People that know nothing about assault weapons

[Cronus4 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hi Matt,

That is what she says.

You may think that answered my question, but my question still stands.

If I remember correctly the Supreme Court upheld the previous ban. Ergo, I would think that they would uphold the next one.

I may be right; you may be right. Time will tell.

However, IMO to say that it would be unconstitutional is leap that I would not make.

JerryBaumchen

Actually what she said in a taped interview that she wanted to do was: "If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"

How in the F is that constitutional, and how is she able to still stay in office? To me that is a blatant disrespect and attempted violation of the 2nd amendement. Alas her constituents reelected her.

You are missing the point....

Individuals like you, and the senator, don't decide what is and is not constitutional in the United States.

The Supreme Court decides that.

SO, if a previous restriction of the 2nd amendment was heard by the Supreme Court, and NOT found to be unconstitutional, then the only precedent on the constitutionality of restricting the 2nd amendment would show that it is in fact constitutional.

You might not think so, but you aren't the one deciding, so it doesn't matter.

You're right, the supreme court has no checks or balances against it so their say is the supreme rule of the land....you might want to go check the 26th amendment and the supreme court case it overturned (Oregon v Mitchell).

On top of that the prior AWB did not ban 'all weapons' as the senator wanted to do, so in 'spirit' it was still constitutional. As someone else mentioned, I don't even think the '94 AWB was reviewed or brought up to the SCOTUS.

The NDAA that was just signed made it ok to violate American citizens 4th amendment rights, I don't see the SCOTUS saying anything about that. Just because SCOTUS didn't say something is unconstitutional doesn't automatically make it constitutional.

[matthewcline 0]

My understanding, I am still looking for a fact backing it up (not just inter web rumblings) , is that the last ban did not get up to the SCOTUS level as there was no money and power behind those challenging it.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Bignugget 0]

Since ignorance is never good.

I googled.

Apparently they have heard the issue.


http://rense.com/general17/supremecourtrejects.htm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Several State Supreme Courts have also ruled on the issue

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_22219025/denvers-assault-weapons-ban-withstood-test-time-court

[Cronus4 0]

Quote

I don't know to be honest, I was just pointing out how the person misunderstands the way the government works in the USA.

Constitutionality is decided by the judicial branch.

Hence the emphasis on SO, I was just following the logic through for him.

I have a very thorough understanding of how the government works in the USA, thanks.

[Bignugget 0]

They seem to uphold pretty much any and all restrictions placed.

Her law "banning all guns" if thats what it said might not pass the test.

But you can make it damn near impossible for anyone to legally purchase and possess them, and it will pass the test from the looks of it.

You don't take away anyones rights, you just restrict them.

SCOTUS is fine with that.

Don't shoot me (literally, plz dont), im just a simple googler on the road.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

I don't know to be honest, I was just pointing out how the person misunderstands the way the government works in the USA.

Constitutionality is decided by the judicial branch.

Hence the emphasis on SO, I was just following the logic through for him.

I have a very thorough understanding of how the government works in the USA, thanks.

Then I wager you are ahead of many who are working in it.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

The NDAA that was just signed made it ok to violate American citizens 4th amendment rights, I don't see the SCOTUS saying anything about that. Just because SCOTUS didn't say something is unconstitutional doesn't automatically make it constitutional.

Quite literally that is what it means.

Until declared unconstitutional by the Judicial Branch, laws passed through the legislature ARE constitutional and legally binding in this country.

That is why YOU don't get to decide and say "this isn't constitutional, I'm not following it"

You can try to challenge the constitutionality of a law..... in the Judicial Branch.

[matthewcline 0]

Those aren't challenges to the Fed AWB.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Cronus4 0]

Quote

They seem to uphold pretty much any and all restrictions placed.

Her law "banning all guns" if thats what it said might not pass the test.

But you can make it damn near impossible for anyone to legally purchase and possess them, and it will pass the test from the looks of it.

You don't take away anyones rights, you just restrict them.

SCOTUS is fine with that.

Don't shoot me (literally, plz dont), im just a simple googler on the road.

You can google all you want, and yes the government has more and more been attempting to restrict everyones rights, not just gun owners.

Can they outright ban all weapons? No, that is all I am saying. Can they make it so all you can have is a single shot bb gun? Yes.

This is more of a case of 'death by a thousand paper cuts' they will continue restricting rights until it gets to the point that they will have eroded almost all rights which were at one point afforded to the citizens of this nation, and I'm not just talking about gun rights.

Look at all of the personal freedoms and privacy rights we decided to give up as a country as soon as we were faced with terrorism on our own soil. It's a slippery slope.

But you know what, most people are more than happy to just drone on in life as long as their personal way of life is not affected. Imagine if all of a sudden the government wanted to stop sport parachuting because 'it increased the ability for terrorist to train (on American soil) in insertion techniques and afford them the ability to move into heavily populated city centers or government property with a decreased signature in order to inflict damage and death'.

I'm sure you (and I, and everyone on this forum) would suddenly be very interested in that.

[Bignugget 0]

Ok.

They are all challenges to the legality of gun right restrictions.

That was close enough for me to get a feel for how they stand on the issue.

Restrictions are fine.

As Cronus said just no all out banning.

Restrict it to people 95 and older who can run marathons.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

But you know what, most people are more than happy to just drone on in life as long as their personal way of life is not affected. Imagine if all of a sudden the government wanted to stop sport parachuting because 'it increased the ability for terrorist to train (on American soil) in insertion techniques and afford them the ability to move into heavily populated city centers or government property with a decreased signature in order to inflict damage and death'.

I'm sure you (and I, and everyone on this forum) would suddenly be very interested in that.

Of course, I just wouldn't delude myself into thinking I had the power to decide it wasn't constitutional and go jump outta planes with no consequences. You have the power to ignore laws, that's really it.

I'm interested in the gun issue because we kill the same level of people with guns as 3rd world war torn nations, instead of 1st world leaders.

I don't pretend to have the magic bean cure to the issue, I just think fear mongering and ignorance of the process of law in the country are some of the major barriers to a constructive discussion on how to lead the world in civility towards each other, instead of in murdering each other.

[Cronus4 0]

Quote

Of course, I just wouldn't delude myself into thinking I had the power to decide it wasn't constitutional and go jump outta planes with no consequences. You have the power to ignore laws, that's really it.

I'm interested in the gun issue because we kill the same level of people with guns as 3rd world war torn nations, instead of 1st world leaders.

I don't pretend to have the magic bean cure to the issue, I just think fear mongering and ignorance of the process of law in the country are some of the major barriers to a constructive discussion on how to lead the world in civility towards each other, instead of in murdering each other.

As you know, Chicago has the strictest gun control (does that mean they're leading in civility?) in the nation yet it ranks at the top in violent crime and deaths.

The problem areas in this country can easily be identified and isolated using a simple arcGIS analysis, and then by tightening policing and enforcement of laws in those areas. Unfortunately that takes money, and resolution, especially by police chiefs and sherifs, and the risk of losing their officers.

For politicians and elected law enforcement officials it is far easier to pass a bill that makes it look like you're attacking the problem rather than actually isolating and fixing the issue. They pass a bill, and bam all of a sudden, we have done something! Everyone cheer and now we are more civil! Then next week 20 more kids die in suburban Chicago. Why isn't that on the news? If human life is important, if we cherish children, why don't we focus on ending gang crime and shootings in areas that we know they occur?

Criminals will be criminals and it doesn't matter to them what laws are passed. A person with the resolution to take another human's life wouldn't be thinking 'man, i sure don't want to add another felony misdemeanor to this crime' when he loads or raises his 'illegal' weapon to take another life. But laws do matter to law abiding citizens like you and I. When those laws begin reducing your rights, especially to protect yourself, then that becomes troublesome (at least to me).

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course, I just wouldn't delude myself into thinking I had the power to decide it wasn't constitutional and go jump outta planes with no consequences. You have the power to ignore laws, that's really it.

I'm interested in the gun issue because we kill the same level of people with guns as 3rd world war torn nations, instead of 1st world leaders.

I don't pretend to have the magic bean cure to the issue, I just think fear mongering and ignorance of the process of law in the country are some of the major barriers to a constructive discussion on how to lead the world in civility towards each other, instead of in murdering each other.

As you know, Chicago has the strictest gun control (does that mean they're leading in civility?) in the nation yet it ranks at the top in violent crime and deaths.

The problem areas in this country can easily be identified and isolated using a simple arcGIS analysis, and then by tightening policing and enforcement of laws in those areas. Unfortunately that takes money, and resolution, especially by police chiefs and sherifs, and the risk of losing their officers.

For politicians and elected law enforcement officials it is far easier to pass a bill that makes it look like you're attacking the problem rather than actually isolating and fixing the issue. They pass a bill, and bam all of a sudden, we have done something! Everyone cheer and now we are more civil! Then next week 20 more kids die in suburban Chicago. Why isn't that on the news? If human life is important, if we cherish children, why don't we focus on ending gang crime and shootings in areas that we know they occur?

Criminals will be criminals and it doesn't matter to them what laws are passed. A person with the resolution to take another human's life wouldn't be thinking 'man, i sure don't want to add another felony misdemeanor to this crime' when he loads or raises his 'illegal' weapon to take another life. But laws do matter to law abiding citizens like you and I. When those laws begin reducing your rights, especially to protect yourself, then that becomes troublesome (at least to me).

Again, this is not correct.

Criminals do care what laws are passed.

If meth was made legal for instance, plenty of criminals would care about that. They would no longer be criminals.

Conversely, if laws were passed making whatever guns you possess, illegal to possess, you would be a criminal. And as you very much indicate, you care what laws are passed.

Does becoming a criminal deter people from doing whatever they were going to do? I don't know, and make no claims on the matter.

But you once again misunderstand the way laws work and their effects on people.

[quade 4]

I'd just like to point out the irony of some people here bitching about people not knowing enough about guns to speak intelligently about them, yet seeming to have no issue whatsoever with their own ignorance of how laws are determined to be Constitutional.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Imagine if all of a sudden the government wanted to stop sport parachuting

There would be blood on the streets.
They can have my rig when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

As you know, Chicago has the strictest gun control (does that mean they're leading in civility?) in the nation yet it ranks at the top in violent crime and deaths.

Chicago's gun ban was thrown out in June 2010, and since then murders by gun in Chicago have shot up (pun intended). Before 2010 the homicide rate had been steadily decreasing.

However, that is a red herring anyway, The homicides are overwhelmingly due to an ongoing turf war between street gangs over control of the drug trade, Fine by me if the keep offing each other.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davjohns 1]

OK. That was funny.

Interesting read on 'assault weapons'.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

However, that is a red herring anyway, The homicides are overwhelmingly due to an ongoing turf war between street gangs over control of the drug trade, Fine by me if the keep offing each other.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

As you know, Chicago has the strictest gun control (does that mean they're leading in civility?) in the nation yet it ranks at the top in violent crime and deaths.

Chicago's gun ban was thrown out in June 2010, and since then murders by gun in Chicago have shot up (pun intended). Before 2010 the homicide rate had been steadily decreasing.

However, that is a red herring anyway, The homicides are overwhelmingly due to an ongoing turf war between street gangs over control of the drug trade, Fine by me if the keep offing each other.

This is quite a stunning acknowledgement, coming from you.

[fpritchett64 0]

See attachment.

A little Duck Dynasty comedy.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

See attachment.

A little Duck Dynasty comedy.

I love that show.

lol.

[dgskydive 0]

A .308 will not only stop a dear dead in its track, but just about anything else and they dont want to ban those. I would rather be shot with an AR-15. Scary looking is not more deadly. If you strip down the scary plastic off of these so called Assault Rifles, they are no more dangerous then a "hunting rifle".

Most hunting rifles only hold about 7 rounds...but some can be modified (legally) to hold more. The weapons they want to ban only look more dangerous. Banning magazines that hold more then 10 rounds really doesnt do anything. It takes less then 3 seconds to reload an AR-15. It may take you only 6 to 8 seconds longer to fire off 30 rounds.

Tougher laws on those that use guns while committing a crime well help this problem, not taking them away from law abiding citizens. You use a gun to commit a crime you go to jail for life...PERIOD. You commit murder with a gun you go to jail for life...PERIOD. So you better make sure you are really protecting yourself and not shooting first and asking questions later. It wont stop them from committing the crime in the first place, but you can be damn sure they wont do it again.

Dom

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

A .308 will not only stop a dear dead in its track, but just about anything else and they dont want to ban those. I would rather be shot with an AR-15. Scary looking is not more deadly. If you strip down the scary plastic off of these so called Assault Rifles, they are no more dangerous then a "hunting rifle".

Most hunting rifles only hold about 7 rounds...but some can be modified (legally) to hold more. The weapons they want to ban only look more dangerous. .

So why do gun buyers want to pay extra for the scary stuff that's non functional? Rambo complex? Penis inadequacy?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

A .308 will not only stop a dear dead in its track, but just about anything else and they dont want to ban those. I would rather be shot with an AR-15. Scary looking is not more deadly. If you strip down the scary plastic off of these so called Assault Rifles, they are no more dangerous then a "hunting rifle".

Most hunting rifles only hold about 7 rounds...but some can be modified (legally) to hold more. The weapons they want to ban only look more dangerous. .

So why do gun buyers want to pay extra for the scary stuff that's non functional? Rambo complex? Penis inadequacy?

The guns in question are very fuctional. Some of us have more money than time or interest in dicking around with modifying a platform to work around regulations.

For the record. You can get an AR in .308 and that gun would be banned as well.

Damn near any long gun with a 30 round capacity is a GREAT killing machine from 15 feet to 300+. In lieu of using them to kill people they are a lot of fun to shoot. Otherwise, they (and any other gun for that matter) are a potential liability that must be mitigated....by the owners.

An honest debate should address the type situations where a citizen owning an "assault" weapon would be adventagous.... you know, other than killing little kids.

But don't let honest debate get in your way. I'm sure there are countless instances where people have won over the otherside by comparing them to B-movie characters with small penises.

[quade 4]

Quote

In lieu of using them to kill people they are a lot of fun to shoot.

I hear this brought up from time to time as a justification for ownership. I'm not saying you just did, but others have. Personally I think that's kind of a bullshit reason since having "fun" isn't protected the Constitution.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver