How many members would like a firearms discussion area

You do realize that "states have banned weapons in common use for lawful purposes" does not mean that they've banned all weapons in common use for lawful purpose, right? States have banned firearms that fall under a definition of "assault weapons", for whatever meaning they've assigned that term. Kolbe v Malloy found that weapons under that definition are indeed in common use for lawful purposes.

No, use the terms in the decision, not in dicta or in the dissent.

 

Then we should say that instead of “states have banned weapons.”
Then just say, “Some states have banned some types of firearms. “ or just name them as they appear in their legislation. .
Then, you throw around what’s “lawful” . That’s irrelevant and an opinion. Try waiving a firearm type around they have banned in their state and “lawful” will be explained to you by your attorney before you go to court.

 

In English, the two phrases can mean the same thing. You've seen my posts long enough to know I would not claim that (all) states have banned (all) weapons. If you are not sure, ask a clarifying question instead of assuming what suits you.

 

No they can’t mean the same thing. These terms appear no where in any decision in the context you pretend and it’s blowing smoke. These decisions referred to are about firearms not weapons. It completely goes off track to pretend we’re talking about weapons. Nukes are weapons too, even hand held ones. No one pretends differently.

 

Have you taken any logic courses at all?

"states have banned weapons in common use for lawful purposes", in English, can mean "(all)states have banned (all) weapons in common use for lawful purposes" or "(there exist some) states (that) have banned (some) weapons in common use for lawful purposes". Either context or clarifying questions would give you the intended meaning of the author.

There are no hand held nuclear weapons. Do you wish to chastise the author of the Heller opinion for using both "firearms" and "weapons" in the decision? No one brought "nukes" into this discussion until you did. Are they "in common use for lawful purposes"?

 

This is what happens when you feed the troll.

 

Another bold faced diversion from the truth. The term “ weapon” v the term “ firearm” are used appropriately in the Heller opinions. They are not by you.
Laws and regulations are predicated by a section that defines the specific related terms being used.

As far as taking logic courses, it’s apparent that if you guys claim you have, you’ve forgotten everything.

 

I'm using them exactly as Heller did. Where do you infer that I do not?

Incorrect, but thanks.

 

if the government has the proper power to ban something, it certainly can regulate it. If it can regulate something, it most likely will claim it can ban it. Remember, in 1934 FDR wanted to ban machine guns (along with handguns). his AG said that wasn't kosher so they came up with a de facto ban with the idiotic 200 dollars (more than a monthly wage for some skilled labor)stamp and a year long wait

 

Do you know how long either local, state or the feds have been regulating arms ? You think full automatic weapons should be cheap and available to anyone ?

 

Explain why they should not be, without the hyperbole nonsense relating to terrorists and mass shootings.

 

Moving on.

 

Meaning an actual, legitimate answer, is not actually possessed on the part of yourself.

If semi-automatic firearms cannot be restricted on the basis that criminals might use them, fully-automatic firearms should not be restricted on such a basis either.

 

Feds? Since 1934.

I guess we can live with the status quo where they are only available to the rich, cash-flush criminals and well-funded terrorists.

 

Actually 1927. Banning the mailing of concealable firearms.

 

And local and state laws since the late 1700s.
And known terrorists, domestic or foreign, can still buy guns in private sales and at gun shows. So can’t the underaged, the mentally incompetent and felons. So literally, there is very little firearm regulations.

 

Why are known terrorists still walking around our country ?

 

if you can own a 22 caliber target rifle, you ought to be able to own an M16 rifle as well

 

people can murder others but its illegal. using your "logic" there is very little regulations against murder

 

It is incredibly easy in my state to get out of prison FOR MURDER and buy a gun that same day

 

Prove that or admit lying.

 

Just buy it in a private sale. Super easy. You can shop online at ARMSLIST.

Now apologize. LOL

 

Prove it has happened.

 

Sure. Can I make you a ham sandwich first? LOL

 

Eating a hamburger at the moment.