DC Gun Ban Lifted

There are few wiggle words in the decision either. They clearly stated:

Quoting the syllabus: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

So the militia BS that the antis have been spewing is out the window. It just means I can join a militia if I want to, which I've maintained all along. "Traditional lawful purposes" means just that. Hunting, shooting, self defense, etc. There is no ambiguity.

0 Replies

However as it has been pointed out 2A does not cover issues like

1) The types of weaponry that are accpetabe: Should a citizen be able to own a chain gun?

2) The number of guns.

3) Waiting periods

ETC

I think it's okay to own a gun for self defense, or sport, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why someone should be able to purchase a SMG or an assault rifle.

T
K
O

0 Replies

And no ambiguity in the fact that DC can require Heller to have a license for his gun. They just can't ban them completely.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I think it's okay to own a gun for self defense, or sport, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why someone should be able to purchase a SMG or an assault rifle.

T
K
O

Because, like any other gun, you pull the trigger once and it goes BANG.

0 Replies

I wonder how strict the licensing requirements can be made.

In the immortal words of Anton Scalia, today's decision will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Why should I not be able to own an "evil black rifle" (EBR)?

The ones I can buy are nothing more than a semi-auto game rifle with a pistol grip and a funny color.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

I think it's okay to own a gun for self defense, or sport, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why someone should be able to purchase a SMG or an assault rifle.

T
K
O

Because, like any other gun, you pull the trigger once and it goes BANG.

That's not a reason to grant someone the right to have that kind of weaponry. Not all guns are equal. If you think so, then you are grossly uneducated.

BANG does not always equal BANG.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I wonder how strict the licensing requirements can be made.

In the immortal words of Anton Scalia, today's decision will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.

Cycloptichorn

Felons and mentally ill were specifically mentioned as prohibited from gaining a license by Scalia as acceptable to the Court.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I wonder how strict the licensing requirements can be made.

In the immortal words of Anton Scalia, today's decision will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.

Cycloptichorn

Felons and mentally ill were specifically mentioned as prohibited from gaining a license by Scalia as acceptable to the Court.

I don't think that was what Cyclo was talking about.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

However as it has been pointed out 2A does not cover issues like

1) The types of weaponry that are accpetabe: Should a citizen be able to own a chain gun?

2) The number of guns.

3) Waiting periods

ETC

These sorts of things will all likely be the subject of future cases. The court said very clearly they they didn't intend to address these issues in their ruling.

Quote:

I think it's okay to own a gun for self defense, or sport, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why someone should be able to purchase a SMG or an assault rifle.

Your (and my...) personal views aside, the future court cases will likely hinge on the wording stressed in today's ruling concerning "in common use". The court said nothing about machine guns and I doubt that any court could see them as "in common use" today.

The issue of "assault weapons" is somewhat more difficult because there is no standard that can applied to as what is and what isn't an assault weapon that doesn't extend into firearms that aren't considered assault weapons. That's been the problem with them all along... It is impossibly difficult to ban/outlaw something that can't be well defined.

http://www.keepshooting.com/productimages/firearms/rifles/ruger10_22carbinemid.jpg

http://www.themartialist.com/images/tac2207.jpg

Are both of these assault weapons? They're both Ruger 10/22 rifles. All of the mechanical parts that are the actual operating parts of the guns are identical and they fire the exact same ammo. The differences are entirely cosmetic.

0 Replies

One looks scary and the other - not so scary.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/LITEM21A5s.jpg

The rifles are identical and neither are even close to a true assault rifle

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

One looks scary and the other - not so scary.

The rifles are identical and neither are even close to a true assault rifle

In my gun safety courses with the ARMY-ROTC they clearly explained the definition of an assualt rifle.

A firearm with the ability to adjust the rate of fire.

Any percieved ambiguity about this is only the evidence of miseducation.

Kevin - Your pictures are pretty but I'm an engineer, I'm not so easily fooled. fishin brought up the notion of visual inspection and you mention what is "scary," but it's irrelevant.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Kevin - Your pictures are pretty but I'm an engineer,

Really, what railroad? Do you get to blow the horn?
Maybe I can take a pretty picture of you in your engineer hat...

Scary is a term often used by anti-gunners.
They hold up a rifle for the cameras that looks like an assault rifle in an effort
to scare the dumbmasses with it, and the press aided them in this effort.

BTW, your ROTC got it wrong.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

In my gun safety courses with the ARMY-ROTC they clearly explained the definition of an assualt rifle.

A firearm with the ability to adjust the rate of fire.

Any percieved ambiguity about this is only the evidence of miseducation.

Then you would have to agree that the former Federal Assault Weapons Ban and all of the current state level limitions that refer to assault weapons greatly exceed that definition.

Quote:

Kevin - Your pictures are pretty but I'm an engineer, I'm not so easily fooled. fishin brought up the notion of visual inspection and you mention what is "scary," but it's irrelevant.

Irrelevant to you using your definition perhaps, but not irrelevant to the rest of the population. The deciding factor of what is or isn't an assault weapon in law has pretty much always resided on the weapons visual appearance - not whether or not it is capable of selective rate of fire.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Kevin - Your pictures are pretty but I'm an engineer,

Really, what railroad? Do you get to blow the horn?
Maybe I can take a pretty picture of you in your engineer hat...

No problem Kevin. Can I have a photo of you in your dunce cap while we're at it?

H2O_MAN wrote:

Scary is a term often used by anti-gunners.
They hold up a rifle for the cameras that looks like an assault rifle in an effort
to scare the dumbmasses with it, and the press aided them in this effort.

Funny... No "anti-gunner" introduced the term in this dialogue.

H2O_MAN wrote:

BTW, your ROTC got it wrong.

I'm inclined to listen to the serviceman and continue to adhere to his definition. Though the class was ROTC, the teacher was not a sophomore with a BBgun, he was a serviceman with 20 years experience in the Army.

wikipedia wrote:

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle,the FAMAS and the Steyr AUG. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots, even though incorrectly classified in the United States as assault rifles by the now defunct 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.

color added.

Argue with me all you like, but it seems you need to check your facts Kevin.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

Kevin - Your pictures are pretty but I'm an engineer,

Really, what railroad? Do you get to blow the horn?
Maybe I can take a pretty picture of you in your engineer hat...

H2O_MAN wrote:

Scary is a term often used by anti-gunners.
They hold up a rifle for the cameras that looks like an assault rifle in an effort
to scare the dumbmasses with it, and the press aided them in this effort.

wikipedia wrote:
An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle,the FAMAS and the Steyr AUG. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots, even though incorrectly classified in the United States as assault rifles by the now defunct 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.

There is a huge difference between the Wikimation you cut-n-pasted and your personal definition quoted below.
The dunce cap is your to wear.

Quote:

A firearm with the ability to adjust the rate of fire.

Assault rifles are select fire LMGs and SMGs, neither are easily obtained by the general public.
There are many restrictions, the cost is huge and they are very expensive to feed - the price of ammo has gone up faster and higher than the price of gas.

0 Replies

TKO, our government doesn't read Wikipedia.

Show Feinstein or Boxer or Levin or Conyers an AR-15 and they'll tell you it's an assault rifle.

They've made up more dumb rules over the years about guns and hunting than you can shake salt at. Do you fish? Check the regulations for trout streams sometimes. It's beyond confusing, and lends itself to the DNR officer to ticket you even though you've followed the rules.

That kind of crap is what the antis and AR's use as tools in their battles. "Let's make it so f**king hard to catch a bluegill that nobody will want to".

What's really stupid is the complete WASTE of a renewable, sustainable resource by these assclowns. And the same thing is true of gun banners. They're trying to ban a tool when bad behaviour is the problem - quite often their own bad behaviour.

0 Replies

Nice retreat into semantics. There is not a difference. The categorization of assult rifle is clearly the ability to have a selective rate of fire; to be able to adjust it.

I'm content to let you continue making a fool out of yourself. I'm not going to get tired of being correct.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I have never heard that definition before. Not once.

Did you edit it into Wikipedia yourself?

0 Replies

DC Gun Ban Lifted

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know