Printable View
So tell me tom, Why do you, as the owner of imlay canyon gear, fear lawful gun owners?
Have you been attacked in Mt. Carmel by armed madmen? Have you been accosted by armed groups passing through the Zion tunnel?
Seriously, why do YOU fear an individuals right to own a gun?
Texas Attorney General
http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/201...move-to-texas/
Despite reading the entire novelistic output of Louis L'Amour, I do not fear lawful gun owners, either as myself or as the owner of Imlay Canyon Gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I have not been attacked in Mt Carmel by armed madmen, or I would likely be on the other side of the debate, at least according to the NRA.
I have been accosted by armed individuals near the Zion tunnel, but they were LE Rangers of the NPS, and all our interactions have been cordial.
I do not FEAR an individual's right to own a gun.
What other myths do you have about liberals that you would like me to NOT conform too?
Tom :moses:
Do you support the 2nd Amendment as it is currently interpreted by the Supreme Court?Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Do you support a ban on modern rifles(assault rifles)and there 30 rd magazines?
Thats all I got, thanks for asking.
Sandy Hook 'Hoax' Debunked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzMtYWvvnQ4&sns=em
Second Amendment jurisprudence is very fuzzy right now. So I am not sure what the "current interpretation" is?Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
So... generally, Yes, however, your version and my version of "currently interpretation" are likely quite different.
---
The proposed ban on modern rifles and 30 round magazines is crazy. Totally unenforceable.
So I see no point in supporting it. Period. It can't get past Congress anyway.
Tom
As far as current Supreme court interpretation, It has never been more clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
I believe DC V. Heller helped and McDonald V. Chicago made it Crystal clear.
Where do you see wiggle room?
As far as what's protected--In DC V Heller, in section 2 of the ruling, it defines what is protected, the definition is "Weapons Protected are those in common use at the time"
I don't think anyone could argue that at this "current time" there is another weapon more common in use than an AR 15.
Of course that ruling also defeats those who would argue--that us gunowners think we can have tanks and nukes.(a strawman at it's finest)
So for those who would argue--where do you draw the line? It has been clearly drawn.
^^^THIS^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
The wiggle room on interpretation has been completely removed.
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
OK is in:2thumbs:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...l-Gun-Grabbers
And who'd a thunk it in CO.
hickenlooper is furious:mrgreen:
http://www.9news.com/rss/article/310...constitutional
Is barry zero getting desperate?
Now he says he'll use his campaign funds and apparatus, to take on the NRA.
Sounds like the Executive is getting monetarily vested in the cause.
http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2...n_the_nra.html
It's not Hickenlooper...it's Lickenpooper.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
If the government wants to do something effective with regards to gun control how about prosecuting anyone that provides false information on their background check. It is a felony to do so, yet the crime is seldom prosecuted. When questioned about this Biden replied the Feds don't have the time or money... insert eye roll here...
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
I had not really read the Heller decision before, only summaries... thank you for twisting my arm and prodding me to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Yes, there is very little wiggle room. But both Heller and McDonald were knocking down pretty extreme laws. The finding is clear that it makes the AR 15 in common use, etc. I think the same argument will be used, successfully, for 30 rd magazines too. The wiggle room is in implementation, permitting, etc... we'll see how much of the new NY law passes muster (probably not much). But it does usually take two years for things to percolate up to the SCOTUS. A lot can happen in two years - and both of those were 5-4s with vehement dissents.
The problem for us Libs is that OUR judges DO believe in precedent, so whatever decision my team makes (assuming one of the Federalists has a heart attack (only a 20% probability)) has to include Heller and MacDonald at least rhetorically in any decision moving the goal posts back. Unlikely on many fronts.
And, before you ask, YES, I think my man Obama is making a big political mistake in some of the things he has asked Congress to do. However, it seems kinda safe because Congress will never do it... stalemate again. Seems like it is a bad place, a divisive place, to spend one's meager supply of political capital.
:moses:
Someone from the pro gun control side needs to. Last time I looked they were getting their ass kick in financial contributions by approximately 100 to 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
The pro gun control crowd is always whining about the power of the NRA as if it's some evil mystery why they are so powerful. The power comes from a huge number of supporters who back up their beliefs with their checkbook.
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
Very good reply, might I say thanks for a cordial debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Not only is your man, zero, spending political capital, he is now spending personal(kinda) capital.
I see the trouble in your party right now as the divide on this issue between barry and Sen. Reid.
The Rep. have too many divides to count and no idea what direction to head on many fronts
The direction this debate goes(gun control) could make or break either party.
THATS a lot of political capital at risk.
If the Rep. wiggle or concede even what they might consider a small amount(ref.debt ceiling cave in)the party will crumble.
The Rep's lost any attempt at conservatism in the bush II years.
I hear some saying, such as Colin Powell, that the party needs to be more moderate, I couldn't disagree more.
The party is supposed to be based on conservative values, failure, at this point, to retain those values is a death knell.
Hehehehe I'm just starting shit...Attachment 62867
James
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
I'm afraid your wrong. In both Heller and in McDonold it never said congress couldn't put restrictions on guns. What those restrictions are were left vague. Plenty of room to wiggle in.
James
James
You may be one of the more knowledgeable thinkers on this forum. I generally fall on opposite sides of debate with you but respect your knowledge.
What if, instead of stirring shit(you are good) Maybe try stirring intellectual discussion?:ne_nau:
Crazy, I know, no room on bogley for such non sense.(intellectual discussion)
Once you have become vested in the debate and offered up your position, maybe then stir shit:mrgreen:
Your last couple of posts have been pathetic, look at me, trolls, nothing more...
The BOR's said congress couldn't put a restriction on guns. The term that was used was--"shall not be infringed"Quote:
Originally Posted by James_B_Wads2000
The BOR's was to protect "people"(us) from the government, not visa versa.
So your statement would back a THEORY that congress can ban i-phone's?
If your point is the 2nd has already been compromised, you would be correct.
Yes because every other Liberal solution has been proven to fail. This is what happens with the Liberal mindset on every gun control debate. The ideas get walked through and proven to not actually work. So then the subject changes or they'll go out on a tangent like talking about owning nuclear weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by James_B_Wads2000
And to disprove your point once again in the funny pic you posted, the conservatives DON'T want to regulate Gay Marriage or Vaginas. They want government COMPLETELY out of the business. But you think that is regulation.
If we voted to keep government funding out of a local mountain bike race, would you see that as regulation?
I agree congress has the ability to regulate firearms.... which is why we don't have real (full auto) assault rifles.Quote:
Originally Posted by James_B_Wads2000
What the Heller and McDonald case did (among other things) was clear up what some considered poor language in the BOR. Pro gun control groups had argued the right to bear arms was in conjunction with being in a militia. The Supreme Court ruled they were seprate issues, meaning you could be in a militia and own arms and the two were not interconnected. That is now crystal clear...
:cool2:
If this passes I'll make a mint turning piece of crap $100 rifles into "assault weapons" and selling them for $500. This is anther dumbass idea from someone that doesn't understand firearms or "assault rifles"
Bill Introduced Would Give $2000 Tax Credit for Turning in “Assault Weapons” to Gov
A new bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives that will give people who turn in an “assault weapon” to the government to get a $2000 credit on their taxes.
The credit would be split into two $1000 credits over 2 years.
The bill uses similar language to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban to define an “assault weapon.” Almost any weapon with a detachable, standard capacity magazine would apply for the credit.
The bill was introduced by CT Rep Rosa DeLauro. The aim of the bill is to “reduce the number of privately owned weapons.”
Is this passes, who will be turning in their semi-auto firearms to the government if this was to pass?
Virginia Stands Up:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/virg...1/18/id/472057
I find this interesting and incredibly pertinent to the mag ban equation. Here are the results from eric harris, when he was learning how to handle a SINGLE BARREL,SINGLE SHOT, shotgun. QFE--SINGLE shot, shotgun....
"Every shot was punishing. The blast would tear the barrel out of his left hand and whip his gun arm back like a rubber band.But he learned quickly, soon he was riding out the recoil to catch the barrel stub(they had cut their shotgun barrels down)as it swung around,snap it open,feed a shell,lock it down,squeeze a round and repeat the process in one fluid, continuous motion.
He pounded out four shots in five seconds, He was pleased."
Copied from Columbine by Cullen
The new Glock ad...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHWTfFV3Vc
Post #493Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Your falling behind my friend:haha:
But she's certainly cute enough for a repost.
Heres how British law works in regards to the right to defend your home, hint, you can't use excessive force.
I feel kinda trashy using Wiki, but I also saw many other sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
oh the webs that we weave-----
http://www.wgy.com/pages/chuckandkel...FFDfc.facebook
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
You guys suck...
Just for fun I looked up what SKS rifles were selling for... $700 :eek2: on Gun Exchange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
About 25 years ago we were buying SKS's by the hundreds and selling them dirt cheap. We were selling the rifle and 1300 rounds of ammo for $200. And we were making money. :lol8:
Hmm. I have a "friend" who'd probably part with his Ruger Mini 14, 7 magazines, Weaver 4X scope, Choate folder, flash hider, great condition. Wonder what it'd fetch?
1200? Really?
http://utahgunexchange.com/?s=ruger+mini+14&scat=0Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
If your "friend" is going to part with it now is the time to do it...
Heres to hitting 29, just for RG
Can't believe what hi cap mag's are selling for! 80 bucks or more? Crazy!
A friend stopped by Tuesday with twenty 30 round AR15 magazines and asked if I knew anyone that wanted them. My step brother bought all 20 :-)
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3