#BoycottNRA

#3,476
#3,476
They weren’t the “most popular” you dumbass!! They were used a minority percentage of the damn time!!!!

So again!!!
😂😂😂😂😂😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,477
#3,477
BeecherVol said:
As time passes on during this debate, it's becoming more evident that this really isn't about kids being shot at school or people being shot at a theater or concert but rather a law being passed that says "we won" something.
Click to expand...

That's the gun control movement in a nutshell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,478
#3,478
OuterBanksVol said:
You have no "rights" to an assault weapon. Not sure why you don't understand this. This very issue has already been decided upon by the Supreme Court. Please educate yourself on the subject.

"It was not the first time a federal appeals court had ruled that a ban on assault weapons was permissible under the Second Amendment. It was the fourth time in the past decade. In fact, no federal appeals court has ever held that assault weapons are protected.

The question of assault weapons was not addressed by the Supreme Court when, in 2008, it held for the first time in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, went out of his way to say that the right “is not unlimited.”

Does the Second Amendment really protect assault weapons? Four courts have said no. - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

Governments don’t grant rights. Only take them. But removing my rights, doesn’t make them any less rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,480
#3,480
OuterBanksVol said:
Given your ego, I have no doubt you think your logic is greater than that of actual court rulings. Please educate me.
Click to expand...

Now, the Heller decision was a landmark decision because it solidified the individual right to bear arms. Not connected with militia duty or anything else, but the right of the people as a whole. Additionally, it stated individual classes of arms could not be banned, namely pistols as that's the central topic to the case. Basically, Scalia wrote that pistols were "in common usage" and government could not ban them outright as D.C. tried to do. Well, heavily regulate them as they tried to do.

The biggest takeaway from the case was the "common usage" language. He didn't specifically mention AR15s and the like, but did say "reasonable restrictions" could be placed and that the Second Amendment wasn't an "anything goes" Amendment. Hence why States like NY and CT can restrict ownership to a limited extent with their laws. However, they cannot outright ban the items.

Here's the problem though...at current, AR15s, AKs, M1As, etc are listed as "rifles" when purchased at a gun store on the 4473. Some are pistols, obviously, but the majority are sold as "rifles" due to the simple fact there is no federal definition of an "assault weapon."

And never will be because it's a made up term as it is.

Now, here comes the tricky part you won't be able to wrap your brain around. Scalia said "common usage" in his opinion on the matter. It's extremely hard to argue that the AR15 isn't in common usage right now and the vast majority are being used for lawful purposes. Which are the two key elements identified by Scalia in the decision. And what kills your argument about "assault weapons" definition is the fact that the identifying features used in the 1994 AWB were mainly aesthetic in nature rather than affecting the weapon's operating actions. They were ignorant, still are ignorant and even the ATF said it did nothing to curb gun crime in the 10 years it was implemented.

So, you can stand on that "individual restriction" all day long, but the simple facts remain that AR15s, the majority of at least, are considered rifles by the ATF, the vast majority are used for lawful purposes and they are in common use by citizens exercising their Constitutionally outlined rights. And if the NY SAFE Act ever went to court, Heller kicks in. Same with the CT registration and restriction. The precedent has been set for that in McDonald vs Chicago (yet another case you know **** all about). The Second Amendment can be reasonably restricted, but you cannot ban an entire class of weapons, notably rifles as that's what AR15s are, with Heller being the settled case on the matter.

Feel free to ignore this post like you do everything else that pokes holes in your arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#3,483
#3,483
TLDR version for the lib window lickers. The terms “assault weapon”, “AR15”, etc... have zero meaning in a legal context. By law all of these weapons are legally classified as rifles which come with no inherit restrictions.

And when you libtards invoke Heller you normally do it with incorrect context and completely ignore McDonald.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,485
#3,485
What I always love is how some <cough cough LG cough> like to say the SCOTUS got it "wrong" on their interpretation in Heller.

It's a good thing they are far smarter than those appointed to the SCOTUS.
 
#3,487
#3,487
Grand Vol said:
What I always love is how some <cough cough LG cough> like to say the SCOTUS got it "wrong" on their interpretation in Heller.

It's a good thing they are far smarter than those appointed to the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Come on dude, you know a lawyer with a strip mall office and mail order degree is way smarter than the conservative wing of SCOTUS.
 
#3,488
#3,488
Grand Vol said:
What I always love is how some <cough cough LG cough> like to say the SCOTUS got it "wrong" on their interpretation in Heller.

It's a good thing they are far smarter than those appointed to the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

They also pound their chest over Stevens recent op-ed. Stevens is a closet liberal and dissented on both Heller and McDonald.
 
#3,490
#3,490
Grand Vol said:
Now, the Heller decision was a landmark decision because it solidified the individual right to bear arms. Not connected with militia duty or anything else, but the right of the people as a whole. Additionally, it stated individual classes of arms could not be banned, namely pistols as that's the central topic to the case. Basically, Scalia wrote that pistols were "in common usage" and government could not ban them outright as D.C. tried to do. Well, heavily regulate them as they tried to do.

The biggest takeaway from the case was the "common usage" language. He didn't specifically mention AR15s and the like, but did say "reasonable restrictions" could be placed and that the Second Amendment wasn't an "anything goes" Amendment. Hence why States like NY and CT can restrict ownership to a limited extent with their laws. However, they cannot outright ban the items.

Here's the problem though...at current, AR15s, AKs, M1As, etc are listed as "rifles" when purchased at a gun store on the 4473. Some are pistols, obviously, but the majority are sold as "rifles" due to the simple fact there is no federal definition of an "assault weapon."

And never will be because it's a made up term as it is.

Now, here comes the tricky part you won't be able to wrap your brain around. Scalia said "common usage" in his opinion on the matter. It's extremely hard to argue that the AR15 isn't in common usage right now and the vast majority are being used for lawful purposes. Which are the two key elements identified by Scalia in the decision. And what kills your argument about "assault weapons" definition is the fact that the identifying features used in the 1994 AWB were mainly aesthetic in nature rather than affecting the weapon's operating actions. They were ignorant, still are ignorant and even the ATF said it did nothing to curb gun crime in the 10 years it was implemented.

So, you can stand on that "individual restriction" all day long, but the simple facts remain that AR15s, the majority of at least, are considered rifles by the ATF, the vast majority are used for lawful purposes and they are in common use by citizens exercising their Constitutionally outlined rights. And if the NY SAFE Act ever went to court, Heller kicks in. Same with the CT registration and restriction. The precedent has been set for that in McDonald vs Chicago (yet another case you know **** all about). The Second Amendment can be reasonably restricted, but you cannot ban an entire class of weapons, notably rifles as that's what AR15s are, with Heller being the settled case on the matter.

Feel free to ignore this post like you do everything else that pokes holes in your arguments.
Click to expand...

Reasonable arguments. Are you suggesting then that state laws are unconstitutional then ?
 
#3,491
#3,491
OuterBanksVol said:
Reasonable arguments. Are you suggesting then that state laws are unconstitutional then ?
Click to expand...

It depends on whether or not the "reasonable restrictions" would apply to the discussion or not. To me, the magazine restrictions in NY are absurd, however, that's not part of the "weapon" so to speak and wasn't covered under any case law. However, the registration of said weapons could indeed be unlawful.

A case would have to be brought before the SCOTUS to determine if the restrictions placed by NY and CT violate a person's right to bear arms. At current, no, it is not unconstitutional since it's not been challenged at that level. Long story short, there were groups that were going to challenge the law, but when Scalia passed away, they decided not to proceed since it very likely would have ended in a 4-4 split and bounced to whatever the lower court decision was.

I'd dare say if it was to go to court now the restrictions on the sale of new weapons might be ruled Unconstitutional as you have McDonald and Heller as case law. Probably wouldn't do anything for the mag restrictions though.
 
#3,492
#3,492
OuterBanksVol said:
You have no "rights" to an assault weapon. Not sure why you don't understand this. This very issue has already been decided upon by the Supreme Court. Please educate yourself on the subject.

"It was not the first time a federal appeals court had ruled that a ban on assault weapons was permissible under the Second Amendment. It was the fourth time in the past decade. In fact, no federal appeals court has ever held that assault weapons are protected.

The question of assault weapons was not addressed by the Supreme Court when, in 2008, it held for the first time in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, went out of his way to say that the right “is not unlimited.”

Does the Second Amendment really protect assault weapons? Four courts have said no. - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS has already ruled on Military Style weapons indirectly. Sawed off shotguns were outlawed from private ownership BECAUSE they had no military use. The corollary is that if the military has it, private owners should be able to have them also.
 
#3,493
#3,493
Who knows what some future President, Congress, or SCOTUS might do? If you told the average citizen from the 1950's where we would be today on such fascinating subjects as...say, gender identity...they would have laughed in your face. And yet here we are.

So it goes. The slow, inexorable decline of Western Civilization continues at what seems to be an increasing and relentless pace. Honestly, I'm glad that I have more years behind me than remain ahead of me. Most of them were good, but the future is not so much bright anymore as it is murky and confused. It would be nice to live long enough to see the Vols ring up one more football Natty, but that's just me being selfish, so...

For now, I don't see a gun grab in the near future. Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles? Probably not. Restrictions on magazine capacity? Maybe, but even an average shooter can do just as much damage with 10 round mags as they can with 30's...a fact that is completely lost on those who might hurt themselves if ever challenged to actually load and fire a gun. Limits on ammo purchases? Good luck building the database to track that, and good luck expecting any of the federal alphabet agencies to do the job right (hello, FBI...looking at you here).

And then there's that great big grey elephant over there in the corner of the room. The one who wants to know how, exactly, you or anyone else would scheme to go get all of those AR's, AK's, Mini-14's, M1's, M14's...should I go on?...back from all of those ordinary, law-abiding citizens who laid down their hard-earned cash to buy them. I don't care what I costs, I want a ringside seat for that show.

So, for those of you who ordered a Vegan Victory Quiche from the Window-Licker Cafe', hold up on that car wash, ladies...the adults are still in charge. For now.

Special thanks to Mr. David Hogg for his extremely successful campaign to bring in all of those new NRA members. Helpful lad, that one.

Y'all be safe out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#3,494
#3,494
Opinion | There Is a Middle Ground on Guns - The New York Times

"...Tennessee has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country. You don’t need a permit to buy a gun here. You don’t need a license to own one. You aren’t required to register any gun you own. You don’t need a permit to carry a rifle or a shotgun. You aren’t required to pass a background check if you’re buying a gun from a private person. It’s easier to purchase an AR-15 in Tennessee than it is to become a licensed exotic dancer, as two employees of Déjà Vu Showgirls, a Nashville strip club, demonstrated in a recent YouTube video."
 
#3,495
#3,495
OuterBanksVol said:
Opinion | There Is a Middle Ground on Guns - The New York Times

"...Tennessee has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country. You don’t need a permit to buy a gun here. You don’t need a license to own one. You aren’t required to register any gun you own. You don’t need a permit to carry a rifle or a shotgun. You aren’t required to pass a background check if you’re buying a gun from a private person. It’s easier to purchase an AR-15 in Tennessee than it is to become a licensed exotic dancer, as two employees of Déjà Vu Showgirls, a Nashville strip club, demonstrated in a recent YouTube video."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. The licensing rules for strippers are stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#3,496
#3,496
OuterBanksVol said:
Opinion | There Is a Middle Ground on Guns - The New York Times

"...Tennessee has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country. You don’t need a permit to buy a gun here. You don’t need a license to own one. You aren’t required to register any gun you own. You don’t need a permit to carry a rifle or a shotgun. You aren’t required to pass a background check if you’re buying a gun from a private person. It’s easier to purchase an AR-15 in Tennessee than it is to become a licensed exotic dancer, as two employees of Déjà Vu Showgirls, a Nashville strip club, demonstrated in a recent YouTube video."
Click to expand...

Do you have a point or?
 
#3,499
#3,499
OuterBanksVol said:
Opinion | There Is a Middle Ground on Guns - The New York Times

"...Tennessee has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country. You don’t need a permit to buy a gun here. You don’t need a license to own one. You aren’t required to register any gun you own. You don’t need a permit to carry a rifle or a shotgun. You aren’t required to pass a background check if you’re buying a gun from a private person. It’s easier to purchase an AR-15 in Tennessee than it is to become a licensed exotic dancer, as two employees of Déjà Vu Showgirls, a Nashville strip club, demonstrated in a recent YouTube video."
Click to expand...

So this "middle ground" would involve gun owners accepting increased regulations and receiving nothing in return?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top