Gun Control & RKBA

ellisonz

(27,776 posts)

34. Hypothetically.

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:34 PM

Dec 2011

I think you'd be just as likely to shoot your own family as you would be to hit the criminals. I thought you were all supposed to be expertly trained? Do you really need to go all Robert De Niro in Heat on them? Did you think the shooting in Tucson last year was funny? He had two 30 round extended pistol clips.

"I'm fine with anyone with a clean record having a rifle or handgun with 30 rounds for self-defense and you should be too."

I think you should do some reading on the history of the Thompson sub-machine gun, and how about the BAR while you're at it.

Besides, the Supreme Court in Heller is clearly indicating toward such limitations:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

The Supreme Court ruling that is being held up as such fine rule-making on the "individual right" is not fine with your analysis on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." If 5 sitting Republican Supreme Court Justices think you're wrong, and the other 4 agree even more vehemently. Then clearly you might as well be on the wrong side of Nixon vs. US because you're not going to win that argument in a Court of Law silly.

Have a good Christmas.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

197 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Florida: Man shot dead at Edison Mall [View all] ellisonz Dec 2011 OP

I was there last night to pick my mother up from last minute Christmas shopping. William769 Dec 2011 #1

"High-powered rifles" have been in private hands since about 1885. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #2

No gun ban can ever keep guns from criminals Deejai Dec 2011 #3

This is what the "Anti's" do not understand! Criminals will always have guns. Logical Dec 2011 #7

If that is true, then why do Japan, Australia, and Europe... ellisonz Dec 2011 #12

They had virtually the same gun homicide rate *before* substantive gun control X_Digger Dec 2011 #15

So Americans are just more violent? ellisonz Dec 2011 #17

no just less suicidal gejohnston Dec 2011 #19

"...Japanese reporting - but imagine it'd still be much lower than ours." And you'd be wrong. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #23

Most of them not using guns... ellisonz Dec 2011 #25

no kidding gejohnston Dec 2011 #26

I, personally, have never made such a "lump" ellisonz Dec 2011 #30

you would be the exception gejohnston Dec 2011 #31

Do we even what to talk about what your "allies' believe? ellisonz Dec 2011 #35

I think we are reality based gejohnston Dec 2011 #39

... ellisonz Dec 2011 #46

so Obama agrees with us gejohnston Dec 2011 #48

"I think the definition should be left to people who actually know what they are talking about" ellisonz Dec 2011 #59

this one is actually dishonest gejohnston Dec 2011 #77

Well, there goes your "militia clause" argument! LOL. nt SteveW Dec 2011 #162

Your allies, from your own lips... beevul Dec 2011 #176

OMG...I support the Brady Campaign. ellisonz Dec 2011 #177

No, really? beevul Dec 2011 #181

... ellisonz Dec 2011 #187

Apparently so. Our *non* gun homicide rate strips most european countries *total* homicide rates. nt X_Digger Dec 2011 #32

That comic makes no sense Pacafishmate Dec 2011 #53

"If you wanted to kill someone and didn't have access to a gun, you'd just use a common object" ellisonz Dec 2011 #60

Glad you got the chance rl6214 Dec 2011 #91

Yeah, no NRA royalty check for that one. nt SteveW Dec 2011 #163

Actually, yes, we are more violent. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #56

I don't understand harping the European angle. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #79

"There is no doubt that fewer firearms in circulation will mean fewer deaths." ellisonz Dec 2011 #120

limits on the numbers of guns you can own. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #134

"I'll live with the higher crime rate so that I can enjoy the right to own firearms as I will." ellisonz Dec 2011 #139

I would feel the same way if the situation were reversed. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #153

Preztel logic. ellisonz Dec 2011 #155

I do not understand your post. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #156

The statements don't merit a direct answer. ellisonz Dec 2011 #157

Then why bother posting at all? Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #160

What you quote there... beevul Dec 2011 #178

Yeah... ellisonz Dec 2011 #179

Do you really think nobody can see what you're doing?" beevul Dec 2011 #180

Your *concern* for my doings is noted... ellisonz Dec 2011 #185

Intentional misrepresentation or lack of reading comprehension? X_Digger Dec 2011 #186

That's not the argument. ellisonz Dec 2011 #188

'general public safety', yes. X_Digger Dec 2011 #189

So I guess when the Constitution says "the people" they don't mean individuals... ellisonz Dec 2011 #191

You're not making sense now.. nobody said 'the people' in any of the previous replies.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #193

You missed the sarcasm... ellisonz Dec 2011 #195

When you misrepresent the words of other posters , thats what you get hereabouts, concerned people. beevul Dec 2011 #190

So basically you're conceeding that in actuality... ellisonz Dec 2011 #192

Only under the gun control reality distortion field... beevul Dec 2011 #194

Now, that one should get an NRA royalty check! SteveW Dec 2011 #164

in Europe gejohnston Dec 2011 #18

"the guns flow with the drugs." ellisonz Dec 2011 #22

your side is the one gejohnston Dec 2011 #28

Do you think the Russians kill more by other means? nt SteveW Dec 2011 #159

So many questions.... aikoaiko Dec 2011 #4

What would one need a 30 round magazine for realistically that's a legitimate use? ellisonz Dec 2011 #14

Unless one prefers that criminals be forced to reload, banning them is rather pointless. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #20

Being forced to reload stopped Jared Lee Loughner... ellisonz Dec 2011 #24

He wasn't reloading. His gun jammed. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #38

Big difference... ellisonz Dec 2011 #47

what are the odds gejohnston Dec 2011 #49

Reporters are routinely ignorant about guns. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #62

The reports aren't quite clear... ellisonz Dec 2011 #68

Your're wrong. The hi-cap mag caused the jam. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #69

The question is more did he clear the jam and load another magazine. ellisonz Dec 2011 #87

No. The slide was locked back. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #126

...another NRA royalty check... SteveW Dec 2011 #165

Sheer sophistry. ellisonz Dec 2011 #82

cool idea, I'll have to market those in more bike friendly places gejohnston Dec 2011 #97

...maybe an NRA royalty check, but... SteveW Dec 2011 #166

Answer me this: What do you think is an adequate mag capacity to repeal a dangerous person? aikoaiko Dec 2011 #27

No more than 12... ellisonz Dec 2011 #29

What if there were two or three dangerous intruders in your house? aikoaiko Dec 2011 #33

Hypothetically. ellisonz Dec 2011 #34

I see you don't like your own math. You are fine with 12 rounds for a single intruder, aikoaiko Dec 2011 #36

"They've got nothing to show for their efforts for the last ten years." ellisonz Dec 2011 #61

The facts do not bear out the conclusion you assert. beevul Dec 2011 #72

Dubya said he would sign the AWB... Straw Man Dec 2011 #78

He also said he wouldn't engage in "nation building." ellisonz Dec 2011 #84

What don't you understand about congress never even voted on it? rl6214 Dec 2011 #96

He didn't -- he engaged in "nation wrecking." Straw Man Dec 2011 #111

It wasn't GWB that did much for the RKBA. It was individual states and the SCOTUS who did the most. aikoaiko Dec 2011 #81

GWB said he would sign the AWB if it got to his desk rl6214 Dec 2011 #94

You take GWB at his word? ellisonz Dec 2011 #95

His opinion didn't mean shit.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #106

It really is a non issue because the party in control rl6214 Dec 2011 #197

That's quite a reply. X_Digger Dec 2011 #37

Indicative statistics... ellisonz Dec 2011 #44

the real question is gejohnston Dec 2011 #50

That's not at all the suggestion you made.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #51

Well riddle me this then... ellisonz Dec 2011 #52

Answers inline.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #54

"And the toothpaste is out of the tube for the guns & magazines previously covered by the so-called" ellisonz Dec 2011 #57

Flamethrowers are not illegal. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #64

You're right... ellisonz Dec 2011 #66

Grenade launchers are legal too. It is the grenades that are controlled. N/T GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #70

Strike two. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #173

"in common use for lawful purposes" -- both Heller and Miller X_Digger Dec 2011 #73

I'd rather have my ignorance showing... ellisonz Dec 2011 #86

'militarism'?!? Weak sauce. X_Digger Dec 2011 #93

Look who benefits... ellisonz Dec 2011 #98

Militarism, though? I think you lost the train of your thought. X_Digger Dec 2011 #105

Armed Civilians are now "overgrown military establishments"? PavePusher Dec 2011 #112

And you talk about snark? rl6214 Dec 2011 #100

My snark isn't malicious. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #102

You have succeeded DissedByBush Dec 2011 #184

Very interesting link you used there. burf Dec 2011 #118

"How does the dissenting opinion have any bearing?" ellisonz Dec 2011 #119

Mind answering the question? n/t burf Dec 2011 #125

I did answer, you just don't like my reply. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #137

No, you did not. burf Dec 2011 #144

That's your opinion. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #149

even before the NFA gejohnston Dec 2011 #55

"That is why my ideology is like my religion, undefined." ellisonz Dec 2011 #58

Wiki has an error in that article. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #65

Huh? PavePusher Dec 2011 #74

Not precisely. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #127

unusual weapons gejohnston Dec 2011 #40

And Empirically, you are wrong. n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #41

No, I'm not just as likely to shoot my own family. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #63

Ok. ellisonz Dec 2011 #67

The U.S. does not have a Department of Needs. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #71

But it does have a Constitution... ellisonz Dec 2011 #83

That was the point sailing over your head.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #107

Even the Republicans on the Supreme Court disagree with you on this point... ellisonz Dec 2011 #123

No dear, that's a fundamental principle of our government. Duh. X_Digger Dec 2011 #132

Rubbish, Sophistry, and more Rubbish. ellisonz Dec 2011 #138

So no substantive reply? X_Digger Dec 2011 #141

You didn't merit a substantitive reply. ellisonz Dec 2011 #142

You seem to have lost the thread of conversation.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #145

Wrong. ellisonz Dec 2011 #147

Riiiiight.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #148

Is that really correct on how Loughner went down? krispos42 Dec 2011 #117

I admit that there is a lot of confusion on the issue. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #128

Hmmm... krispos42 Dec 2011 #135

I don't know.... PavePusher Dec 2011 #76

I scored 249 out of 250 when I took my Texas CHL class. rl6214 Dec 2011 #101

So you like THAT part of Fat Tony's ruling, eh?... SteveW Dec 2011 #167

When the right-wing Roberts Court thinks you're nuts... ellisonz Dec 2011 #174

So you DID quote Scalia in the Heller decision... SteveW Dec 2011 #175

Cho fired 170 rounds from his pistol, reloading 17 times with 10 round mags rl6214 Dec 2011 #92

You say Cho...I say Loughner. ellisonz Dec 2011 #99

Loughner's gun wouldn't likely have jammed with a 10 round mag. n/t X_Digger Dec 2011 #108

So if these magazines are so unreliable... ellisonz Dec 2011 #122

Some people are stupid. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #129

Mostly for range use. X_Digger Dec 2011 #131

A better question would be, why does only one special weapons element of a single miltiary AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #172

Dodge. n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #113

Ah, check-mate again. nt SteveW Dec 2011 #168

Civilians own them for the same reason the military owns them. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #80

The need isn't likely to arise any time soon. ellisonz Dec 2011 #89

The military starts you with a full auto M-16a1 or a2. n/t oneshooter Dec 2011 #103

that was true during gejohnston Dec 2011 #104

I think you need to do more research.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #109

So you're telling me you can walk around town with a flamethrower? ellisonz Dec 2011 #121

the question was NFA gejohnston Dec 2011 #124

They're agricultural implements, regulated by burn codes. Not the NFA or firearms law. X_Digger Dec 2011 #130

Absolutely. I've seen them at gun shows. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #133

You know what the A2 and A4 variants of the M-16 are, don't you? AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #171

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #114

"militia... trained up to military standard quickly?" That means full-auto, right? nt SteveW Dec 2011 #170

Speaking from my experience as a USMC veteran... Marengo Dec 2011 #196

Cho at VT had no use for 30-round mags. He used easily-concealed short mags. SteveW Dec 2011 #161

No, the percentage of rifles used in homicides hasn't changed appreciably. X_Digger Dec 2011 #5

Obviously the defunct federal "AWB" does not make any difference slackmaster Dec 2011 #6

People need to have more respect for their 2A rights. ileus Dec 2011 #8

I'll bet $10 it was neither an "assault rifle", nor "high powered". n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #9

Never mind the fact that the two phrases are mutually exclusive. ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #10

Shhhh! This is my action, damnit! 8>P PavePusher Dec 2011 #11

And in other news... Glassunion Dec 2011 #13

"But the 20-year-old victim...was expected to recover from his injuries" ellisonz Dec 2011 #16

Perhaps. Crooks aren't known for their combat shooting skills. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #21

Getting shot has a mortality rate of, IIRC, less than 20%. PavePusher Dec 2011 #42

Are you the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail reincarnated? Fair Witness Dec 2011 #43

And everytime I read posts such as the ones that profligate around here I think of... ellisonz Dec 2011 #45

Carlin predicts something that had already occured? PavePusher Dec 2011 #75

Color you...reading comprehension impaired. ellisonz Dec 2011 #85

Color you (and Carlin) uninformed.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #110

No, anyone with a reasonable knowledge of history and the ability to spell "Google".... PavePusher Dec 2011 #115

Profligate doesn't mean what you think it means. Perhaps you intended "propagate"? Fair Witness Dec 2011 #136

It's an acceptable use. ellisonz Dec 2011 #140

An adjective is an acceptable use as a verb? Fair Witness Dec 2011 #143

insert "are" and it's even more of a plainly acceptable use. ellisonz Dec 2011 #146

Insert "are" and it's no longer a verb. Straw Man Dec 2011 #150

Well... ellisonz Dec 2011 #151

"Eat my shorts"????? jebusfukinchrist, are you like 12? Fair Witness Dec 2011 #152

I'm a Simpsons fan. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #154

It's pretty funny you posted the definition of the word AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #169

That's fine. Straw Man Dec 2011 #183

This message was self-deleted by its author rl6214 Dec 2011 #88

Answers rl6214 Dec 2011 #90

No. krispos42 Dec 2011 #116

A: Not likely, Fact not in evidence, NA, who knows? nt SteveW Dec 2011 #158

By definition, assault rifles are not high-powered DissedByBush Dec 2011 #182