Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
The first step is to get the automatic and semi automatic guns outlawed.

Never going to happen. The Democrats will never even attempt it.

I agree,
but I think revolvers are better, safer.

David

1 Reply

@hingehead,

ditto here. FM and your's is the only post

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
The first step is to get the automatic and semi automatic guns outlawed.

Never going to happen. The Democrats will never even attempt it.

I agree,
but I think revolvers are better, safer.

Revolvers will likely get a boost from a 10 round magazine limit if it passes and isn't struck down by the courts. (Although those are two big "if"s, especially given the way the freedom haters insist on sabotaging their own legislation by making it unconstitutional.)

I think Smith and Wesson still makes their 8-round .357 magnum revolver. Not quite 10 rounds, but not all that far off either. And Taurus also makes a .357 magnum with an 8-round cylinder.

Another big winner will likely be the .50 GI round.

http://www.guncrafterindustries.com/graphics/indx_splash.jpg

http://www.guncrafterindustries.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_GI

Sort of a new and somewhat-unknown round so far, but their Glock conversions have a 9-round clip. And their .50 caliber ballistics are ideal for self defense:

275 gr JHP, 900 ft/s, 495 ft-lb
300 gr JHP, 860 ft/s, 493 ft-lb

If people find themselves limited to only 10 rounds, it'll probably become a very popular caliber for concealed carry.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

ditto here. FM and your's is the only post

Well like I told the other freedom hater, your hiding from facts and reality won't prevent the courts from striking down your legislation when you make it unconstitutional.

Make sure you intertwine that magazine ban real tightly with the ban on harmless cosmetic features now. Twisted Evil

2 Replies

@oralloy,

It would help a lot if you actually knew what you were talking about, oralloy. The assault weapons ban did not ban either pistol grips or flash suppressors as you keep going on and on about. It did however ban around a dozen specific makes and models of actually produced weapons. Since gun manufacturers made and make minor tweaks to products and rename the minimally modified models to get around any prohibitions, the drafters of the bill attempted to come up with some indicia of what a lot of future products that might come under the ban would have in common, based on the models they had seen to date, and a weapon to be banned had to have at least TWO of those four or five features to be banned, so having just one wouldn't get it banned. Considering the ban has elapsed, your belaboring the point is even sillier. I expect the next time around they'll rewrite the definition of banned weapons to be considerably more inclusive. I believe you characterized the drafters as "dickless" for grandfathering in pre-existent weapons. It took them something like five years to get something that would actually pass, due to the unrelenting opposition of the gun extremists, and they had to make considerable concessions to get even that little passed. Grandfathering in guns already owned was one of those concessions. Your side emasculated the bill, and a lot more innocent people died as a result. We're not freedom-haters, you're child killers. And you'd better check out what Scalia has been saying lately, because it looks like you guys are gonna be cruising for a fall if you think your version of what's constitutional is gonna fly with SCOTUS. Hint: you're wrong.

3 Replies

@RexRed,

Rachel Maddow on gun buy-back?

That's eminently sensible, and very encouraging. It confirms that not all Americans are a lost cause.
Shame that good news like this does not hit the headlines more often.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

It would help a lot if you actually knew what you were talking about, oralloy.

I do. That's why you'll never be able to show a single fact that I am wrong about.

MontereyJack wrote:

It did however ban around a dozen specific makes and models of actually produced weapons.

That was also unconstitutional, because even though they were banned by name, they were still banned only for their harmless cosmetic features.

MontereyJack wrote:

Since gun manufacturers made and make minor tweaks to products and rename the minimally modified models to get around any prohibitions,

Oh nonsense. When you pass an unconstitutional ban on cosmetic features, and manufacturers create different cosmetic features to comply with the ban, that is hardly "getting around" the prohibition.

MontereyJack wrote:

a weapon to be banned had to have at least TWO of those four or five features to be banned, so having just one wouldn't get it banned.

It doesn't matter. Aside from the large capacity magazines (which I'm unsure of), banning ANY combination of the remaining features would violate Rational Basis Review (to say nothing of the even sterner standards of scrutiny that the courts might apply).

MontereyJack wrote:

Considering the ban has elapsed, your belaboring the point is even sillier.

Considering that people are calling to reimpose the unconstitutional monstrosity, not really.

MontereyJack wrote:

I expect the next time around they'll rewrite the definition of banned weapons to be considerably more inclusive.

And when the Supreme Court strikes it down (if you even get it passed), it might just take the high capacity magazine ban with it.

(Make sure you keep the two issues tightly intertwined so there is zero possibility of severability. Thanks in advance.)

MontereyJack wrote:

I believe you characterized the drafters as "dickless" for grandfathering in pre-existent weapons.

No. Never said anything like that.

MontereyJack wrote:

Your side emasculated the bill,

No, you guys did that. When you make a bill that is devoted almost entirely to harmless cosmetic features, by definition it is not going to do anything much.

MontereyJack wrote:

and a lot more innocent people died as a result.

Nope. Harmless cosmetic features do not cause anyone to die.

MontereyJack wrote:

We're not freedom-haters,

Sure you are. You are deliberately calling for a blatant violation of the Constitution, and given the fact that harmless cosmetic features cause no harm, you don't even have a good reason for violating the Constitution. You're just violating the Constitution for the sake of violating the Constitution.

And those people whose rights you're violating for the fun of it, they like to vote. Say hi to the NRA on election day.

MontereyJack wrote:

you're child killers.

Nope. As already noted, harmless cosmetic features kill no one.

And when the Supreme Court strikes down your unconstitutional ban (assuming you even get it past the NRA), if the high capacity magazine ban is also struck down as collateral damage, you are going to be the only one to blame for it. Because you are going to be the one who welded it to something blatantly unconstitutional that you didn't even need.

MontereyJack wrote:

And you'd better check out what Scalia has been saying lately, because it looks like you guys are gonna be cruising for a fall if you think your version of what's constitutional is gonna fly with SCOTUS. Hint: you're wrong.

Oh? Has Justice Scalia been saying that the Supreme Court has decided to abandon Rational Basis Review and the other standards of scrutiny?

Got a cite of him saying anything like that?

2 Replies

Spiderman Captures a Freedom Hater; Saves the Constitution:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-fN3PGCMAAKunz.jpg:large

(PS: I can post "to all" and you guys can't. Nyah Nyah Razz

)

0 Replies

@oralloy,

You know what had amazed me is that no one that is for this ban here can or at least have to date offer any rational defense of why the hell firearms with a pistol grip or a flash suppressor should be ban while the same or similar firearms without those features will not be.

Mags sizes are another issue and might have some small benefits even if changing out a mag is the work of one to two seconds. Still you also will need to disregard the fact that there will still be hundreds of millions of such magazines that will predate the ban and will be legal to sell.

We do have a problem and it should be address by solutions that have some rational benefits such as armed security in schools or any where else that is declare a gun free zone, encouraging more law abiding citizens to be carrying in public spaces so the chance of such killers will run up again arm resistance will greatly be increase.

For example right now the chance of having an armed citizen in any group is ten times the chance of having an off duty police officer in the group in the state if Florida.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You know what had amazed me is that no one that is for this ban here can or at least have to date offer any rational defense of why the hell firearms with a pistol grip or a flash suppressor should be ban while the same or similar firearms without those features will not be.

They don't have a reason. They're freedom haters. They just like violating people's Constitutional rights for fun.

It's going to be poetic justice if the high capacity magazine ban gets struck down because the freedom haters insisted on violating the Constitution for no reason.

I for one will show no mercy mocking them if that happens.

(Of course, we've yet to see if they can even get said ban past the NRA.)

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

If you choose to ignore the fact that the Constitution forbids banning harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors,

I didnt ignore anything dammit. The Bushmaster 223 was actually made AFTER the 94 assault weapon ban. The definition in the ban had summarized several features that, when 2 or more were on a semiauto gun, IT WAS THEN CLASSED AS AN ASSAULT WEAPON> What Bushmaster did was to remove the flash surpressor, the stock extender, the bayonet mount, an one a other item. BUT since they only had a large volume clip left, they were able to keep that because there wasnt "2 or more of the defineable features".
THATS the way history of this issue progressed, as I said, the "Assault weapon ban" of 94 was a dickless, non-effort. The gun manufacturers could come out with new models and keep a big magazine and create a "scary looking frame", but it was all legal.
The fact that all previous or presently inventoried or owned semi auto "Assaults" were GRANDFATHERED, the assault weapon band didnt really exist. IT WAS A SHAM.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

. That's why you'll never be able to show a single fact that I am wrong about.

Obviously, because you define what the facts are. Others are just as entitled as you are to declare who is a freedom hater.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

And is there a rash of such illegal conversions in any case? I've yet to hear of a spree killer using a full auto weapon.

There have been a number of conversions by hobbyists , what happens to the converted guns I dont know. WHY bother converting, an AK47 is easily acquired on the street. Full auto guns are always being taken from dealers stashes when caught. There are more guin murders of the onsey and threesy style in our cities. In the weekend after Newtown, there were several gun murders in Philly alone

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

You know very well that a pistol grip does not make a weapon unsuitable for sport

what idiot will use a Bushmaster to hunt deer. The load will, if effective, not be lethal with one shot and noone is allowed to use bullets for small game.Small game is taken with shotguns.
So what class of sport do you actually mean? You mean TARGET PRACTICE only cause ultimately the gun is used to kill and maim people.

Quote:

The .223 is a very popular varmint round.

The BUSHMASTER 223 is NOT a varmint gun. It is not really accurate nd its a "spray and pray" type of a weapon that I dont think any sport hunter would choose as a weapon of choice. I have a 228 varmint gun with a Bull Barrel and its a single shot. Its a real varmint gun cause of its long range accuracy.

Goin smlaa game huntinmg with a center fire bullet is not legal in Pa (and most civilized states). Its not accurate and long range enough for big game , its just a "Niche gun" that was originally marketed as a "Military style" gun after the wheeneie assaultweapon ban 0f 94

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
If you choose to ignore the fact that the Constitution forbids banning harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors,

I didnt ignore anything dammit.

Hmmm. So are you deliberately trying to sabotage the legislation so that the courts strike down any ban on high capacity magazines?

farmerman wrote:

The Bushmaster 223 was actually made AFTER the 94 assault weapon ban. The definition in the ban had summarized several features that, when 2 or more were on a semiauto gun, IT WAS THEN CLASSED AS AN ASSAULT WEAPON> What Bushmaster did was to remove the flash surpressor, the stock extender, the bayonet mount, an one a other item. BUT since they only had a large volume clip left, they were able to keep that because there wasnt "2 or more of the defineable features".
THATS the way history of this issue progressed, as I said, the "Assault weapon ban" of 94 was a dickless, non-effort. The gun manufacturers could come out with new models and keep a big magazine and create a "scary looking frame", but it was all legal.

That's what happens when Congress outlaws cosmetic features. People change the cosmetics.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

oralloy wrote:
That's why you'll never be able to show a single fact that I am wrong about.

Obviously, because you define what the facts are.

No. Reality does that for me.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
And is there a rash of such illegal conversions in any case? I've yet to hear of a spree killer using a full auto weapon.

There have been a number of conversions by hobbyists , what happens to the converted guns I dont know. WHY bother converting, an AK47 is easily acquired on the street.

A semi-auto AK-47 maybe. I doubt a full-auto version would be all that common.

farmerman wrote:

Full auto guns are always being taken from dealers stashes when caught.

Why don't these cases make the news?

Usually when a case makes the news, they are just parading a semi-auto in front of people and letting everyone assume it is full-auto.

farmerman wrote:

There are more gun murders of the onsey and threesy style in our cities. In the weekend after Newtown, there were several gun murders in Philly alone

Any with full-autos?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Well like I told the other freedom hater, your hiding from facts and reality won't prevent the courts from striking down your legislation when you make it unconstitutional.

Your use of childish epithets isnt sticking oralloy. You gotta argue the issues and not cast insults. I dont have to argue my "freedom loving" status to an uniformed person like you who spouts party lines and makes up **** that isnt so. Ive provided actual information about the assault rifle that was used in Newtown. Youve unsuccessfully tried to counter the points Ive made but thats no mind, I got em in record .
Whether the Constitution does or does not hold with a present 2nd amendment as written is a question that we cannot know at this point. I venture to say that, since NRA (non gun manufacture members) are slowly swinging TOWARD reasonable gun laws then e may see some meaningful change in the 2nd amendment in several decades (I am not a fool, its gonna be beyond my lifetime).
However, the vast majority of Americans dont want this needless slaughter going on while some industry quietly keeps manufacturing instruments of death. (That includes the defined weapons, the defined ammo, the Grandfathering issue, and illegal sales)

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I called em dickless and I understand the compromise but I stand by my title conferred. Your summary was accurate though. Oral just keeps sounding the same error filled assertions and hopes they stick.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Heller had some interesting points about a "start" in meaningful gun control. It wasnt a bleak capitulation to the NRA.

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know