Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Open Discussion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Open Discussion Discuss Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles at the General Forum; Somebody needs to can and cork his posts here regarding the Second Amendment. "Shall not be infringed" says it all. ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 10:22 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,035
Thanks: 1,029
Thanked 7,985 Times in 5,714 Posts
Default Re: Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles

Somebody needs to can and cork his posts here regarding the Second Amendment. "Shall not be infringed" says it all. Only Mr. and Mrs. Stupid do not understand that it is already against the law to wantonly use any weapon, and that a billion anti-gun laws will not deter any psycho from wantonly using a weapon against innocents. Maturity and common sense fly out the window when the snowflake factor turns one into an anti-gun weenie. Not naming anybody in particular.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 10:32 AM
Bat Bat is offline
Hinged
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,020
Thanks: 86
Thanked 1,382 Times in 832 Posts
Default Re: Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespeech View Post
Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles

https://apnews.com/dfe764e2c23d42c3ba5fcfa0f19ad454
Good thing I only own assault pistols, assault shotguns and assault crossbows.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bat For This Useful Post:
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 11:47 AM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,691
Thanks: 1,683
Thanked 2,528 Times in 1,142 Posts
Default Re: Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Not all Appeals Court rulings are upheld by the Supreme Court and even some Supreme Court rulings are eventually overturned based upon the Constitution.
Absolutely true and the holding of the case I quoted will certainly be overturned / invalidated by SCOTUS . . . But not because of errors in fact or mistaken legal reasoning regarding whether large capacity magazines (LCM's) are "arms" within the protection sphere of the 2nd Amendment. This court gets that all correct, that LCM's are in common use as millions of them are provided as factory standard with semi-automatic weapons, they are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for hunting, pest-control, and self-defense and there is no longstanding history of LCM regulation. This court actually states (as did the 2nd Circuit) that since LCMs are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, they are entitled to Second Amendment protection.

But this court then proceeds to rule that the level of scrutiny they have chosen to apply to the challenged law, does not preclude the ability of the government to ban LCM's -- that's the part that will be buried by SCOTUS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The magazine is not necessary to fire the weapon.
Uhhhhh, it's as if you ignore what is posted to you. Again, this court recognized, "Because magazines feed ammunition into certain guns, and ammunition is necessary for such a gun to function as intended, magazines are “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment. "

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Please note that I didn't propose banning removable magazines and all semiautomatic firearms meet the designed purpose regardless of how many rounds fit into the magazine.
Oh gee, you are quite the defender of Liberty!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The issue is why would anyone need more than five rounds for a semiautomatic firearm? Are they that incompetent as a marksman that it requires more than five rounds to hit a target? If so they should spend more time practicing at the shooting range.
Those considerations exist only in your personal feelings, they could be a topic for your coffee klatsch, but as far as a discussion of the law and the effect of the 2nd Amendment protecting the right to arms of the citizen is concerned, they are frivolous and less than useless.

.
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 02:19 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,866
Thanks: 10,814
Thanked 8,724 Times in 5,161 Posts
Default Re: Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
Somebody needs to can and cork his posts here regarding the Second Amendment. "Shall not be infringed" says it all. Only Mr. and Mrs. Stupid do not understand that it is already against the law to wantonly use any weapon, and that a billion anti-gun laws will not deter any psycho from wantonly using a weapon against innocents. Maturity and common sense fly out the window when the snowflake factor turns one into an anti-gun weenie. Not naming anybody in particular.
Sir, you're confused. There is no law banning guns from shooting people. And we need one. While we're at it, we need to ban hammers from whacking people up alongside the head. The second only addresses people.

At least that's the logic behind the banners proposed gun laws.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 02:28 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,035
Thanks: 1,029
Thanked 7,985 Times in 5,714 Posts
Default Re: Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
Sir, you're confused. There is no law banning guns from shooting people. And we need one. While we're at it, we need to ban hammers from whacking people up alongside the head. The second only addresses people.

At least that's the logic behind the banners proposed gun laws.
Proposed gun laws and logic do not mix well with weenies or other anti-gun avatars.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2019, 02:41 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,035
Thanks: 1,029
Thanked 7,985 Times in 5,714 Posts
Default Re: Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The issue is why would anyone need more than five rounds for a semiautomatic firearm? Are they that incompetent as a marksman that it requires more than five rounds to hit a target? If so they should spend more time practicing at the shooting range.
Do you want to calm some intruder down with the "fact" that your weapon holds only five rounds, while he rummages through your house, with one or more of his armed partners lurking around in various places ready to take you down? They are not limited to a five round capacity, no matter how many anti-gun dorks say "Oh yes, they are!" No combat veteran to my knowledge is going to take the chance of thwarting a home invasion armed with only a five shooter. Do you propose he get more than one weapon, each holding five bullets? How about ten weapons, each holding five bu--Oh, f**k this! You mind your own business about how I protect and defend what is mine. Move to Australia, or Chicago, if you don't like a person's freedom to self-defense and defense of those around him.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2019, 03:26 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,035
Thanks: 1,029
Thanked 7,985 Times in 5,714 Posts
Default Re: Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles

Not trying to rile anybody up here, but the above post started a discussion on the number of bullets anybody needs to shoot a semi-automatic firearm, or any firearm. I mentioned that some combat veteran stated only five were needed, and one comment made was,

"Combat veteran? Sheeeit! What about the police? How many bullets are in their guns?"

Nobody, liberal or conservative, agreed with the low number of bullets "needed" by anyone.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2019, 11:39 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 88,679
Thanks: 57,320
Thanked 26,941 Times in 19,376 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
Somebody needs to can and cork his posts here regarding the Second Amendment. "Shall not be infringed" says it all. Only Mr. and Mrs. Stupid do not understand that it is already against the law to wantonly use any weapon, and that a billion anti-gun laws will not deter any psycho from wantonly using a weapon against innocents. Maturity and common sense fly out the window when the snowflake factor turns one into an anti-gun weenie. Not naming anybody in particular.
actually...One version was passed by the Congress, and a slightly different version was ratified. As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original handwritten copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert, the amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The amendment was ratified by the States and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson as:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


some background...

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".

AND and AND>>>

The Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 Heller decision that the right belongs to individuals in their homes for self-defense while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 02-04-2019, 12:01 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,035
Thanks: 1,029
Thanked 7,985 Times in 5,714 Posts
Default Re: Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
actually...One version was passed by the Congress, and a slightly different version was ratified. As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original handwritten copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert, the amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The amendment was ratified by the States and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson as:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Yes. They both say that a militia that is well-trained is necessary to secure a free state from a tyrant. That pretty well leaves the National Guard out of the militia picture, since the tyrant would have put them under his control. The militia is the general population, armed and well trained against the tyrant in power.

Please, don't attempt to scare anybody with pictures of armed civilians taking on a powerful Military and getting their asses killed off. It won't work on people who care about freedom.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 02-04-2019, 08:56 AM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,691
Thanks: 1,683
Thanked 2,528 Times in 1,142 Posts
Default Re: Washington bans anyone under 21 from buying assault rifles

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
actually...
Actually, not a syllable of what you wrote about different versions means anything. The right to arms is not created, given, granted or established by the words of the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".
Actually, you remove the important core of Madison's discussion in Federalist 46. Madison was discussing the ratios of standing army vs. armed citizens to the total population of the nation and you duplicitously remove the numbers. I know why . . . Because you can't admit that Madison's ratios then and today's ratios are in damn near perfect alignment.

Madison said that biggest standing army that could be maintained would only amount to 1/100th of the total population or 1/25th those able to bear arms. In the Constitutional period, with a total population of about 3 million, that 30,000 strong standing army would be opposed by 500,000 citizens with arms in their hands.

So Madison is saying that the biggest standing army that could be mustered would be opposed by armed citizens by a ratio of 1 soldier vs. 17 armed citizens.

Today, with 320 million "total souls" the standing army (active duty and reserves) amounts to around 3 million soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc. To that standing army of 3 million are opposed 75 million armed citizens for a ratio of every government soldier being "opposed" by 25 armed citizens. This is in alignment with Madison because of the expansion of the right to arms to Blacks and Women and their inclusion in law, as among the population from which the militia is drawn.

I completely understand why you felt the need to omit this information (and not even provide a link to the entire paper). That Madison's ratios from Federalist 46 remain in alignment today, stands as an undeniable, insurmountable rebuke to your 20th century inspired, collectivist political policies regarding an armed citizenry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Which Madison condemned and ridiculed because of its conditioning as to religion and land-holding and it being a mere act of Parliament, so it could be rescinded by Parliament.



Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.
And again, what you purposefully leave out is at least as important as what you include. Typical leftist deception by omission. Let's discuss Blackstone . . . And St. George Tucker's American Blackstone which took the original and sentence by sentence, analyzes the differences in US law under the US Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
The Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 Heller decision that the right belongs to individuals in their homes for self-defense
The "in the home" language was addressing the core of the impact of the DC laws and only speaks to the laws under review. Typical leftist over-reading in their never-ending quest to restrict an original, fundamental right.

And again, what you purposefully leave out is at least as important as what you include. Typical leftist deception by omission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.
And again, what you purposefully leave out is at least as important as what you include -- and in this instance way more 'impotanter'. Try for once including footnote 26 when you copy and paste the "long-standing prohibitions" statement. You turn it into gobbledygook.

To point to The Federalist or Heller and argue that only government approved possession and use of arms is proper and laws restricting arms use are "constitutional" is beyond stupid.

Too bad this quoted poster will just ignore being proven wrong and will just temporarily slink away and abandon this argument, only to regurgitate it or something else even more untenable in another thread.



______________________________________

Just for everyone's knowledge, here's the complete paragraph from Federalist 46:
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. "
And just in case 'someone' believes that the only justified or otherwise 'approved' armed citizen action is within state organized militias . . . Sure, such organization and support is great but it is not a requirement. Read Federalist 28, it speaks to the people's armed defense of liberty if the usurpers are state governments:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. "
While that resistance might be chaotic and it might have no chance of success, that does not change the fact that armed resistance to any government that is usurping powers not delegated to it, is an original, never surrendered fundamental right of the people.


.
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
anyone, assault, bans, buying, from, rifles, under, washington

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0