Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Assault Weapons Ban

That's a historical fact, so yes, that's my argument.

 

"Well, unless the Republicans mess with it again, and the feds can enact some decent laws, in a few decades nearly all of those assault weapons will be off the street. Then you can say, "it WILL work"."
HMMM........in YOUR words, please describe an "assault weapon" and what would be "banned", please.
Now before you get your knickers in a bunch, let me add just a wee bit to why I'm asking.
A few good wheel guns (revolvers/ six shooters) along with some homemade quick loaders (can be easily made from wood and homemade in case YOU libs decide to ban them also) and a little practice and a shooter can decimate a room of people. It does NOT take 5 bullets to kill someone, just ONE well placed bullet of proper caliber would do (they may make it to the hospital but won't make it out). But, you say, it takes practice. I agree but if they have resolve, they'll practice. Paint those revolvers BLACK and they become "assault weapons"???
Next, we have this little jewel:
http://www.crossbownation.com/forum/topic/14083-russian-multiple-arrow-shooting-crossbow/
http://silverarches.narod.ru/arbalet/automat.htm
A crossbow arrow will do as much damage as a bullet. Actually, maybe more!

Now, if you really want some gun control.....IMO, anyone who has claimed a mental problem (ADD, ADHD, PTSD, Bipolar......etc) or has been prescribed "mental health" drugs (Prozac......etc) should lose their ability to own a gun UNTIL they have been pronounced CURED by a doctor AND are off those prescribed drugs. And, yes, that includes ALL people who live in the same household of that patient who has mental issues can NOT have a gun. Now, there's a start to gun control I could get behind!

 

Why would you even ask a question like this when everything I've posted says otherwise? So, tell me - is it a reading problem, one of comprehension or both?

From what I've read, the drug cartels in Mexico and points south get most of their really good guns from the U.S., so cutting off the they supply here should do wonders for also reducing some of the gun violence in Mexico. Also, there is no comparing illegal drugs and guns - once an assault rifle is off the streets, it's gone, and it takes so serious equipment and knowledge to make another one. Take a bunch of cocaine off the market, and they just grow more, refine it and are back ready to do in no time.

If you have the skills, knowledge and a machine shop capable of manufacturing a gun, more power to ya. Get caught doing that, and spend the next ten years in prison making license plates. Anyway, one person making one gun pales in comparison to heavy industry churning them out like cupcakes in a bakery. Or didn't you think of that? Guess not.

 

You're right, and it won't stop until we have a federal law in place for all states.

It sets the stage for a federal law when we elect some intelligent legislators.

No. Maybe someday, but not now.

Means nothing if one city does it, but others don't.

No, I disagree. Maybe technically, but I'm not enough of a gun expert to say yes or no. Doesn't matter, if the only magazines are limited to ten rounds, because eventually, with criminal penalties if you're caught with one holding more, they'll mostly be off the streets.

Does the mishmash or laws across the country need work? Hell yes. And until we can come up with some reasonable national laws, we'll have gaps and loopholes.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I can also guarantee you that 99%+ of those owners will know of that law when it's passed. And as soon as the first jerkoff is convicted and sent up the river, the other 1% will get the word.

 

When these types of weapons have been illegal for 25 or more years under penalty of felony and imprisonment if caught with one, just where will criminals get them? If you expect instant success by passing reasonable laws, you'll be disappointed, and if your response is that unless you have that instant success, then there's no point in passing said laws, then that's just plain silly.

 

The purpose of a Lamborghini is to carry you safely (and swiftly) from one place to another; the purpose of an assault rifle with a large clip is to kill as many people (or whatever) as possible in a short time. Most people notice a significant difference in those two (other than price, of course).

Is that true in every state? how many game wardens does each state have per 100 hunters? how often do they check the types and capacity of every rifle/shotgun in the field?

 

The unfortunate truth is that the world is chock-full of what you on the Left refer to as "assault" weapons. It's no problem at all to get your hands on semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons, especially for well-funded international terrorists exactly like these two monsters who committed the murders in San Bernardino.

We already have so many laws on the books to cover the entire topic of how to deal with criminals who misuse weapons -- BUT, how often are even the piddling punishments fully carried out? We need much harsher punishments -- including swift capital punishment -- and when a felony is committed with a firearm, the criminal needs to be sent to prison and KEPT in prison for the full length of the sentence. But what do we see now? The liberal-driven penal "system" nearly always cuts the sentences in half, and then finds other excuses to put these creatures back out on the streets even earlier.

 

I would say the police and military units are a well regulated militia.

 

What's your point? More guns is job security?

 

Perhaps you should read the 2nd again. The right of the people shall not be infringed. Plus if the guns are so dangerous no amount of training can make them safe. They are just as likely to make a policeman kill someone as a citizen. After all according to the a lot on the left the evil gun is as responsible as the misguided person.

 

When did I say flash suppressors are scary? All I did was answer the question posed as to what made rifle #3 illegal, it was you that then began to run off at the comment. Tell you what, boy, you go back and re-read exactly what I stated and when you think you are a man, come back and apologize for being inept.

 

the 2A is for the avg person on the street to be able to stand against tyranny

 

vote was 7 to 2.

that means the vast majority of SCOTUS judges agree that AWB is legal

 

Reading problem? Comprehension Problem?

Neither!

If you support gun control, then only the government and criminals will have guns. That is a fact.

Drug cartels don't get their weapons from the U.S...

Where Drug Cartels Really Get Their Arms

 

Why was that, oh yeah, WE DIDN'T HAVE A STANDING ARMY!!.
And by the way, there were some that didn't want one (That's not a good idea)
Or a police force.

 

That is absolute, unalterable NONSENSE!

Drug cartels don't get their weapons from the U.S...

Where Drug Cartels Really Get Their Arms[/QUOTE]

Yes - HEAVY weapons:

According to the published documents, U.S. diplomats in Mexico believe that these weapons, such as grenades and rocket launchers, are being stolen from the armed forces of Central American countries.

I wouldn't doubt that. Now, here's something else for you to chew on:

April 27, 2012 Mexican authorities have recovered 68,000 guns in the past five years that have been traced back to the United States, the federal government said Thursday.

From Wiki:

"According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, 94,000 weapons were recovered from Mexican drug cartels in the five years between 2006 and 2011, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States." Once guns are obtained at gunshops in the United States, they are then smuggled into Mexico across the US-Mexico border.

Again, these are considered "small arms", like the kinds used by mass murders in this country. Just sayin'.

 

They are both legal, get over it. The latest bull(*)(*)(*)(*) liberals are railing on is people on terror watch list buying guns, well thanks to our inept, or often corrupt government, Ted Kennedy was on that watch list. Obama and company used the IRS to target conservatives, can you imagine who will end up on those terror lists, yep, conservatives who criticize Obama.

The 5 limit is the law for hunting with a rifle, 3 is the limit in a shotgun. Whether it is bolt action, lever action or automatic. If you have a 40 round clip, you are still only allowed 5 rounds. It is not the clip, but the rounds, and yes there are plenty of game wardens out there, they are on the lookout for cheaters, that is what they do

 

Yes - HEAVY weapons:

According to the published documents, U.S. diplomats in Mexico believe that these weapons, such as grenades and rocket launchers, are being stolen from the armed forces of Central American countries.

I wouldn't doubt that. Now, here's something else for you to chew on:

April 27, 2012 Mexican authorities have recovered 68,000 guns in the past five years that have been traced back to the United States, the federal government said Thursday.

From Wiki:

"According to [U.S.] Justice Department figures, 94,000 weapons were recovered from Mexican drug cartels in the five years between 2006 and 2011, of which 64,000 -- 70 percent -- come from the United States." Once guns are obtained at gunshops in the United States, they are then smuggled into Mexico across the US-Mexico border.

Again, these are considered "small arms", like the kinds used by mass murders in this country. Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]

Yes they do, Obama gave them more than 2000 of them. I guess it must be nice to be the king

 

First, the JD figures are correct for numbers but they came from US gun shops is not provable. Why? Unless the feds are breaking the law, there is no database for that. Second, the figure comes from those guns without serial numbers and those with serial numbers. The US requires serial numbers on guns. Third, the US sent the Mexican military and police weapons for use in the 'War on Drugs', many of the same guns used by the cartels, all with serial numbers.

 

Hmmm ... well let's see:

Here are the rifles used by the San Bernardino shooters:



Here are some rifles used by U.S. military forces:







I suppose to an expert such as yourself, you can immediately spot the differences between the military and civilian versions. Maybe not so easy for the rest of us. I'll go back to an old court definition of pornography - goes something like this - 'I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.' I'm sure that those in the business and legal folks can provide reasonable definitions of what is and what is not, but for right now, if it looks like, acts like, and does the same job as a military grade weapon, it'll qualify in my book.

Yeah, and don't forget those repeating crossbows with 30 bolts in their magazines - really deadly.

Definitely food for thought, maybe not all of your suggestions, but more than a few have some merit IMO.

 

How many mass shooters in this country have used weapons provided by terrorist organizations? I'll guess none. I mean, why bother? I'm not saying the smuggling can't be done, but why make it easy for those creeps?

I don't necessarily disagree. Now then, how much of a tax increase can you accept to make this happen, concurrently with a reduction in the massive numbers of assault weapons in this country?

 

That's been debunked many times before by fellow PF members.

Here it is again...

Mexico's Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth

 

yea that is the point.

 

So because Ted Kennedy was on this list for a while, that's your excuse to allow tens of thousands of terrorists access to any weapon we have freely available for sale here? Yeah. That makes a whole lot of sense. Pffffffffft. NOT!

That's the law in every state. I'll need a link. Also, how often are those maximums checked because we have already had people here saying they go hunting with these weapons of war. And not the first word about limiting the size of their clips.

 

"Well regulated" in the context of the Second Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means.

Back then, "Well regulated" did not mean "government controlled."

When the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified, "well regulated" was commonly used in everyday context. See the following...

Now replace the above "well regulated" phrase with "government controlled" and tell me if any of those statements make any sense. The answer is "no", they do not make sense.

Back then, "Well regulated" meant "well functioning".

Now replace the above "well regulated" phrase with "well functioning" and tell me if any of those statements make any sense.