For the 2nd amendment "buffs"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

www.subguns.com

lol

The site is for accessories. I assume that you are referring to the classifieds?

You can buy cocaine with federal licensing but that doesn't make it any less illegal. You have to go through the ATF for le 2 weapons just like you have to go thru the FDA for cocaine.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm sure there is a legal standard for what is considered 'common use.' Theorizing here is fun I guess though.

She brings up the er case but that was over a gun that was not given back ie confiscated. SCOTUS approved the 1986 law.

I have also heard conflicting reports about the historical legal basis she claims. She invokes English law but that is what we were overthrowing. The colonial assemblies of the 1780s were banning guns and forming militias. We have had this conversation before.

One thing that stuck out to me was her referring to the framers as 'they thought' and similar bull . It seems to be a constant refrain but anyone with a sense of history should at the very least acknowledge that they were hardly a unified mind of things.

None of this is a new conversation though. I am disappointed if not surprised that the OP once again failed to recognize a previous discussion. That is a very WC thing to do.

[Blake]

The common use thing isn't circular reasoning. A nuke isn't a common use weapon. A .22lr is a common use weapon. A handgun is a common use weapon, but a Glock 18 is not a common use weapon. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. Where's the circular reasoning? No law is exhaustive in it's terminology. They make broad statements and those will be interpreted by courts later (just as "right to keep and bear arms" is interpreted today). Arms can be anything, or it can exclude anything depending on how the USSC chooses to interpret the meaning.

nukes is not part of the circular reasoning to be clear.

Declaring that certain types of guns are legal because they are already legal is circular reasoning.

There will always be interpretation, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't hinge on common sense decisions. It has to stand on its own as an individual right, just like the 1st Amendment. Common sense changes over time.

Since times have changed, common sense would be to amend the 2nd Amendment.

[Blake]

I am disappointed if not surprised that the OP once again failed to recognize a previous discussion

No surprise, imo

[Wild Cobra]

nukes is not part of the circular reasoning to be clear.

Declaring that certain types of guns are legal because they are already legal is circular reasoning.



Since times have changed, common sense would be to amend the 2nd Amendment.

Funny how you liberals fight like for the first and fourth amendment but wish to throw away the 2nd.

What's wrong. Do you only believe in freedoms that you agree with?

[Blake]

Funny how you liberals fight like for the first and fourth amendment but wish to throw away the 2nd.

What's wrong. Do you only believe in freedoms that you agree with?

I might respond for humor sake, but you and your response here are both so far beyond pathetic it's just not worth it.

[DMC]

nukes is not part of the circular reasoning to be clear.

Declaring that certain types of guns are legal because they are already legal is circular reasoning.

No, it's because they are common, not because they are legal. There are legal things that aren't common. I didn't see the reference you're referring to.

Since times have changed, common sense would be to amend the 2nd Amendment.

No, you just ignored what I said. Common sense is nothing more than group thinking. If we were going to go that route, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights.

[DMC]

The site is for accessories. I assume that you are referring to the classifieds?

You can buy cocaine with federal licensing but that doesn't make it any less illegal. You have to go through the ATF for le 2 weapons just like you have to go thru the FDA for cocaine.

The NFA sales board. National Firearms Act did not ban fully automatic rifles. It banned the manufacture of them for sale to the public after the date of the act, but there are thousands in circulation (I know) that are sold daily ergo not banned.

They aren't banned. You have to pay a tax stamp, you don't need a license. You have to go through the ATF for any firearm purchase from a dealer when a background check is performed. Why don't you shut the up until you know what the you're talking about.

Banned and regulated are not the same thing, otherwise cigarettes are banned as is alcohol and driving a vehicle since you need to go through the licensing process.

[Blake]

No, it's because they are common, not because they are legal. There are legal things that aren't common. I didn't see the reference you're referring to.

Definition of COMMON
1a: of or relating to a community at large : public <work for the common good>

b: known to the community <common nuisances>

I'm not seeing any specific number/percent here that makes something common. Do you?

No, you just ignored what I said. Common sense is nothing more than group thinking. If we were going to go that route, there would be no need for a Bill of Rights.

I'm not sure where you are going with any of this semantical rambling.

Amendments happen because times and common sense change. The BoR is not some kind of timeless, untouchable 10 Commandments. If it needs to be altered for the betterment of our society then alter the mother er.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The NFA sales board. National Firearms Act did not ban fully automatic rifles. It banned the manufacture of them for sale to the public after the date of the act, but there are thousands in circulation (I know) that are sold daily ergo not banned.

They aren't banned. You have to pay a tax stamp, you don't need a license. You have to go through the ATF for any firearm purchase from a dealer when a background check is performed. Why don't you shut the up until you know what the you're talking about.

Banned and regulated are not the same thing, otherwise cigarettes are banned as is alcohol and driving a vehicle since you need to go through the licensing process.

Typical semantic bull coming from DMC. Whoever would have seen that coming?

The cessation of the assault weapon ban only moved those particular weapons from le 2. In order to have an existing le xfered to you you have to get a stamp for your FFL or otherwise jump through hoops with the ATF. You can sit there and grandstand on your particular meaning of the word ban but as I said with the cocaine example: it's bull .

Is cocaine banned according to your definition? No, because it is regulated and potentially obtainable by anyone via licensing from the FDA just as full-auto's can be via the ATF.

In most people's mind, is cocaine banned from the US? I would say that it is.

Nevermind that the original assault weapons 'ban' did.

You have a really difficult time understanding the concept of nuance or specifically that a word can have many different meanings.

[Blake]

Alright, got a response already:


"Interesting question. The fact is Congress does not retain the right to decide that weapons commonly used for self-defense and lawful purposes can be banned. If that was the case than Chicago would have been able to preserve its ban on handguns in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case. The people decide. Only a weapon not appropriate for lawful purposes, e.g. rocket launcher, can be banned. In the er case Washington, D.C. claimed it was lawful to ban handguns since residents could still own long guns. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. Remember, Breyer's dissent is not law. He lost.

Best wishes, Joyce Malcolm"


I'm going to politely remind her that "he" lost by one vote. I'm also going to ask her how she thinks "common use" is defined by the SC.

She states that "the people decide" then right away uses the "weapons appropriate for lawful purpose" circular reasoning Breyer is talking about.

I'm disappointed that she is simply brushing Breyer's opinion aside just because he lost.....Either that, or the fallacy is going over her head like it is DMC's.

Anyone want to add something for me to ask? I'll wait until Monday or Tuesday to reply.

[Th'Pusher]

Alright, got a response already:


"Interesting question. The fact is Congress does not retain the right to decide that weapons commonly used for self-defense and lawful purposes can be banned. If that was the case than Chicago would have been able to preserve its ban on handguns in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case. The people decide. Only a weapon not appropriate for lawful purposes, e.g. rocket launcher, can be banned. In the er case Washington, D.C. claimed it was lawful to ban handguns since residents could still own long guns. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. Remember, Breyer's dissent is not law. He lost.

Best wishes, Joyce Malcolm"


I'm going to politely remind her that "he" lost by one vote. I'm also going to ask her how she thinks "common use" is defined by the SC.

She states that "the people decide" then right away uses the "weapons appropriate for lawful purpose" circular reasoning Breyer is talking about.

I'm disappointed that she is simply brushing Breyer's opinion aside just because he lost.....Either that, or the fallacy is going over her head like it is DMC's.

Anyone want to add something for me to ask? I'll wait until Monday or Tuesday to reply.

Tell her that the word than is a conjunction mainly used when making comparisons. She should have used the word then when she wrote' "If that we're the case, than Chicago...".

Then give her a cons utional scholar my ass.

[Blake]

Tell her that the word than is a conjunction mainly used when making comparisons. She should have used the word then when she wrote' "If that we're the case, than Chicago...".

Then give her a cons utional scholar my ass.

since she's responding to some unknown slappy at 8am CST on a Saturday, I'll give her a grammar break.

I may toss her a few emoticons before I drop the mic and walk off stage.

[DMC]

Typical semantic bull coming from DMC. Whoever would have seen that coming?

Semantics? lol ing idiot.
It's evident you have no idea what you're talking about. You just like to talk. This "semantics" defense is typical for those who have a superficial understanding of things they want to run their faces about.

The cessation of the assault weapon ban only moved those particular weapons from le 2. In order to have an existing le xfered to you you have to get a stamp for your FFL or otherwise jump through hoops with the ATF. You can sit there and grandstand on your particular meaning of the word ban but as I said with the cocaine example: it's bull .

lol keep going with the song and dance routine.

Show me the website where people have cocaine for sale.

Is cocaine banned according to your definition? No, because it is regulated and potentially obtainable by anyone via licensing from the FDA just as full-auto's can be via the ATF.

You don't need a license to own a fully automatic weapon. How many ing times do I need to say that? There's a difference between a controlled substance and a regulated device. You cannot suddenly have a medical reason to acquire cocaine. You can suddenly decide you want a subgun and fork over the money, do the transfer and have one.

Goddamn you're an idiot and your mega-ego won't allow you to walk away from it.

In most people's mind, is cocaine banned from the US? I would say that it is.

Keep trying.

Nevermind that the original assault weapons 'ban' did.

Hey dumbass, you said:

"Oh yeah they banned selling or otherwise transferring ownership of automatic weapons."

They didn't. They banned the manufacture for sale to the public, and imports for the same. The transfer and sale of automatic weapons is not banned. If it were, you wouldn't be allowed to do it. That's what a ban means. I guess it's just more semantics. You can use whatever misguided term you pull from your ass and defend it with your ignorant ass "same thing" noise. off.

You have a really difficult time understanding the concept of nuance or specifically that a word can have many different meanings.

lol nuance. You're just an idiot. There's no nuance to that.

[DMC]

Alright, got a response already:


"Interesting question. The fact is Congress does not retain the right to decide that weapons commonly used for self-defense and lawful purposes can be banned. If that was the case than Chicago would have been able to preserve its ban on handguns in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case. The people decide. Only a weapon not appropriate for lawful purposes, e.g. rocket launcher, can be banned. In the er case Washington, D.C. claimed it was lawful to ban handguns since residents could still own long guns. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. Remember, Breyer's dissent is not law. He lost.

Best wishes, Joyce Malcolm"


I'm going to politely remind her that "he" lost by one vote. I'm also going to ask her how she thinks "common use" is defined by the SC.

She states that "the people decide" then right away uses the "weapons appropriate for lawful purpose" circular reasoning Breyer is talking about.

I'm disappointed that she is simply brushing Breyer's opinion aside just because he lost.....Either that, or the fallacy is going over her head like it is DMC's.

Anyone want to add something for me to ask? I'll wait until Monday or Tuesday to reply.

You shouldn't chase rabbits. There are many instances where one vote would have changed the outcome of a decision. You cannot go back to all of them and change the world. It's not law because it didn't pass, end of story.

[DMC]

I'm not seeing any specific number/percent here that makes something common. Do you?



I'm not sure where you are going with any of this semantical rambling.

Amendments happen because times and common sense change. The BoR is not some kind of timeless, untouchable 10 Commandments. If it needs to be altered for the betterment of our society then alter the mother er.

Lay people like you and fuzz nuts get lost in the semantic tangents and draw false conclusions from where they lead you. You end up falsely equivocating a term you used wrongly many pages back and draw some conclusion that is totally off base, so someone has to recalibrate your ignorant ass.

Consider it for the betterment of society.

[Th'Pusher]

Lay people like you and fuzz nuts get lost in the semantic tangents and draw false conclusions from where they lead you. You end up falsely equivocating a term you used wrongly many pages back and draw some conclusion that is totally off base, so someone has to recalibrate your ignorant ass.

Consider it for the betterment of society.

Wait, so if I have a Tula M44 YY18 Training rifle, which is by no means common and is quite rare, but nothing more than a .22 caliber rifle, can that be banned?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Semantics? lol ing idiot.
It's evident you have no idea what you're talking about. You just like to talk. This "semantics" defense is typical for those who have a superficial understanding of things they want to run their faces about.

lol keep going with the song and dance routine.

Show me the website where people have cocaine for sale.

You don't need a license to own a fully automatic weapon. How many ing times do I need to say that? There's a difference between a controlled substance and a regulated device. You cannot suddenly have a medical reason to acquire cocaine. You can suddenly decide you want a subgun and fork over the money, do the transfer and have one.

Goddamn you're an idiot and your mega-ego won't allow you to walk away from it.

Keep trying.

Hey dumbass, you said:

"Oh yeah they banned selling or otherwise transferring ownership of automatic weapons."

They didn't. They banned the manufacture for sale to the public, and imports for the same. The transfer and sale of automatic weapons is not banned. If it were, you wouldn't be allowed to do it. That's what a ban means. I guess it's just more semantics. You can use whatever misguided term you pull from your ass and defend it with your ignorant ass "same thing" noise. off.


lol nuance. You're just an idiot. There's no nuance to that.

Well you are certainly butthurt. Having a bad Saturday? The semantics argument is being made because you are questioning my use of the word "ban." Your characterizations are just as lame as the argument.

You can no more simply go to a gun dealer and buy an automatic weapon by filling out a registration form than you can go to Glaxo-Klein and order a gram of blow. You have to do the same thing that you had to do to obtain a semi-auto AR-15 or any other le 2 weapon during the 1994 'ban' which the full-auto weapons are still privy to which is to get approval of the ATF and local law enforcement. You cannot just go to the gun store on whim.

It unequivocally banned the manufacture of machine guns for future public consumption.

'Ban' was the word that they used over 15 years ago in order to move the 'assault weapons' to the le 2 list.

Now go ahead and get red assed some more because they used the word 'ban' in a way that you don't approve of 15 years ago.

[Blake]

Lay people like you and fuzz nuts get lost in the semantic tangents and draw false conclusions from where they lead you. You end up falsely equivocating a term you used wrongly many pages back and draw some conclusion that is totally off base, so someone has to recalibrate your ignorant ass.

Consider it for the betterment of society.

What term are you referring to, expert, and how should it have been used?

[DMC]

Wait, so if I have a Tula M44 YY18 Training rifle, which is by no means common and is quite rare, but nothing more than a .22 caliber rifle, can that be banned?

Anything can be banned.

[Blake]

Anything can be banned.

Semantics

[DMC]

Well you are certainly butthurt. Having a bad Saturday? The semantics argument is being made because you are questioning my use of the word "ban." Your characterizations are just as lame as the argument.

You can no more simply go to a gun dealer and buy an automatic weapon by filling out a registration form than you can go to Glaxo-Klein and order a gram of blow. You have to do the same thing that you had to do to obtain a semi-auto AR-15 or any other le 2 weapon during the 1994 'ban' which the full-auto weapons are still privy to which is to get approval of the ATF and local law enforcement. You cannot just go to the gun store on whim.

It unequivocally banned the manufacture of machine guns for future public consumption.

'Ban' was the word that they used over 15 years ago in order to move the 'assault weapons' to the le 2 list.

Now go ahead and get red assed some more because they used the word 'ban' in a way that you don't approve of 15 years ago.

Now you play the "u mad" card.

Let's go over your approach here:

1. You make a false statement about purchasing fully automatic weapons.
2. I show you where they can be purchased
3. You play the semantics card as if the term "ban" is the thrust of my objection
4. You make a bad analogy (cocaine)
5. You throw out a red herring (the ban term again)
6. You play the "u mad" card.

Any questions?


Ok then. They did not ban the sale or transfer of fully automatic weapons. In fact they did just the opposite. They allowed the sale or transfer of these weapons and it's been as it's been since the NFA was enacted with the caveat of registered sears.

[DMC]

Semantics

I was accurately answering the question "can it be banned".

[DMC]

Well you are certainly butthurt. Having a bad Saturday? The semantics argument is being made because you are questioning my use of the word "ban." Your characterizations are just as lame as the argument.

You can no more simply go to a gun dealer and buy an automatic weapon by filling out a registration form than you can go to Glaxo-Klein and order a gram of blow. You have to do the same thing that you had to do to obtain a semi-auto AR-15 or any other le 2 weapon during the 1994 'ban' which the full-auto weapons are still privy to which is to get approval of the ATF and local law enforcement. You cannot just go to the gun store on whim.

It unequivocally banned the manufacture of machine guns for future public consumption.

'Ban' was the word that they used over 15 years ago in order to move the 'assault weapons' to the le 2 list.

Now go ahead and get red assed some more because they used the word 'ban' in a way that you don't approve of 15 years ago.

It's not because they are banned. Suppressors undergo the same checks and approvals. They are not banned for manufacture. It's because they are NFA weapons, not because of the 1986 ban, which was a ban on manufacturing automatic rifles for sale to the public and requiring existing autos to have their sears registered in order to be legally retained. A ban on manufacture exists on other items that the military and police use that cannot be sold to the public, and that includes some radios, night vision and other technologies. There are some of these things available to purchase by the public because some were grandfathered in. It's not a ban on the technology, it's a ban on the use of the manufactured good. Therein lies the difference and it's an important one, yet you and Cuck seem to ignore it.

It's considered a defense to prosecution that you are in compliance with the NFA laws if you are in possession of an NFA weapon. The 1986 ban has nothing to do with it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

ing idiot.

It's evident you have no idea what you're talking about. You just like to talk. This "semantics" defense is typical for those who have a superficial understanding of things they want to run their faces about.

lol keep going with the song and dance routine.

How many ing times do I need to say that?

Goddamn you're an idiot and your mega-ego won't allow you to walk away from it.

Hey dumbass, you said:

lol nuance. You're just an idiot. There's no nuance to that.

I 'pulled the "u mad" card because as these snippets demonstrate: you are very butthurt. For that I laugh at you especially considering it is another of your cliche semantic arguments.

The cocaine example is not a bad one. You just throw out a ty argument and assume it sticks. Just because a medical reason is one of the reasons why you can obtain a thing does not mean that it invalidates it being banned. That there are other reasons and other approvals to obtain said thing just furthers the point.

The assault weapon ban expired in 2004. That is why you can buy your AR-15 now. Try and use some critical thinking especially in light of much of an expert in regards to gun law you claim. Had that ban been in existence then you would have to gone through the same thing that you need to do now with full-autos.