Seriously, Michigan?

[Plasmodium]

8 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

You doubling down on that garbage definition doesn't bode well for your position. I can assure you in the unconstitutional former gun ban that no guns were baned with that worthless definition.  The only reason to stick to that as having any value in the discussion is to be intentionally vague so as to be able to lump in any and all firearms. Literally every type of firearm design and look has been used as a weapon of war. From the first bamboo fire Lance used by China, to the modern sporting, and defense rifles. So with your definition of Assault rifle there are no guns that should be legal. Pretty sure that's not in compliance with the second amendment. We know this as established law from recent and past Court rulings. We all know that the Webster definition has zero value in this discussion and is nothing more than a straw man argument to make yourself feel as if you have a basis for your position, but you are the only one buying it.

Unconstitutional?

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

Unconstitutional?

That's all you get out of that? You really need to get caught up to today's current standards established as the basis  for lower courts to base constitutionality off of. I guarantee it isn't looks like something bad.

[Nailbender]

28 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

This is sad.  I can't imagine how frustrating it is for legislators.  People won't even accept the existence of a word or a phrase, despite it's presence in the dictionary and being defined in an actionable law 30 years ago.

This is the narrative driven world of alternative facts.

This explains a lot. You need less trust in politicians. These are some quotes from our legislators. Most of them are on video if you care about the authenticity. Some of them designed and supported the now retired law you're speaking of and will no doubt continue to spout this same ridiculousness if another bill is introduced and they are still around.

I answered your question. When will you answer mine?

 

 "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door." - Joe Biden

 " Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device. So, you don't shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time." - Patricia Eddington 

 "This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second." - Kevin de Leon

 "The Second Amendment only protects the people who want all the guns they can have. The rest of us, we've got no Second Amendment. What are we supposed to do?" - Louise Slaughter

 "What's the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you... these are ammunition, they're bullets. So the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available." - Diana DeGette

 "Well, if it can fire a lot of bullets very quickly, that's a good definition... And then you can argue what a lot is, okay, let's say three. If you haven't hit the deer with three shots, you're a pretty lousy shot, that deer deserves to get away." - Michael Bloomberg

 When asked, what is a barrel shroud? "...it's a shoulder thing that goes up." - Carolyn McCarthy

 "We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it's legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines." - Dianne Feinstein

"...it is easier for a 12- or 13-year-old to purchase a gun, and cheaper, than it is for them to get a book." - Barack Obama

[El Luchador]

12 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

This explains a lot. You need less trust in politicians. These are some quotes from our legislators. Most of them are on video if you care about the authenticity. Some of them designed and supported the now retired law you're speaking of and will no doubt continue to spout this same ridiculousness if another bill is introduced and they are still around.

I answered your question. When will you answer mine?

 

 "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door." - Joe Biden

 " Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device. So, you don't shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time." - Patricia Eddington 

 "This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second." - Kevin de Leon

 "The Second Amendment only protects the people who want all the guns they can have. The rest of us, we've got no Second Amendment. What are we supposed to do?" - Louise Slaughter

 "What's the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you... these are ammunition, they're bullets. So the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available." - Diana DeGette

 "Well, if it can fire a lot of bullets very quickly, that's a good definition... And then you can argue what a lot is, okay, let's say three. If you haven't hit the deer with three shots, you're a pretty lousy shot, that deer deserves to get away." - Michael Bloomberg

 When asked, what is a barrel shroud? "...it's a shoulder thing that goes up." - Carolyn McCarthy

 "We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it's legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines." - Dianne Feinstein

"...it is easier for a 12- or 13-year-old to purchase a gun, and cheaper, than it is for them to get a book." - Barack Obama

https://youtu.be/HI9tov6A2DI

[Plasmodium]

23 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

That's all you get out of that? You really need to get caught up to today's current standards established as the basis  for lower courts to base constitutionality off of. I guarantee it isn't looks like something bad.

Current standards?  The constitution hasn't changed and the law obviously survived supreme court rulings.  Do you mean the composition of the courts have been sufficiently manipulated?

[El Luchador]

8 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Current standards?  The constitution hasn't changed and the law obviously survived supreme court rulings.  Do you mean the composition of the courts have been sufficiently manipulated?

Or the opposite.  You authoritarian leftists love to act like the constitution is complicated,  it is not. It is plainly written to be easily understood by all the Citizens.  You only need a PhD in constitutional law to manipulate it, not understand it. Previous attempts to convolute the second amendment have been reeled in by the also plain language in the Bruen decision.  Historically and traditionally the second amendment has been interpreted as the current court does.  That is literally the basis of their decision and their guidance to lower courts.

[mspart]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment

Here is an interesting treatise on this topic.   It states what the Founders thought about the topic and how the SCOTUS has interpreted it.  Interesting fact, the first SCOTUS test was in 2008.  

I think it is endlessly fascinating how some folks deny the plain written language of the 2nd Amendment.   However, the plain written language of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, is sacrosanct.

In other words, the rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights are constitutional rights.  No one would argue that the right to free speech is not a constitutional right.   No one would argue that the right not to self incriminate is a constitutional right.   Then why is it that owning a gun (bearing an arm) is not a constitutional right?

mspart

[Bigbrog]

16 hours ago, mspart said:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment

Here is an interesting treatise on this topic.   It states what the Founders thought about the topic and how the SCOTUS has interpreted it.  Interesting fact, the first SCOTUS test was in 2008.  

I think it is endlessly fascinating how some folks deny the plain written language of the 2nd Amendment.   However, the plain written language of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, is sacrosanct.

In other words, the rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights are constitutional rights.  No one would argue that the right to free speech is not a constitutional right.   No one would argue that the right not to self incriminate is a constitutional right.   Then why is it that owning a gun (bearing an arm) is not a constitutional right?

mspart

Because there were muskets when it was written.  It's all about the muskets!    I wonder if muskets were considered an "assault rifle" back in the day?
 

Back to being serious...love your post...it hits the nail on the head.

[Plasmodium]

On 1/31/2023 at 4:40 PM, mspart said:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment

Here is an interesting treatise on this topic.   It states what the Founders thought about the topic and how the SCOTUS has interpreted it.  Interesting fact, the first SCOTUS test was in 2008.  

I think it is endlessly fascinating how some folks deny the plain written language of the 2nd Amendment.   However, the plain written language of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, is sacrosanct.

In other words, the rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights are constitutional rights.  No one would argue that the right to free speech is not a constitutional right.   No one would argue that the right not to self incriminate is a constitutional right.   Then why is it that owning a gun (bearing an arm) is not a constitutional right?

mspart

I hope you're not referring to me as I was very clear multiple times I am not anti gun.  I seek a reasonable limitation of an arm which is appropriate for the masses.  As @Bigbrogalluded, times have changed and it is not reasonable for citizens to be armed like the military.

[El Luchador]

10 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I hope you're not referring to me as I was very clear multiple times I am not anti gun.  I seek a reasonable limitation of an arm which is appropriate for the masses.  As @Bigbrogalluded, times have changed and it is not reasonable for citizens to be armed like the military.

The more you say it doesn't make it true.  ARs are not M4s just because they look like them. Main battle rifles are not available. You may also be surprised but Nascar race cars aren't actually Stock cars.

[Plasmodium]

12 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

The more you say it doesn't make it true.  ARs are not M4s just because they look like them. Main battle rifles are not available. You may also be surprised but Nascar race cars aren't actually Stock cars.

I didn't mention any  weapon in particular.  Must be your inner narrative again.  

Edited February 2, 2023 by Plasmodium
Typo

[El Luchador]

5 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I didn't mention any  weapon in particular.  Must be your inner narrative again.  

Well you keep saying people should not have weapons of war, but refuse to elaborate to even a minimal point of clarity but clearly infer that we have weapons of war  and need to out law them. There aren't many ways to interpret that. One thing for sure is you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to guns.

 

BTW did you see NJ was spanked for passing unconstitutional CCW laws today. The court struck them down with the exact same language used in the Bruen decision.  But we all know dems don't care about silly things like the constitution. If they did they wouldn't have flagrantly disobeyed the court. More to come. Over the next few months there will be much clarity.   

[Nailbender]

15 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I didn't mention any  weapon in particular.  Must be your inner narrative again.  

If you ever do figure out the particulars of how your rifle ban will stop gun violence or even significantly impact it, I'm all ears.

I'll save you some trouble, the answer isn't in the dictionary.

[Plasmodium]

Eventually, the left will follow the GOP's lead and pack the courts.  Then they can also declare whatever political agenda they want constitutional or unconstitutional.

[jross]

I believe in the right to bear arms to protect myself at home.

A semi-automatic rifle is an effective tool for defense.  Read the first few pages of this Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee firearms instructor course document, and you will learn how effective it is.

I own semi-automatic rifles for recreation and hunting.

IMO, semi-automatic firearms with large magazines and rapid-fire capabilities are not needed for hunting, and they are unsportsmanlike to use for hunting.  

I have zero issues with gun restrictions on semi-automatic firearms that also meet magazine size and other specs, so long as the limits are applied equally to citizens and the police.  At the end of the day, if a particular gun is inaccessible/criminal, then there is less need to defend from it. 

Why do I need one if the bad guys don't have rapid-fire guns with large magazines?

Whatever firearms the police can own/use, I should be able to own.  I would not say the same is true for the military--- e.g., the military can own fully automatics, rocket launchers, grenades, etc., that the police, criminals, and civilians have no business owning.  The second amendment implies every citizen is a soldier and should be able to protect themselves at home and from government tyranny.  So there is interpretation and judgment on what ordinary people can own, which has to do with a decision on safety.  Tighter gun control will save lives.  

To me, how many lives need saving to warrant tighter gun control?

There are ways to reduce guns from reaching the wrong hands and to reduce mass shootings.  I won't list them but know they would make Mr. Snow Plow cry for humanity.

[Plasmodium]

7 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

If you ever do figure out the particulars of how your rifle ban will stop gun violence or even significantly impact it, I'm all ears.

I'll save you some trouble, the answer isn't in the dictionary.

When you get the spine to answer a question, let me know.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Plasmodium

[Plasmodium]

Just now, Plasmodium said:

When you get the spine to answer a question, let me know.

 

[Nailbender]

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

When you get the to answer a question, let me know.

I already did. Better than even you could do.

On 1/31/2023 at 11:51 AM, Nailbender said:

Fine here ya go.

I don't think anyone should own any kind of rifle, for any reason. In fact if you own one that your Great Grandpappy gave you when he died, you should destroy it or become a felon. Deer hunting is only allowed with shotguns and straight walled cartridges in my state anyway. Handguns and shotguns are all any American should be allowed to own.

Now, please tell me how this will stop gun violence?

 

Bernie is right about one thing, this is not a productive conversation. My only fault in that, is continuing it.

 

[jross]

After Thanos snaps his fingers and all the large magazine + rapid-fire rifles disappear... the number of gun violence crimes will remain the same.  But, while handguns and shotguns increase, the total number of deaths decreases.  The Las Vegas shooter is not as efficient at killing when he shoots at the concert crowd with handguns, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles from the high-rise window.

[El Luchador]

33 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Eventually, the left will follow the GOP's lead and pack the courts.  Then they can also declare whatever political agenda they want constitutional or unconstitutional.

Changing laws after 200+ years is the political agenda.  Upholding the constitution base on it's plain text, history and traditions is literally the opposite of a political agenda. You do realize the constitution has an actual means of amendment?  Outlawing guns that have been legal for literally 100+ years it somehow not political?

[El Luchador]

29 minutes ago, jross said:

After Thanos snaps his fingers and all the large magazine + rapid-fire rifles disappear... the number of gun violence crimes will remain the same.  But, while handguns and shotguns increase, the total number of deaths decreases.  The Las Vegas shooter is not as efficient at killing when he shoots at the concert crowd with handguns, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles from the high-rise window.

If I get into a shoot out I want the idiot to have a Glock switch or a stupid bump stock. To many people get their understanding of guns from Hollywood.  These are the same idiots who think suppressors make guns whisper quite. 

 

[Plasmodium]

32 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Changing laws after 200+ years is the political agenda.  Upholding the constitution base on it's plain text, history and traditions is literally the opposite of a political agenda. You do realize the constitution has an actual means of amendment?  Outlawing guns that have been legal for literally 100+ years it somehow not political?

The assault weapons in question were illegal from about 1994-2004.  No constitutional issues.  It wasn't challenged on 2nd amendment principles, rather  it was challenged unsuccessfully on commerce grounds. All comes down to money.

[Plasmodium]

35 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

If I get into a shoot out I want the idiot to have a Glock switch or a stupid bump stock. To many people get their understanding of guns from Hollywood.  These are the same idiots who think suppressors make guns whisper quite. 

 

That dude in Vegas was a noob.  Killed 60, most from bump stocked assault rifles. Put out a 1000 rounds in 15 minutes.

[El Luchador]

6 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

The assault weapons in question were illegal from about 1994-2004.  No constitutional issues.  It wasn't challenged on 2nd amendment principles, rather  it was challenged unsuccessfully on commerce grounds. All comes down to money.

Ok so they illegally band guns for 10 years.  BTW there was never a time you couldn't get 1. Same with the mag bans that have been shot down. 

 

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

That dude in Vegas was a noob.  Killed 60, most from bump stocked assault rifles. Put out a 1000 rounds in 15 minutes.

Exactly.  An idiot who shoots 1000 times for 60 kills is the guy want to have my gun fight with.