People that know nothing about assault weapons

[quade 3]

Because if you clap your hands enough, Tinker Bell is saved.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[matthewcline 0]

"Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in."

Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record for 1/24/2013 page S291.


She admits it will "override rights", aka; violate rights, aka; Unconstitutional.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Matt,

That is what she says.

You may think that answered my question, but my question still stands.

If I remember correctly the Supreme Court upheld the previous ban. Ergo, I would think that they would uphold the next one.

I may be right; you may be right. Time will tell.

However, IMO to say that it would be unconstitutional is leap that I would not make.

JerryBaumchen

[matthewcline 0]

Did the last ban get challenged in the SCOTUS? I honestly don't remember.

The Senators bill is knee jerk BS, it doesn't actually deal with Criminals, just makes new ones.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[tunde 0]

Quote

"Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in."
- Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record for 1/24/2013 page S291.

How about we not allow the feelings of a few who wish to create an illusion of safety to override the rights of all.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

>So, I have come to the conclusion that the large majority of people trying to ban
>assault weapons know nothing about them.

So Guns and Ammo magazine (the place the term originated) knows nothing about assault weapons? Interesting.

Guns & Ammo Magazine is trying to BAN assault rifles?

Cancel my subscription!!


Oh...When did G&A 'coin the term'? Because It's used in an Israeli training manual from the late 50's

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[1969912 0]

Quote

The Senators bill is knee jerk BS, it doesn't actually deal with Criminals, just makes new ones.

Yep. That's what they want to do. Their ultimate goal is no private firearms ownership, and they'll use any means possible to achieve that goal. Screw 'em, don't give an inch.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[dpreguy 14]

According to the History Channel and the Miller Directory of Guns the Schmeisser MP 43, eventually renamed the MP44 in 1944, shot a 7.92 shorter round developed for automatic fire, and was named the Sturmgewehr which is German for "assault rifle". (This design concept set the standard for almost every auto and semi auto rifle following, from the AK 47 to the M16 etc.) It is possible that some media person recently coined the term "assault weapon"; but the term "Assault Rifle" was designated as the name for the MP44 in 1944.

Yes, this is trivia.

[quade 3]

Ever notice if you correct somebody's grammar on the internet you're immediately called a "grammar Nazi," but if you correct somebody about gun terminology nobody calls you a "gun Nazi"? Why is that?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Because if you clap your hands enough, Tinker Bell is saved.

Are you trying to be funny? Because you're not. Tink's life was in serious jeopardy. I can't believe you actually made a joke of such a serious thing. Someone on this forum has finally succeeded in offending me. I'm leaving. But I'm doing so in a huff!

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Ever notice if you correct somebody's grammar on the internet you're immediately called a "grammar Nazi," but if you correct somebody about gun terminology nobody calls you a "gun Nazi"? Why is that?

What are you, some kind of internet Nazi?

[regulator 0]

No soup for you!

[Cronus4 0]

Quote

Hi Matt,

That is what she says.

You may think that answered my question, but my question still stands.

If I remember correctly the Supreme Court upheld the previous ban. Ergo, I would think that they would uphold the next one.

I may be right; you may be right. Time will tell.

However, IMO to say that it would be unconstitutional is leap that I would not make.

JerryBaumchen

Actually what she said in a taped interview that she wanted to do was: "If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"

How in the F is that constitutional, and how is she able to still stay in office? To me that is a blatant disrespect and attempted violation of the 2nd amendement. Alas her constituents reelected her.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

how is she able to stay in office?

The same way Jesse Helms was able to stay in office.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Alas her constituents reelected her.

We're talkin' San Francisco area here...'nuff said.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

how is she able to stay in office?

The same way Jesse Helms was able to stay in office.

We're talkin' the Deep South here.. 'nuff said.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

how is she able to stay in office?

The same way Jesse Helms was able to stay in office.

We're talkin' the Deep South here.. 'nuff said.

*sigh*
You say that like any region is immune to stupidity.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

how is she able to stay in office?

The same way Jesse Helms was able to stay in office.

We're talkin' the Deep South here.. 'nuff said.

*sigh*
You say that like any region is immune to stupidity.

There is. The region between my ears.

Ha, I'm posting faster than you. You're slow, old fart.
Hey, re-join us in Name the Bands.

[popsjumper 2]

Glad you are immune..sad that I am not.


I'm there...

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Cronus4 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

how is she able to stay in office?

The same way Jesse Helms was able to stay in office.

We're talkin' the Deep South here.. 'nuff said.

Honestly I'm not an advocate of either one. Why do I have to choose between a religious fanatic and someone that wants to take away my constitutional rights?

I'm not a fan of anyone that's fanatical to either side. The problem is, more and more in this country our political elections are becoming a matter of choosing between black or white (and I don't mean race). Well, life isn't black or white it's a whole hell of a lot of grey and I would like some viable grey options when voting for the outcome of my country.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

Hi Matt,

That is what she says.

You may think that answered my question, but my question still stands.

If I remember correctly the Supreme Court upheld the previous ban. Ergo, I would think that they would uphold the next one.

I may be right; you may be right. Time will tell.

However, IMO to say that it would be unconstitutional is leap that I would not make.

JerryBaumchen

Actually what she said in a taped interview that she wanted to do was: "If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"

How in the F is that constitutional, and how is she able to still stay in office? To me that is a blatant disrespect and attempted violation of the 2nd amendement. Alas her constituents reelected her.

You are missing the point....

Individuals like you, and the senator, don't decide what is and is not constitutional in the United States.

The Supreme Court decides that.

SO, if a previous restriction of the 2nd amendment was heard by the Supreme Court, and NOT found to be unconstitutional, then the only precedent on the constitutionality of restricting the 2nd amendment would show that it is in fact constitutional.

You might not think so, but you aren't the one deciding, so it doesn't matter.

[millertime24 8]

You're wrong.

Muff #5048

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

You're wrong.

O Crap

Hes a Supreme Court Justice?

FML.

I stand corrected in that case. He does get to decide.

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hi Matt,

That is what she says.

You may think that answered my question, but my question still stands.

If I remember correctly the Supreme Court upheld the previous ban. Ergo, I would think that they would uphold the next one.

I may be right; you may be right. Time will tell.

However, IMO to say that it would be unconstitutional is leap that I would not make.

JerryBaumchen

Actually what she said in a taped interview that she wanted to do was: "If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"

How in the F is that constitutional, and how is she able to still stay in office? To me that is a blatant disrespect and attempted violation of the 2nd amendement. Alas her constituents reelected her.

You are missing the point....

Individuals like you, and the senator, don't decide what is and is not constitutional in the United States.

The Supreme Court decides that.

SO, if a previous restriction of the 2nd amendment was heard by the Supreme Court, and NOT found to be unconstitutional, then the only precedent on the constitutionality of restricting the 2nd amendment would show that it is in fact constitutional.

You might not think so, but you aren't the one deciding, so it doesn't matter.

Did the last ban get heard by the SCOTUS?

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hi Matt,

That is what she says.

You may think that answered my question, but my question still stands.

If I remember correctly the Supreme Court upheld the previous ban. Ergo, I would think that they would uphold the next one.

I may be right; you may be right. Time will tell.

However, IMO to say that it would be unconstitutional is leap that I would not make.

JerryBaumchen

Actually what she said in a taped interview that she wanted to do was: "If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"

How in the F is that constitutional, and how is she able to still stay in office? To me that is a blatant disrespect and attempted violation of the 2nd amendement. Alas her constituents reelected her.

You are missing the point....

Individuals like you, and the senator, don't decide what is and is not constitutional in the United States.

The Supreme Court decides that.

SO, if a previous restriction of the 2nd amendment was heard by the Supreme Court, and NOT found to be unconstitutional, then the only precedent on the constitutionality of restricting the 2nd amendment would show that it is in fact constitutional.

You might not think so, but you aren't the one deciding, so it doesn't matter.

Did the last ban get heard by the SCOTUS?

Matt

I don't know to be honest, I was just pointing out how the person misunderstands the way the government works in the USA.

Constitutionality is decided by the judicial branch.

Hence the emphasis on SO, I was just following the logic through for him.