0
   

The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 02:15 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
You are seeing things that are not there the Constitution is absolutely silent on ammunition.

That is incorrect. The Constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms. Effective ammo is part of the arm.


Zardoz wrote:
You could just as easily claim that the 2nd amendments says you are entitled to have nerve gas. The Constitution is silent on that also.

Nerve gas is not necessary for self defense. Effective ammo is necessary for self defense.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 02:17 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
The founding fathers may have been well aware that ammunition was needed for a gun but they had a chance to grant a right to ammunition but choose not to.

The Founding Fathers did not grant rights. They provided protection for preexisting rights.


Zardoz wrote:
Ammunition may be available but you have no Constitutional right to it and the congress can limit the supply and type or prohibit its sale.

That is incorrect. The right to have arms includes the right to have effective ammunition for those arms.


Zardoz wrote:
Ten thousand dead people can’t be wrong they died needlessly killed with weapons designed to fight wars with. That is ten thousand excellent reason to ban weapons of war.

No. There is no justification for banning the English longbow.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 02:26 am
@Zardoz,
Zardoz wrote:
If pistol grips were not part of the problem mass murderers would not choose those types of weapons with pistol grips.

They aren't choosing such weapons. Most choose handguns.

But pistol grips would not be a problem no matter what they chose.


Zardoz wrote:
Patents were issued for the AR-15 because it could fire far more bullets faster.

That is unlikely. The German MG-42 was firing at rates up to 1500 rounds per minute in 1942.


Zardoz wrote:
The design specifications determine what an assault weapon is the pistol grip is only one feature and not the most important.

It's one of the features that get a gun labeled as an assault weapon.

The other assault weapon features are equally as harmless.


Zardoz wrote:
An AR-15 is made in a standard rifle model it would be considered an assault weapon even without a pistol grip.

That is incorrect. Without the harmless features like the pistol grip, it would not be labeled as an assault weapon.


Zardoz wrote:
Firing at a 900 rounds a minute rate is hardly harmless.

Semi-auto weapons do not fire at a 900 rounds per minute rate.


Zardoz wrote:
Outlawing pistols grips might make only a small difference

No difference at all in fact, which is why the Constitution forbids banning them.


Zardoz wrote:
but banning assault weapons would save thousands of innocent lives.

That is incorrect. Banning pistol grips will not save a single life.


Zardoz wrote:
What we do know for a fact is the mass murder rate was far lower when we had an assault weapon ban in place

Pistol grips on rifles had nothing to do with any change in murder rates.


Zardoz wrote:
and you have to remember that ban did nothing about the million or so assault weapons on the street. Just stopping the sale of new assault weapons to every extremist that has an ax to grind has a big effect.

The addition of a pistol grip to a rifle has no effect at all.


Zardoz wrote:
When a gun manufacture design assault weapons they design them to fire at a rate to make mass murder easy.

Adding a pistol grip to a rifle does not make it fire any faster.


Zardoz wrote:
Assault weapons were never designed to hunt with.

That is incorrect. Plenty of assault weapons are designed for hunting.


Zardoz wrote:
I have lived near a large-woods that is filled with deer for over thirty years. During deer season you just hear single shots fired the deer is dead or ran away. When you hear the assault-weapons is when the gun nuts are pretending they are killing large numbers of people. You can hear the rapid fire coming from their driveway. Mass murderers in training.

Assault weapons do not sound any different from guns that do not have a pistol grip.


Zardoz wrote:
They don’t hunt with assault weapons.

Sure they do.


Zardoz wrote:
You can defend yourself with a shot gun and that is the gun that is in most police cars.

Americans will defend themselves with whatever they choose to defend themselves with. So long as there is no justification for banning a weapon, they have the right to use it.

Many Americans will choose to defend themselves with rifles. Some will chose to use rifles that have a pistol grip.

Most police cars have some variant of an AR-15.


Zardoz wrote:
Police know from experience that a shot gun will stop anyone.

Shotguns are useless against Kevlar.


Zardoz wrote:
Pistols grips don’t kill

Which is why the Constitution forbids banning them.


Zardoz wrote:
but assault weapons just killed thirty-one people in 13 hours.

The pistol grips were not a factor in their death.


Zardoz wrote:
Ban the assault weapons and we will save thousands of lives.

That is incorrect. Banning pistol grips will not save any lives.


Zardoz wrote:
Just stopping the extremist from going in and buying assault weapons any time they take a notion they want to kill a bunch of people is a big step in the right direction.

Violating people's civil liberties is never the right thing to do.


Zardoz wrote:
If it did not make a difference, mass murderers would choose standard rifles instead of assault weapons with pistol grips.

Pistol grips don't make a difference. Mass murderers prefer handguns over rifles.


Zardoz wrote:
If assault weapons were ordinary guns, they would not be used to fight wars with.

They aren't. Militaries prefer full-auto weapons.


Zardoz wrote:
The demonstration on NBC showed the back packs being tested when an assault weapon was fired into the back pack the bullets went through.

Centerfire rifle bullets punch through Kevlar. That's no surprise.

Fit it out with a class III plate (or better yet, a plate rated both class III and class IV) and it'll be fine.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 02:29 am
@oralloy,
Personal "self defense" is not mentioned in the Constitution.

oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 02:32 am
@hightor,
The right to keep and bear arms is mentioned in the Constitution, and that preexisting right includes personal self defense.

Personal self defense is also the basis for the Heller ruling that is what the courts will be using as their guidance for now.

It'll be up to future generations to expand Heller to include the heavier more militia-oriented weapons.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 02:42 am
@oralloy,
What I am talking about is common knowledge. Everybody knows that since primary school. An example is the oft-mentioned shouting "fire" in a packed theatre when there's no fire, or crime-inducing speech. Your right of expression may be curtailed when it impacts on other people's right to life and security.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 03:01 am
@Olivier5,
I've never heard that described as rights impacting on each other before.

To me that's a restriction justified by a compelling government interest.

But if that's all you meant, I agree with you.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 03:08 am
@oralloy,
There's no compelling government interest in movie theaters. It is simply a case where some people's right to free speech colides with other people's right to security.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 03:12 am
@Olivier5,
Tomato, tomahto.

So long as we both agree on the principle, what does it matter what terminology is used to describe that principle?
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 03:47 am
@oralloy,
Because truth matters. There's no such thing as a compelling government interest in movie theaters, important enough to warrant a limitation to free speech in them.

Also, because you stated upthread:

Quote:
I've never seen a right impact on another right.

Now you see what I mean.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 03:55 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Because truth matters.

Using different terminology doesn't mean that someone isn't telling the truth though. It's just different terminology.

So long as we both understand what the other means, what's the problem?


Olivier5 wrote:
There's no such thing as a compelling government interest in movie theaters, important enough to warrant a limitation to free speech in them.

Our courts disagree. They say that the government has a compelling interest in preventing people from being killed in a needless panic inside a theater.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 04:35 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Our courts disagree. They say that the government has a compelling interest in preventing people from being killed in a needless panic inside a theater.

And what compelling interest would that be?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 04:43 am
@Olivier5,
Preventing people from being killed.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 04:45 am
@oralloy,
Why does the government care about that, in your mind? What is it to them if some random people get killed in some needless panic?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 05:02 am
@Olivier5,
We live in a benevolent democracy where the government serves the interests of the people.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 05:23 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

We live in a benevolent democracy where the government serves the interests of the people.

Even when that goes against freedom of expression, a right enshrined in the constitution?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 05:28 am
@Olivier5,
Restrictions of rights are allowed only when the restriction serves a compelling government interest. And the restriction is required to be as minimal and unobtrusive as possible.

Note:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 07:40 am
@oralloy,
Nonono i shall enjoy my constitutionally-enshrined right to shout "fire" in a packed theatre. Damn you librals if you don't like it.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 08:37 pm
@oralloy,
You can bare arms all you want but that does not include ammunition. Like they tell you in contract law if it isn’t written down it isn’t there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Never gas might be far more efficient for self defense than guns. You could wipe out all your enemies and not even have to aim. It like the old joke about a bar patron threatening other bar flies with his Karate one goes to his car and gets his ball bat smacks the karate expert upside the head and says ball bat Sears and Roebuck $5.95. There are any number of ways to defend yourself.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Aug, 2019 08:59 pm
@oralloy,
Rights are granted by governments. There are all kinds of government and they do not enjoy the same rights we do. The rights can be changed according to the Constitution. At some point in time the second amendment will be eliminated if the gun nuts have not killed everyone.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You still believe that of all the rights, that the second amendment is the only one that is absolute. The government now regulates the types of ammunition all that needs to be done is make the already existing regulations tighter.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even countries have agreed to ban certain types of weapons because they are so effective at killing people. If we had baby beds that had killed a fraction of the people that assault weapons have killed, it would be removed from the market immediately. Why should that standard not apply to assault weapons?
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 10:53:44