient justification for you to need to have access military innovations designed for battlefield conditions.

in a hypothetical 'ban', would criminals still be able to acquire 30+ round mags and/or automatic weapons????

 

[Into the Night]

Me too. Next, they'll go after ammunition, starting with the bigger calibers. I'm safe, my .220 Swift (a .223 Magnum) would classify as a .22.
But no, the founders weren't thinking about hunting guns. the citizens back then could own cannons.

You still can. I know some people that do. They tend to shoot them for celebrations mostly. People also own tanks, bazookas, fully automatic guns, rockets, etc.

My father was big into black powder.

Me also. I make quite a bit of the stuff. I make bombs, rockets, and other fireworks with it.

He was a friend of Don Getz, a premier barrel maker. He'd drive up there just to shoot the breeze. I have a PA. Long Rifle my dad built with a Getz barrel, I was offered $2600 and wouldn't sell it.
I have a few black powder handguns. I like shooting my Uberti 1858 New Army, I keep 5 rounds loaded and capped in the house.
I've shot a few deer myself over the years, most with a Remmington 700 BDL I bought when I was 18.

And I bet you never even thought about shooting up a school, parade, or shopping center!

 

[Into the Night]

This is what we are dealing with. (Not me in the video) but it's why a AR 15 is the tool we need to prevent massive destruction to our crops.

It also shows why a large magazine for a semiautomatic is useful for this purpose. Hogs are pretty fast on their feet, and there was some good shooting in that video.

 

[Into the Night]

no one said we can ever eliminate all gun violence.

YOU did. Special pleading fallacy. Denial of self argument fallacy.

You are either are in favor of reducing mass slaughter, or you're not.

Non-sequitur fallacy.

I just went to the Academy Sporting Goods website, and checked out the Remington, Ruger, and Rossi bolt-action and semi-auto hunting rifles.

And you had no idea what you were looking at.

None of them had high capacity 30 round or 45 round ammo clips.

Those hunting rifles had ten round clips.

Special pleading fallacy.

If you need 30 rounds to shoot a deer, you are a terrible shot who shouldn't even be shooting a rifle, and you may even be a threat to other hunters and hikers.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Pivot fallacy. Attempted proof by contrivance fallacy.

In fact, you have no legitimate civilian need for a high capacity ammo magazine which is a military innovation for the battlefield conditions of killing other humans.

YOU don't get to decide what is "legitimate civilian need". If you try to take guns away from people, you will find yourself ON the battlefield, where guns are used to kill humans.

The right of self defense is inherent, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

Bans on high capacity ammunition clips are constitutional.

No, they are not. The government cannot create any law that bans or limits guns or any other weapon (or any of their accessories). Discard of the Constitution of the United States. Again, you show your own hoplophobia. A magazine is not a clip.

Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to overturn local ordinances banning them.

False authority fallacy. The Supreme Court is not the Constitution, does not have authority to change the Constitution, and does not have authority to interpret the Constitution.

I don't see any connection between keeping a military battlefield innovation out of the hands of civilians,

Unconstitutional.

and a person having the sovereign right to control their own body.

There is no right to murder your own offspring. It is NOT her own body. it is the child that dies. Redefinition fallacy (mother<->child).

 

[Into the Night]

So you assert judicial precedence and case law mean nothing, and whenever the Supreme Court has more mainstream and liberal justices, Roe v Wade can just be reinstated, and we can go back to the pre-2008 judicial maxim that gun ownership is not a private individual right.

Discard of the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

I agree. And if you're careless and your weapons are stolen or otherwise misused because you did not secure them, your insurance policy won't pay to cover your loss -- and you won't be able to buy another policy (or gun) for two years.

Unconstitutional.

It wouldn't have stopped Murderboy Rittenhouse though. He got an older friend to buy his murder weapon for him. So add a rider to that -- if you buy a gun and insurance policy for someone else, YOU are criminally liable for any crimes they commit with it.

Libel.

 

[Into the Night]

In movies, television, popular culture clip has always used colloquially and interchangeably with magazine.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! So ALL you know is from the movies and television!!!!

You think:
* guns have no recoil!
* a clip is the same thing as a magazine!
* everyone in the Old West carried a gun!
* airplanes that touch the ground at anywhere other than a smooth runway at an airport explode, even if they are out of fuel!
* you always draw your gun with your finger on the trigger!
* cannons were only used on ships!
* cannons had little or no recoil!
* there is always something soft to land on when someone leaps off a building!
* there is only one target at a time!
* you can shoot 14 million bullets without reloading!
* bar fights always break a window!
* multiple tornadoes can touch down just blocks from each other in the same city!
* the Gulf Stream is slowing or stopping!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You have shown your hand, dude. What a joke!

 

[Callinectes]

Two simple proposals:

1. All gun owners must purchase liability insurance for every weapon they own. No insurance, no gun.
2. If you have had a DUI in the last five years, or multiple DUI convictions, no gun.

I'm pretty sure that would effectively keep an AR-15 out of the hands of an 18 year old with no training.

Discuss.

I’ve written to my congress critters a few times and never got a response, and wasn’t expecting one this time either. But right after Uvalde, I sat down and wrote out my thoughts on the matter and humbly offered a few suggestions to Rick Scott and Marco Rubio.

1. Must be out of high school for a minimum of 6 months. (Must graduate or at least have a GED)

2. ZERO run ins with the law. Juvenile records must be available during the background check.

3. If the kid lives at home with mom and dad, they have to be eligible for general gun ownership too. NO MENTAL ILLNESS IN THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY.

4. School records must be free of bullying (giving or receiving), fighting, drug use or other anti-social incidents. And academically, must have maintained an average GPA middle school to HS graduation.

5. Must have a job with a good work record.

6. Social media made available for the last 5 years.

7. 30 day waiting period in which time the prospective baby AR owner must complete an intensive NRA new gun owner safety course tailored specifically to the AR and AK family of firearms (and provides time for the very extensive background check)

There were a few more, but I don’t remember them off hand. Would they do any good? Fuck if I know, but it sounds like it would be a hell of a lot harder for an 18 year old to buy an AR than it is now. And I don’t give a shit anymore. Stepping into any adult activity should be at least a mildly irritating introduction to mindless bureaucracy. If the kids want to play with ARs, they can join the military. By the time I was 19 I had shot every small arm in the inventory from a 45 automatic up to a 50 caliber machine gun, and MY ARs were fully automatic.

Hopefully this would have the additional benefit of shutting up the jackasses too.

BTW! Both Scott and Rubio responded! Although it was just a thank you and an acknowledgment of receipt, and of course it wasn’t them personally. Hell, I don’t know if they even read it.

 

[Matt Dillon]

You don't have a constitutional right to high capacity ammunition clips combined with a semi -automatic rifle.

There is no legitimate civilian need for that kind of weapon.

I could kill you with a traditional hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver. But it would be more challenging to quickly kill and maim dozens of unwitting victims with those weapons.

That's what we're talking about, mass murder of dozens of victims.

The fuck you don't, retard. Americans absolutely have a right to that, and more.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Why? Give me a reason.

because the law can't even stop a person with multiple DUIs whose license has been taken away from driving (I've seen dozens of people in court charged with driving while their license is suspended) and you think they would obey a law that says they can't possess a gun?..........the reason is simply that it wouldn't work........

and that's beside the fact there is no evidence that links DUILs with mass murderers.....