0
   

The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

 
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2018 09:40 pm
@oralloy,
Oralloy

We have many people in US who want to join terrorist organization. Some have traveled overseas and joined but the most valuable to terrorist are those that stayed here and blend in. The terrorists already in America can do by far the most damage. It has become much harder for terrorist to get into the country. Once someone is found to be associated with a terrorist organization their names should remain on the list of those who can never purchase a gun. Mistakes can and will be made with similar names and for other reasons. Those mistakenly placed on list have the right to due process and if the information is wrong their gun rights will be restored.

I believe we are very near to mass shooting in America carried out by terrorist wannabees who are born in America. This shooting will involve several shooters with legally obtained assault weapons with a death toll in the 100s. The terrorist organization have had these attacks planned for years.

I would agree those who can prove the information used to put them on the list that can’t buy guns would have their right to buy a gun restored.
____________________________________________________
Those who have joined terrorist organizations sould never be able to purchase a gun.
___________________________________________________
I am not worried about innocent people it those that have decided that their mission in life is to avenge those killed in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries by the United States.
____________________________________________________
The United States is full of courts and you are free to sue the Federal government to be removed from the no-fly list.
__________________________________________________

Oralloy, when you delve in history of the NRA you find that what started out as a grass roots organization was taken over by the gun manufacturers. Over time the position taken by the NRA changed to coincide with the gun manufacturers positions. What was once was a social organization became the prime defender of assault weapons because of the money from the gun manufacturers. In 2013 the gun manufacturers gave the NRA $52.6 million through the Ring of Freedom sponsorship program and that is just one of many ways the gun manufacturers underwrite the NRA.

Sadly, the NRA only purpose is to push guns.
_____________________________________________________________________________________Oraloy, that is far being silly. Do you have any idea how many people killed by relatives to collect life insurance? One dentist in Texas poisoned his kids Halloween candy. These people are murdered for a $100,000 or so. The assault weapons businesses brings in 100s of million each year. Each time there is a school shooting the gun manufacturers make millions. Once the shooting takes place and the possibility of assault weapon ban takes hold sales of assault weapons go through the roof. If people would kill for a $100,000 it is foolish to believe that they would not kill for a S100 million. Assault weapon were in a slump before the FL shooting. The NRA loves school shootings.
____________________________________________________
Yeah, there is something wrong with that 17-dead people.
____________________________________________________
If you are in a car accident and the proximate cause of your death was the car you can sue and you will win. In 1973 Ford built a compact called the Pinto. If the car was rear ended it burst into flames and those inside burnt to death. Ford knew what the problem was but decided they would not fix problem but pay for the deaths.

The assault weapon like the Pinto is directly responsible for the deaths in school shootings, no AR-15 no deaths in school shootings. One way to solve a problem is to sue it out existence.
___________________________________________________
No that is wrong what the court decision ruled that limits can be placed on guns. Just sit back and watch. If I tap your phone it isn’t like mass murdering thousands of people. The court can always make the evidence obtained by an illegal wire tad inadmissible in a court of law but the court can’t bring the dead students back to life. Apples v oranges argument. You don’t really believe that all wire taps are legal, do you? As long as you don't need to use the information from a wiretap there is no problem. Trump tries his best to censor everything by bulling everyone he can.
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Wed 28 Feb, 2018 09:49 pm
Dick’s Sporting Goods announced that they will stop selling semi-automatics and large capacity clips. Wal Mart had previously stop selling assault weapons and this leaves only one major retailer, Bass Pro-shop still selling death in America. The NRA has been outed for who they really are and we now know the NRA has only 5 million members out of 330 million Americans. The NRA is controlled by the gun manufacturers and the Gun manufacturers used the NRA to gain political control of the legislative, executive and a good deal of the judicial branch. They believed they had an absolute stranglehold on our government. As the bodies of school children piled up the gun manufacturers believed we had no choice other than just bury the dead and wait for the next mass murder. After the gun manufacturers got control of the NRA they fought any and all efforts to make even tiny changes to gun laws. In a word they had become a de facto dictator. Like Charles Manson, they gave orders to their minions in Congress and Congress did their bidding. The government is supposed to regulate the gun manufacturer not the gun manufacturers regulate the government. The Gun Manufacturers believed that they were King Kong but they need an attitude adjustment. They only have 5 million members and 5 million might be a majority in New York City but not America.

Politicians proudly flaunt their NRA endorsement even the rating the NRA gives them. NRA voters tend to be one issue voters and I am sure all the professional shooters vote NRA. The public need to frame it as a single issue also and anyone who has a NRA endorsement would be listed as pro school shooting and people could decide if they wanted to vote for a pro school shooting candidate or the NRA candidate. The candidate could get all of the NRA members and still lose in a landslide. Make the next election a one issue election and the politicians that have been taking the gun manufacturers’ blood money will likely have fluid of a different color running down their leg. The gun manufacturers’ stooges in Congress are still trying to block an assault weapon ban. This is an election year and all 435 members of the House of Representatives are up for election they should be watched very closely. The voters will have their say in November and could send a resounding message that would change America forever.

The Trump solution to for too many guns on the street is of course something that will make the gun manufacturers much richer even more guns. To arm school teachers which means the gun Manufacturers would sell a ½ million more guns. A pistol is useless against an AR-15 all it would do is get the teachers killed. In Charleston the police department had a very difficult time chasing down a suspect. When they caught him, they surrounded him which formed a circular firing squad. The suspect was fine I wish I could say the same for the policeman. Teachers would be far worse and most likely would end of shooting students. One policeman who worked at a local school said if they armed teachers he would run screaming from the building.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2018 10:11 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
The most important part of the Heller decision is clearly that government does have the right to decide what guns will be legal.

Only if someone can justify a restriction with a good reason.


Zardoz wrote:
The question before the court was specifically about hand guns, gun locks and registration of guns in Washington DC.

Handguns like the Glock 17, a modern weapon of war.


Zardoz wrote:
Hand guns are not used by professional school shooters they want the AR-15 style assault weapons who literally tear the bodies of school children apart and deliver over 100 rounds a minute into large crowds.

Wrong. School shooters use handguns FAR more than they use AR-15s.


Zardoz wrote:
The Heller decision makes it absolutely clear we the people can make those murderous weapons illegal,

Putting a pistol grip on a rifle hardly makes it murderous.

You are only allowed to restrict a right if you can produce a good reason for the restriction.


Zardoz wrote:
it is not we the NRA or we the gun manufacturers that will decide.

The NRA has a strong say over what Congress passes. They will not let you pass a ban on pistol grips.

And the courts will strike it down if it did pass. No good reason for banning pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
The Heller decision states: “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 for any purpose and for whatever purpose.”

Yes. Like all rights, restrictions are allowed if there is a good reason for a restriction.

No good reason for a ban on pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
Heller does not confirm the right to modern weapons.

Yes it does. The case was all about modern weapons of war like the Glock 17


Zardoz wrote:
It confirms the right of government to regulate what weapons will be on the streets of America

Only if the government can produce a good reason for a ban.

No good reason for a ban on pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
The AR-15 and other assault weapons are the most dangerous and deadly weapons on the face of the earth.

More dangerous than a barrage of thermonuclear warheads?


Zardoz wrote:
They are the choice of all the armies of the world

That is incorrect. They want guns with full-auto or burst-fire.


Zardoz wrote:
like I said the most dangerous gun on earth.

No. Machine guns are much more dangerous.


Zardoz wrote:
I am feel sorry for you. You must have a terrible weight on your soul for every person that was slaughtered with a gun in the last ten years since that decision.

Don't be silly. It was great being a small part of the greatest civil right decision in American history.


Zardoz wrote:
We would still be paying the tea tax England if we were subject their laws.

I didn't say we were subject to their laws. I said that we kept using English Common Law (which we did), and that we incorporated all of the rights of English Common Law into the Constitution (which we also did).


Zardoz wrote:
Certainly, we can draw inspiration from laws of any country but that is all an inspiration. If we decide to use the concept as inspiration for a law than it becomes law but it certainly does not ascend to the level of a “right.”

That is incorrect. The Founding Fathers incorporated all the rights from English Common Law into the Constitution.


Zardoz wrote:
What of the divine right of kings? What of the tax on tea. What of all the other taxes paid to crown and king?

Not a part of English Common Law that I know of.

Certainly not part of the rights of English Common Law.


Zardoz wrote:
You certainly can’t pick and chose among English statute and say we are bound by this English statute but not by that English statute.

I'm not talking about statutes at all.


Zardoz wrote:
To be able to derive a right from English law you would have to take all of the English laws.

Nonsense.


Zardoz wrote:
I know that some court made a practice of this.

You mean the US Supreme Court?


Zardoz wrote:
We made are own bill of right.

We made our Bill of Rights incorporate all rights from English Common Law.


Zardoz wrote:
If some English laws apply than England gun laws must also apply and they are far stricter than anything America has ever seen.

The Founding Fathers did not include any English Statutes in the Constitution. Only English Common Law was included in our new legal system.


Zardoz wrote:
There very strict gun laws are in fact derived from the cases you cite.

No they aren't.


Zardoz wrote:
If we adopt the strict English laws will that make you happy as you think we are bound ancient ones?

That would violate the Second Amendment.


Zardoz wrote:
Law is alive

You're free to try to repeal the Second Amendment if you want to ban pistol grips.

The NRA will stop you of course.


Zardoz wrote:
it changes if the English are in fact bound to those laws and got a far different result and it saves the lives 50,000 people a year.

Bans on pistol grips do not save any lives.


Zardoz wrote:
The test under law is what a reasonable man would all rights are not without limits.

That is incorrect. The test is can a restriction on a right be justified with a good reason.

No good reason to ban pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
Assaults weapons are unreasonable trespass of the right of others.

That is incorrect. Adding pistol grips to a rifle does not harm anyone.


Zardoz wrote:
Any army in world would love to have the assault weapons that have flooded the streets of America.

That is incorrect. They prefer full-auto and burst-fire weapons.


Zardoz wrote:
The pistol grip has nothing to do with next assault weapon ban.

That is incorrect. Banning pistol grips is the entire point of such laws.


Zardoz wrote:
Law changes for a good reason.

You're free to try to repeal the Second Amendment if you want to ban pistol grips.

The NRA will stop you of course.


Zardoz wrote:
Can you imagine living under laws written by people with a first or second education from 200 years ago?

The idea that civil rights belong in the past is Orwellian to say the least.


Zardoz wrote:
English gun laws are based on the same cases you want to use to justify our lack of gun regulations.

No they aren't.


Zardoz wrote:
I don’t think there is one instance where the Founding Fathers said that English law was hereby adopted by the constitution.

The Bill of Rights lists many English Common Law rights by name. The Ninth Amendment covers all Common Law rights not covered by the other Amendments.


Zardoz wrote:
After fighting a long and bloody war with England I doubt any of the Founding Fathers would adopt English law.

The Founding Fathers were quite fond of their rights from English Common Law. They even created a document called the Bill of Rights to protect those rights.


Zardoz wrote:
There were laws already in practice that would have continued to be used. You are right the US Constitution would replace English and grant any rights.

The US Constitution includes all rights from English Common Law.


Zardoz wrote:
Do you believe for a minute that the same people who are sending $100s of millions to get progun politicians elected did not take the ban to court? It won’t work any better then it did before.

The Courts were not enforcing the Second Amendment back then. They will be enforcing it in the future.


Zardoz wrote:
After all, if the English cases you cite rule you may not have any guns at all.

The cases I cite say that we have weapons suitable for self defense, and the right to carry them while out traveling.


Zardoz wrote:
Those are the exact quotes from the Heller decision there is nothing about a compelling interest.

The rules about compelling interest are longstanding rules that apply to every single Constitutional right.


Zardoz wrote:
In America we kill enough people to stretch around the globe that is far more than a compelling reason.

That is incorrect. Pistol grips are not the cause of a single death.


Zardoz wrote:
The flu kills 50,000 people each year and it is a leading story on the nightly news each night but the fact that guns kill 50,000 has been ignored for too long.

None of those deaths was caused because a rifle had a pistol grip on it.


Zardoz wrote:
If the NRA was progun control they won because clearly establish the right of government to decide which guns are allowed on the street.

Only if the restriction can be justified with a good reason.

No good reason to ban pistol grips on rifles.


Zardoz wrote:
The Heller case was the NRA’s Waterloo.

Hardly.


Zardoz wrote:
If an assault weapon ban was illegal the 1994 assault weapon ban would have been overturned it wasn’t.

The courts weren't enforcing the Second Amendment back then.

They will be enforcing the Second Amendment in the future.


Zardoz wrote:
pistol grips had nothing to do with the assault weapon ban.

Wrong. Assault weapons bans are all about pistol grips and other features that there is no reason for banning.


Zardoz wrote:
Civil Rights are specific and none grant the right to a gun.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects our right to have guns suitable for self defense.


Zardoz wrote:
If a 270 Winchester does more damage why do professional school shooters always use AR-15 or similar assault weapons?

They don't. They prefer handguns.


Zardoz wrote:
THE 270 is a bolt action single shot.

Not if it is fired from a semi-auto rifle it isn't.


Zardoz wrote:
There other model numbers which are semi-automatic and others that are fully automatic.

I've never heard of a full-auto chambered in .270 Winchester.


Zardoz wrote:
Damage comes from more than the barrel velocity

In part. Larger bullets are also a factor in greater damage. Thus the massive damage caused by the .270 Winchester.


Zardoz wrote:
it how many rounds that can be fired per minute.

No. That does not change the amount of damage done by a bullet.


Zardoz wrote:
If the 270 does so much damage why was it not chosen by armies around the world? Because it does not inflict the most.

No. Because of recoil.

A round from a .270 Winchester vastly exceeds the damage caused by the rounds typically fired from an AR-15.


Zardoz wrote:
We have yet to see a mass murder at a school done with a 270 Winchester and you must admit school shooters know their guns.

They don't tend to that I've seen.

Why did the Newtown shooter keep changing magazines when they were still mostly full?


Zardoz wrote:
Laws against murder have no meaning to a school shooter they want to die so no law will ever stop them. The best we can ever hope to do is to keep the weapons of war out of their hands.

You're out of luck then. The Supreme Court confirms our right to have modern weapons of war like the Glock 17.


Zardoz wrote:
There is one way and one way only to stop the shootings take the weapons of mass destruction away.

There has never been private ownership of nuclear weapons.


Zardoz wrote:
The FL shooting is called the 2nd St Valentines massacre and of course the 1st St Valentines Massacre took place Feb 14, 1929 and it provided the motivation to get rid of the Thompson submachine gun.

Except we didn't get rid of it.


Zardoz wrote:
Didn’t the Thompson have a pistol grip? How many of those can you find in your corner store.

The restrictions on Tommyguns have nothing to do with the pistol grips on the gun.

Assault weapons bans are entirely about pistol grips and other features that there is no reason to ban.


Zardoz wrote:
Come on a grenade launchers, do you really think school shooters should have a grenade launcher?

It wouldn't do them any good. More to the point though, you can't point out any reason for banning them.


Zardoz wrote:
Of course, the varmints that are killed by AR-15 these days are school children.

That is incorrect. Varmints are things like gophers.


Zardoz wrote:
The Heller decision means that we the people will decide what type of weapons are legal.

Only if you can justify a restriction with a good reason.

No good reason for a ban on pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
Clubs were weapons of war at one time also you can have one them. Swords were used for wars also you can have one of them.

So I guess your comments about not being allowed weapons of war were nonsense.


Zardoz wrote:
Conservatives are always big on state rights until people actually wants state rights to ban AR-15 and then the Conservatives want federal protection for gun rights.

The Constitution only allows restrictions that can be justified with a good reason.

No good reason for banning pistol grips on a rifle.


Zardoz wrote:
Fifty thousand deaths a year is a pretty good reason.

Pistol grips do not cause a single death.


Zardoz wrote:
Oralloy, you may like living in battlefield but more and more Americans have decided they no longer want to and that is why America is ruled by the majority.

Pistol grips do not make the country a battlefield.

And the majority is not allowed to violate civil rights.


Zardoz wrote:
They do all have a common feature they are used to wage wars.

That is incorrect. Wars are waged with full-auto or burst-fire weapons.


Zardoz wrote:
Where do you think the $130 million dollars spent on the 2016 came from? I have article for you to read that shows how the Gun Manufacturers fund the NRA: “How the Gun Manufacturers Funnel Tens of Millions of Dollars to the NRA.” Sorry but you are very wrong.

I'm not wrong.


Zardoz wrote:
The NRA would not know a civil right if it ran over them in the parking lot.

The NRA is the nation's primary defenders of civil rights. That's why you are complaining that they won't let you violate our rights.


Zardoz wrote:
The NRA once was a grass roots organization but once it was taken over by gun manufacturers the agenda was changed and new mission was to sell death to America.

The NRA has never been taken over by gun manufacturers, and is still a civil rights organization.

Not letting you ban pistol grips for no reason does not cause any deaths.


Zardoz wrote:
A pistol grip alone was not enough for a ban of any weapon.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that banning a combination of features that there is no reason to ban is equally as unjustified, you refer to this requirement for two features as a loophole and call on the supposed loophole to be closed by banning pistol grips alone.


Zardoz wrote:
Federal law supersedes state law and both Federal and state law supersede local laws. It does not matter in anyway what state law says if it is in conflict with Federal law. The Laws against machine guns and howitzer are Federal.

Wrong. There are no federal laws against machine guns and howitzers.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips don’t kill school children

That's why the courts will strike down your ban on pistol grips in the unlikely event that you ever get it past the NRA.


Zardoz wrote:
AR-15s do.

Not any more than the same gun without a pistol grip.


Zardoz wrote:
The overthrow the government has been the primary justification used for guns in this country.

Nonsense.


Zardoz wrote:
My money would be on the biggest army in the world not any movement of farmers.

You might want to look into the history of guerrilla warfare.


Zardoz wrote:
That argument is absurd, the bill of rights does not restrict the government it grants a right

The rights were not granted. They already existed.

And that's exactly what rights do. They restrict the government from doing things.


Zardoz wrote:
the government must put limits on those rights.

It is only allowed to do so if there is a good reason for the limits.

Not a good reason for bans on pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
Fifty thousand people killed a year by guns is a good reason.

Pistol grips are not the cause of any deaths.


Zardoz wrote:
While you are firing a 100 rounds a minute toward a crowd you just point in the direction and pull the trigger as quickly as possible. You don’t need to aim.

Yes you do.


Zardoz wrote:
You can listen to the gun fire in Las Vegas and in the FL school slaughter and Las Vegas is faster but I believe someone who practiced pulling the trigger could exceed the bump stock speed.

There is no chance that semi-auto will ever exceed full auto.


Zardoz wrote:
Every hunter that I have ever seen questioned said the AR-15s were no good for hunting they said they are strictly shi** and giggles guns.

Then you haven't seen many hunters questioned.


Zardoz wrote:
A policeman has never been involved in school shooting. Police were allowed to keep the Thompsons also.

I guess you were wrong when you said that these guns are only good for murder then.


Zardoz wrote:
Maybe we should just ban the AR-15 that way they can’t convert them to automatics

Any gun can be converted to full auto. The AR-15 is nothing special in that respect.


Zardoz wrote:
If you can fire as many rounds from a semi-automatic or a few less it does not make a difference.

The difference between semi-auto and full-auto is substantial.

But go ahead and outrage all the hunters by trying to ban their semi-auto hunting weapons.


Zardoz wrote:
You think that we should set idly by while thousands die and do nothing so some can own a weapon of mass destruction for target shooting with it once every two years.

No one is talking about legalizing nuclear weapons.


Zardoz wrote:
Those children right to live far exceeds any gun nuts right to own a weapon of war.

Putting a pistol grip on a rifle does not make it a weapon of war. Nor does it cause any deaths.


Zardoz wrote:
Every part of the AR-15 was used to make the M-16 with the exception two parts.

Parts which make a huge difference in firepower.


Zardoz wrote:
Is there a right to own an English Longbow? I had no idea.

Yes, because you cannot produce any reason for banning it, just like you cannot produce any reason for banning pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
The NRA is doing everything in their power to stop bump stocks from being banned.

No they aren't. They gave Trump permission to restrict them via executive order.


Zardoz wrote:
When you compare the number of people killed by gun in America to other countries we have a problem. That is a good reason.

Pistol grips are not the cause of any of these deaths.


Zardoz wrote:
When you take the NRA’s blood money and do their bidding you are a crooked politician.

Support for civil rights hardly makes someone crooked.


Zardoz wrote:
The Gun Manufacturers NRA scam is so effective that Cigarette manufactures tried to copy it creating another organization to do their bidding. The gun manufacturers are leading the charge to fill America’s streets with weapons of war.

No they aren't. But since we have a confirmed right to modern weapons of war like the Glock 17, there is certainly nothing wrong with filling our streets with them.


Zardoz wrote:
Assault weapon bans have nothing to do with cosmetics

Wrong. That is the only thing they are about.


Zardoz wrote:
they have everything to do with death of innocent children.

Wrong. Pistol grips do not cause a single death.


Zardoz wrote:
There will be a flood of lawsuits and you can bet many have already been paid off to keep them out of court.

Wrong. If anyone tries to sue a gun manufacturer the case is thrown out of court and the court seizes their homes and retirement accounts to pay the gun manufacturer's legal bills.


Zardoz wrote:
Some of the gun manufacturers pay the NRA for each gun they sell.

Nonsense.


Zardoz wrote:
Under the law many people are convicted each year for being accessories to crimes because they supplied the guns used in the crime.

Only if they supplied the guns knowing of the crime.


Zardoz wrote:
The problem is that the 50,000 people weren’t killed by other weapons they are killed by guns.

Pistol grips caused none of those deaths.


Zardoz wrote:
In equation both parts are necessary. No gun no murder in many case. Give the FL shooter a knife and somebody would have picked up the 130 punk and pitched him down the stairs. Without the gun he is not a problem.

The Supreme Court says we have the right to have guns.


Zardoz wrote:
Fully automatics tend to be illegal?

Well, not if they were registered by 1986.


Zardoz wrote:
If they prefer hand guns why are school shooters using AR-15s?

They aren't. Most of them are using hand guns.


Zardoz wrote:
If you know everything about the 1994 assault weapon ban it does not show. You repeatedly tried to portray it as a ban on pistol grips which it isn’t.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that banning a combination of features without justification is little different from banning a single feature without justification, you refer to this requirement for two features as a loophole and call on the supposed loophole to be closed by banning pistol grips even if they are unaccompanied by the other cosmetic features.


Zardoz wrote:
Atomic weapons are not classified as guns.

They are however classified as the most destructive weapons of war and as weapons of mass destruction.


Zardoz wrote:
Converting a AR-15 to fully automatic would be similar to putting mag wheels on your car.

I don't think anyone is ever going to outlaw wheels.

There are laws against converting a new gun to full-auto.


Zardoz wrote:
Banning assault weapons is always a good idea will it be perfect? No.

Wrong. There is no reason for banning pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
It may take less than a second to chamber round but that is still 140 rounds less than assault rifle can fire in a minute

That is incorrect. There is no difference in speed.


Zardoz wrote:
Any of those semi-automatics can be converted to full automatics.

Any gun can be converted to full auto.


Zardoz wrote:
It defies all common sense to have mass murder continuously while the solution is so simple.

Banning pistol grips does not solve anything. That's why you can't justify it with a good reason.


Zardoz wrote:
I don’t believe a howitzer, a dangerous and deadly weapon that fires projectiles for two miles is legal anywhere.

It is legal in any state that does not outlaw it.


Zardoz wrote:
I don’t know how you can believe that 50,00 dead a year is not a good reason.

Pistol grips are not the cause of any deaths.


Zardoz wrote:
We see where letting technology runaway got us the right to own gun is not unlimited nor should it be.

No one said it was. You just have to justify a restriction with a good reason.

No good reason for banning pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
We made laws to governor wiretaps

Only because you were wrong about rights not applying to modern technology.


Zardoz wrote:
just as we will make laws to govern guns.

Only if you can justify the law with a good reason.


Zardoz wrote:
Anyone is free to make an argument that a law violates a right but rights are not unlimited.

No one said they were. You just have to justify a restriction with a good reason.

No good reason for banning pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
Baby Bush changed the definition of weapons of mass destruction when they could not find any in Iraq.

No he didn't.


Zardoz wrote:
If you can commit mass murder of 59 people you have a weapons of mass destruction.

No you don't. Weapons of mass destruction can kill millions of people with a single shot.


Zardoz wrote:
There was no ban on pistol grip

Yes there was. That's what assault weapons bans are all about.


Zardoz wrote:
it wasn’t called a ban on pistol grips it was called a ban on Assault Weapons.

Calling it a ban on assault weapons does not change the fact that it is only about pistol grips and other features that there is no reason to ban.


Zardoz wrote:
The patent the inventor held for AR-15 was because the system he invented that chambered round much faster than other semi-automatics it is completely different system based on new technology.

Wrong. The rounds chamber at the same speed that any other semi-auto chambers them.


Zardoz wrote:
No one has been killed with a Thompson in 60 years before the ban they killed them 7 at a time. Something changed. It wasn’t that gangsters suddenly said we aren’t going to kill people with Thompsons anymore.

Restrictions on machine guns can be justified with a good reason.

No good reasons exist for banning pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
As a society we have the right to decide what guns are legal and we will exercise it.

Only if you can justify limits with a good reason.

Not a good reason for banning pistol grips.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2018 10:23 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
I hope you saw that today legislation was introduced to not only ban assault weapons but make them illegal. It is called the assault weapon ban 2018.

Is there a difference between banning something and making it illegal?

By all means, have the gun banners exhaust all their efforts on pistol grips so that the NRA will successfully block everything once again.

I think the gun banners actually like being defeated.


Zardoz wrote:
Of course, 5 million NRA members will be pissed

More like amused derision. The bill that you refer to is not even going to come up for a vote.


Zardoz wrote:
Nobody needs grenade launchers or bayonet mounts.

Need has nothing to do with anything. You can't justify any restrictions on them so people have the right to have them.


Zardoz wrote:
The 1994 assault weapon ban banned assault weapons not cosmetic.

Assault weapons are merely guns with harmless cosmetic features added to them.


Zardoz wrote:
This is just NRA propaganda to kill the assault weapon ban.

No, it is the truth.


Zardoz wrote:
Very specific assault weapon makes and model numbers were banned.

They were banned for no reason other than their harmless cosmetic features.


Zardoz wrote:
The AR-15 is the worst of the worst

That's just silly.


Zardoz wrote:
you can bet money changed hands to keep it from being banned.

Makers of AR-15s complied with all of the pointless cosmetic changes required by the law.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistol grips were legal under the ban only combinations were banned. The ban clearly states pistol grips are legal. More useless NRA propaganda’

Setting aside for a moment the fact that banning a combination of features without justification is little different from banning a single feature without justification, you refer to this requirement for two features as a loophole and call on the supposed loophole to be closed by banning pistol grips even if they are unaccompanied by the other cosmetic features.


Zardoz wrote:
Machine guns are automatics which are illegal and even you admit automatics are illegal. Howitzers are illegal also.

Wrong. They are legal in any state that doesn't outlaw them.


Zardoz wrote:
The Thompsons were taken off the streets overnight whether they were taxed out of existence or made illegal something extremely effective happened. There are a couple ways of knowing something one is to read the regulations or to see it effects.

They remain legal to own to this day, provided that you have one that was registered by 1986.


Zardoz wrote:
You do not have to be accurate during a mass murder you just fire into the mass of the crowd each bullet will hit something. Firing at on individual you shoot center of mass. Shooting at a crowd is far different you just spray bullets.

Crowds don't tend to just stand idly in front of a shooter and let themselves be mowed down.


Zardoz wrote:
I have two sports cars one of them has twin turbos the other has none yet they look identical except for minor changes they are both the same models. The AR-15 and the M-16 are like that you met them on the street you could not tell them apart.

Appearances are not a good reason for banning a weapon.


Zardoz wrote:
Banning bump stocks? Here you go again advocating gun control.

There is a good reason for restricting bump stocks.

There isn't a good reason for banning pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
Non- stop mass murders are a very good reason.

Pistol grips are not the cause of a single murder.


Zardoz wrote:
The gun manufacturers have full control of the NRA

No they don't. We have full control over them.


Zardoz wrote:
they have never met a gun they would not endorse.

Nonsense. They have no objections to assault weapon bans.


Zardoz wrote:
The gun manufacturer take no responsibility they just push guns like a drug pusher pushes drugs.

There is nothing that they need to take responsibility for, unless they sell a defective gun or something.


Zardoz wrote:
If they ban assault weapons you are only left with hand guns and a few rifles that not nearly expensive or profitable.

Wrong. They make the same profits on a gun regardless of whether it has a pistol grip on it.


Zardoz wrote:
the NRA has expended its political capitol.

http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/02/20/florida-house-rejects-considering-ban-on-assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-magazines/


Zardoz wrote:
It is just left with it crooked politicians and they will be targeted and removed from office

As if support for civil rights made someone crooked.

People representing suburbs might be hypothetically vulnerable. No one is going to be vulnerable for supporting the Second Amendment in a rural red district.


Zardoz wrote:
There is a big difference in the speeds of semi-automatics

No there isn't.


Zardoz wrote:
that why the AR-15 was chosen as the base weapon for the M-16 and other semi-automatics were not.

No it isn't. The speed is the same.


Zardoz wrote:
The NRA will have trouble defending itself let alone interfere in the political process.

Nonsense. The First Amendment protects the NRA's right both to exist and to participate in the political process.


Zardoz wrote:
Sorry the ban is already been introduced in congress.

Where it will not even be allowed to come to a vote in the House.

In fact, there are decent odds that it will not even make it out of committee.


Zardoz wrote:
people are tired of living in a war zone.

Having a pistol grip on a gun doesn't transform a country into a war zone.


Zardoz wrote:
I thought that was the reason for guns to go hunting isn’t that what your old English law cases are about?

No. They are entirely about self defense and are expressly not a right to go hunting.


Zardoz wrote:
If the assault weapons aren’t banned it is pointless. Taking the guns off the street is going to difficult finding all the high capacity clips will be much more difficult. Guns are registered high capacity clips are not.

Banning pistol grips does nothing to eliminate high capacity magazines.

It does however make it trivially easy to block restrictions on high capacity magazines when those restrictions are tied to a pointless ban on pistol grips.

It also means that the courts will strike down restrictions on high capacity magazines when they strike down unjustified restrictions on pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
I just know that they were AR-15s it doesn’t matter whether they had a pistol grip.

The only objections that people have about AR-15s are their pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
Do you have a black family moving in next door? That is because they have civil rights.

Does your neighbor have a collection of AR-15s? That is because they have civil rights.


Zardoz wrote:
If there was a mass murder at an NRA meeting they would run because shooting out with some one who has a AR-15 with a someone with a pistol is a loosing proposition.

Maybe if the shooter was wearing lots of Kevlar. But not because their rifle had a pistol grip on it.


Zardoz wrote:
Even the 4 sheriff deputies would not go face the AR-15 in FL. Why? Because it was certain death.

Only if the shooter was wearing Kevlar and the police had no rifles.

These deputies didn't go in because the were led by a coward of a sheriff.


Zardoz wrote:
The theory stated that if Vietnam fell the world was lost but history shows us that communism collapsed under its own weight. If we believed in our own system that was predictable.

This history might have been different had we not prevented Communism from taking over country after country.


Zardoz wrote:
Are you from some alternate universe? North Vietnam won the war

Actually the Tet Offensive was the last gasp of the Vietcong. From that point on all we needed to do was give minor aid to South Vietnam.

Minor aid that the Democrats cut off because they wanted the Communists to take over the world.


Zardoz wrote:
the Vietcong were licking at the heels as the US as they got out of Vietnam.

Wrong. The Vietcong ceased to exist in the Tet Offensive.


Zardoz wrote:
Those bratty kids on social media have already cost the NRA members millions of dollars

Not really.


Zardoz wrote:
Owning a gun is not a civil right

The Constitution says otherwise. So does the US Supreme Court.


Zardoz wrote:
the only thing the NRA does is sell death.

No. What the NRA does is prevent you from violating our civil rights.


Zardoz wrote:
The KKK was responsible for fewer deaths in a year than the NRA is responsible for in a year.

The NRA is not responsible for any deaths at all.


Zardoz wrote:
The NRA is owned by the gun manufacturers association

No they aren't.


Zardoz wrote:
they have one reason to exist to make a profit.

That is incorrect. Their purpose is to prevent people from violating our civil rights.


Zardoz wrote:
Most suicides are by gun.

Why does that matter? If they all died from jumping off a bridge, would they be any less dead?


Zardoz wrote:
Most people killed in a domestic situation are killed in the heat of passion

Correct.


Zardoz wrote:
no gun means no killing in most cases.

That is incorrect. No gun means killed with a knife instead.

No knife means beaten to death by someone's fists.


Zardoz wrote:
At night when someone breaks in all you are going to see is a fleeting shadow.

Then there is no justification for shooting.

If I was on a jury, I'd vote to convict for manslaughter in such a situation.


Zardoz wrote:
Burglars break in when people are asleep and don’t wake the resident until it is too late.

Not necessarily too late.


Zardoz wrote:
Civil rights don’t have anything to do with guns unless you won’t let blacks in your gun club.

That is incorrect. Civil rights include the right to carry guns.


Zardoz wrote:
You are about to find out how far it will stretch.

I already know.

Restrictions on rights are allowed only if they can be justified with a good reason.

Also, self defense needs require handgun magazines of at least ten rounds.


Zardoz wrote:
The gun manufacturers did everything in their power to stop the 1994 assault weapon ban

No they didn't. They had no objections to it.


Zardoz wrote:
Mass murder is a good reason.

Pistol grips do not cause a single mass murder.


Zardoz wrote:
If you mess up one AR-15 there is an unlimited supply so it makes no difference.

It makes a difference if you have to buy each one. Not all of us are made of money.


Zardoz wrote:
The best way to solve is to ban assault weapons.

Banning pistol grips will not solve anything, which is why no one can produce a good reason for banning them.


Zardoz wrote:
Here you go again pushing gun control.

I nave never advocated a pointless ban on pistol grips.


Zardoz wrote:
If you can buy all the parts to build an AR-15 you will be able to buy M-16 parts. It might be illegal to buy a working m-16 but you could buy the parts.

It is also illegal to build a new full-auto weapons. Full autos are legal only if they were registered by 1986.


Zardoz wrote:
The top Republicans held the meetings on the very day Obama was inaugurated. They made no secret of the meeting or the purpose.

The House leadership tried to make a deal with Obama. The deal collapsed when Obama listened to leftist extremists and scuttled it.


Zardoz wrote:
The school shootings have taken away any political capital the NRA had.

http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/02/20/florida-house-rejects-considering-ban-on-assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-magazines/


Zardoz wrote:
The NRA did not stop Obama the NRA is not part of the government and does not have a vote

Funny how none of his outrageous gun control proposals passed.


Zardoz wrote:
however the crooked politicians on the NRA’s payroll are a temporary problem.

As if support for civil rights made someone crooked.

I think you'll find that voting civil rights supporters out of office is harder than you imagine.


Zardoz wrote:
I don’t know Pelosi position on guns

2009:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/18461-pelosi-throws-cold-water-on-weapons-ban

2016:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/gun-control-second-amendment-orlando-shooting-224461


Zardoz wrote:
but if she votes with the NRA she will not survive the primary.

If Pelosi becomes Speaker, she will not let these measures even come up for a vote.

If Ryan remains Speaker, he will not let these measures even come up for a vote.

Pelosi and Ryan will both survive their primaries.


Zardoz wrote:
If social security for reason other than mental defect you get to handle your own money.

Nonsense. "Who receives the check" isn't tied to mental issues.


Zardoz wrote:
If you can’t handle a check book you damn well can't handle an AR-15

Nonsense. Ability to balance a checkbook has no connection to how safe you are with guns.


Zardoz wrote:
Obama order was very specific it targeted those who got social security for mental illness.

That is incorrect. It also covered eating disorders and claustrophobia.


Zardoz wrote:
I hope you can admire it while the bullets are coming out of it in your direction you can’t expect someone who can’t handle his money to know where the safety is.

Yes I can.


Zardoz wrote:
I can believe you are mistaken.

I'm not mistaken.


Zardoz wrote:
You are pretty mentally defective if you can’t balance a check book. That is not rocket science.

Nonsense. Lots of people are bad at math. That is no reason to violate their rights.


Zardoz wrote:
An assault weapon is an assault weapon with or without a pistol grip.

No it isn't. Take off the pistol grip and the same gun is no longer an assault weapon.


Zardoz wrote:
The people doing the mass murders don’t have mental problems. They are angry and they enjoy killing just like you might enjoy an ice cream cone. There is no way to watch all these people all the time but we can take the assault weapons away.

Not without a good reason for doing so you can't.


Zardoz wrote:
Your solution is avoiding the problem and let thousand more children be slaughtered.

Nonsense. That's what the gun control movement is doing when they try to ban pistol grips for no good reason.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2018 10:54 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
We have many people in US who want to join terrorist organization. Some have traveled overseas and joined but the most valuable to terrorist are those that stayed here and blend in. The terrorists already in America can do by far the most damage. It has become much harder for terrorist to get into the country. Once someone is found to be associated with a terrorist organization their names should remain on the list of those who can never purchase a gun. Mistakes can and will be made with similar names and for other reasons. Those mistakenly placed on list have the right to due process and if the information is wrong their gun rights will be restored.

The problem is, there is no due process with the no fly list.


Zardoz wrote:
Those mistakenly placed on list have the right to due process and if the information is wrong their gun rights will be restored.

Due process puts the burden of proof on the government to establish that it got it right. Although the defense is certainly allowed to prove their innocence.


Zardoz wrote:
The United States is full of courts and you are free to sue the Federal government to be removed from the no-fly list.

The way the list is currently run, that's no guarantee that an innocent person will be removed from the list.


Zardoz wrote:
Oralloy, when you delve in history of the NRA you find that what started out as a grass roots organization was taken over by the gun manufacturers.

No such takeover.


Zardoz wrote:
Over time the position taken by the NRA changed to coincide with the gun manufacturers positions.

The positions are quite different. The manufacturers have no objection to bans on assault weapons.


Zardoz wrote:
What was once was a social organization became the prime defender of assault weapons because of the money from the gun manufacturers.

No. The gun manufacturers have no objections to bans on assault weapons.

The NRA opposes such bans because they are blatantly unconstitutional and the NRA defends our civil rights.


Zardoz wrote:
Sadly, the NRA only purpose is to push guns.

No. Their purpose it to protect our civil rights.


Zardoz wrote:
Oraloy, that is far being silly. Do you have any idea how many people killed by relatives to collect life insurance? One dentist in Texas poisoned his kids Halloween candy. These people are murdered for a $100,000 or so. The assault weapons businesses brings in 100s of million each year. Each time there is a school shooting the gun manufacturers make millions. Once the shooting takes place and the possibility of assault weapon ban takes hold sales of assault weapons go through the roof. If people would kill for a $100,000 it is foolish to believe that they would not kill for a S100 million. Assault weapon were in a slump before the FL shooting.

Claims that the NRA hires people to do school shootings are completely silly.


Zardoz wrote:
The NRA loves school shootings.

Nonsense.


Zardoz wrote:
Yeah, there is something wrong with that 17-dead people.

Pistol grips are not responsible for any of those deaths.


Zardoz wrote:
The assault weapon like the Pinto is directly responsible for the deaths in school shootings, no AR-15 no deaths in school shootings.

Nonsense. Pistol grips do not cause any deaths.


Zardoz wrote:
One way to solve a problem is to sue it out existence.

Any attempt to do so will result in the case being thrown out of court, and the homes and retirement accounts of the plaintiffs seized to pay the gun manufacturers' legal bills.


Zardoz wrote:
No that is wrong what the court decision ruled that limits can be placed on guns.

No. They ruled that we have the right to have modern weapons of war like the Glock 17.


Zardoz wrote:
Just sit back and watch.

No one is even going to try to ban modern weapons of war like the Glock 17 now that the Supreme Court has ruled that we have the right to have them.


Zardoz wrote:
If I tap your phone it isn’t like mass murdering thousands of people. The court can always make the evidence obtained by an illegal wire tad inadmissible in a court of law but the court can’t bring the dead students back to life.

That does not change the fact that the existence of modern wiretap laws proves that you were wrong when you claimed that our rights only apply to technology from 1791.


Zardoz wrote:
Apples v oranges argument.

The Fourth Amendment is just as much of a right as the Second Amendment is.


Zardoz wrote:
You don’t really believe that all wire taps are legal, do you?

Of course not. That's why I used wiretap laws to prove that you were wrong about our rights only applying to technology from 1791.


Zardoz wrote:
As long as you don't need to use the information from a wiretap there is no problem.

I'm not sure the courts would see it that way.


Zardoz wrote:
Trump tries his best to censor everything by bulling everyone he can.

If you had been correct about our rights only applying to technology from 1791 he would be able to freely censor the internet directly.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2018 11:00 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
Dick’s Sporting Goods announced that they will stop selling semi-automatics and large capacity clips. Wal Mart had previously stop selling assault weapons and this leaves only one major retailer, Bass Pro-shop still selling death in America.

Having a pistol grip on a rifle is hardly selling death,

But I guess it's time for everyone to stop buying guns from Dick's Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart. Our business should go to vendors who don't want to violate our civil rights.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2018 05:42 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
The assault weapon like the Pinto is directly responsible for the deaths in school shootings, no AR-15 no deaths in school shootings.

Could you provide something to support that claim?
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  4  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2018 09:29 pm
The republican success in past elections hinged on single issue voters. I worked the 2004 presidential election going house to house to speak to union families. When you encountered single issue voters they were very adamant about how they were going to vote. Whether their issue was abortion or guns nothing else mattered. The single-issue voters always vote republican because the republican party adopted their positions. The positions of the democratic party are more varied and you do not see the single-issue voters. The democratic party now has a golden opportunity to attract single issue voters as the school shootings make for an excellent single-issue.

The primaries are coming up in May and the democrats should pay the politicians that took the NRA blood money back for the St Valentines Massacre in FL. Just as there is no middle ground on abortion there is no middle ground on assault weapons. Vocabulary is very and consistency is also important. The shooting in FL should always be referred to as the St Valentines Massacre. Politicians who take the NRA’s blood money should always be referred to as pro-school shootings candidates. The moment to strike is in the May primary and up-coming general election. Seldom does the majority determine the outcome of an election. Generally, without a candidate that is an ax murder the vote is generally close. Most elections are won by a small block of determined voter that skew the total vote. When we decided to take control of the city council. We joined forces with Fraternal Order of Police, the Firefighter Union, and the District Labor Council. We held meeting and determined a slate of candidates we could all back. We won six out of the seven seats. We did not have a majority but we had a determined block of voters that made the difference.

Right now, social media is raising and army of determined voters if they can be focused on making a difference in the upcoming elections we can make a difference. Can we eliminate every NRA pro school shooting candidate? No, there are still rural states where the vast majority own guns but then we don’t have to beat all of them. We just need a clear majority in Congress to ban assault weapons. Timing is extremely important and we need to strike when the iron is hot.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2018 09:43 pm
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
No, there are still rural states where the vast majority own guns but then we don’t have to beat all of them. We just need a clear majority in Congress to ban assault weapons.

The Democrats need some of those rural red districts if they want a majority.

But by all means, keep focusing all of your energy on a useless ban on pistol grips so that the NRA will be able to defeat all of your proposals.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2018 08:23 am
@Zardoz,
I will assume that you are unable to support you claim that "assault weapons" are directly responsible for the deaths in school shootings--that without the AR-15s, no deaths in school shootings.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2018 01:36 pm
@Glennn,
Most likely he is busy composing responses to my recent posts. Our exchanges have gotten so lengthy that it takes several days for he and I to compose our replies to each other.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2018 02:10 pm
@oralloy,
Nevertheless, I would like to hear him defend his statement that, without AR-15s, there are no deaths in school shootings.
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2018 10:30 pm
@oralloy,
Oralloy

We know what pass as a good reason to limit the first amendment. The classic case is someone yelling fire in a crowded theater. Of course, the theater is not on fire but yelling fire might cause some people to be injured running for the door. There are also other cases that place limits on the first amendment. What we do know about guns is 50,000 people are killed each year in America and no other civilized country in the world has even a fraction of those deaths. To believe that second amendment is unlimited is a foolish position. Far more people are killed in one shooting than killed in the theater. Sounds like a hell of a good reason to me.
____________________________________________________

No army fights a war with hand guns.
___________________________________________________
There are some school shootings with hand gun that are personal or among gang member. If you have a personal score to settle with one-person handguns work. But if you are a professional school shooter like Nikolas Cruz, you carefully study other school shootings and study the weapons to find the one that will kill the most people. The school shooting that involve only one or two people killed are not reported nationally the story is of only local interest. What gets national attention is mass murder and those are not done with handguns they are done with weapons designed exclusively to commit mass murder. Your trying to make apples look like oranges. Mass murders are not done with hand guns.
__________________________________________________
A pistol grip does not change a thing an AR-15 put against your shoulder will kill just as many people as one with a pistol grip. It may be easy to see other people’s children as simply insignificant but if it were your children or grandchildren gunned down for no reason it would be a good reason for restrictions.
____________________________________________________
The NRA is a relatively tiny organization compared to the overall population of the country the NRA represents only a 1.4% of the population. The gun manufacturers’ have been laundering their blood money through the NRA that buys the republican politicians. I don’t care if every gun made by the gun manufacturers has a pistol grip as long as the assault weapons are banned. The courts did not strike down the 1994 assault weapon ban the gun manufacturers bought enough politicians with their blood money to keep it from being renewed. The times they are a changing. There is assaying in archology that it changes one funeral at a time. The old generation clings to old ideas and theories until they are buried.
I believe if it were your children or grandchildren it would be a good reason for restrictions but a million of someone else’s children would be totally insignificant. That is same attitude that the gun manufacturers and the NRA hold.
___________________________________________________
The Heller decision is very clear that dangerous and deadly weapons can be banned. Matter of fact just hide and watch. if you don’t believe it. The case was bought by someone who could not register a hand gun in Washington DC. It had nothing to do with modern weapons.
____________________________________________________
There are 50,000 good reason each year.
____________________________________________________
Until the gun nut across the road starts setting off atomic bombs the most dangerous thing he can get his hands on is his AR-15.
___________________________________________________
The M-16 is just a modified AR-15.
___________________________________________________
The AR-15 is just a machine gun in sheep’s clothing.
___________________________________________________
The Heeler decision has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with the greed of the gun manufacturers. If the fairy tale were true I would not want to be you. I don’t think a just god would be so forgiving.
___________________________________________________
The tea tax would be a part of English law. Why are the gun laws in England so restrictive? They are based on the same case law you cite. The early settlers of America came from several different countries. So, we could just pick and chose what laws we wanted?
____________________________________________________

The divine right of kings was the highest law of the land in fact your case laws were listed in the book of specific king.
_______________________________________________
If you want to follow English law then you have to follow their current gun laws that are part of English common law. You can’t have it both ways.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You simply can’t say we have to follow this English law but disregard all others.
____________________________________________________
We had a property owner in town that owned several acres in town but failed to maintain the property. He was notified to correct the situation and when he didn’t a contractor was hired to clean the property up and he was billed for the service. He failed to pay and was sued in city court which ruled against him. He appealed to circuit court and the court ruled in the city’s favor but during the decision the judge said the city had more important things to do. For instance, there was a house that the judge passed on his way work that was in bad shape. The judge ruled that house had to be repaired before the defendant had to pay. The house had absolutely nothing to do with the case but you can get all kinds of strange rulings. We had one judge that was so far gone she could not remember how she ruled once she left the bench. Another threw the woman out of her home because her husband asked for sex and she pushed him away. The judge deemed it domestic violence and put the woman out of her home for a week. So, it would not surprise me that some judges tried to adopt some archaic laws from old England.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The bill of rights is specific and the Founding Fathers were educated and well read. There were several sources for bill of rights some stretching back to ancient Greece but I don’t see any argument to base our laws on those of ancient Greece.
____________________________________________________
You are the one that is trying to establish a right to a gun by citing ancient English law cases.
____________________________________________________
The English laws are far stricter than those in America if that is were you derive your right to own a gun you would have a problem.
____________________________________________________
So now it is America law that over rules English law but it is English law that establish your “right” to a gun.
___________________________________________________________________________________
I’ll pick the rest up tomorrow
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2018 10:18 pm
@oralloy,
Oralloy

The law is indeed alive at one-time abortion was illegal in America but the Supreme Court decision made abortion legal throughout America. The conservatives are currently trying to stack the court so they can reverse that decision. The NRA is losing control of state legislatures. The Fl state legislature passed a 2-year freeze on the sale of AR-15s today. It was a voice vote and the NRA figured it would go down overwhelmingly in the voice vote. The cowards that are taking the NRA blood money called for a roll call vote and it was reversed 21- 17. Why did the NRA puppets call for a voice vote? Because they could lie about how they voted to public. The roll call vote puts the NRA cowards on the record and they will be targeted in the next election like the high school kids were. The cowards from the NRA are looking for cover and they will not find it. Pistol have nothing to with an assault weapon ban.
____________________________________________________________________________________
.
Pistol grips have nothing to do with an assault ban. Pistol grips were legal under the 1994 assault weapon ban.
____________________________________________________

The freedom of speech is limited as are other rights. The good reason for limiting the freedom of speech is the possible injury or death of someone in a theater after someone yells fire! If that hold the massive amount of people killed and injured by guns would be a good reason. Just because you want to live in a war zone does not mean the rest of America’s population wants to.
____________________________________________________
There has never been a pistol grip ban no one cares if you have a teeth grip.
____________________________________________________


Nobody is planning to ban pistol grips
____________________________________________________.
For somebody that pretends to know a lot about guns you can’t tell difference between the handle and the gun.
___________________________________________________
Assault weapons are designed to commit mass murder and we have many examples of exactly that. Pistol grips are just a handle.
_________________________________________________
We will face an army of terrorists armed with assault weapons soon and they will be more than pleased to be killing Americans with those outstanding weapons.
____________________________________________________
The pistol grip makes absolutely no difference it is the number of bullets fired per minute and the massive 100 round clips that make the kill rate so high. Pistol grips were not banned assault weapons were. It wasn’t called the 1994 pistol grip ban.
___________________________________________________
The second amendment didn’t grant you a right to a pistol grip.
___________________________________________________
If you have rental property and you deny a black family the right to rent it you will finally understand what civil rights are. Civil Rights legislation came in 1964 not 1791.
__________________________________________________
The same English laws you cited are part of English Common law and are binding on the English but not on America.

____________________________________________________
The founding fathers took inspiration for our laws from countries all of the world both past and present but that does not mean the laws of those countries were binding on America.
___________________________________________________________________________________
The founding Fathers decided what rights would be enshrined to be protected. If you think English law is so good you should go to England and try to buy an AR-15.

______________________________________________________________________________
The US constitution is an original document that does not depend on any prior documents. They adopted what they wanted and rejected what they didn’t
____________________________________________________
Even in 1934 Roosevelt was concerned about second amendments cases being bought against the 1934 Fire Arm Act. The gun manufacturers launder $100 of million a year through the NRA and this has been going on for years.
____________________________________________________
The old English cases had to do with having guns to hunt with they were afraid the guns would kill out all of the game animals.
____________________________________________________
Compelling or not all rights have common sense limits and mass murder is not one of them.
___________________________________________________
The pistol grips are not banned either.
____________________________________________________
You’re right pistol grips don’t kill people assault weapons do.
____________________________________________________
If a good reason to limit the freedom speech is human life then the same applies to the second amendment.
___________________________________________________
Napoleon didn’t think Waterloo was going to be a problem either.
__________________________________________________
I'll try to finish up with this tomorrow. Oralloy do they really allow you that much computer time in your nursing home?
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 09:30 pm
@oralloy,
Oralloy

The second amendment is never referred to as a civil right for a reason, it isn’t. The civil rights legislation came about in 1964 and does not even mention guns. It has to do is institutionalized discrimination.
____________________________________________________
Oralloy, there was a good article about a school shooter on the Internet today: “Inside a School Shooters Mind: A Plot to Kill 50 or 60. If I get Lucky Maybe 150.” The boy was only 3 days past his 14th birthday and he even knew that the response time for the police at his target location was 30 minutes and a SWAT team would need 45 minutes to arrive. Something went wrong though he had tried to get his dad’s AR-15 by filming him opening the gun safe so he could get the code for the safe. He took his dad’s hand gun and shot him in the back of the head. When he got to the elementary school he only managed to kill one child before the gun jammed and he was downed by a volunteer fireman. The joke was on the shooter as the AR-15 was not in the safe it was only a couple of feet from the dresser where he took the handgun. Hand guns are not used for mass murder though they can be used to settle a score with a couple of people. The shooter had already planned how he was going to get into the school and which class he was going to kill first. This was a 14-year-old junior high student. Assault weapons are made for mass murder.
____________________________________________________

A car and tank can both be used for transportation but a tank was designed to fight wars with as well as assault weapons. Semi-automatic rifles were not designed for mass murder only assault weapons. Did you hear that Remington has filed for bankruptcy? Remington was evidently the maker of the AR-15 style assault weapon used in the FL shooting they called it a Bushmaster according to one source. They are filing bankruptcy it seems the sale of assault weapons is down without the highly profitable assault weapons the gun manufacturers will go bankrupt.
____________________________________________________
Anything that is semi-automatic can be converted to automatic. The AR-15 was a semi-automatic to start with. Chambering the shell is the hard part get the trigger to pull automatically is far easier.
__________________________________________________
The primary cause of mass casualties with an assault weapons is the ability to deliver so many rounds so quickly before people can take cover.
____________________________________________________
The number of bullets fired along with the velocity make for very effective mass murders.
___________________________________________________
It would be easy to design a stock that would absorb most of or all of recoil. Maybe the semi-automatic can’t chamber the bullets fast enough.
The proof is in the numbers. When seven gangsters were killed on St Valentines’ Day in the 1930s it got the full attention of the nation by today’s mass murders standards it would only be minor incident. When you kill 59 at a time you have to be doing something right and that is the choice of guns specifically designed for mass murder.
___________________________________________________
I don’t think the shooter at Newtown would change clips until the gun stopped firing. As bullets are chambered the force to chamber bullets is reduced. If they test fired the gun afterwards they would no doubt locate a problem with the gun. The shooter, Adam Lanza, was autistic and the problem may have been a personal tick.
____________________________________________________
The Heller decision does not list any specific weapons but it does make it very clear that limits can be placed on the second amendment.
____________________________________________________
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever for any purpose whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
____________________________________________________
There would be private ownership of atomic bombs if the second amendment right was unlimited. Somebody would just have to have them to defend his home from gophers.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The original St Valentines massacre completely changed America and led to America’s first gun control law.
____________________________________________________
The 1994 assault weapon ban tells you that pistol grips are completely legal only when combined with other features like folding stocks or grenade launcher is there a problem.
____________________________________________________
Grenade launcher would cause a problem because the military can’t keep control of all their grenade. In Colorado Springs a land lord was cleaning a garage out after a renter moved out. He found a grenade and thought it was a dummy. He pulled the pin and they found pieces of him all over the place. There were more live grenades found in the garage they had been carried off a nearby military base. If professional school shooter could get their hands on grenades it would be whole different ball game.
____________________________________________________
Most likely more school children are killed with AR-15s than varmints. Saturday Night Live did a skit where they said the only way a roach could be killed was by another roach with an AR-15. The guy trained roaches to use AR-15s.
___________________________________________________
It seems a number of dead people is always a good reason to limit rights. A pistol grip is not a problem without a grenade launcher.
__________________________________________________

Let say modern weapons of war we won’t worry about antique weapons of war.
___________________________________________________
You are just about to see what a good reason to ban assault weapons is.
I don’t care if you have a nose grip on your gun it isn’t illegal either.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Pistol grips don’t fire bullets but assault weapons do.
______________________________________________________________________________
No court in America is going to mandate that our children must live in a battlefield. As it stands now more school children are suffering post-traumatic stress disorder than soldiers returning from Afghanistan.
That civil rights section about discrimination was part of our contract and I spent hours arguing with the city attorney about it. He was very adamant that it was limited to discrimination because of race, color creed, sex and country of origin and that might not be the whole list but I am sure there was nothing about gun ownership.
____________________________________________________
Do you really believe there are no semi-automatics on the battlefield?
____________________________________________________
Oralloy, there is no doubt at all about where all of the money spent to buy politicians is coming from, the gun manufacturers that are trying to buy the government so they can spread death throughout the land.
____________________________________________________
The NRA serves one function and that is to sell death to children. The people with guns are violating the right to life.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The fact that the NRA was taken over by the gun manufacturers is well documented. There is absolutely no doubt by anyone that followed the money. The NAACP is a civil rights organization the NRA is organization of death.
___________________________________________________
Do you really want grenade launcher on assault weapons? You can have a pistol grip if you can do without a bayonet mount. Sorry there is no ban on pistol grips.
____________________________________________________________________________________
If there were no such law the streets would be full of machine guns and howitzers.
____________________________________________________
I don’t care if pistol grips are banned I just want the assault weapons banned.
___________________________________________________
You don’t need a pistol grip to kill school children.
___________________________________________________
The overthrow of the government was the prime driving force to justify the second amendment. When the founding fathers created a new government, they could not be sure that it would not get out of control. That justification has been used over and over to justify the existence of guns even though it is absolutely preposterous now.
____________________________________________________
Guerrilla warfare became obsolete with the advent of atomic weapons.
___________________________________________________
If the rights already existed it would have been redundant to write the bill of rights. The constitution grants a right to free speech it does not establish a limit like yelling fire in a crowded theater. The rights were granted but limits were established by courts and laws.
___________________________________________________
It is already established that killing people allows the government to limit those rights. But then pistol grips are not banned.
The subject was guns not pistol grips.
_________________________________________________________________________________
You may need to aim a gun if you are trying to kill individual where he is the only one standing. A bullet off to one side or the other would miss. But mass murders are committed on crowds if a bullet misses and individual it will hit someone else standing on either side. A mass murderer doesn’t care who he kills he just wants to kill as many people as possible. One mass murder said he wanted to kill 150 school children.
___________________________________________________
They said it was impossible for a human being to run a four-minute mile also.
____________________________________________________
The rest of gun is the same as an automatic it is only the trigger mechanism that is altered. both gun chambers shells at the same rate so the speed would be limited to the number of times you could pull the trigger. I was able to pull the trigger finger 106 times a minute on the first try with practice I would be much faster.
____________________________________________________
This gun debate has been going on for years so there have been thousands gun owners questioned and they all agree for the most part that the guns are just good for sh*** and giggles but we all know they are good for mass murder.
___________________________________________________
The police need these guns because a pistol is useless against someone with an AR-15. Forty years ago, policemen looked like policemen but now many policemen look and dress in full military garb with body armor. What caused this was the gun manufacturer flooded the street with military weapons. Policemen carried 357s after a bank robbery in Los Angles where the suspect were armed with semi-automatics and in full body armor. The police didn’t stand a chance until one of the policemen went into a local gun store and got an assault weapon. The FBI also had a shootout with bank robbers in FL where they were badly out gunned. The gun manufacturers made a fortune as the FBI and police department throughout the land had to replace their hand guns with 9 millimeters
____________________________________________________
The AR-15 is very special or it would not be the bases for the M-16.

____________________________________________________
The only thing that really matters is how many bullets it can fire in a minute. The AR-15 was not designed as a hunting weapon it is not a hunting rifle it is an assault weapon.
___________________________________________________
The AR-15 certainly qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction after George W Bush widen the definition after they couldn’t find any WMDs in Iraq.
__________________________________________________
Pistol grips are not the problem they are just a diversion created by the NRA.
___________________________________________________
A converted AR-15 is still an AR-15. Ninety-nine percent of the gun is the same. It come down to how fast you can pull the trigger.
___________________________________________________
Archaic weapons of war are not a problem. Pistol grips have never been illegal.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I would not believe anything from the communists or the NRA. If they gave Trump permission why did it not receive any publicity. The NRA being for gun control would be a big deal. Did they also give Trump permission to take the assault weapons as he said he would?
____________________________________________________
Pistol grips are not the problem.
___________________________________________________
The NRA is only interested in one thing making absolutely sure that the next school shooter has an assault weapon. They want to protect the right of school shooters to buy assault weapons.
____________________________________________________
No one should have to live in a war zone because 5 million people want to play soldier.
____________________________________________________
The AR-15 and the copy-cat weapons are confirmed mass murder weapons.
Remington filed for bankruptcy to protect itself from legal judgements.
This is how the NRA is financed it established fact the NRA is paid so much for each gun sold by some gun manufacturers just because you don’t believe it does not make it untrue. The article I listed documents that.
Since before the time the crime is committed no one knows for sure whether it will actually be committed then no one could ever be ever convicted as an accessory but yet many people are convicted as an accessory.
____________________________________________________
Pistol grips are not illegal.
____________________________________________________
The Supreme court also says we can place limits on guns.
____________________________________________________
When is the last time you saw a school shooting done with a full automatic? The fact they have been illegal since for 32 years might have something to do with it. That kept the NRA from flooding the streets with them.
Most of mass murders are committed with assault weapons. There was a shooting at a Michigan College last week where two people were killed likely with a hand gun.
____________________________________________________
Pistol grips are legal that is not a loophole. If combined with certain other features there is a problem.
____________________________________________________
In an arms race atomic bombs are considered arms. The second amendment gives you a right to bear arms so therefore the second amendment gives you the right to atomic weapons? Unless there are limits.
___________________________________________________
There are laws against murder but that hasn’t stopped one mass murder yet.
If all semi-automatics chambered at the same speed the inventor of the AR-15 would not have needed to get a patent for the AR-15.
____________________________________________________
Pistol grips have always been legal they were never banned.
____________________________________________________
When you see the first howitzer that does not belong to the military let me know.
____________________________________________________
Pistol grips are not the problem.
____________________________________________________
Constant mass murder is a great reason. Pistol grips are legal.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
There are modern laws to govern modern technology just as there are laws to govern guns.
____________________________________________________
Mass murder is a great reason.
____________________________________________________
Oh yes, he did baby bush and crew changed that definition of weapons of mass destruction.
__________________________________________________
An atomic weapon may kill more people but mass murders will catch up one day. One bomb in Hiroshima killed only 39,000 in a few years the mass murders will surpass that number.
____________________________________________________
You are fixated on pistol grips but it was assault weapons that were banned.
School shooters have no problem knowing what an assault weapons are they could care less about a pistol grip.
____________________________________________________
If there is no difference in semi-automatic an assault weapons why are the assault weapons the ones used in mass murders?
___________________________________________________
If machine guns are banned because they are dangerous it follows assault weapons should also be banned.
___________________________________________________
Mass murders are as good a reason as any other.

Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2018 08:42 pm
@Glennn,
Glenn
First you have to separate school shooting from mass murders at schools. There are a lot of routine school shootings that involve one or two people and are done with handguns these probably make up the majority of school shootings. If you don’t pay for your drugs you know what is going to happen or one gang member kills another but that is not the problem it is the mass murders that take place with multiple victims these are always done with assault weapons. If you follow the mass murders there is always a picture of the assault weapon on the news. Hand guns are designed to murder one person at a time while assault weapons are made for fighting a war. I don’t know of one recent mass murder that was done with a hand gun in fact I don’t know of any. The patent on the AR-15 has expired and there are many copy-cat assault weapons on the street that are just as deadly.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2018 09:12 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
First you have to separate school shooting from mass murders at schools.

Yes, I've done that. And I've still found that it is not true that in the absence of AR-15s, there are no school shootings.
Quote:
There are a lot of routine school shootings that involve one or two people and are done with handguns these probably make up the majority of school shootings.

Yeah, I've been making that point in other threads.
Quote:
it is the mass murders that take place with multiple victims these are always done with assault weapons.

Not true. I suggest you go through the incidents found at the link below and see how many of these shootings involve handguns, and how many involved rifles.

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/
Quote:
Hand guns are designed to murder one person at a time . . .

Research the incidents listed in the link I've provided and see if your statement hold up.
Quote:
If you follow the mass murders there is always a picture of the assault weapon on the news.

Are you appealing to the media to prove a point? The fact that mass shootings are done far more often with handguns would seem to shine a bad light on the media.
Quote:
I don’t know of one recent mass murder that was done with a hand gun in fact I don’t know of any.

Again, research the incidents listed in the link I provided and see if that statement still holds up.
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2018 09:17 pm
@Glennn,
Glenn

AR-15 assault style weapons are the tools that is needed to commit mass murder. You can dig a small ditch with a shovel but if you need to dig a ditch 10 feet deep you need a backhoe. Even that 14-year-old school shooter knew he needed an assault weapon. He just could not find his dad’s assault weapon the day of the shooting. The result he only killed one with a hand gun. If you want to commit mass murder you need an assault weapon.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 11:52 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
If you want to commit mass murder you need an assault weapon.

Jiverly Voong murdered 13 and wounded 4 in New York; he used two handguns.

Seung-hui Cho murdered 32 and wounded 17 in Virginia; he used two handguns.

Jeffrey Weise murdered 7 and wounded 5 in Minnesota; he used two handguns and a shotgun.

Byran Uyesugi murdered 7 people in Hawaii; he used a handgun.

Larry Ashbrook murdered 7 and wounded 7 in Texas; he used two handguns.

Mark Barton murdered 13 and wounded 13 in Atlanta; he used four handguns.

Gian Luigi Ferri murdered 8 and wounded 6 in California; he used three handguns.

George Jo Hennard murdered 22 and wounded 20 in Texas; he used two handguns.

Patrick Sherrill murdered 14 and wounded 6 in Oklahoma; he used three handguns.
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 09:43 pm
@Glennn,
Glenn

Do you know the difference between murder and a mass murder? There have always been shootings all over America and some of them happen at schools. Mass murder is relatively new phenomenon. One of the first mass murders in America was at the University of Texas at Austin. Charles Whitman killed 16 and wounded 31 in 1966. Whitman did not have an AR-15 because they were relatively new and not wide spread yet. Whitman had a number of rifles but was protected because he was barricaded at the top of a clock tower. He didn’t need an assault weapon because he was killing at distance and had the luxury of time. Whitman set the mark for generations of mass murders to come.

You can only eliminate all school shootings by taking all guns. Most shootings are between people who know each other for a reason. Mass murders just want to kill to run their numbers up. There are probably a million potential school shooters in America the vast majority will not act on their impulses. Banning assault weapons will put a stop to mass murder in schools not school shootings.

I looked through your list. The FBI defines a mass murder as 4 or more people so some of those on the list are not mass murder. The weapon was only listed in a few of the smaller mass murders and many of those were personal. We know for fact that assault weapons were used in vast majority of the major mass murders.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 09/21/2018 at 01:30:23