Gun control debate (merged)

[Vol8188]

No, but as long as the gun lobby continues to buy politicians and control through Court it's baby steps.

This is always the most laughable claim. Countless members of this board disagree with you and vote for those politicians, without receiving a dime from gun lobbies. But the politicians themselves the only explanation for them disagreeing with you is “gun lobby” donations.

How disingenuous can you possibly be?

 

[85SugarVol]

what makes a 30 round magazine "uniquely dangerous"?

“Even if LCMs are protected by the Second Amendment, BM 114’s restrictions are consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety,” the ruling said.

This part also some straight up bs. its not just 30 round magazines, so much for it being a unique issue, but now anything over 10 is an issue. also I love that the government's incompetence is now going to be used to deny people their rights. again, if these laws were rational or reasonable, we could apply them to every right.

"The law strengthens background checks and prohibits the sale and transfer of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. It also closes the “Charleston Loophole,” which allows gun purchases to move forward by default after three days even if a background check has not been completed. The law also requires state police to complete background checks on individuals before a gun sale or transfer is made."

this is going to make an interesting 6th amendment issue, with people being denied their rights with no protection of timeliness.

again its not just a 2A issue.

Uniquely dangerous feature?

They should ban triggers lol.

 

[LouderVol]

Uniquely dangerous feature?

They should ban triggers lol.

I also wonder what they mean by "history"? because for far longer of our history has civilians had access to military weapons than have we had gun control laws.

also as long as we are bringing up the history we should probably look back at the very racist source of gun control laws in this nation. They were put in place to keep guns out of the hands of scary black people, so that whites had a monopoly. That has stayed present to this day, and you see if come out more and more with each new measure they pass. Expanded background checks, that requires racist IDs, and the government's history of disproportionately targeting minorities with these bans.

 

[85SugarVol]

I also wonder what they mean by "history"? because for far longer of our history has civilians had access to military weapons than have we had gun control laws.

also as long as we are bringing up the history we should probably look back at the very racist source of gun control laws in this nation. They were put in place to keep guns out of the hands of scary black people, so that whites had a monopoly. That has stayed present to this day, and you see if come out more and more with each new measure they pass. Expanded background checks, that requires racist IDs, and the government's history of disproportionately targeting minorities with these bans.

I went round and round with LG & Luther.

“Getting tough” with all new hurdles to clear for legal gun ownership will simply create a new pipeline to jail…

For poor, black men in this country.

They disagreed.

 

[LouderVol]

I went round and round with LG & Luther.

“Getting tough” with all new hurdles to clear for legal gun ownership will simply create a new pipeline to jail…

For poor, black men in this country.

They disagreed.

and I am going to go out on a limb and say that when they disagreed with you they didn't offer a whole lot of objective data to back up their view point?

 

[C-south]

and I am going to go out on a limb and say that when they disagreed with you they didn't offer a whole lot of objective data to back up their view point?

Luther can’t understand the concept of what a semiautomatic is and tries to throw in a fire rate restriction based on s*** he pulls from his arse. Utter ignorance. LG is just as bad if not worse.

 

[85SugarVol]

and I am going to go out on a limb and say that when they disagreed with you they didn't offer a whole lot of objective data to back up their view point?

I don’t remember them bringing any objective data, but I do remember them saying they didn’t expect poor, black men to be disproportionately impacted by these new laws.

Not this time. This time would be different.

 

[VOLS INC.]

I don’t remember them bringing any objective data, but I do remember them saying they didn’t expect poor, black men to be disproportionately impacted by these new laws.

Not this time. This time would be different.

Sounds like what a communist would say after being challenged on the failed and dark history of that ideology.

Which makes sense because those two seem to promote and support communism.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Federal judge rules Oregon’s tough new gun law is constitutional

I'd say it will be overturned but the state actually voted for it and I am a states rights person. If it stands, it can also be repealed by vote.

 

[82_VOL_83]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/16/politics/oregon-large-capacity-gun-law-ruling/index.html

Hard to argue with the logic. A magazine is not a bearable arm. This, it may be regulated.

Neither is an engine bigger than 1.8 l necessary in an automobile. We should regulate those. Those 18 wheelers will do well with a corolla engine.

Point being, the firearm will not function as intended without the magazine.

 

[lawgator1]

Neither is an engine bigger than 1.8 l necessary in an automobile. We should regulate those. Those 18 wheelers will do well with a corolla engine.

Point being, the firearm will not function as intended without the magazine.

That's a shame.

 

[85SugarVol]

I'd say it will be overturned but the state actually voted for it and I am a states rights person. If it stands, it can also be repealed by vote.

The States cannot pass their own laws in contradiction to the Bill of Rights.

The BoR is a list of things the States can’t do.

The 2A is not up for debate at the State level. It is not a “state’s right”, like say abortion.

 

[McDad]

The States cannot pass their own laws in contradiction to the Bill of Rights.

The BoR is a list of things the States can’t do.

The 2A is not up for debate at the State level. It is not a “state’s right”, like say abortion.

I though the BoR is a list of things the Fed cannot trample wrt to American citizens.
I didn't think the federal BoR extended to states unless the state adopts the BoR into its own constitution.

"Congress shall make no law...."

 

[85SugarVol]

That's a shame.

At least you admit that you are ok with “reasonable restrictions” that serve as de facto bans.

Bravo.

 

[85SugarVol]

I though the BoR is a list of things the Fed cannot trample wrt to American citizens.
I didn't think the federal BoR extended to states unless the state adopts the BoR into its own constitution.

"Congress shall make no law...."

I believe you are correct that BoR is a no-no list for the Federal government as originally crafted.

But I think it applies to the States? Through some mechanism?

If Utah passed a law infringing on Freedom of Religion? I don’t think that’s gonna stand.

 

[85SugarVol]

I though the BoR is a list of things the Fed cannot trample wrt to American citizens.
I didn't think the federal BoR extended to states unless the state adopts the BoR into its own constitution.

"Congress shall make no law...."

I believe you are correct that BoR is a no-no list for the Federal government as originally crafted.

But I think it applies to the States? Through some mechanism?

If Utah passed a law infringing on Freedom of Religion? I don’t think that’s gonna stand.

I guess we’re talking 14th here?

 

[Orangeslice13]

I think I have a workable compromise.
I say we do away with magazines all together then we don’t need to worry about how many they hold.
The AR would then work something like this …

 

[InVOLuntary]

 

[LouderVol]

they want more victims so that they can give themselves more power. a population that can protect itself, and doesn't depend on the government will always be a threat. They solved part of the problem with their welfare plantations creating generational slaves with no apparent option but to rely on the government more and more. further more they have made it a moral/ethical thing to be dependent, where any type of independence becomes an evil that should be attacked.

you can look at any spectrum of life for this.
you can't be safe/defend yourself. depend on the cops, while the criminals get favorable sentences.
you can't be energy dependent, you have to be connected to the grid, that no longer will buy back your power.
you can't be healthy, you should stay indoors, wear a mask, and take some experimental medicine the government has given indemnity for.
you can't have normal interactions with anyone outside your demographic, they are racists, bigots, libtards, MAGA. communists, fascists; the government will determine appropriate interpersonal relations to make sure no one is offended.
You can't question the science or be independently educated, you have to go through government approved programs that come out with government approved results. We are going to give you standardized tests to make sure you can fill out information correctly, but not actually test you on your actual knowledge base.
you can't be financially independent, you have to take part in the social security and medicare systems, anyone addressing those socialist issues are the enemy.
no right to privacy, the government has to maintain its ability to spy on you.

 

[StarRaider]

 

[Orangeburst]

Texas man tracks down and kills alleged car thief, gets shot himself in mall gunfire chaos

 

[C-south]

I’m sure looney libs will cry about this.

Suspected Texas vehicle thief dies in shootout with vehicle owner who tracked him down, police say

 

[midnight orange]

I believe you are correct that BoR is a no-no list for the Federal government as originally crafted.

But I think it applies to the States? Through some mechanism?

If Utah passed a law infringing on Freedom of Religion? I don’t think that’s gonna stand.

It applies through the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment. States could pretty much do what they wanted before this and it worked well because these decisions were local matters concerning those who it affected. Now it makes it vital to get the” right congressmen, judges and presidents into power to control the “meaning” of these amendments and the affects have been deleterious and degraded federalism. Some states used to have state established churches before because it was not established by the Congress.

 

[TNVOLNAVY]

US Supreme Court here we come!

Illinois State Supreme Court Declares 'Assault Weapons' Ban Constitutional | The Gateway Pundit | by Mike LaChance

 

[Orangeburst]