Thread: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity since Parkland shooting

Originally Posted by ataraxia

Not any more stupid than "you people" sound when you bring up bump stocks and high capacity magazine clips as something you "need" to protect your house or hunt bunny rabbits. Even justice Scalia has said that the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment, like any other rights, are not unlimited. Trying to make any regulation on dangerous weapons sound like it's unconstitutional makes it clear you don't even give half a **** about having a serious conversation.

you gun banners constantly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding as to the DICTA that Scalia penned. There are dozens of regulations that apply to gun USE and that is more than sufficient. You all pretend that unless we support idiocy that prevents honest people from OWNING something-it means we also think there should be no laws against

1) harming someone with a firearm
2) discharging a firearm in municipalities
3) using a firearm in a dangerous or reckless manner

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

and the Democrat party is the party of gun bans and other idiocy-which is the topic of this sub forum

Hence why I don't vote Dem. They also want to restrict your right to free speech.

Originally Posted by Obscurity

The constitution does not say you have a right to a machine gun, or a tank, or an APC. The SCOTUS in your own ruling states very clearly the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.



That's Scalia's majority opinion. Not the dissent, which obviously is full of idiocy.

So no. You have no constitutional right to own an RPG-7. Nor an APC. Nor an M60. A handgun is a regular, common use and common carry item, like a shotgun, or a semi auto rifle.

so are MP-5s and M4 select fire carbines. If civilian police have it for use in our cities and on our city streets-by definition, those firearms are neither "unusually dangerous" and are useful for self defense by civilians

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

so are MP-5s and M4 select fire carbines. If civilian police have it for use in our cities and on our city streets-by definition, those firearms are neither "unusually dangerous" and are useful for self defense by civilians

I disagree. Those weapons are too expensive for many folks, meaning they are not common use. The cops have them because they have the full might of the tax payer funding them. Moreover, I don't even agree with them having them.

I'd also say a fully automatic firearm is unusually dangerous.

Originally Posted by ataraxia

Not any more stupid than "you people" sound when you bring up bump stocks and high capacity magazine clips as something you "need" to protect your house or hunt bunny rabbits. Even justice Scalia has said that the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment, like any other rights, are not unlimited. Trying to make any regulation on dangerous weapons sound like it's unconstitutional makes it clear you don't even give half a **** about having a serious conversation.

Did Scalia mention any limits on the power of the government to regulate dangerous weapons?

What weapons aren't dangerous?

Originally Posted by Obscurity

I disagree. Those weapons are too expensive for many folks, meaning they are not common use. The cops have them because they have the full might of the tax payer funding them. Moreover, I don't even agree with them having them.

I'd also say a fully automatic firearm is unusually dangerous.

They weren't expensive prior to the Hughes Amendment.

Originally Posted by Obscurity

Geez dude, the constituents in some states don't want people owning M60 machine guns.

Our civil rights aren't subject to a referendum. That why The Constitution exists: to protect us from mob rule.

Originally Posted by Obscurity

I disagree. Those weapons are too expensive for many folks, meaning they are not common use. The cops have them because they have the full might of the tax payer funding them. Moreover, I don't even agree with them having them.

I'd also say a fully automatic firearm is unusually dangerous.

they are only too expensive because the Dems implemented the Hughes Amendment.

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Did Scalia mention any limits on the power of the government to regulate dangerous weapons?

What weapons aren't dangerous?

Unusually dangerous weapons. Of course that's up to interpretation, but an RPG-7 is not common use, it is unusually dangerous. As are, in my opinion, fully automatic weapons.