have no clue what that is, a more experienced gun owner is not the issue, it's your average apartment dweller I am talking about
Except that's not what Joe Biden said. " If you want to keep someone away from your house just fire the shotgun through the door " Terrible advice. Don't take any legal advice from him. Maybe that guy that shot the kid through his door shouldn't have listened to him
OK so let me inform you of what I know and then you can decide for yourself 1) the democrats held the house 2) the GOP had a thin majority in the senate-a majority that every expert (correctly noted) they would lose in November of 1986 3) there had been massive abuses of travelers-example., someone has an intermediate stop in NY-JFK or LaGuardia and their plane is delayed and they have to retrieve their luggage-if they had declared a handgun in their checked luggage-they could be arrested 4) someone who legally owned a gun in one state-is traveling through NJ/. the gun is locked in a case, unloaded but They could be arrested in NJ these sort of abuses caused a few blue dog democrats and almost all of the GOP to give a congressional majority in favor of the McClure-VOlker Firearms owner protection act Bill Hughes, a seething POS democrat, was upset that this bill was going to pass. Late one night, in collusion with acting speaker of the house-Rangel, they attached a poison pill to the congressional bill. It was worded in a way that it did not obviously ban machine guns. It most likely didn't pass the voice vote but Rangel rule it did.It was worded in a way to allow the ATF to ban all machine guns not "registered" prior to may 19, 1986 IIRC, to redo the bill would have led to it being dragged out past the fall elections. Two of Reagan's top white house lawyers urged he sign it because once the dems got the senate and picked up the majority (the dems gained 8 seats and ended up with a 55-45 majority) and more house seats (they gained five) the MVFOPA was most likely DOA. They also told him that there was no way the poison pill would survive a court challenge. So he signed it
You have this really terrible habit of assuming you're the only one in the room with knowledge of a topic. I understand what was at play. He signed it, and didn't allow challenges to it. It was a voice vote that passed without formal tally despite there being clearly audible calls for same on camera. I'm perfectly aware of what the Hughes amendment did. Hence the beginning of this thread. You seem to not understand that a big reason he lost ground that election was because he hadn't been keeping his word. No struggle on the hughes amendment was one of many straws that broke the camel's back. People stay home, they vote 3rd party etc. And he's still a grabber, since he signed it. Furthermore: You still get ****ed with going through NJ and other communist countries.
We, the USA, have all kinds of infringements imposed on citizens rights to keep and bear arms. Ever try to buy a LAW, grenade launcher, or flamethrower? Some infringements to getting one.
Are these in common use for lawful purposes? What do you think isn't currently protected by the Second Amendment?
Fortunately, fewer, since Heller. Oh that's right -- you believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. FYI Flamethrowers are cheap, easy to get and completely legal. Amazon used to sell them if they currently do not. https://www.cnet.com/culture/internet/elon-musks-flamethrower-is-real-and-yours-for-just-500/
no, and he doesn't believe you should be able to own many firearms. I believe he once said that firearms that make "mass murder" easy should be severely restricted. well under various scenarios, that could be just about any firearm. Remember how many German soldiers Sgt York took out with a bolt action P17 Enfield or Charles Whitman did with something similar on the Texas tower
Reagan had impeccable rhetoric. Its too bad he didn't practice what he preached. Says "govt is the problem" ...and grows govt more than any previous president.
Why wouldn't they be for lawful purposes? But then again, are all guns in common use for lawful purposes? By strict interpretation of the 2A? ... Second Amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ... It doesn't seem to exclude anything based on strict interpretation.
are those weapons in common use by civilians for lawful purposes? let's stick to reality and stop pretending that there is no difference between banning almost purely offensive ordnance that has almost no self defensive purposes with common firearms that civilian police are issued by the millions of self defense
I don't see the 2A limiting arms to purely defensive purposes by civilians. It's states to maintain a well regulated militia. And arms shall not be infringed. But you are on record with being ok to some infringements. We're just rehashing where people want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand.
Oh that's right -- you believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
You do realize that SCOTUS gave themselves the power to decide the Constitutionality of laws in Marbury v Madison over two centuries ago, right? They decide what the Constitutional interpretation is. In Caetano SCOTUS affirmed that "dangerous and unusual" (from Heller) was conjunctive, and if a class of firearms was "in common use" that class of firearms was not "unusual" and therefore not "dangerous and unusual", and thus not subject to being banned under "dangerous and unusual". The standard SCOTUS set in that decision was "hundreds of thousands sold". ARs certainly have met that hurdle rate. A little known case in a NY federal court later reduced the barrier to 64,890 in Maloney v Singas. As far as "lawful use" goes: The Gun Control Act of 1968 found that legitimate uses of firearms included “…hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity”. Common legal uses for AR-15s and similar firearms: 1. Long distance shooting. http://thecmp.org/competitions/service-rifle/ 2. Competition - http://3gunnation.com/news 3. Practice – for long distance or competition 4. Plinking/recreational shooting – cheapest centerfire ammo, low recoil, adaptable frame. 5. Varmint hunting - https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2013/1/10/best-ar-15-calibers-for-predator-hunting/ 6. Big game hunting, in the proper caliber and legal magazine. - http://www.fieldandstream.com/artic...r-style-rifles-chambered-for-big-game-hunting 7. Self-defense. - http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ultimate-300-aac-blackout-ammo-test/
"People", or SCOTUS? The only detail that makes a class of firearms into "assault weapons" is to be written in the list on the paper when the bill is signed. That would give any legislature the power to ban any firearm by calling it an "assault weapon". It's an arbitrary, capricious and inconsistent definition.
Handguns and ar's have a similar cyclic rate and most handguns have an aftermarket 'large capacity' magazine or come with 17+ standard capacity or even more. there is a reason its the most common weapon variety in the nation. there is also a reason that more people are killed every year with hands and feet than with ARs. You don't know what frangible ammo is, just say so.
I'd say a sub sonic pistol caliber carbine (the mac 10 pictured in the OP is available in .45, a naturally subsonic cartridge) or a .300 blk carbine would do best. Suppressed.
Really hard to count all the nazi's who got submachine gunned to death "trying to escape". Harder to count their victims as well, and they did like them some submachineguns, as did every combatant for two world wars.
Yes, because most two term presidents compromise their initial promises and espoused values. Reagan, a purported saint to many, is no different. He's a grabber, like the rest mostly were.
