The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading The Political Forum The Stupid Bitch Speaks!Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Administrator |
| ||
|
| One of Us |
What do you expect her to do Saeed, condone it? | |||
|
| Administrator |
Asking her opinion is no better than asking a rock! Anyway, it wasn't the GUN that killed these people. It was a PERSON! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I do not believe the argument is the gun did the killing, but access to button detach, high capacity magazine feed semiautomatic firearms is allowing those who would kill to kill more or act. Like some here who argue abortion should be returned to the States, Justice Breyer said, “ The question of firearm regulation presents a complex problem -- one that should be solved by legislatures and not courts." That was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. Now, I believe in the Incorporation Doctrine and Fundamental Rights Doctrine. Thus, I am in agreement incorporating the 2nd Amendment against the state legislatures. Even then, as the Cases that incorporated the 2nd make clear, no right is absolute. However, the argument is not that the gun is killing. The argument is access is allowing those who would kill to kill a lot of people in one setting, and the Fed Courts are preventing state legislatures to address the question as the people of that state see fit through the legislative majority. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'm not familiar with non-button-detachable magazines. How do they work? What firearms have them? What's your definition of "high capacity"? Anything over six rounds? | |||
|
| One of Us |
As you are aware, some magazines do not detach like on bolt action rifles. Being such are not easily adapted to large quick change magazines. The magazine of the M1 Garand is not removed for purposes of function. I am not advocating overturning the Incorporation of the 2nd Amendment or strict scrutiny for state legislatures actions concerning the firearms possession. However, to tag that the debate is guns kill is not accurate. I believe the legislature should be competent can define high capacity magazines subject to the voting power of the citizens the legislature represents. I doubt any such law would pass the Supreme Court analysis; at least this majority. Anything over 7 rounds, I consider high capacity. One in KY can hunt with a 6 or 8 shot revolver. Yet, a semiauto rifle magazine must be blocked. | |||
|
One of Us |
DuggaBoye-O NRA-Life Whittington-Life TSRA-Life DRSS DSC HSC SCI | |||
|
| Administrator |
You can have a belt fed gun. Fully loaded. Still won’t kill anyone! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I know the Garand holds 8. One of the reasons I drew the line at 7 for myself. I do not think high capacity is a bad thing. I am explaining the real argument. I do think State legislatures may be best to decide if high capacity in civilian hands are bad subject to strict scrutiny review by the Courts. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Pray, the American remedy for all that ails you.  Grizz When the horse has been eliminated, human life may be extended an average of five or more years. James R. Doolitle I think they've been misunderstood. Timothy Tredwell | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have three bolt action hunting rifles that come with detachable magazines from the factory: a Browning X-bolt, a Cooper M. 54, and a Fierce Fury. | |||
|
| One of Us |
For self defense, I want what the experts think best: the cops and FBI. They seem to think high capacity is a good thing. I don't agree the issue should be up to state legislatures. We are the United States. There should be one law of the land. The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, applies to all fifty states. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yes, and those magazines in bolt action rifles have limited capacity. Ultimately, I agree with Roland’s statement above. The question is does/would such a ban pass strict scrutiny. I submit not with this majority. However, such a case will come before the next S. Ct. majority and the language in Dobbs is tailored made along with Justice Breyer’s dissents to overturn Heller and its prodigy. At the very least, use the analyst of strict scrutiny to uphold such legislation. The argument from the legal and political left is not the gun is killing folks, but readily accessible semiautomatic, push button, detachable box magazine rifles are allowing those who would kill to kill a lot. No one is using a five shot, X bolt to shoot to night clubs. There is a reason for that. The point is dismissing the political left as Stupid Bitches will result in laws that are not friendly to pro universal 2nd Amendment. The argument is more complex and very real. The analytical frame Erik either through strict scrutiny or complete de-incorporation Dobbs exists to allow a S. Ct. majority to accomplish the goal. Keep dismissing folks as stupid, and not understanding the actual argument, and those folks will continue to win elections until that S. Ct. Majority exists. Then you will see the language of Dobbs combined with Justice Breyer’s dissents to de-incorporate the right. | |||
|
One of Us |
Good point Saeed. That is the reason such people should NOT be allowed to buy a gun. That is why you need control for gun ownership and possession / carrying on the PERSON. That is why the background of the PERSON needs to be checked. That is why the PERSON should have a waiting period before getting a gun. That is why the PERSON should have a mental health check. That is why the PERSON should be licensed to own a gun. Unfortunately Republicans and many other illogical people cannot accept the logic. They claim this imaginary "right" to own a gun and kill anyone. They claim to be Pro life but actually demand death at all cost.
"When the wind stops....start rowing. When the wind starts, get the sail up quick." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hear, hear! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I am sooooo happy you weren't allowed into my country when you had to flee India! . | |||
|
| One of Us |
I don't agree with much of that, Naki, but I'll focus on one of your proposals. What is a "mental health check"? How is it to be conducted and by whom? What types of "mental illness" will you screen out? I think we all might agree that someone with uncontrolled paranoid schizophrenia ought not have a firearm. But how about someone with a less dangerous mental condition because they MIGHT kill someone. What about someone who's depressed? Someone with bipolar disorder? Or someone with a neurosis? (They say we all have a neurosis or two.) Who gets to play judge over someone's right to keep and bear arms? No thanks. Keep those rules for where you live, if you want. | |||
|
One of Us |
Naki, the above is an easy example of why I and we don't think you know what you are talking about. The "imaginary right" you refer to is Constitutional, i.e., American Constitution. Changing the Constitution is an easy process that has been done 27 times. If the majority of Americans, ( sorry, not you,) agree to a change it happens quickly. It seems that as of tonight Americans are not ready and willing to alter the right to keep and bear arms. Exclusively an American topic and ordeal. I'd ask you to believe me or at least believe us when I say America abhors domestic gun violence. We all, or at least the law abiding majority of us fervently wish we could stop criminals and the evil among us from getting their hands on a gun. The problem seems to be the procedure, not the principal. | |||
|
| Administrator |
They allowed Trumps lot! And Pelosi’s too! As if that was bad enough, they allowed Commie Kamala’s lot!  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Scott Since you are polite and indulging in civil debate, I will respond likewise. Firstly I have studied the US Constitution. Secondly I have also studied social and political history extensively. Not only do I know what I am talking about but also know the schools of thought and the value base behind the other views and arguments. The rabid rants about gun rights and the 2nd amendment really became big agenda issues from the time of Bush sr. It was NEVER a major issue or even on the political radar before that. The NRA was run by hunters and suddenly it changed into a gun lobby group with mega funding and political intrigue. The average citizen and hunter had no more control or influence. It reached a stage where in recent years Putin's oligarchs have been funding the NRA. The argument that average Americans hate domestic gun violence and also hate criminals is BS from all the cattle in the US. The Republicans made it illegal to even study gun deaths. Why? It is illegal to study about mental health and gun suicides or homicide. Why? Go back to Reagan. He was the first to overturn Carters Mental health laws. Homelessness went up 50% in California when Raegan did this as governor. He repeated it nationally as President. Crimes went up big times as a direct cause of lack of care for mentally I'll and homelessness. Yes, it is also illegal to study it. The law prevents institutionalizing mental patients. The biggest mass shooting in US history at that time was a result of a mentally ill person being denied help. He just went into a Macdonalds and shot 40+ people, killing over 20. Republican values are NOT based on Rule of Law or the teachings of Jesus. It has become even more hateful in the last 20 years and particularly after 2008.
"When the wind stops....start rowing. When the wind starts, get the sail up quick." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Naki I'm only following your civil lead. I can only guess you don't read what you wrote. You said, " they claim this imaginary "right" to own a gun and kill anyone." That is simply not true. I'm happy to politely debate and discuss with you, but not in made up stories and fantasies. If you insist on the fiction that's fine, like everyone else I won't bother. If you choose return to your unfounded attacks you can be assured I'll reply in kind.
| |||
|
One of Us |
Naki lives in a fantasy world. The argument that average Americans hate domestic gun violence and also hate criminals is BS from all the cattle in the US. As a Hindu I suppose cattle are sacred to you and so is their bullshit. Vote Trump- Putin’s best friend… | |||
|
| One of Us |
Jerry If you have been really paying attention to my posts for the last 15 years, you would know that I am a practicing Christian. Yes India has about 35 million Christian's. Republicans are often into culture wars about ethnicity. That is your problem. You would rather hate and insult someone from a different ethnicity than try and find common ground.
"When the wind stops....start rowing. When the wind starts, get the sail up quick." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ok, fair enough. I was being provocative. Now try and understand the truth behind the hype. The real issue is about lack of control on people using guns. As simple as that. Why do you need open carry, concealed carry, unlimited carry or what ever, stand your ground etc.. That is what I am referring to. Stand your ground rule is a license to kill. If not for that rule, Travon Martin would be alive. There is no justification for an armed private citizen to confront an unarmed private citizen on more suspicion. Now please real the rest of what I posted about controlling the person.
"When the wind stops....start rowing. When the wind starts, get the sail up quick." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Naki, you're a Rockstar. That was easy yes? Avoid the provocative. I don't think I'll argue with you the lack of control of people using guns. It's not that I'm agreeing with you, but even here on AR and among Americans, issues like Open Carry are not agreed on. As a personal choice, I never Open Carry and very very rarely carry concealed. I have chosen a lifestyle and location that promotes that. However, different locations in the US may well call for different personal choices. As to the rest, I find it equally exaggerated or provocative as you say. Our courts, our government and our system has found the preferences you suggest illegal, un Constitutional. It's just that simple and if it weren't, as I said previously, Americans would change it. We have amended our Constitution 27 times. Look at the alcohol/ no alcohol Amendments and laws. Obviously stricter gun laws isn't what America favors these days.
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Scott Being provocative is very different from being abusive with personal attacks. The OP is abusive and insulting to Kamala Harris. Right wing and GOP supporters always indulge in hate and personal attacks. You say that Americans dont want control but that is not true. Over 70% want gun control of some degree. 90% want mental health checks. Your claim of constitutional protection is BS. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents you from studying gun violence, gun suicides, homicide etc. There is nothing in the constitution that says you should not institutionalize mentally ill people. "When the wind stops....start rowing. When the wind starts, get the sail up quick." | |||
|
One of Us |
No one on this forum preaches their hate for the party they disagree with, more than YOU. You are the definition of a HATER. | |||
|
| One of Us |
All of this post with the exception of my name is plainly not true. | |||
|
| one of us |
How progressives got us here In the 1930's crooks gave the thompson and BAR a bad name. So they enacted the Stamp Act so only the elites could buy automatic weapons, motars and cannons. In 1967 Oakland, the poor and the handicapped were getting robbed coming home from the pharmacy, bank or food shopping. The black panthers started to escort them home with open carry shotguns. Well the progressives couldn't have armed, black males with guns providing protection to somebody's Mom. Passing laws that read like it was written by people who never squirrel hunted. In the 1990's, we started force feeding our children SSRI's and trained all the responsibility out of them. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: