AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[Dirtebiker]

"Well-regulated militia..."

"THE PEOPLE"

 

[jamil]

It's hard - if not impossible - to determine the true intent of the mentally ill.

Can you expand on that. I'm not seeing an actual argument there. Just a statement.

A ban on the firearm itself? No. A ban on the 33-round mag for that Glock? Essentially, yes. No civilian "needs" a 33-round magazine. Now, I realize there are shooting competitions that use high-cap mags, so their use would be limited to proper ranges.

There you go again. Please stop claiming that lack of "need" is a reason to restrict a right. Please first substantiate that claim first. This is essentially your whole argument. Show us a constitutionally protected right that is restricted merely because no apparent need is evident.

The goal is MINIMIZING lethality. We'll never eliminate it, as you noted with your "almost 100% survivable" statement. As to "why not", because most people wouldn't support it. The majority DO support things like universal background checks and "No Fly - No Buy", yet the GOP ignores their concerns out of hand.

No-fly no buy is unconstitutional because it lacks due process. Make due process a requirement for getting on the list, and I'll go along with it.

Now. To your nonsense about majority supporting UBC, haven't you read my rebuttal to that yet? Didn't you read your own link?

 

[ghuns]

A ban on the firearm itself? No. A ban on the 33-round mag for that Glock? Essentially, yes. No civilian "needs" a 33-round magazine....

He didn't use a 33 round mag.

He used several 10 and 15 rounders. Is that too many for us civilians?

The majority DO support things like universal background checks and "No Fly - No Buy"...

Well then, that clearly means we should do it. I mean, due process is sooooooo overrated.

Wonder what the young Pitt would have to say about gun violence in Pittsburgh or Philly?

I'll bet, being a pretty smart dude, he'd be asking what your obsession is with restricting access to a weapon that kills less people per year than hammers?

 

[david890]

There is no way to proactively limit subsets of 1A rights in the same way you want to limit subsets of 2A rights, unless someone invents some kind of device that makes communication impossible if you're going to use it for harm.

"No way"? Really? Just impossible? We've already put limits on the manufacture and distribution of firearms. We can certainly put limits on mag capacity. Would that stop 100% of illegal usage? No, but then speed limits don't stop speeders. So, why have speed limits?

As for examples, see PRIOR RESTRAINT. Give out classified info and see what happens.

 

[JollyMon]

 

[david890]

Well then, that clearly means we should do it. I mean, due process is sooooooo overrated.

Please indicate what due process was used to put people ON the list. Infants have been on that list.

 

[ghuns]

Please indicate what due process was used to put people ON the list. Infants have been on that list.

None. That's kinda the point of why, ya know, it's a bad idea.

 

[david890]

So your solution is to ban anything that no one "needs" that could potentially be used to harm people. Is that what you're saying?

Nope. I'm saying to ban (or highly restrict) anything that could potentially be used to harm a LARGE NUMBER of people in a VERY SHORT time.

Who decides need? Many people have asked. You've not really given an answer for that.

Yes, I did. It's called "the legislative branch".

 

[TheBoss930]

Let me ask y'all a question, have you guys gotten anywhere since this thread started?
not a sarcastic question, but a way to challenge your thinking perhaps

 

[david890]

None. That's kinda the point of why, ya know, it's a bad idea.

And yet I hear no demand to throw out the "No Fly" list from this forum. Why is that?

 

[raptrbreth]

The No Fly list and the Patriot Act are both wrong and illegal. No, I don't even slight care if any court upheld any part of either.

 

[david890]

Let me ask y'all a question, have you guys gotten anywhere since this thread started?

That would be like asking if Northern Ireland Protestants and Catholics have gotten anywhere since 1971, or Sunni vs. Shia since the 7th century. There are those who see ANY limit - no matter how reasonable or popular - as unacceptable. I doubt anything will change their minds.

OTOH, there's a lot less violence in Northern Ireland. Also, alcohol was banned under the Constitution at one time, and done so by the will of the people.

The Bill of Rights isn't written in stone; the 1st Amendment could be eliminated by a subsequent Amendment, just as the 18th was eliminated by the 21st.

 

[Rookie]

Let me ask y'all a question, have you guys gotten anywhere since this thread started?
not a sarcastic question, but a way to challenge your thinking perhaps

Nope.

 

[BugI02]

"No way"? Really? Just impossible? We've already put limits on the manufacture and distribution of firearms. We can certainly put limits on mag capacity. Would that stop 100% of illegal usage? No, but then speed limits don't stop speeders. So, why have speed limits?

As for examples, see PRIOR RESTRAINT.

...Give out classified info and see what happens.

Nothing, if your name is Clinton

 

[JollyMon]

And yet I hear no demand to throw out the "No Fly" list from this forum. Why is that?

Last time I checked.. being able to fly isn't a constitutional right.

Now being denied a constitutional right based off no due process is something you hear being discussed on this forum.

 

[david890]

The No Fly list and the Patriot Act are both wrong and illegal. No, I don't even slight care if any court upheld any part of either.

IANAL, but I suspect you have standing to challenge the Patriot Act. Please do so.

 

[TheBoss930]

Alright, I'm off to look at some more 1911's

 

[BugI02]

Let me ask y'all a question, have you guys gotten anywhere since this thread started?
not a sarcastic question, but a way to challenge your thinking perhaps

One week into the future

 

[KLB]

And yet I hear no demand to throw out the "No Fly" list from this forum. Why is that?

There have been a number of people that have spoken out against that list and the terrorist watch list on this forum. It is a farce and there is no due process involved.

That would be like asking if Northern Ireland Protestants and Catholics have gotten anywhere since 1971, or Sunni vs. Shia since the 7th century. There are those who see ANY limit - no matter how reasonable or popular - as unacceptable. I doubt anything will change their minds.

OTOH, there's a lot less violence in Northern Ireland. Also, alcohol was banned under the Constitution at one time, and done so by the will of the people.

The Bill of Rights isn't written in stone; the 1st Amendment could be eliminated by a subsequent Amendment, just as the 18th was eliminated by the 21st.

If people want to remove the 2nd Amendment they should go through the process of doing so.

 

[ghuns]

If people want to remove the 2nd Amendment they should go through the process of doing so.

What a novel concept.