Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America - Page 10
Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 162

Thread: Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    That kind of thinking is why you'll always be disenfranchised.

    Disenfranchised from what?

    It exhibits a tinfoil hat mentality. Calling people sheep because they won't follow you down a delusional path is a symptom of that delusion.

    I don't want, need, or like anyone following me. If they followed me, then they'd be...sheep. If they want to stand with me to restore our nation to a true Constitutional Republic, then they'd be welcomed as... sheepdogs..

    People who live in constant fear of being disarmed and anger over not being allowed to possess whatever weapon wherever they please are the real threat to out freedom and the Constitution on which it is built.

    Who's living in constant fear and anger? You make a lot of assumptions here. How are believers in the Constitution a threat to the Constitution?

    They end up building bunkers, attacking the IRS with a plane, or trying to break into the Pentagon.

    Been drinking the lame stream media Kool-Aid, have you?
    I'm done; nothing to be gained here.

  2.   
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    I'm done; nothing to be gained here.
    +1. Sometimes you just got to shake the dust off you feet and move on. You can not change some peoples minds so why waist valuable time trying.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  4. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.
    Miller v US in 1939 concluded that guns not useful to the militia (military) could be regulated. They were wrong on two counts but the decision clearly was with the assumption that military useful weapons were protected by the 2nd Amendment. (They were wrong because the militia clause is not limiting on the 2nd Amendment and because they concluded that a short barrel shotgun was not useful to the military because no evidence was presented that it was because there was no evidence presented for Miller at all. Short barrel shotguns have regularly been used by the military throughout history).

    We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
    I'm not sure where that supposedly came from but it is a ridiculous statement on it's face. All weapons are dangerous otherwise they wouldn't be weapons. That "unusual weapons" are banned is nothing more than the hoplophobe's excuse to incrementally outlaw guns. Even in Kalifornia you can own a cannon yet Kalifornia makes me wait 10 (11) days to buy a gun when I have a CCW and can be carrying a loaded and concealed handgun when I start the purchase. Insanity is the byword of the anti-gun nuts.

    Even the anti-gun CDC could find no evidence that any gun control law resulted in reduced crime or violence. So logically, virtually all gun control laws are unreasonable because they accomplish nothing.


    First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

    Summary

    During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

    Not enough evidence to say gun laws reduce violence
    The studies included laws to ban certain types of guns or ammunition, such as fully automatic assault weapons and the cheap handguns commonly known as "Saturday night specials." Others studies examined laws that restrict certain people from buying guns, determine waiting periods for gun purchases, require gun registration, allow for concealed weapon and impose "zero tolerance" for firearms in schools. The task force also reviewed studies that looked at combinations of these laws.
    In each case, the researchers could not find enough evidence to suggest that the laws had any effect on a variety of outcomes, from homicides to aggravated assaults to suicides.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post

    Even the anti-gun CDC could find no evidence that any gun control law resulted in reduced crime or violence. So logically, virtually all gun control laws are unreasonable because they accomplish nothing.

    You can't use that report to support that " logical" conclusion because of the disconnect between the report and the "logical" conclusion:

    The report’s lead author, Dr. Robert Hahn of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says “it is critical to note” that the review does not mean that gun laws are ineffective.

    “We mean simply that we do not yet know what effects, if any, the laws have” on gun-related violence, Hahn says, and that the Task Force does not recommend that current laws be changed in any way “until effectiveness can be demonstrated one way or the other.”

    The report is useful for countering assertions that gun control laws are effective. But that same report can be used by anti-gun advocates to counter assertions that gun control laws are not effective.

    I run into the same false logic with anti-gunners trying to use the Harvard School of Public Health report about gun ownership and deaths of children. That report found that in states and regions with higher levels of household firearm ownership, many more children are dying from homicide, suicide and gun accidents.

    The report then takes that raw data and claims that the higher deaths are attributable to higher rates of gun ownership, which sounds logical, until you read in the middle of the report that "no study that is a snapshot of the U.S. over a short period of time can prove causation..." Bingo. Everything after that is mere speculation. Same as if they found statistics that there are more DWI deaths in states with more hours of sunshine, and then concluded that the sun causes DWI deaths.

    One has to read these studies with critical thinking skills, and then be cautious about overstating their findings.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    You can't use that report to support that " logical" conclusion because of the disconnect between the report and the "logical" conclusion:

    The report’s lead author, Dr. Robert Hahn of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says “it is critical to note” that the review does not mean that gun laws are ineffective.

    “We mean simply that we do not yet know what effects, if any, the laws have” on gun-related violence, Hahn says, and that the Task Force does not recommend that current laws be changed in any way “until effectiveness can be demonstrated one way or the other.”

    The report is useful for countering assertions that gun control laws are effective. But that same report can be used by anti-gun advocates to counter assertions that gun control laws are not effective.

    I run into the same false logic with anti-gunners trying to use the Harvard School of Public Health report about gun ownership and deaths of children. That report found that in states and regions with higher levels of household firearm ownership, many more children are dying from homicide, suicide and gun accidents.

    The report then takes that raw data and claims that the higher deaths are attributable to higher rates of gun ownership, which sounds logical, until you read in the middle of the report that "no study that is a snapshot of the U.S. over a short period of time can prove causation..." Bingo. Everything after that is mere speculation. Same as if they found statistics that there are more DWI deaths in states with more hours of sunshine, and then concluded that the sun causes DWI deaths.

    One has to read these studies with critical thinking skills, and then be cautious about overstating their findings.


    Recently in the State of California, whom has the most prohibitive firearms laws in the Country, bar none; 4 police officers were shot, 3 were killed by a recently paroled, career felon, whom could not only not legally purchase the weapon he used to kill 3 of the 4 officers, neither could any individual in the entire state of California, that was not associated with on-duty police work or military or hears the kicker, a member of the government...
    Three police officers killed in Oakland shootings - CNN.com

    GUN CONTROL DOES NOT REDUCE CRIME...

    Killed in Virginia-Tech Gun Free Zone:










    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...pen-watch.html

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...ree-zones.html

    Yep, certainly appears we have a couple of forum infiltrators, who do not understand...
    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government:
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    There is not one single tangible piece of evidence or statistics that has not been manipulated that supports in the history of the world, that firearm and weapon control, regulation, registration, etc., had reduced crime...





    John Lott's Website

    More guns, less crime: FBI reports crime rates continue to decline:
    NRA-ILA :: More guns, less crime: FBI reports crime rates continue to decline

    Crime & Criminal Justice
    More Guns, Less Crime (Again) in 2008
    Gun Ownership at All-Time High, New FBI Report Shows, Violent Crime at a 35-Year Low, Murder at a 43-Year Low:

    NRA-ILA :: More Guns, Less Crime (Again) in 2008

    70 Million More Guns…38% Less Violent Crime:
    NRA-ILA :: 70 Million More Guns?38% Less Violent Crime

    Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives:
    Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

    More Guns, Less Crime in '09:
    American Thinker: More Guns, Less Crime in '09

    The NRA Has Lost Its Way:
    Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

    NRA President's Testimony During Congressional Debate
    of the National Firearms Act of 1934:

    1934 NFA HEARINGS

    NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934
    In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."

    Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

    YouTube - Gun Control Does Not Reduce Crime

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...fiscation.html




    Kidnapping Capital of the U.S.A. – Phoenix Arizona:
    Kidnapping Capital of the U.S.A. – Phoenix Arizona : Homeland Security News

    Gun Control Does Not Reduce Crime :: Argumentative Persuasive Essays

    Crime and Criminals Gun Control Laws Do Not Reduce Crime

    Fort Hood Victims List

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  7. #96
    Beyond cartoons, reading and comprehension is a skill acquired through practice:

    The report’s lead author, Dr. Robert Hahn of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says “it is critical to note” that the review does not mean that gun laws are ineffective.

    “We mean simply that we do not yet know what effects, if any, the laws have” on gun-related violence, Hahn says, and that the Task Force does not recommend that current laws be changed in any way “until effectiveness can be demonstrated one way or the other.”

  8. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Beyond cartoons, reading and comprehension is a skill acquired through practice:

    The report’s lead author, Dr. Robert Hahn of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says “it is critical to note” that the review does not mean that gun laws are ineffective.

    “We mean simply that we do not yet know what effects, if any, the laws have” on gun-related violence, Hahn says, and that the Task Force does not recommend that current laws be changed in any way “until effectiveness can be demonstrated one way or the other.”

    What effects. the effect of giving crimials a free hand
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  9. #98

    Angry

    I thought that this link was a little off topic, But with the attitude issue here, maybe not. (There are no pictures in my post here)

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/conce...ry-states.html
    Semper Fi

  10. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    ...
    Seriously, pull your head out, or find another forum to infiltrate...

    Continue this tripe and you will be placed on permanent ignore, with the rest of the clue-less forum infiltrators...

    “To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.” - Amos Bronson Alcott

    Sir William Blackstone, an English jurist and professor, wrote Commentaries on the Laws of England during the mid 1700s. A historical and analytic treatise on the common law of England, it was first published in four slim volumes. Topics covered included:
    * The rights of persons, including relationships between husband and wife or employer and employee
    * The rights of things, an explanation of property law
    * Of private wrongs, a discussion of torts and civil law procedures
    * Of public wrongs, an analysis of criminal law

    The reference of Blackstone is a logical fallacy; because it pre-dates the Second Amendment, and is a focus on the Laws of England, that were used to DISARM the Colonists of the founders era, and in present day England as well; and the fundamental reason why Jefferson & the founders created the Second Amendment & unambiguously stated it... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

    Just because the States, the Fed and SCOTUS have grown accustomed to re-interpreting the Constitution, does not make it Constitutional...
    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    IF the Second Amendment is NOT unconditional, then how would we (WE THE PEOPLE) ever be able to remove or oppose a tyrannical government?

    The Single Biggest Advocate of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment was Thomas Jefferson, it is his views and the other original framers that must be given the most weight not some English Attorney, whom never became a U.S. Citizen; of whose writings everything in the Bill of Rights and the founding documents are in contradiction to...

    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " - Thomas Jefferson

    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

    "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

    "It is every citizens duty to at all times be armed, and to at as early an age as possible be trained to use said armament" - Thomas Jefferson

    Jefferson, coincidentally was known to always carry, concealed more often then not...
    Yet he never made any distinction between open/concealed carry or limitations on type/class of weapons in all of his writings...

    In fact Jefferson is very well known in his opposition of the Unconstitutional "The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798"...
    Which paved the way to his Presidency...

    IF you really want to debate the SCOTUS Miller decision; I am more than happy to do that, LIKE all SCOTUS decisions to-date on the Second Amendment; Miller was fundamentally flawed...
    Miller has what attorneys refer to as a two-prong test...

    "(1) A weapon had to be both of a type typically (aka: common-use) associated with the militia and (2) used in some activity reasonably connected with a well-regulated militia."

    Most would agree either such test goes against any reading of the framers intent with the Second Amendment...

    In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
    The Justices were grossly misinformed, saw-off shotguns where in common use as early as the civil war and as recently as WWI immediately prior to the Miller 1939 decision...

    Hence, common-use is out the window for that reason alone...

    further, because the defendant died before being able to present evidence to the contrary, the precedent held and has been abused every since.
    The whole common-use argument is unbelievably flawed; it totally ignores the fact that we started the revolutionary war for the same argument, ditto with the Alamo...

    In Heller, Miller, etc... Neither the justices nor any attorneys have ever presented anything written by the founders themselves that supports any limitation whatsoever on the Second Amendment...

    Getting back to the second prong of Miller, in the Heller decision the Justices stated the militia clause is irrelevant and that WE THE PEOPLE, ARE THE MILITIA...
    The limitations, you imply do not even remotely refer to BANS being acceptable...
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    Syllabus
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
    ...
    The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms”...Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition...would fail constitutional muster...
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

    In no way shape or form has SCOTUS advocated a BAN...
    While in Heller they have allowed regulation, which I find in direct conflict with any framers view of the Second Amendment, it still does not allow a BAN...

    Simplistic View?

    Why yes, the same simplistic view the founders had, who would today be considered right wing extremists by the likes of yourself…

    Once again, just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?


    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  11. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Seriously, pull your head out, or find another forum to infiltrate...

    Continue this tripe and you will be placed on permanent ignore, with the rest of the clue-less forum infiltrators...

    “To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.” - Amos Bronson Alcott

    Sir William Blackstone, an English jurist and professor, wrote Commentaries on the Laws of England during the mid 1700s. A historical and analytic treatise on the common law of England, it was first published in four slim volumes. Topics covered included:
    * The rights of persons, including relationships between husband and wife or employer and employee
    * The rights of things, an explanation of property law
    * Of private wrongs, a discussion of torts and civil law procedures
    * Of public wrongs, an analysis of criminal law

    The reference of Blackstone is a logical fallacy; because it pre-dates the Second Amendment, and is a focus on the Laws of England, that were used to DISARM the Colonists of the founders era, and in present day England as well; and the fundamental reason why Jefferson & the founders created the Second Amendment & unambiguously stated it... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

    Just because the States, the Fed and SCOTUS have grown accustomed to re-interpreting the Constitution, does not make it Constitutional...
    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    IF the Second Amendment is NOT unconditional, then how would we (WE THE PEOPLE) ever be able to remove or oppose a tyrannical government?

    The Single Biggest Advocate of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment was Thomas Jefferson, it is his views and the other original framers that must be given the most weight not some English Attorney, whom never became a U.S. Citizen; of whose writings everything in the Bill of Rights and the founding documents are in contradiction to...

    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " - Thomas Jefferson

    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

    "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

    "It is every citizens duty to at all times be armed, and to at as early an age as possible be trained to use said armament" - Thomas Jefferson

    Jefferson, coincidentally was known to always carry, concealed more often then not...
    Yet he never made any distinction between open/concealed carry or limitations on type/class of weapons in all of his writings...

    In fact Jefferson is very well known in his opposition of the Unconstitutional "The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798"...
    Which paved the way to his Presidency...

    IF you really want to debate the SCOTUS Miller decision; I am more than happy to do that, LIKE all SCOTUS decisions to-date on the Second Amendment; Miller was fundamentally flawed...
    Miller has what attorneys refer to as a two-prong test...

    "(1) A weapon had to be both of a type typically (aka: common-use) associated with the militia and (2) used in some activity reasonably connected with a well-regulated militia."

    Most would agree either such test goes against any reading of the framers intent with the Second Amendment...

    In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
    The Justices were grossly misinformed, saw-off shotguns where in common use as early as the civil war and as recently as WWI immediately prior to the Miller 1939 decision...

    Hence, common-use is out the window for that reason alone...

    further, because the defendant died before being able to present evidence to the contrary, the precedent held and has been abused every since.
    The whole common-use argument is unbelievably flawed; it totally ignores the fact that we started the revolutionary war for the same argument, ditto with the Alamo...

    In Heller, Miller, etc... Neither the justices nor any attorneys have ever presented anything written by the founders themselves that supports any limitation whatsoever on the Second Amendment...

    Getting back to the second prong of Miller, in the Heller decision the Justices stated the militia clause is irrelevant and that WE THE PEOPLE, ARE THE MILITIA...
    The limitations, you imply do not even remotely refer to BANS being acceptable...
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    Syllabus
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
    ...
    The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms”...Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition...would fail constitutional muster...
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

    In no way shape or form has SCOTUS advocated a BAN...
    While in Heller they have allowed regulation, which I find in direct conflict with any framers view of the Second Amendment, it still does not allow a BAN...

    Simplistic View?

    Why yes, the same simplistic view the founders had, who would today be considered right wing extremists by the likes of yourself…

    Once again, just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?

    +1. I would be glad to be counted with all the extreme right wing, paranoid founders of our great Republic.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. America as the Last Man Standing Against Islam
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 01:37 PM
  2. Obama & The Progressives Planned Destruction of America...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 04:57 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-08-2010, 06:32 PM
  4. The Communist Takeover of America
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-01-2009, 09:05 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 08:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast