Assault Weapons?

[Iceaxe]

[oldno7]

http://www.clarionledger.com/article...nclick_check=1

[oldno7]

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?

[oldno7]

Texas Attorney General

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/201...move-to-texas/

[ratagonia]

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?

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.

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

[oldno7]

What other myths do you have about liberals that you would like me to NOT conform too?

Tom

Do you support the 2nd Amendment as it is currently interpreted by the Supreme Court?

Do you support a ban on modern rifles(assault rifles)and there 30 rd magazines?

Thats all I got, thanks for asking.

[accadacca]

Sandy Hook 'Hoax' Debunked

[ratagonia]

Do you support the 2nd Amendment as it is currently interpreted by the Supreme Court?

Do you support a ban on modern rifles(assault rifles)and there 30 rd magazines?

Thats all I got, thanks for asking.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is very fuzzy right now. So I am not sure what the "current interpretation" is?

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

[oldno7]

Second Amendment jurisprudence is very fuzzy right now. So I am not sure what the "current interpretation" is?

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.

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.

[Iceaxe]

As far as current Supreme court interpretation, It has never been more clear.

I believe DC V. Heller helped and McDonald V. Chicago made it Crystal clear.

^^^THIS^^^

The wiggle room on interpretation has been completely removed.


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[oldno7]

OK is in


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...l-Gun-Grabbers

[oldno7]

And who'd a thunk it in CO.

hickenlooper is furious

http://www.9news.com/rss/article/310...constitutional

[oldno7]

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

[Byron]

And who'd a thunk it in CO.

hickenlooper is furious

It's not Hickenlooper...it's Lickenpooper.

[Iceaxe]

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

[ratagonia]

As far as current Supreme court interpretation, It has never been more clear.

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.

I had not really read the Heller decision before, only summaries... thank you for twisting my arm and prodding me to read it.

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.

[Iceaxe]

Sounds like the Executive is getting monetarily vested in the cause.

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.

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

[oldno7]

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.

Very good reply, might I say thanks for a cordial debate.

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.

[James_B_Wads2000]

Hehehehe I'm just starting shit...



James

[James_B_Wads2000]

^^^THIS^^^

The wiggle room on interpretation has been completely removed.


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

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