The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

And BillRM< why do you keep fantasizing about lever-action rifles? Bolt action are far more common and have been since about 1903.

Bolt actions don't fire nearly as fast. He focuses on lever actions because his point is about guns that fire at a fairly high rate of speed.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

It's both funny and sad that some still don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.

To be fair, I do the same thing whenever I'm not thinking about it.

I do know the difference, but if I post without thinking about it, I'll often use the word clip when I should say magazine.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

BillRM wrote:
The constitution 2 amendment did not limit the technology of firearms

Neither did it say that permissible technology is unlimited. In stating that "the" right to hold and bear arms shall not be infringed, the framers of the Second Amendment referred to a well-settled body of English law. (See Scalia's decision in Heller.) This body of law, going back to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, applied to the American colonies until July 3, 1776.The English Bill of Rights, in turn, did provide for gun control by decreeing "[t]hat the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". (Emphasis added---T.)

Fifteen years later, in 1791, the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" language removed the prohibitions on non-Protestants and the restrictions on people so poor that English law didn't deem guns "suitable to their conditions". But the notion that all "arms for their defense" must therefore be "allowed by law" is a historical fabrication by modern American conservatives. From the earliest days of the American colonies, English law restricted the kinds of arms the people could hold and bear. The authors of the Second Amendment neither intended nor understood themselves to be removing these restrictions.

By your reasoning, there is no Constitutional right to freedom of speech on TV, radio,
nor does freedom of the press apply to the product of electric printing presses.

By the 2A, the Founders of this Republic simply put
any citizen 's possession of guns beyond the reach of any government's jurisdiction.

The Founders were conversant with English.
Thay said what thay meant and thay meant what thay said in the Constitution.

David

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

No, the 2nd Amendment Uber alles crowd wants to thin the population of innocent children.

They see it as their duty

That 's just rude.

Its mindless mudslinging.

David

0 Replies

PUBLIC SAFETY is the repeal of all gun control laws,
plus advice to all members of the public to be smart
by arming themselves in their own personal defense,
the same way that the citizens r encouraged to wear seat belts for their personal safety.

David

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
It's both funny and sad that some still don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.

To be fair, I do the same thing whenever I'm not thinking about it.

I do know the difference, but if I post without thinking about it, I'll often use the word clip when I should say magazine.

Take your time, think and get it right, it's that important.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Re: oralloy (Post 5234771)
oralloy wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
It's both funny and sad that some still don't understand the difference between a clip and a magazine.

To be fair, I do the same thing whenever I'm not thinking about it.

I do know the difference, but if I post without thinking about it, I'll often use the word clip when I should say magazine.

Take your time, think and get it right, it's that important.

Actually, it is no more important than whether you call the things sticking out of the bottom of golf shoes "cleats" or "spikes."

It is only important to some gun enthusiasts, because so many of gun enthusiast arguments are absurd...and this makes a handy diversion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank A., you have re-confirmed that it's a waste of time to discuss this issue
with... you are too emotional and irrational to participate in a meaningful way.

Your being so very ignorant doesn't help either.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5234965)

Frank A., you have re-confirmed that it's a waste of time to discuss this issue
with... you are too emotional and irrational to participate in a meaningful way.

Your being so very ignorant doesn't help either.

I am not ignorant, H2O...nor am I irrational or especially emotional.

My arguments obviously are too strong for you to offer meaningful counterarguments...so you have to resort to this kind of nonsense.

Once again, you are "wasting time" on me to tell me that you are determined not to waste time on me.

That makes no sense.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

all members of the public to be smart
by arming themselves in their own personal defense,
the same way that the citizens r encouraged to wear seat belts for their personal safety.

Not in the same way at all Dave. Seat belts are mandatory. Try not wearing one. Militantly.

Most people would not wear seat belts if they had a choice not involving punishment. And increasing punishment if they persist. Encouragement would not have any effect on their attitude. They feel un-free strapped into anything. As if they were in a pram or a bungee jump harness.

Such types would never buy one of those cars which won't start until the seat belt is locked. They would "grandfather" cars if such a device was mandatory on all new cars.

If it was "the same way" then you are advocating mandatory gun ownership. With the same legal sanctions.

But I don't know if wearing seat belts is compulsory in the US.

And you admit there to feeling unsafe and not being able to understand anybody who doesn't feel unsafe and that it is your duty to persuade them
that they are unsafe and raise their insecurities and anxieties to your levels which will, of course, suit the gun business down to the ground.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

PUBLIC SAFETY is the repeal of all gun control laws,
plus advice to all members of the public to be smart
by arming themselves in their own personal defense,
the same way that the citizens r encouraged to wear seat belts for their personal safety.

David

I'm a gun owner who does think gun control laws are both necessary and, at present, somewhat ineffective in addressing the problems we're having. However, the Second Amendment does have the phrase "shall not be infringed." That's a pretty absolute statement. It makes me wonder about the constitutionality of ANY gun control laws, even while I think those laws are needed. Legally speaking, how are any gun control laws constitutional? (I'm obviously not an expert at law or even this topic.)

3 Replies

The differences between a clip and a magazine are huge.

The clip, better known as the stripper clip, is a convenient way to store
ammo and have it ready to load into the corresponding magazine quickly.

You can not fire the rounds while they are loaded on a stripper clip.

Also, use of a stripper clip is not required when loading a magazine
and not all magazines allow for stripper clip use.

http://www.knewance.com/storage/post-images/clip_magazine.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1279244330073

http://www.warstuff.com/uploaded/2010-7-28/i1004-556mm223-Inert-Rounds-On-Stripper-Clip-Militaria.JPG

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Unless someone were in a situation where "firing without aiming" was adequate, the advantage would be slight.

You mean like instances where the shooter only wants to kill as many as possible and doesn't care who exactly they kill?

Hmm.. it might make a reflective person actually think about what you said.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: oralloy (Post 5234767)
Quote:

Unless someone were in a situation where "firing without aiming" was adequate, the advantage would be slight.

You mean like instances where the shooter only wants to kill as many as possible and doesn't care who exactly they kill?

Hmm.. it might make a reflective person actually think about what you said.

Great way to express it, Parados.

I laughed out loud at that one.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:
And BillRM< why do you keep fantasizing about lever-action rifles? Bolt action are far more common and have been since about 1903.

Bolt actions don't fire nearly as fast. He focuses on lever actions because his point is about guns that fire at a fairly high rate of speed.

Fewer bullets per second? Why would that possibly matter? All the people would still be dead.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Unless someone were in a situation where "firing without aiming" was adequate, the advantage would be slight.

It's called suppressive fire and it requires a fire team.

1 Reply

@parados,

All this idiocy about rate of fire not being an issue makes me think we need to get all the conspiracy nuts that think Oswald couldn't have acted alone because no one can fire a bolt action rifle that fast and accurately in a room with all the gun nuts that think the rate of fire has no impact on how deadly a weapon can be and let them fight to the death.

2 Replies

@parados,

Damn you're dumb!

It's obvious that you have no experience with firearms.
A fast rate of fire is no substitute for individual shot placement.

1 Reply

@FBM,

All constitutions are unconstitutional from a Darwinian perspective.

To the extent that they might be considered constitutional is a matter for those who decide what is constitutional or not in the particular place at a particular time and is obviously subject to any adjustments such people see fit to apply. Otherwise there would be nothing to decide and those who make an easy living out of deciding would have to get a proper job if the dogmas are set in stone.

At least alchemists tried to make gold from lead. These buggers can make gold out of warmed up, carbon dioxide rich, air.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Damn you're dumb!

It's obvious that you have no experience with firearms.
A fast rate of fire is no substitute for individual shot placement.

Unless of course you are firing at a crowd and don't care who you hit.

2 Replies

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know