Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Agreed, sans gay marriage
Supreme Court says Illinois may ban sale of rapid-fire assault weapons for now
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
Agreed, sans gay marriage
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It’s stupid because the government shouldn’t be involved in the private affairs of consenting adults, but the way this SCOTUS is acting, I think they’ll try to leave it to the States to decide. Another blow to American freedom by a RW government.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
It does require law enforcement to at least use the fig leaf of a suspected crime to confiscate it. That's why you have to then prove it wasn't involved in a crime to get it back. That's horribly wrong, but that's how it is, except in Arizona where law enforcement can't take it if they don't charge you with an actual crime, arrest you, and get a conviction.
Arizona's Newly Enacted Forfeiture Reforms Will Make It Harder for Cops To Steal Property
The new law requires a criminal conviction prior to civil forfeiture and beefs up due process protections for property owners.
https://reason.com/2021/05/06/arizo...ll-make-it-harder-for-cops-to-steal-property/
SmarterthanYou
rebel
while SOME states are finally changing their laws, most of them have not, along with the feds. Those states who HAVE changed their laws simply turn the case over to the feds, who only have to say they suspect it came from crime and need zero evidence.
There's no legitimate need for a civilian to own a rapid-fire, semi automatic rifle equipped with 30 round ammunition mags. Those are battlefield innovations intended to inflict maximum casualties on humans, and gives gun barrel strokers more lethal fire power than police patrol officers.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
then you have no real concept of revolutionary war history, or that of the founders. why don't just admit you're an idiot?
Most of the guns I saw 50 years ago owned by relatives and friends were revolvers, bolt action sporting rifles, shotguns. Even the Colt 45 semi-automatic pistol only had an ammo capacity of around ten bullets. My father's .38 revolver had ammo capacity of six bullets, my bolt action Mossberg I think had an ammo capacity of ten rounds, and you'd be lucky to aim and get off ten shots in the time you could empty 60 or 90 rounds from an AR or M4 knockoff
SmarterthanYou
rebel
given world history of governments murdering tens of millions of their own people after disarming them, why on earth would you want to tempt the same fate?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Your ignorance of firearms is showing. The M 1911 .45 has a capacity of 7 rounds. Most bolt action hunting rifles hold 5 rounds. In aimed fire, as opposed to "spray and pray," magazine capacity and the difference between a fast bolt action and a semi-automatic rifle is minimal.
I own a British Lee-Enfield that holds ten rounds. With stripper clips for reload that rifle can fire 20 aimed rounds in a minute. That is, you hit what you are firing at 20 times. The bullet is also heavier so it has greater effective range than the small .223 rounds an AR 15 uses. You can't do much better with an AR 15 unless you are just spraying which does little but waste ammunition.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I am unfamiliar with any politicians in any party who say the things that I say.
If they existed, I'd have someone to whom I could look forward to voting.
The Constitution was written to establish a framework for Government, the Bill of Rights, which is an actually an addendum to the Constitution, was completed to insure passage, and it itself has been amended twenty seven times since 1791. The fear of Government was largely mistrust of a strong central Government, especially by those States feeling overwhelmed but he NE States.
Your notion of it being written for “people to be free” is sophomoric at best, an over generalization that actually ridicules a complex document
To say the Constitution was
Which is interpreting it
And these ^ are the same people who excuse gun violence as a mental health problem yet oppose any form of red flag laws that would remove guns form the very same mental ill individuals
SmarterthanYou
rebel
well, you started out ok, but finished up miserably.
numerous founders, quotes NOT taken out of context, and followed up by elected officials and presidents over the last 230 some years retold certain things from the founders writing and ratification of that very simple document.
the experiment of this country is one based on freedom and liberty. not based on making a 'safer' nation, nor one that can provide a basic living for every man,woman,and child.
that 'framework' of government was prescribed few and limited powers...........not unlimited powers to do with as they will.
No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words "no" and "not" employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
they interpret the laws written by congress, NOT the Constitution. The government was not made the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, nor of it's limits of power prescribed to it.
The “militia” needs it, they think Attila and the Huns are due anytime now, or, at least the kid in the hoodie
SmarterthanYou
rebel
it's quite obvious that the founding fathers were leaps and bounds more intelligent and knowledgeable than you will ever be.
How does “revolutionary war history” rationalize the need for a semi automatic weapon?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I would say that EVERY American needs an automatic weapon of sorts..........at the very least, to fulfill their duty and obligation to protect freedom and liberty. we can always make exceptions for cowards like you, though.
should war ever come, you can work in the back of the line preparing first aid kits or something.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
do you seriously need a history lesson?