Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 63

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

  1. #31
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    03-22-11 @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    463

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

    ASSAULT WEAPONS have been banned in the US since 1974..

    What the commie-gun-grabbers want you to believe is that semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon... IT IS NOT!

    You can revise definitions 'till hell freezes over but only the ignorant will buy it and every day there are fewer and fewer!

    For the Commie-gun-grabbers it's an EVIL Assault Weapon if:

    it has a pistol grip
    ... ooooogh SCARY!
    it has a muzzle device... ... ooooogh SCARY! (if it's up your butt)
    it has a folding stock... ... ooooogh SCARY! (if you catch your finger in it that is)
    it is black in color... ... ooooogh SCARY!

    The irrational fear of guns by liberals is simply an example of ignorance... or puking progressive commie-gun-grabber talking points.. take your pick of the two!
    CROUCH DOWN AND LICK THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU; MAY YOUR CHAINS WEIGH LIGHTLY UPON YOU; AND MAY PROSPERITY FORGET THAT YE WERE MY COUNTRYMEN. -SAMUEL ADAMS

  2. #32
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    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?
    OMG. The whole, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry about it argument". When that is made, you KNOW what is being proposed is tyrannical and unconstitutional. It's not paperwork. I don't need to give my fingerprints or declare where my guns will be to cops. That's dumb, that's intrusive, that's none of the government's business. No sane person could endorse such a heavy handed, draconian law as that.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #33
    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 Alvin T. Grey View Post
    ...ditto for home defence.
    Thats sport and security covered. You know the real reasons you own a gun.
    I use mine for target shooting, hope to never "need" it, because that would mean I would have to use it in a lethal manner. Again, it isn't about need, this is where your argument fails, example number two is yet another appeal to need, the right exists regardless of "need".




    Thats what the "Shall Issue" policy takes care of. Simply owning a gun doesn't, and the state can't deny you the right to own one absent a bloody good reason.
    You don't need a shall issue, we already have "shall not be infringed".



    Which is why it's in there first....
    There is no need for the secondary clause, that of the justification, the primary is self evident but backed by example of the secondary for good measure. Either way, the militia argument < the primary clause.




    No. That falls into the catagory of "Going to the range and cleaning your weapon....
    You obviously don't know much about weapons training.


    You are not the militia in the same way as everyone between the ages of 18-45 is not a hooker.

    In both cases you meet the qualifications, but only a certain few actually are.
    Incorrect, there is a specific definition of the militia, thanks for playing.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #34
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    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.
    Not that I expect a response, but...

    If you're going to require a warrant...
    If you're going to speak out against the government...
    If you're going to go to church...
    If you're going to have an abortion...

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

    hazlnut
    Lean: Moderate
    LOL
    Last edited by Goobieman; 03-30-10 at 02:55 PM.

  5. #35
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    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?"
    "Assault weapons" are like any other gun - they just -look- scary.
    You can effectively use an 'assault weapon' for any legal/legitimate use you might have for a gun.

  6. #36
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    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!
    This has been addressed in 2 SCotUS decisions.
    While it's upper limit is open for discussion, the term "Arms" as found in the 2nd certainly covers every class of firearms you care to mention.

  7. #37
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    Select fire. Intermediate cartrige, magazine fed.
    That's an assault rifle. They are covered by the NFA'34.
    All 'assault weapons' are semi-auto only.
    Except for those that are bolt- or pump-action, anyway.

  8. #38
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    My take on it?
    If you want one for hunting, then fine. Apply for a long rifle or shotgun license. The state or Feds must have a "shall issue" policy on that. Ditto for home defense. With a transport allowance for carrying to and from events or practice.

    You want one for personal protection?
    Sure, demonstrate a specifc threat. A barring order or security job or carrying cash etc.

    You want a military grade weapon?
    Sure. Demonstrate membership in a recognized regulated militia.
    None of these things would pass the strict scrutiny test that applies to all constitutional rights.

  9. #39
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    03-22-11 @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    463

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    All 'assault weapons' are semi-auto only.
    .
    I'll take exception there... ALL "assault weapons" have bust or full auto options.. and are not legal to own without appropriate federal license.

    ..."semi-auto" simply means it loads without action upon firing...

    Once they made assault weapons illegal in 1974 they transferred the term to semi-autos.. it is not a gunsmith term, it's a progressive gun-grabber term.
    CROUCH DOWN AND LICK THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU; MAY YOUR CHAINS WEIGH LIGHTLY UPON YOU; AND MAY PROSPERITY FORGET THAT YE WERE MY COUNTRYMEN. -SAMUEL ADAMS

  10. #40
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ConservaBill View Post
    I'll take exception there... ALL "assault weapons" have bust or full auto options.. and are not legal to own without appropriate federal license.
    No.
    These are assault rifles, like the M16. These have been federally regulated since 1934.
    An 'assault weapon' is a semi-auto rifle like the AR15.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •