well I have had to review several hundred police shootings or use of force-federal mainly, and other the MOVE debacle and the controversial Robby Matthews siege in the PNW., I don't recall any suggestions of offensive explosive ordnance. But that isn't the point. you and I both know it's mental masturbation to start pretending fragmentation grenades, claymore style mines or mortars are ever going to be freely available to private citizens. that is insulting our intelligence to try to argue those are every going to be seen as protected by the second amendment-especially at a state level through incorporation
absolutely, and in Ohio, where rifles were recently legalized for deer hunting, you must use a straight wall cartridge and the 50 Beowulf in AR 15 is very popular
well the problem is that you are extremely reticent about actually taking a concrete position on which guns you want to ban and you refuse to set forth what additional restrictions you obviously want. This sort of nuanced ambiguity is properly construed against you and yes you are on record supporting increased "infringements" on semi auto magazine fed rifles. Now you can eliminate people stating what you want by actually setting forth-as I and others have done-what laws you want, and which ones should be rescinded. But sadly, almost every gun restrictionist plays a whackamole game because deep down, we all know they don't want to be in a position to be limited in supporting additional restrictions if doing so helps the left wing agenda
I have stated over and over, it's a line in the sand. I won't answer you specifically, because you'll just ignore it and do the usual make up crap that isn't true.
yeah we know that elusive claim. You refuse to defend your line because you know your position will get thrashed. and I have correctly noted, you try to pretend your line in the sand is no more an affront to the bill of rights as those of us who think it's permissible for state governments to ban people having militarized anthrax or surface to air triple A batteries
see what I mean, you are not honest with anyone you respond to. I don't follow gun laws closely at all. I know, in my lifetime I won't have to worry about my guns being taken from me. I know there are infringements that many, like yourself, are happy they are in place. A violation of the 2A. Where my position on any of this is completely irrelevant. As long as I am able to continue with my hunting and any other shooting activities I may do. EDIT: Arms is a very broad topic. But mostly these discussions only focus on guns.
You say, in support of your belief that the 2A protects the right to own nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
Ah ah ah: Don't backpeddle on your position now. They give it to cops, they're estopped to deny it to you. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/08/use-robot-kill-dallas-suspect-first-experts-say/ ^ Cops have explosives for offensive use. It certainly isn't mental masturbation. Its literally the law, see Nysrpa v Bruen. If you say otherwise: Show me the analogous law in place during the founding banning cannon or grenades. Go call Brandon, ya'll got to be about the same age. He holds this view you hold, maybe he can give you some analogs for your asinine position.
I've never weighed in on 'assault weapons' at all. Ban or no ban. I simply not all that interested in that topic. Are you being like a few other posters in this thread? Just making stuff up about posters and seeing what sticks?
so do you think the courts will strike down prohibitions on private citizens having easy access to fragmentation grenades. this highly critical report of the police using military gear does not mention offensive grenades but its 9 years old so perhaps you are correct, though I can find no cases of fragmentation grenades being used in civilian law enforcement https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/jus14-warcomeshome-text-rel1.pdf
nah, what he is saying is if you don't support people being able to own nukes you cannot be consistent and support them owning "assault weapons". it's a bogus debate tactic that is pretty well destroyed here https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/668387/posts
Which is why I asked you a direct question about it now. Are you saying you won't answer a simple yes or no on whether you support a ban or not? I asked you a question amigo. Don't clutch your pearls so hard if you're going to refuse to answer it.
I don't involve myself in that topic. Why would I give an answer that I am not interested in and haven't research positives and negatives of the issue? I am not required to answer questions that are not on topic. And my opinions are not the topic. And I did answer it, I said, I simply don't care about the topic. I guess that's not clear enough?
Hey buddy: I'm just using the argument you gave. Estoppel. You said if the cops have it we can't be stopped from having it. The cops in this case in dallas, had a shooter in a parking garage after he'd already shot several people and cops. So they sent a robot in with a bomb attached to it, and intentionally detonated the bomb to kill the perp. This was later ruled perfectly legal, that article was a first blush article and the tribune is a liberal rag so yeah its got a breathless how dare they tone. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...o-killed-sniper-with-robot-bomb-idUSKBN1FK35W ^ 2 years later, ruled perfectly legal and acceptable. The articles from the time indicate it seems to be a world's first. Guess what though? If your argument works, if that's the LAW, if that's the CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIRMENT TO PASS, its passed. So what you're saying is, Estoppel except for things they won't allow us to have so not really estoppel at all. See how you have to twist your logic around until it isn't logical anymore to achieve your result? See how ****ing silly that is? Milquetoast grabbers, or those who abet them like yourself because you lack the courage of your convictions, may not agree with it. That doesn't change how the logic works, or what the plain text of the law actually speaks to. That means a bunch of ******* and corrupt officials will disregard it and you'll allow them do it. Because they promise JUST THE TIP and the other guy admits you're taking the full shaft. But we both know don't we? Its never just the tip, and all you've done is knuckle under.
In a conversation regarding gun control you refuse to provide your own stance, even though its relevant to the conversation. We're all free to draw our own conclusions from that.
so how many jurisdictions have the police used offensive grenades. One case? two oh and I don't think private citizens should be able to own SAMs even though I know for a fact the secret service has them at the white house
My opinion is not relevant to the conversation. You are free to draw your conclusions. But you're not free to post lies if your conclusions are wrong and only meant to attack others.
@Reality is correct, when you refuse to state your position on a topic you often argue, others are free to honestly speculate your position based on your arguments
So this being a gun control forum, are there any gun control proposals not yet law that you do support?
Estoppel doesn't require a critical mass amigo. Every police office in the nation has access to explosives. The exact same explosives they use for breaching charges? Those explosives? Yeah they're the same ones dallas used. So its all in common use for lawful purposes. Keep trying to weasel out of your convictions. Seems to me that airpower is a thing in naval combat and surface to airs would be most useful in naval combat. Privateering is that. Ergo, maybe you don't want to use estoppel because you're arguing something that doesn't jive with it.
I've never argued or even posted on the topic of 'assault weapons'. I have said earlier, the 2A is a very very broad topic. It includes ALL arms based on 2A. But everyone has their own little ideas on where they want a line in the sand. As I told @Reality, why should I give an opinion on something not researched? Knowing some posters history here, then they'll just harp on people making uninformed opinions. In reality, opinions are a dime a dozen. As the saying goes, everyone has them, just like everyone has a backside. Opinions should not be use to justify a point. It's highly subjective and may or may not be based on good or accurate info.
