Proposed Anti-Gun, Anti-2nd Amendment Bill in the works

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
The founding fathers would vomit at the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Too many small penised white men in this country.
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,697
29
91
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: bob4432
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.

every one's allowed to have their opinion, but the very amendment that protects the 1st amenddment and gives you the right to have that opinion and vocalize it is under attack.

with no 2nd amendment, there will be no 1st. look at china for an example....
banning assault weapons does not infringe on my 2nd amendment

do you know what the 2nd amendment is? when it was written it was under what the founding fathers knew would be a war, the 2nd amendment, imho, was talking about the arms of the day needed to fight a government, the day has changed but the tyranny persists.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.

Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?


I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.

Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?


I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.

Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.

Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?


I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.

Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.

Nuclear weapons are not classified as small arms.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.

Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?


I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.

Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.

I'm sure its quite obvious to you in your elitist narrow minded world. Are you going to show some hard numbers on how many people have been killed or even attacked by someone that legally owns an assault rifle or are you going to keep hiding under bed in fear of an inanimate object?

 

jdoggg12

Platinum Member
Aug 20, 2005
2,685
11
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.

Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?


I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.

Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.

By your logic, its obvious you shouldn't own a gun at all. that what the cops are for
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.

Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?


I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.

Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.

Nuclear weapons are not classified as small arms.

The Constitution says "arms" not "small arms" So my right to own nuclear arms should not be infringed.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.

Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?


I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.

Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.

Nuclear weapons are not classified as small arms.

The Constitution says "arms" not "small arms" So my right to own nuclear arms should not be infringed.

Since it just says "arms", and you're going for a literalist interpretation, I guess it's my constitutional right to own bear arms eh?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: alien42
sounds good to me. for all those who think this is an ignorant view i suppose we should also have the right to have nuclear weapons and F-23s privately owned. reality is there is a line that has to be drawn and assault weapons have no practical use.

Do you really want to use that as your justification, because you think that it doesn't have a practical use?
i just did. now why dont you answer my question. why should it not be legal to have a nuclear weapon?


I didn't answer your question because you did not pose a question in your original statement genius.....Its obvious why you shouldn't own a nuclear weapon. Comparing a nuclear weapon to an assault weapon is ridiculous.

Why shouldn't you own a nuclear weapon though? Because it's obvious? Well, to me it's obvious you shouldn't own an assault rifle.

Nuclear weapons are not classified as small arms.

The Constitution says "arms" not "small arms" So my right to own nuclear arms should not be infringed.

Since it just says "arms", and you're going for a literalist interpretation, I guess it's my constitutional right to own bear arms eh?


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
 

adairusmc

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2006
7,095
78
91
I have already wrote by reps several times on this, but still does not have a chance of going anywhere. Completely worthless and pointless legislation.

Every one of my "Assault Weapons" and my high-capacity magazines are worth more than the lives of those who would take them from me.

 

MiniDoom

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2004
5,305
0
71
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned. :D
 

adairusmc

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2006
7,095
78
91
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned. :D

A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states.

Thankfully, they are not further regulated here in Oregon.
 

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned. :D

A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states.

Thankfully, they are not further regulated here in Oregon.

My guess is you live far from I-5
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,697
29
91
Originally posted by: 50cent1228
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Bush can just veto it

:beer:

sadly w said if the last one made it to his desk he would sign it....hopefully it was because he knew it woulnd't make it to his desk...
 

computeerrgghh

Golden Member
Apr 10, 2005
1,121
0
0
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned. :D

Text Here is the full text of the bill. There is a section called definitions that lists a bunch of assault weapons and further defines them.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: adairusmc
I have already wrote by reps several times on this, but still does not have a chance of going anywhere. Completely worthless and pointless legislation.

Every one of my "Assault Weapons" and my high-capacity magazines are worth more than the lives of those who would take them from me.

If you were here, right now, I'd smack you in your mouth.
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,697
29
91
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned. :D

A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states.

Thankfully, they are not further regulated here in Oregon.

you still can't get one of the "genuine assault weapons" as you describe without the $200 tax stamp, plus it has to be pre '86. no new f/a weapons are allowed to be bought by the public, thus the crazy prices on f/a weapons. the only exceptions would be for manf and dealers, but even then it is the company and not the individual that owns the weapon.

this ban is talking about semi-auto weapons as full-auto has been taken care of by the 1934 ban and also the 1986 ban.
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,697
29
91
Originally posted by: computeerrgghh
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned. :D

Text Here is the full text of the bill. There is a section called definitions that lists a bunch of assault weapons and further defines them.

but you need to look up all the references to get the full picture....
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: senseamp
If you believe we have a right to own arms to fight a tyrannical government, isn't it a bit hypocritical to say that you can own assault rifles but not mortars, howitzers, missiles, etc. You are going to need more than just rifles to fight the government unless you want to end up a steak like those guys in Waco.

Then why do you care so much? Oh, I know, it's because you know that your logic is flawed. Waco was just a few. An armed populace is everyone. Yaknow, like what the US Army is currently losing against in Iraq? ;)


Originally posted by: senseamp
They meant bare arms. You can bare your arms any time you want.
In fact, they did mean bare arms. The classic definition of "arms" as used in the 2nd Amendment referred to those weapons which a soldier carried into battle all by himself. And, not coincidentally, was usually required to provide himself as well.
"mortars, howitzers, missiles, etc." are usually referred to by other names, like ordnance, tactical weapons, strategic weapons, etc.

Thanks for making yourself look stupid. BTW, I have a question for you. If you can't trust the people with guns, how is it that you trust them with votes?
 

Bill Brasky

Diamond Member
May 18, 2006
4,324
1
0
Personally, I think that concealed hand guns are potentially more harmful than rifles. How many 7-11's are robbed w/ an AR-15, or any other rifle?

 

AlienCraft

Lifer
Nov 23, 2002
10,539
0
0
Originally posted by: JDub02
When you hear that JDub's guns have been taken, you'll know that JDub is dead.

<- proud, gun-toting, redneck American

The elite governing class has really hammered away at the things that make America great: self-preservation, private property, and religious expression.
fixed and agreed