Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 63

Thread: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

  1. #11
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Cilogy View Post
    I partly agree with the assault ban though, I mean other weapons I can understand, shotguns, pistols and such. Why "assault weapons?"
    They only look scary.
    Most guns used in crimes are hand guns.

    Technically, the vast majority of people who own guns, don't own "assault weapons."
    They relabeled semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons" to make them sound a whole lot worse than what they are.

    Traditionally, an assault weapon is fully automatic.
    Those that are banned are not.

    This is considered an assault weapon by their standards.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  2. #12
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,185

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Cilogy View Post
    I partly agree with the assault ban though, I mean other weapons I can understand, shotguns, pistols and such. Why "assault weapons?"
    Because the definition of "assault weapon" used in the AWB was deceptive and inaccurate.

    Properly an assault weapon is a weapon capable of fully automatic fire, using an intermediate size cartridge. The military version of the M16 and M4 fit this defintion.... and already require a Class III federal license to possess. (This is a special license, not that easily obtained. Not many people have one.)

    The AWB banned semi-auto firearms (one shot at a time) based on cosmetic features that resembled military firearms. Basically "ban it because it LOOKS scary!"

    It was hysterical. It also accomplished nothing, since it only banned certain specific weapons and there were many legal ways around it.

    Nor was there any basis that the banned weapons were being used disproportionately by criminals. They weren't.

    In short the AWB was an ineffective fantasy solution to a nonexistent problem. Good riddance.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #13
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    The gun-totin bad guys are loving this!!

  4. #14
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    This is overzealous...??

    Hell, if you're going to own a gun, goddamn straight I want the cops to have your photo, fingerprints, and know everything they can.

    If you're not doing anything wrong--then don't sweat it.

    Boo-hoo, I have to fill out paperwork.

    Boo-hoo, I have to explain why I need a gun... That's right Rambo, why do you need a gun?
    You can't violate my rights, just because I'm excercising my rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #15
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,847

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    I bet the council was going with exactly the same definition of "assault weapon" that the media uses, which is anything that's not a revolver or musket.

    Where's that picture of everything being labeled an AK-47?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #16
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I bet the council was going with exactly the same definition of "assault weapon" that the media uses, which is anything that's not a revolver or musket.

    Where's that picture of everything being labeled an AK-47?

    I believe this was posted on another thread before. 5 minutes and 31 seconds into the clip they show the difference between whats legally defined as an assault rifle and hunting rifle by changing the cosmetic parts.
    [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0"]YouTube- The Truth about "Assault Weapons"[/nomedia]
    Last edited by jamesrage; 03-28-10 at 02:15 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  7. #17
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Cilogy View Post
    I partly agree with the assault ban though, I mean other weapons I can understand, shotguns, pistols and such. Why "assault weapons?"
    "Shall not be infringed." To paraprhase. That is the most important statement in the second amendment.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #18
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,847

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    "Shall not be infringed." To paraprhase. That is the most important statement in the second amendment.
    The difference of opinion comes from what you define as "arms." While I personally hate Reductio ad absurdum, it's the only way I can ever get this across to the really hardcore conservatives. (and for the record, I am not in favor of banning handguns or even so-called "assault weapons" that are actually single-fire hunting rifles)

    If you define "arms" as any sort of weapon, you're talking about legally-owned nuclear weapons in private hands. Absurd, right? Clearly the founding fathers were not referring to the ability to level a city. They were talking about our right to defend ourselves, and nukes cannot be used in self-defense in any realistic scenario!

    So this means you have to draw a line in terms of weaponry in what you consider to be "arms." We'll work our way up.

    Pistol? Sure! Hunting rifle? Easily. Grenade launcher? Errr, pretty sketchy now. Anti-aircraft missile? Ummm. Tank? .....

    A line needs to be drawn. You can do it locally, or you can do it federally. Take your pick. (DC is a special case because they're not a state, so there's some federal involvement in local laws there)
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #19
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The difference of opinion comes from what you define as "arms." While I personally hate Reductio ad absurdum, it's the only way I can ever get this across to the really hardcore conservatives. (and for the record, I am not in favor of banning handguns or even so-called "assault weapons" that are actually single-fire hunting rifles)

    If you define "arms" as any sort of weapon, you're talking about legally-owned nuclear weapons in private hands. Absurd, right? Clearly the founding fathers were not referring to the ability to level a city. They were talking about our right to defend ourselves, and nukes cannot be used in self-defense in any realistic scenario!

    So this means you have to draw a line in terms of weaponry in what you consider to be "arms." We'll work our way up.

    Pistol? Sure! Hunting rifle? Easily. Grenade launcher? Errr, pretty sketchy now. Anti-aircraft missile? Ummm. Tank? .....

    A line needs to be drawn. You can do it locally, or you can do it federally. Take your pick. (DC is a special case because they're not a state, so there's some federal involvement in local laws there)
    That was a bunch of long winded bull****. Arms are weapons period, the writings behind the second state that all arms in use by the military are rightful to the militia. These are defined as any weapons that can be carried by a soldier.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #20
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,185

    Re: Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The difference of opinion comes from what you define as "arms." While I personally hate Reductio ad absurdum, it's the only way I can ever get this across to the really hardcore conservatives. (and for the record, I am not in favor of banning handguns or even so-called "assault weapons" that are actually single-fire hunting rifles)

    If you define "arms" as any sort of weapon, you're talking about legally-owned nuclear weapons in private hands. Absurd, right? Clearly the founding fathers were not referring to the ability to level a city. They were talking about our right to defend ourselves, and nukes cannot be used in self-defense in any realistic scenario!

    So this means you have to draw a line in terms of weaponry in what you consider to be "arms." We'll work our way up.

    Pistol? Sure! Hunting rifle? Easily. Grenade launcher? Errr, pretty sketchy now. Anti-aircraft missile? Ummm. Tank? .....

    A line needs to be drawn. You can do it locally, or you can do it federally. Take your pick. (DC is a special case because they're not a state, so there's some federal involvement in local laws there)

    Arms as they relate to the 2A are best defined thus:
    1. Any infantry weapon that may be carried and used by an individual soldier, which is useful for military service and other lawful purposes.
    2. Any weapon useful for self-defense, hunting, sport, or any other lawful purpose.

    Clearly this covers all firearms. Clearly it does not cover such ridiculosities as nukes or bio, which are WMD's that have no legitimate use by an individual. As for grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons and knee mortars... well, those we can debate. Currently many such "support weapons" can be possessed by those who have a special Class III license; personally I'm okay with that as a "compromise".

    I believe the legality of government infringements on private arms should have to meet the "Strict" test of Constitutionality: that is, they should require an overwhelming societal intrest to justify the intervention; the restriction should be very narrowly targeted to address a specific problem; pre-emptive infringement should be avoided if possible (that is, restricting a law-abiding citizen just because he might commit a crime) and there should be good reason to believe that such a law will actually have beneficial effects in the real world, as opposed to simply "because some politicians want to do this."

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •