crickets...

[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.

[Got Stripers]

Great points made in that video, the news sensationalizes these events, whether it's a domestic violence shooting, road rage or these mass shootings. Very valid and I believe spot on, however I also believe bad gun vs good gun, or bad hunting rifle vs good hunting rifle would have lessened the head counts on many of these incidents.

I never suggested, nor would I see a need to limit the sales of guns, rifles, shotguns, you name it; I would however agree with legislation that either eliminates these assault rifles, accessories that allow them to increase the ammo they can discharge per clip or the rate it can be discharged. Our founding fathers limited the sales of arms, gun powder and who could own them; legislating for the public's safety is not a new idea.

The other point in this video is that these nuts want their 15 minutes of fame because they are sick, off their meds or are having problems dealing with some crisis in their lives, getting them mental health help isn't something we should be making harder to get. Not all will take advantage or if they do benefit from it, but it should be available like the free mental health program MGH supports for veterans.

Society and the government view the drug problem as an epidemic with 59,000+ deaths in 2016, why would the deaths from gun violence not be viewed the same way? Ok, now back to your regularly scheduled 2a program.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

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

I'm not sure what you are saying here but perhaps not since you don't make sense at all.

We don't position Budweiser an accomplice in drunk driving accidents and deaths now do we? Yet there are some who want to blame manufacturers for cause of deaths and it is going on in CT. but that is a different case

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Doing something about health problems is either preventing them or curing them. So, since you frame gun deaths as a health issue, what should be done to cure or prevent the even greater "very real public health issue" of gun deaths and injuries due to hand guns?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

That's a peculiar phrasing. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of the law.

I'm not arguing the "individual right" determination validates anything or that it justifies inaction. I argue that it invalidates the BS theories that justified gun control action. Whatever inaction is forced is simply respecting the limits of governmental power inherently demanded by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by spence

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

How pathetic.

No matter how you spin it, me proving you to be wrong is not perpetuating the problem of criminal gun use.

You can denigrate my proof as mere cut-n-paste, you can call it spin, but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong, irreconcilably wrong on the law. It's past time to admit you have no argument that the Constitution or the law supports you or your gun control agenda.

You need to come up with solutions that do not implicate the right to arms . . . Or you need to come clean and admit that you don't give a crap about the Constitution and you would eagerly vote for people who would violate their oaths to uphold it.

.

[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.

[Slipknot]

We have laws against murder also. If those were prosecuted and sentenced accordingly, then maybe it would help as a deterrent but murderers go free and law abiding citizens have the screws put to them.