- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I didn’t think you had.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Maybe. But all states, to my knowledge, have “capital murder teams” at the state level who take over cases like this one, and they’re awfully good at it.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
Except mass shootings are rare and their total victims are a fraction of the daily violence present in non-white majority urban areas.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
What the Congress HAS done in the past is to establish additional courts that “carve out” “territory” from existing Federal courts.
Congress also declares certain “topics” OFF LIMITS that the Courts MAY NOT discuss.
[From memory, one of the Democrat senators who ALWAYS allowed the Courts to create new environmental law … he decided the Courts would have NO jurisdiction in environmental in his home state … which was South Dakota … I think. They had recurring problems with prairie fires and wanted to be able to control them … against the wishes of the local environmental lobby.]
Congress also declares certain “topics” OFF LIMITS that the Courts MAY NOT discuss.
[From memory, one of the Democrat senators who ALWAYS allowed the Courts to create new environmental law … he decided the Courts would have NO jurisdiction in environmental in his home state … which was South Dakota … I think. They had recurring problems with prairie fires and wanted to be able to control them … against the wishes of the local environmental lobby.]
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Wow… 12 replies in my absence. Sorry guys. Gotta be choosy 
And I think we all know that, really. I’d bet my favorite ink pen that none of you guys with a personal carry typically use something as light as .22.
Moreover, Scalia writes “The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use…”
Stoner designed the rifle for military use.
I rejoice that you now join me in supporting the ban (or severe restriction) of all weapons that were initially designed for military use like AR-15s, Glocks, (almost every weapon developed since Eisenhower identified the military industrial complex)…
We’re great at locking them up AFTER they slaughter a room full of children.
I think that touches on most of them…
The point being that no one can protect you from the deranged, Lou. Not even yourself. So you need to limit his access to tools designed for the rapid dispatch of human beings. Even if you have the same tool, fat lot of good it did ya sitting ready in the nightstand…
Make no mistake - I think it’s dangerous too. But the ranges where .22lr reliably proves lethal are those where I can almost hit you with a left-cross in addition to shooting you.
And I think we all know that, really. I’d bet my favorite ink pen that none of you guys with a personal carry typically use something as light as .22.
The word “nuclear” is literally nowhere in the document. Strike!
Moreover, Scalia writes “The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use…”
Stoner designed the rifle for military use.
I rejoice that you now join me in supporting the ban (or severe restriction) of all weapons that were initially designed for military use like AR-15s, Glocks, (almost every weapon developed since Eisenhower identified the military industrial complex)…
No. But most who do commit these crimes are poor. No wonder; little to lose.
No, but we use such terms in order to label and thus dehumanize our opposition. Every side does it…
When our men an women in uniform very frequently use theirs in that same configuration? Yes. In those moments, there truly is no operational difference between their Colt M4 and your Colt LE6920. None.
That’s the problem. Adjudicated psychopaths.
We’re great at locking them up AFTER they slaughter a room full of children.
No, it’s because democracy is largely self-correcting.
I think that touches on most of them…
Last edited:
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
The “deranged” have a habit of hitting gun-free zones. Mind explaining how guns end up in a gun free zone in the first place?
If gun control people knew half as much as they liked to think they do, they’d realize the use of a firearm is a LAST resort.
Meaning you lock your doors, have a home security system ect.
Plenty of time to get the old gal locked and loaded if need be.
Oh, and I’d take that over fraidy-cat unionized cops anyday.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
No kidding. Oh, and has Black Lives Matter noticed how now the old white male cop in charge is the good guy?
I’m also wondering why @Vonsalza hasn’t given up his guns for the greater good he’s preaching about.
Careful now. In your gun control narrative, the cops are the good guys and the NRA are the bad guys.
They just aren’t very good at it.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Because it’s where people congregate. The status as a gun-free zone probably doens’t enter into their mind. They just want destruction.
And on the last, they violate the law with reckless abandon - and when someone’s willing to do that there is no defense.
It seems even putting a cop on the scene doesn’t prevent the carnage…
When someone is willing to perform a mass-shooting or home invasion against you, you have no defense, Lou. Again, they don’t kick in the door when you’re properly barricaded with arms at the ready. They do it when you’re on your couch watching Fox news. You have enough time to go “What the…???” and then you’re on the ground mortally wounded.
It just turns out that telling a guy that his job is to actively and aggressively seek out danger and unambiguously face mortal peril is only an easy sell when they think it’ll probably never happen. They think of their own families when the “BANG BANG” starts to happen…
That “fraidy-cat’s” actions are expected and typical. Which is why an arms race against a phantom is poor policy.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
You misread. It was Jon who felt the police had no duty to come to your aid. He then walked back from this. And I’ve barely mention the NRA - maybe others have? I did ask on another thread why they would oppose banning bump stocks.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
C’mon Lou, I’ve addressed that multiple times on multiple threads…
I enjoy them. And I’m responsible with them. And if I’m asked to turn them in or pay some sort of expensive permit fee to keep them in order to limit their availability to psychopaths that haven’t earned their first felony yet, I’ll submit to the law cheerfully.
R
Rau
Guest
No…The Supreme Court said that any such duty did not flow from the Constitution. That is of no interest. The duties of police are defined elsewhere.
Yes! You found it!
Yes! The AR-15 is a civilian rifle. This guy has it right. **. The Ar-15 is not and never was a military issue rifle. I do understand that for a while the Singapore Army used them until they traded them in for true assault rifles. But other than that, no army has used the AR-15 as a combat weapon.
The US news media, the Main Stream Media or MSM, coined the term “assault weapon” in order to confuse the American public. An Assault Rifle is a specific term with a very specific meaning and definition. Such a weapon is characterized by being a shoulder mounted, magazine fed, medium ( intermediate power) weapon that is selective fire. Selective fire means that it can either be semi or fully automatic. Selective fire weapons, and therefore a true assault rifle are classed as machine-guns and very regulated.
The AR-15 LOOKS like an M16 which is a true assault rifle. But an AR-15 is semiautomatic and not fully automatic, and so is NOT an assault rifle. It is simply a medium power semiautomatic rifle similar to the rifles that have been around for almost a century! It is lower powered, smaller and lighter, but its operation is little different than those from a hundred years ago. **
https://www.quora.com/Do-Americans-...-but-it-has-a-pistol-grip-believed-to-be-evil
I was hoping you had abandoned this privilege position.
Florida has the Baker Act.
It is quite possible to adjudicate someone based on their threats or actions.
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
I don’t (or, rather, I try not to). Calling someone a liberal or leftist is not meant as an insult or dehumanizing, any more than calling me a conservative is an insult. It’s just a descriptor.
Just like a nuclear weapon sitting in it’s silo an a rock on the ground have no operational difference?
So let’s create a better way of identifying and adjudicating mentally unfit before they kill. That way we don’t have to limit other people’s freedoms.
R
Rau
Guest
There will always be some doubt in any assessment. Where is the benefit of that doubt to be placed? In favour of the safety of the community (which means we will sometimes deny unnecessarily) or in favour of the applicant? In the criminal law, we favor the individual over the community, because the “cost” to the individual is so high if convicted. In a matter of a gun purchase, the cost of “denial” is in general very low, suggesting the balance can move toward the community.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Nope, I don’t think you do know the .22lr
It’s highly reliable and accurate to well past 25yds, which is within the distance of most school shootings, or even civilian shootings.
Quite a few people have their egoes in check and are smart enough to use a .22lr for concealed carry. The guns are cheap as is the ammo, which helps increase practice time.
Having virtually no recoil is a great aid in hitting your target consistently. In contrast a pocket .380 kicks worse than most full size handguns, follow up shots are not as accurate.
Last edited:
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Why do you have to wait for a law to be passed in order to do this if it’s so good and the right thing?
- Status