crickets...

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Not quite as much fun as it was back in the mid-90's to early 2000's when the anti side had the law on its side. At least then some good debates could be had.

I'm astounded that with your absolute conviction and fact based correctness you couldn't have found a similar level of joy.

Oh, that was the same Constitution by the way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Oh, that was the same Constitution by the way.

Absolutely correct. The Constitution chugged along unchanged while the law, as set-out in the lower federal courts beginning in 1942* went on a 66 year long acid trip. The Supreme Court slapped them back into the constitutional fold in 2008.

* U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) inserting the "state's right" and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) inserting the "militia right" in the federal courts.

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Absolutely correct. The Constitution chugged along unchanged while the law, as set-out in the lower federal courts beginning in 1942* went on a 66 year long acid trip. The Supreme Court slapped them back into the constitutional fold in 2008.

* U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) inserting the "state's right" and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) inserting the "militia right" in the federal courts.

Ahhh, so Heller affirmed the right to own a fully automatic weapon? Of course it didn't.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Ahhh, so Heller affirmed the right to own a fully automatic weapon? Of course it didn't.

OK, so I want to acknowledge that I have read your post but I'm unsure how to reply.

Do I respond as if you are serious that fully automatic weapons were really at issue in the cases I mentioned or Heller?

Or do I just assume that this post is just a bag of crap you have left on fire on my doorstep?

I'm going with bag of flaming crap.

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Do I respond as if you are serious that fully automatic weapons were really at issue in the cases I mentioned or Heller?

Isn't that the point? Heller acknowledged for the moment the individual right to a gun for defense, but not a universal right to any weapon for any reason.

I don't think you'll find many on this board who want to take away handguns from law abiding people. The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon.

Here's a good piece written by a friends cousin.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ushpmg00000003

Drove by the Mandalay Bay last week...haunting.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon.

listen to this video, the answers are here as to possible reasons they are increasing and what can be done to deter it because banning guns is not the answer, guns don't shoot themselves.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

listen to this video, the answers are here as to possible reasons they are increasing and what can be done to deter it because banning guns is not the answer, guns don't shoot themselves.

Perhaps positioning the gun is an accomplice would lead to a more holistic approach.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think you'll find many on this board who want to take away handguns from law abiding people.

You should not be able to find ANY!!!

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Isn't that the point?

No. Is there a initiative worthy of noting to do away with any NFA-34 regulations other than removing suppressors from Title II? Is there any court case pending that is challenging the NFA-34 restrictions on machine guns?

Originally Posted by spence

Heller acknowledged for the moment the individual right to a gun for defense,

"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). "

DC v. HELLER, 478 F. 3d 370, 2008 (Breyer, S., dissenting)

Essentially the 4 Heller dissenters signed on to two opinions that said the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right and Breyer's dissent (which the other three dissenters signed) states that individual right interpretation is a continuance of the Court's precedent. So, your "for the moment" is actually "forever".

Originally Posted by spence

but not a universal right to any weapon for any reason.

Correct. The right to possess and use arms that fail the protection criteria is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. These are sometimes refereed to "dangerous and unusual" arms which is a legally specific term, not an descriptor that the government gets to argue for restrictions, see Aymette v State as cited in Miller.

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think you'll find many on this board who want to take away handguns from law abiding people.

Congratulations! Of all the questions about the constitutionality of "gun control", that one, "taking away the handguns from law-abiding people" has been answered unequivocally.

If you are saying that to try to assuage gun rights supporter's fears that you don't want "too" much, well I'll just say, good for you, at least you're gonna save yourself that embarrassment.

Originally Posted by spence

The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon.

Semi-auto detachable magazine rifles -- sometimes refereed to as "assault weapons"-- are NOT machineguns under any applicable law . . . Which again forces me to ask, why are you bringing full-auto guns into the conversation?

Originally Posted by spence

Here's a good piece written by a friends cousin.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ushpmg00000003

It certainly is a pro-gun control commentary.

I appreciate that for some detrimental public issues it is acknowledged that we should do "everything we can do" to stop some problems. If only that was applied to the criminal misuse of guns. Of course all that's proposed to reduce gun misuse is the same-old-same-old, demanding laws we already have and doing stuff that's already mandated in law.

Yawn.

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Semi-auto detachable magazine rifles -- sometimes refereed to as "assault weapons"-- are NOT machineguns under any applicable law . . . Which again forces me to ask, why are you bringing full-auto guns into the conversation?

Because a court finding for an individual right doesn't validate anything and certainly doesn't justify inaction on solving a very real public health issue.

You can cut and paste all day long, the problem is just getting worse as you spin around and around.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon..

Agreed. This is a totally different topic from garden-variety street crime.

These mass shootings are often carried out (when not acts of Islamic jihad) by warped, frustrated weirdos. Obviously, the sexy look of these guns appeals to the Rambo-wannabe psyche of these people. The gun manufacturer counts on that...that's why these guns (which don't function like machine guns) are made to resemble military weaponry, as much as humanly possible. If these guns function like boring rifles, there is a very specific reason the manufacturers do everything they can, to make them look like assault rifles.

The visual appearance of these weapons, fuels the fantasies, of a lot of us. This is exactly why so many people buy these AR-15 type rifles, instead of buying a rifle that functions the same way, but looks a lot more boring. Some of those fantasies, most in fact, are harmless. Some are very wicked.

To deny this, is to be incapable of rational thought on the issue.

I don't think I'd support a ban on "rifles that are intended to look like assault rifles but really are not", probably because there are so many already out there, a ban would have little impact. I would support a ban on accessories that modify the functionality of these weapons, to make them function more like military weaponry. I absolutely support those bans, (bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc) and that doesn't come close to meaning that I'm in favor of shredding the constitution and imposing tyranny.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

To deny this, is to be incapable of rational thought on the issue.

you crack me up

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I absolutely support those bans, (bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc) and that doesn't come close to meaning that I'm in favor of shredding the constitution and imposing tyranny.

Nope, you're now a flaming liberal.