General Discussion

Hermit-The-Prog

(36,631 posts)

35. nice strawman

Sat Mar 30, 2019, 03:36 PM

Mar 2019

Regulation is not taking away your gun. Pushing the argument to the other extreme, no one should object to me having my own private stash of ICBMs, each with a MIRV (multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicle). Between the ridiculous extremes -- taking away our guns vs anything anyone can buy, build, or steal -- is reasonable regulation.

Once upon a time, you could buy "tommy" guns (Thompson submachine guns) by mail order. Regulations ended that around the time of Bonnie and Clyde. Cities and states have long regulated firearm possession. The Supreme Court ignored a couple of centuries of precedent in deciding Heller.

Civilians do not have a need for military weaponry. Those who desire to possess military weaponry should be able to do so under "well-regulated" control -- either in the national military or a state militia.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge blocks California's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds [View all] Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Mar 2019 OP

California. Ignore the ruling and enforce the law anyway. roamer65 Mar 2019 #1

Great idea! BigmanPigman Mar 2019 #3

Dumb idea. No they can't. former9thward Mar 2019 #16

Why even suggest such an idea. Come on! Joe941 Mar 2019 #28

Can red states ignore judges and enforce their anti-abortion laws? hack89 Mar 2019 #4

They already are through intimidation of women and abortion clinics. roamer65 Mar 2019 #5

So only ignore the rulings that you disagree with? Polybius Mar 2019 #12

While the wording of the ruling isn't inconsequential... Socal31 Mar 2019 #2

I took a cursory look at the ruling DetroitLegalBeagle Mar 2019 #11

En Banc prediction? Socal31 Mar 2019 #14

Yep DetroitLegalBeagle Mar 2019 #17

It sounds like we also agree on the likely outcome. Socal31 Mar 2019 #18

More than ten rounds are needed to defend against WHAT exactly? DFW Mar 2019 #6

Really gratuitous Mar 2019 #7

Better question malaise Mar 2019 #8

Could well be DFW Mar 2019 #9

It's an arbitrary number krispos42 Mar 2019 #13

Handguns MFM008 Mar 2019 #27

Compared to shoulder-fired guns. krispos42 Mar 2019 #34

An incel defending himself against a sorority? n/t Crunchy Frog Mar 2019 #25

The ruling cites several specific home invasions where it was possibly significant Amishman Mar 2019 #33

he says this "imposes a burden" Takket Mar 2019 #10

Are you suggesting that 10 is an arbitrary number? hack89 Mar 2019 #15

No. Takket Mar 2019 #19

So why did they pick 10? hack89 Mar 2019 #29

The ruling certainly doesn't rely on the home invasion example. Socal31 Mar 2019 #20

Just tax each round of ammo. LiberalFighter Mar 2019 #21

There are already severe restrictions on the sale of ammo in California ansible Mar 2019 #22

.. roamer65 Mar 2019 #24

There is already a federal excise tax on ammo. hack89 Mar 2019 #30

Your honor, I'm struggling to live without a tank moondust Mar 2019 #23

Don't worry - both are legal if you have a shit ton of money. Nt hack89 Mar 2019 #31

"well-regulated militia" Hermit-The-Prog Mar 2019 #26

When was this golden age when they took away your gun if you were not in the militia? hack89 Mar 2019 #32

nice strawman Hermit-The-Prog Mar 2019 #35

There have always been gun regulations hack89 Mar 2019 #36

That judge is a fucking idiot. Goodheart Mar 2019 #37