what guns do I support banning. You cannot establish that but I can establish you are supportive of gun bans you consider semi auto rifles with magazines to be such. Your schtick is pretending that anyone who supports say banning individuals from having nukes or anthrax is no different than your desire to ban private citizens from having AR 15s. now what guns do you claim I support banning?
That argument is getting old. I'm not sure why it matters anyway. More people are killed by bats and hammers than AR-15s and they aren't designed to kill. Still, the focus is going to keep being on bannng AR-15s because they look scary. Kind of pathetic really. If you want to save lives, ban gangs.
There’s the point. Made to kill or can kill? Kill who, a roach? You obviously know there are calibers designed for paper punching or can killing.
And what does any of this have to do with the original statement? The whole point is that his original statement is meaningless.
I can usually tell when someone actually wants information vs those who are trying to derail arguments they don't like or cannot address.
what a firearm was invented for is meaningless to anyone other than the buyer. It is how it is used that is relevant to the discussion. and in the beginning there were no butter knives, paring knives, steak knives and fighting knives. there were knives
I’ll wager that’s why the conversation stops immediately. They had no point when they made the statement and nothing to run with when that’s pointed out. it’s hard to expect logic from people with arguments based on feelings.
an example is in knives. During the first and second WW, there wasn't a standard infantry combat knife for some units. lots of farm boys who answered the call up brought with them knives we in fly over country call "pig stickers" They made effective combat knives. They were made for farmers but farm boys found they made good weapons. Now is that knife more palatable to our anti gun friends than say the Gerber Mark II which was the most popular privately bought combat knife in Nam and was designed for the military?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there an entire forum based on gun control? And here someone decided to start a gun control thread in a separate gun forum. Where are the moderators?
On an open bolt gun or a closed bolt AR? Functional and safe fully automatic or slam fire uncontrolled mag dump ?
This business of "the 2nd Amendment has to be literally taken exactly as it seems to say" is pure bullshit. In 2020 an Oregon ballot measure suggested that we must understand the 2nd Amendment, specifically, as meaning what it seems to say, which they said is that "any law regarding gun rights in any way is unconstitutional". Two counties agreed and in those two counties concealed carry is legal without restriction including in bars and taverns and government buildings, and machine guns are ok with them. You can stand 10 feet from your neighbor's house and fire your gun at will. Of course if your bullet hits anything it shouldn't there are other property laws that would apply. You can shoot across roads at a target. This is NUTS! So what did the SCOTUS say about such things as limitations on Amendments? Free Speech (First Amendment): Example: Schenck v. United States (1919) - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the Court, famously stated that the First Amendment does not protect speech that presents a "clear and present danger." In this case, Schenck was convicted for distributing anti-draft materials during World War I. Example: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - The Court established a stricter standard for restricting political speech, holding that speech can be prohibited only if it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms): Example: District of Columbia v. Heller (200 - While affirming an individual's right to bear arms, the Court acknowledged that the Second Amendment is not absolute and does not prevent the government from regulating certain types of firearms and restricting certain individuals from owning guns. Fourth Amendment (Protection against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures): Example: Terry v. Ohio (196 - The Court recognized that certain brief stops and limited searches, known as "stop and frisk," could be conducted by law enforcement officers based on reasonable suspicion, even without a warrant. Fifth Amendment (Right Against Self-Incrimination): Example: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - The Court established the Miranda warnings, stating that individuals must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney during custodial interrogations. Failure to provide these warnings may result in the exclusion of statements obtained during interrogation. So limitations on Amendments, including the 2nd, are allowed. This RW insistence on a pure and inescapable meaning and enforcement is bullshit. And the two counties in Oregon are ignorant of the facts as was the inclusion of the ballot measure in the first place.
Show us where the law in Oregon allows this, "stand 10 feet from your neighbor's house and fire your gun at will".
If the rules are negotiable, then there are no rules. Once you start down that path, you can screw up a lot of things you never even thought about. Our constitution provided for the means to change. If you don't like an amendment, start a bill to change it, get it passed by Congress, then ratified by the required majority of states. Then- your revision becomes the law. Until then, the amendment, as written- IS the law. The authors of the Constitution thought and worked long and hard to construct the amendments carefully enough that they were clear, and not ambiguous in any way. There's a commandment that says- "Thou shalt not kill". Zero wiggle room. I will assume you understand it? The second refers to the right being granted and says "Shall not be infringed" There is no ambiguity in the Second Amendment. The Constitution is clear, and it means exactly what it says. We have allowed a great number of infringements on the Second Amendment for mostly reasonable cause. However, those are permissions, not changes of the legal rights granted by the constitution. That permissiveness has been abused, which is no surprise. It's human nature for many people to do whatever they can get away with. Those people.... are dangerous; not to be trusted in anything because they respect no limits. That's kind of like your examples of shooting next door to your neighbor. The Constitution does not protect bad conduct with or unlimited use of a gun. In many cities, it's illegal to fire a gun in the city limits. Your argument is a distortion of the amendment, with the purpose of destroying its power. Accept that we are allowing many infringements, but most with reasonable cause. The fact we allow some infringements does not in any way change the meaning or invalidate the Amendment, nor authorize any infringement at all. It's like a permission, a temporary courtesy in the better interests- and one that can be withdrawn by sufficient public sentiment if needed. If you think that such permission allows unlimited infringement- that's abuse of the permission, and the Amendment. Then, we need to withdraw all such permissions and abide by the letter of the law across the board. The old saying "give an inch and they take a mile" comes to mind about such people.
Can't. The law banning shooting in a community or across a street was removed. They don't write laws saying "now you can shoot your gun where you want to". duh
You don't want a gun don't have one. But allow me a gun to protect myself from the criminal element that will always have a gun. Those of you against guns should just go live your lives as you wish and leave the rest of us alone.
Here an article - https://www.oregonlive.com/politics...es-direct-police-to-ignore-most-gun-laws.html
it's gonna be fun watching pro second amendment elected sheriffs butting heads with urban democrat politicians who want to disarm honest americans to pander to the woke socialist left