Terror at Orlando Nightclub, 20 Feared Dead.

Whew, for your friend Brian.
Excellent re St. Pete Pride.

Nope. I still disagree that the law only bans pistol grips.

I did not twist everything inside out. The law states that to be
banned, the gun must be semi-automatic, have a detachable magazine,
and have at least two features from a list of features.

I said "The fact that the ban on semi-automatic capability and detachable
magazines only applies to guns with certain cosmetic features doesn't
change what the law does regarding those guns."

Those are the same words you used but putting semi-automatic capability
and a detachable magazine first. That is the order in which they appear in
the actual text of the law.

Damn. Sorry to hear this. Rest in peace.

I'm so sorry.

I think youve been drinking NRA Koolaide.

Im a multi gun owner and feel that "originalist" views about the 2nd Amendment not changing with time is just crap. Its not going to remain so unique and "Above civil rights laws". (I like to see a USSC case that really would handle the civil rights violations of these massive gun attacks on innocent opeople). Most all of the other amendments have been redefined in non-originalist terms, a few have been repealed, and all have been tested in court resulting in USSC "updating the constitution (at least for a given piece of time).

EG- Beginning in the late 1800's SCience had become conflicted with the originalist thinking that was in the "Establishment clause" of the First Amendment .That post-colonial thinking needed to be redefined when religions tried to negate science for their own worldviews, and call it biology and then as science showed it just aint so, the USSC decided TWICE to expand the Establishment clauses hold on the "Free expression" clause of the same amendment. Up until Arkansas' decision , things like "Butler Laws" prevented evolution from being taught as science. SO originalism died in that fight(You didnt think ID avoid EVOLUTION did you?)
Civil Rights has intervened in several Amendments for an issue that needed a non-originalist viewpoint. After all, the Constitutions original casual mention of "property" to include humans needed radical change . The USSC has been mostly behind the redefinition and retailoring of "what the Constitution rally means"(at least until recently when it decreed otherwise), so ooriginalism was again met and won over.

I always said it would be a generational change for guns.The country cant keep going like this and theres the NRA feeding its minions in congress and "scoring" their single issue lackies while people are dying, will, eventually be seen for what it is. It will be a generation or more away, but weve gott come out of the caves in this country.







_____

It sure sounded like you were stating your agreement when you were replying to my argument. How am I supposed to interpret your words "Neither have I" that you made in response to my argument?

If you do disagree with my argument, I'd be interested in seeing an attempt to refute it.



Even when you twisted the law around, it still applied only to guns with pistol grips and similar cosmetic features.



You took "a ban on cosmetic features, applied only to semi-autos with a detachable magazine" and twisted it around to "a ban on semi-autos with detachable magazines, applied only to guns with cosmetic features".

And my point that "when you twist it around this way, the law is still focused only on harmless cosmetic features" still stands.



Yes. And I've pointed out that even when you twist it around this way, the law is still focused only on guns with harmless cosmetic features.

It isn't very clear I guess on whether you agree with that point or not. But I haven't noticed any attempts to refute it yet.

Since some members lost a friend at Orlando, I don't feel comfortable
continuing our discussion here, so I'm bowing out. I knew I wouldn't
convince you, but I said what I thought had to be said. It's been fun.

While my quote does sound like an NRA sound bite (never been a member btw) my sentiment originates from conversations with gun control advocates. The fact that they SINCERELY thought the 2nd amendment applied to the Army or National Guard and it took this long for the USSC to say no, 'the people' means 'the people' proves to me what the ultimate goal of the gun control movement really is.

But did you notice how you went from 'Nawh, that's just NRA propaganda' to 'Sooner or later, the other side will win' in a single post?

They will not give up and as you point out, it will be via the USSC 'updating'/changing/gutting the obvious meaning of the 2nd. They will ultimately win and it won't stop with cosmetics of the gun.

But Even if and after gun ownership is curtailed or banned it will have no effect on the rate of atrocities and the social engineers will choose yet another meaningless emotional bus to climb aboard.

That need for an emotional issue to 'believe in' is the real issue and that's why I don't wade into the gun debate very often. If it isn't guns (Pro or Con), it's alcohol, MADD, crack baby myths, vaccination pro/con, AIDS, Zica, the disease of the day, automobile safety, etc. There is a niche for everyone in need of one.

But after all is said and done, I don't think we're coming out of our caves. You can update/change the constitution but peoples is peoples.

Peoples is peoples and the courts are the courts.

Courts ruled that Connecticut can ban assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Supreme Court upheld that ruling when they refused to take the appeal. So clearly, according to US court system, legislatures can ban "cosmetic features", as oralloy insists on calling them, in combinations those legislatures consider to be beyond what should be allowed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKCN0Z61JE

So very sorry to read of the loss of your friend.

Yes, so sorry for the loss of your friend.

Are you trying to get me to object to you agreeing with me? Or just cheering a gun control victory?

The direction I said gun control is taking in the courts will inevitably lead to these silly cosmetic bans. And that WILL NOT satisfy the gun control lobby before or after the next atrocity.

Are you saying that will satisfy them?

Parados is still Parados...

bookmark

I am saddened by your loss. It is truly horrible.

Adds to my last post - Brian, while fortunate to escape, will have lifetime memories. I think we all wish him well re dealing with it.

Are you going to refer to them as "cosmetic" as well? If it is cosmetic then it makes no difference in the gun than legislating that all guns have to be painted pink. Do you really think changing from a single shot to a 30 round magazine is the same as changing the color? Clearly the military doesn't think so, nor do the gun manufacturers that advertise their weapons based on their capabilities.

parados is still parados...

Well, the kkk/nra won again. The no ball senate did as their Koch masters ordered them to do again. None of the gun control bills passed today in the senate. I have seen some people on this site say that the will of the people will force the senate and house to vote the way the majority want them too. Explain why a majority of 98% who wanted some gun control was ignored? I am checking my congress mens voting record very closely.

I hope everyone takes that opportunity. Today's votes make it very easy.

What's an easy way to check how your congressman is voting?