Don't you just love a society where machine guns and cannons are legal and yet you cannot own an armed jet fighter
|
Don't you just love a society where machine guns and cannons are legal and yet you cannot own an armed jet fighter
Who says you can't own a jet fighter... there are several wealthy pilots that do own ex- airforce fighter jets... from Russian, to British... etcQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
They aren't cheap... but if you have the money... why not. Heck, John Travolta has a Boeing 727 parked in his driveway... seriously, he does.He lives in a development where every house has direct access to private runway.
http://www.military-heat.com/27/mili...vilian-market/
Hello again,
I LOVE Horsey..
You need to have a talk with that brain damaged tw@t named Barara Fienstein, because she's on the record as saying that's EXACTLY what she wants to do.
I'd link her rant... but the corporate censors are blocking access form this computer... I couldn't do it until I get home.
Here's one from Fox News,
The Immoral Minority: Senator Feinstein is forced to school Ted Cruz on the Constitution. Update!
Quote:
This excerpt was taken from Fox Nation, so of course they left off the part where Senator Feinstien made a very important point about what these new gun laws actually do. She continued on to say:
"Incidentally this does not prohibit, you use the word 'prohibit,' it 'exempts' 2.271 weapons. Isn't that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don't think so!"
How dare he patronize Ms Feinstein.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Colorado's new law to limit magazine sizes makes virtually all magazines illegal because most are readily convertible. Washington gave cops the power to inspect your guns without a warrant. Don't Democrats think before passing laws?
Cruz made her look like the post menopausal fool everyone knows she is... the witch couldn't even answer the question asked because she didn't have the brainpower to understand it... she's really a legend in her own mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You righties don't get it, but we are going that way any way. Kicking and screaming is par for the course, that's the way you have always been, ever since they freed the slaves and democrats were republican.
We ain't going back.
That's odd, but your source that whined about Fox leaving part of the clip out left this part out:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Cruz is right of course but who cares? He shouldn't be lecturing DiFi on the constitution, she's been around forever and why should Congress concern themselves with the constitutionality of the laws they write anyway?
Maybe because they don't have a free pass to do whatever they want and they swore to uphold the constitution?
Geez you guys sure have forgotten your behavior during the Bush years. I've never seen so much kicking, screaming, whining and pouting in my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It is good to see you guys at least admitting you don't give a rat's patoot about us. Perhaps if you didn't insist on dragging us down with you we might not have to dig our heels in so deep.
EVERYBODY hollered and whined about Bush! Didn't you? He damn near ran the Rangers out of Texas!
I hear the price of rice is up in China.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I think Cruz has left out an important bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Towards the end of his response:
"I would suggest that 4 million weapons qualifies as, 'in common use'. So under the the terms of Heller they cannot be constitutionally prohibited.
Cruz might be right if this is what SCOTUS said, but the court didn't say this.
What SCOTUS actually said was," in common use at the time".
The Heller decision invokes the claim that the right to bear arms rests with the individual and does not have to be connect to service with a militia.
With this in mind the court ruled that a total ban on handguns was unconstitutional because of its conflict with the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment.
The court added an additional statement regarding the wider possibility of the types of weapons that might be used for self-defense. In addressing this issue SCOTUS draws on the Miller decision to reinforce the claim that handguns are constitutional for the purpose of self-defense.
Handguns are constitutional for self-defense because they can be regarded as being,"in common use at the time" for this purpose.
It would be a matter of constitutional debate as to whether such things as machine guns, or similar weapons would be considered necessary for self-defense. Nonetheless, Cruz is wrong if he is giving trying to give the impression that, Heller gives the blessing for all types of weapons to be used in self-defense.
Yes obviously it is debatable... Machine gun restrictions have been in effect for years without much debate. But the other side exploits the difference between machine guns and semi-automatic weapons because they look alike . Once the Clintoon ban was lifted ,the NY Slimes wrote that semi-automatic guns were often “the guns of choice for many hunters, target shooters and would-be home defenders”Quote:
It would be a matter of constitutional debate as to whether such things as machine guns, or similar weapons would be considered necessary for self-defense. Nonetheless, Cruz is wrong if he is giving trying to give the impression that, Heller gives the blessing for all types of weapons to be used in self-defense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/bu...ted=print&_r=0
The Heller decision reinforced the already standing 'United States v. Miller' that was confirmed in 1939 . Clearly with the growth of the sales of the AR-15 type weapons( the best-selling firearm in the United States) ,it is hard to dispute that they are not common. They are in fact the weapon of choice for law abiding citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm not actually disputing what you are saying here. What I am saying is
Yes, I would agree that such weapons would be lawful for self-defense.
You do have a right to own a gun not connect to a militia.
You do have a constitutional right to these things, but how that that right goes will be determined by way of future court cases. The Heller decision is limited in it's scope.
The issue I am raising is that Heller is not to be interpreted in a way Cruz makes out. He portrays Heller as some sort of justification for the Second Amendment in toto. In fact sees it as being of the same type as the First Amendment.
The weakness in his argument was the absolutism. Franken-Feinstein should've easily deflected it on Constitutional grounds... There are limited restrictions on the other 2 amendments he cited . She instead got defensive (probably because as a lefty ,she thinks the constitution is this pliable "living breathing " ,"not worth the parchment it's written on " document instead of the law of the land). Was her best counter to his constitutional point ."I've seen dead children" ? She should consider another profession.
I disagree, I don't believe he's arguing that at all, he's arguing within the confines of Heller. I doubt seriously you would hear him say yes, we have the unconditional right to carry a bazooka. The context is the discussion of an assault weapons ban, not shoulder fired rocket launchers.
Is the AR-15 "in common use at the time"? Yes. Is it especially "dangerous and unusual"? No more than many other semi-automatic weapons not in line to be banned.
The absurdity is this grandstanding about bazookas and cannons, not defending the legality of an AR-15.
Speech no one can deny you have a right to own weapons, what you don't have is the right to blow each other away because that is not part of the common good
I guess you'll have to point out where anyone is trying to legalize mass murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Bazookas have already been decided upon. AR-15 are probably legal under Heller. What I am saying is that if Cruz wants to defend the legitimacy of AR-15 then it can be done so by claiming it as a weapon that is currently acceptable for the purposes of self-defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What I am also saying is that Heller doesn't extend much beyond this. In other words, Cruz cannot use Heller as a means of defeating larger gun laws and regulations in the same way as one would try to defeat restrictions associated with the First Amendment. Despite what Cruz thinks, the First amendment is not of the same type as the Second Amendment.
It is not inconsistent with Heller to say that owning a gun of any type can and does come with regulations and restrictions.
Cruz is saying any reasonable restriction is bad on any of his constitutional rights. In that he is wrong. This is about the rights of manufacturers to make certain type of guns for public sale. DiFi is clear on this with her exemptions
Assault Weapons Ban: Feinstein Bill Exempts 2,220 Guns; Critics Complain List Is Arbitrary
It takes away nothing, penalizes no one, but may put a dent in gun sales which can be made up with other exempted options. So this isn't even a second amendment issue at all the way I see it. This isn't even a right to go to armed war against the government either.Quote:
The list of 2,220 exempted guns includes weapons used for hunting and sporting. Any gun owners who possess any of the 157 guns banned under the bill don't have to turn in their firearms; the legislation only bans the models from being manufactured in the future. Feinstein said banned guns include military-style firearms and semi-automatic weapons.
The Liberals that are pushing these laws are only after one thing-to eventually disarm the American public. Although a resolution made it through committee, it, in no way, guarantees that it will make it through the house. And I very much doubt that it will. Everyone is looking at two faced Harry Reid on this. Once a proponent of gun ownership, he is going to be made to decide and we all pretty much know where he will end up in the end. Feinstein showed her true colors the other day by being arrogant and just plain despicable. This should not be acceptable.
Again, anyone arguing that Cruz is arguing the absolute right to own any weapon is wrong. He has on more than occasion acknowledged restrictions so all this talk about absolutism is just political bluster... or in the case of Democrats a political fundraiser.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
http://www.tedcruz.org/blog/2013/01/24/defeat-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-2013/
I think it is a Second Amendment issue. However, this is why Cruz is choosing not to interpret the Heller decision correctly. "In common use" is actually, "in common use at the time"Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Despite what Cruz thinks I would say that Heller is useless as a means of overturning bans and regulations of the future.
At the time of what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Hello again,
Cruz is a smarmy impertinent sleaze bag.
excon
Really gets under your skin, eh? Good for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Actually it does take away choice. Something the libs used to cry about. Also it interferes with my rights to pass onto my children what may be a lifetime collection. Rendering it to scrap. Also it puts manufacturers out of business with the stroke of a pen. I guess those aren't real losses ?
As much as I admire DF for what she has been through in the political areana. Yes I remember her as Mayor of SF and how she got there. On this one she is wrong. Look up the reason she has a carry permit. Find the real truth behind all of this. Its about an over bloated government that is at a breaking point and is so scared of its own people they are will to go to extreme lengths to push their agenda.
Why not stick to enforcing what is already on the books and realize that we don't live and never will in a "perfect" world.
Lets see about the guy who went to a school full of communist teachers, who wanted to take over the government, He stayed and graduated. Bet he wants his kids to go there too! He didn't tranfer after finding he was in a nest of communists, but he blasts his alma mater. That's real class right?
Ive never heard Obama speak poorly of his alma mater ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You have to read into the "exempt" weapons. They are exempt but by the way the "assault weapons ban" reads, they are ALL considered assault weapons. There are just 2200 of thm NOW that are not going to be banned. You have to think like those little beady eyed liberals do,, sneaky,sneaky
What's wrong with making sure your children don't have issues before they can get those antiques or whatever passed down to them? I doubt any manufacturer goes out of business because they can sell a particular weapon and other choices will certainly be available.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
But I will take you up on searching some more background about the conceal and carry permit. But I ain't buying the conspiracy theory. I do realize MY agenda, may be different from yours. And my elected officials have a different agenda than yours. You have read enough of my beef with right wing thoughts and policies to know that.
I mean banning 157 models of guns and leaving 2700 as choices is not that far fetched to me. And keeping track of 360 million guns sounds good to me for finding criminals, which is the point of a national database for law enforcement, and background checks.
Now if you think they are coming for your guns then you must be a criminal, or paranoid. Which is worse because both are a concerned if armed.
There is not one good reason why "assault weapons" should be banned based on the Newtown killings. That is what brought this all to the front lines. It was just an opportune moment for the Anti Gun people to try and make their case. There have been more lies told about the so called "assault weapons" than truth. Law abiding citizens DO NOT use weapons to commit crimes. Criminals do. More background checks and limiting fire power to the law abiding citizen will not change crime statistics. Enforcing the 20,000 some laws we have and convictions instead of plea bargains will.
Hello handydude:
We are the worlds largest jailer, but we're still not big enough for you..Quote:
Enforcing the 20,000 some laws we have and convictions instead of plea bargains will.
Let me tell you something handyboy. I can buy a gun at a gun show THIS weekend right here in my state.. Now, as my friends can attest, I'm a NICE exconvict... But, there are some who are NOT so nice, and I don't want them to have guns... A universal background check would STOP people like me from getting guns. YOU, apparently, don't mind, at ALL, that people like me can buy guns... That's not very right wing of you. It's not very American of you. In fact, it's the most PRO CRIMINAL position I've seen the right wing take...
It makes no sense to me. But, NOTHING red necked republicans do surprise's me.
Excon
The universal background check bill could get you a felony conviction if you let a friend house sit with your guns there for over a week or loan him a gun to go hunting. We're paying attention to all the BS you libs are trying to sneak in.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Cruz and others here are right, we can't rule by emotion which is what you're trying to do, just as DiFi's indignant rant in the face of constitutional questions was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
If they ban a weapon then they are doing so under the sale or transfer of that weapon. If I should die and try to pass them to my children then that right has been stripped from me. As the ones in question CAN NOT be transferred. So unless your saying there is some part in it that allows for Heirloom guns then what we are talking about is removal of rights.
You may doubt things right now. But the way it is written then almost ANY semi auto pistol is on the ban list because it has the potential to have a large magazine inserted into it. That is the way it reads. For casual shooters like myself then it will create a lot of headaches. Also there is one gun manufacturer that will close for sure as they are written into that bill. Im sure they don't even know it yet. Enforce what you have first then worry about restrictions. What is to stop them from doing as was proposed that they at will can enter your home anytime of the day or night to check on what you have ?
How many rights do you have to give up before it becomes all wrong ? The law abiding citizen shouldn't have to fear the law. But more and more it is moving in that direction. Home invasions are becoming more popular in some areas. Try defending with a 6 shooter.
You don't have a "right" to pass property by inheritance nor do you have a "right" to traffic in arms when you are deceased.
It might be a good thing if some gun manufacturers close, less guns available, there are already enough guns in the world, we don't need more
The right to any non-specifically enumerated right they cherish. Like free contraceptives or abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
So when you pass there is a law that everything you own goes to the government? There are rights in this country and they also are written for just that purpose of passing items or monies within the family unit. So like any other collection one might accumulate it should be allowed to pass through to heirs.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
My husband says if I don't have a FOID card (IL), I will not be able to keep his gun collection.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:02 AM. |