Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Gun Control Gun Control Forum - For topics and discussions about gun laws, gun policies, and gun rights


Thanks Tree28Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 30th, 2017, 09:58 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Endtherepublic View Post
Now we have more work to do. We have to redefine virtually every firearm as a weapon of war. We have to eliminate the right to carry or own or possess a firearm by any private citizen. This was a good day for us Clara.
Don't forget to ban boots; we have to ban them because they're worn by infantry. Ban pencils & paper, as well, because they can also be used for military purposes, such as taking notes. Radios also need to be banned, since the enemy (i.e. We the People) can use them to transmit information.

How about freedom of speech - should we also ban that too? I guess the answer is yes, because it can be used for political speech purposes. Shut down the forums & the internets.

Socks! Surrender those, too. Just watch Saving Private Ryan to see how they can be used for military purposes.
Thanks from Sabcat and TreeDoc
Neil is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 10:09 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
Um, NO. While States can ban some firearms and weapons, they can not ban them all, it would be a violation of our rights to do such.
Oh, so as long as the state doesn't ban all arms, they're good? Then all they have to do is make it so there's one that isn't banned. Maybe they can look for something tiny & no longer made, such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2mm_Kolibri

PEW PEW PEW
Thanks from Sabcat
Neil is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 10:13 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Here's my thing. It's something I like to call "reasonable" or "rational". The RW is convinced that the Democratic Party wants to take ALL their guns away, so ya'll better run to that corner gun/ammo shop and stockpile whatever you can get.
At least this was the mindset during the Obama admin. Gun and ammo sales skyrocketed.
AND what happened? Nothing.

There's nothing wrong with guns or rifles for sport--for hunting--for protection. I'm all for it. But if those guns allow rapid fire of 100 rounds in 56 seconds? Or more?? For sport? Or protection? NO. Because to me that is unreasonable.
How about militia purposes, defending our nation from invasion? How about revolution purposes, like what was done to found the United States of America?

Maybe people simply don't want to become vulnerable to enslavement or genocide.

Thanks from caconservative and Sabcat
Neil is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 10:21 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
From the original source: SCOTUS Guts 2nd Amend. By Refusing To Hear Semi-Auto Ban Case



That sounds creepy. I wonder if Scalia's controversial death has the SCOTUS justices fearing for their lives.

Hopefully Trump will look into this and do something to remediate this.
UUUHHHHHH excuse me but the court is now MAJORITY CONSERVATIVE !!! tRump got HIS PICK for Chief Justice on the court. I'm actually surprised the court didn't hear it given their current political make up. And for NONE of the conservative judges to even comment ????

Wonder how long it'll take the dumpster to start a tweeting war with the court ?? Maybe we should start a pool !!! Anyone care to guess how long ??
BubbaJones is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 10:21 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,793
[QUOTE=TreeDoc;1119949]Um, NO. While States can ban some firearms and weapons, they can not ban them all, it would be a violation of our rights to do such.[/QUO

Last edited by skews13; November 30th, 2017 at 10:26 AM.
skews13 is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 10:45 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
UUUHHHHHH excuse me but the court is now MAJORITY CONSERVATIVE !!! tRump got HIS PICK for Chief Justice on the court. I'm actually surprised the court didn't hear it given their current political make up. And for NONE of the conservative judges to even comment ????

Wonder how long it'll take the dumpster to start a tweeting war with the court ?? Maybe we should start a pool !!! Anyone care to guess how long ??
Why do you think that makes any difference, to me in particular? I don't care what they are, conservative, liberal, mickey mouse, whatever. I want them to do their job right, regardless of any of that crap.

Also, I'm responding based on what was posted, which is 2nd/3rd/4th/etc. hand information (from media outlets citing other 2nd/3rd/etc. hand sources). I often find that the news media story has something distorted, omitted, or otherwise flawed somehow in what they write vs what the full, real story is. It's like with the global warming controversy where someone's saying "I don't want some information gatekeeper's story, I want to see the raw data everything's based on." I haven't yet looked directly into what happened in this SCOTUS situation & that may or may not explain why a supposedly conservative chose not to take the case.
Neil is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 01:10 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/322fe4d...-amend.-by.htm

Maybe SCOTUS recognizes that certain weapons can be regulated via the state as the 1689 EBoR states: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law".
Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689
What SCOTUS recognizes is Heller v DC they re not going to revisit it what gun restrictions that are in place are going to stay in place and further restrictions can now be expected also any pipe dream of a national reciprocity for cencealed carry just got squashed
skews13 is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 01:29 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Here's my thing. It's something I like to call "reasonable" or "rational". The RW is convinced that the Democratic Party wants to take ALL their guns away, so ya'll better run to that corner gun/ammo shop and stockpile whatever you can get.
At least this was the mindset during the Obama admin. Gun and ammo sales skyrocketed.
AND what happened? Nothing.
I agree

Quote:
There's nothing wrong with guns or rifles for sport--for hunting--for protection. I'm all for it. But if those guns allow rapid fire of 100 rounds in 56 seconds? Or more?? For sport? Or protection? NO. Because to me that is unreasonable.
So then you're talking about full auto machine guns, right? Since a semi-auto, and most automatic military grade rifles can't, in any way, fire 100 rounds in 56 seconds, as they would either jam from the heat or they would melt. Sounds like maybe you are talking about an estimated rate of fire equivalent.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 01:37 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Oh, so as long as the state doesn't ban all arms, they're good? Then all they have to do is make it so there's one that isn't banned. Maybe they can look for something tiny & no longer made, such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2mm_Kolibri

PEW PEW PEW
SMFH. A state has the ability to ban weapons, states, even cities and towns, have already been doing so for centuries. They can deny weapons from being sold within their borders. Weapons manufacturers have to obtain a states authorization and certification before it can be sold there, some states are more stringent then others.
Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale - Firearms Division - California Dept. of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

While you have the right to own a weapon, the state has the right to deny certain weapons from being sold or owned while being a resident in their boundaries.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 01:46 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 20,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
I agree



So then you're talking about full auto machine guns, right? Since a semi-auto, and most automatic military grade rifles can't, in any way, fire 100 rounds in 56 seconds, as they would either jam from the heat or they would melt. Sounds like maybe you are talking about an estimated rate of fire equivalent.
Using a decent semi-auto rifle such as the AR-15 with a 30 round magazine a good rifleman can exceed 100 rounds per minute so long as he does not take too long to change magazines. A practiced rifleman can change mags in 1 to 3 seconds. So no, 100 rounds in 56 seconds is not out of the question. Use a bump stock and exceeding 100 rounds in 56 seconds is not at all difficult.

Can an unpracticed novice do it? No, probably not. But it is certainly well within the capability of the rife itself.
Hollywood is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Tags
case, hear, refuses, scotus



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Contraception Case skews13 Current Events 4 June 28th, 2016 01:25 PM
SCOTUS To Hear ex-Goverenor McDonnell Appeal excalibur Current Events 0 January 15th, 2016 07:40 PM
S C To Hear Abortion Case That Could Erode Roe v. Wade RNG Current Events 10 November 13th, 2015 04:08 PM
Court to hear protests at soldiers' funerals case CNN Current Events 84 March 9th, 2010 07:29 AM
SCOTUS refuses to hear gay book case tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 16 October 17th, 2008 03:31 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.