I'd like to add that restrictions on the other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights have already been considered Constitutionally valid. For example, there's the classic case of not being able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater not being a violation of free speech rights (and this is also not dealing with the fact that obscenity is also not protected, although the definition of "obscenity" is highly debatable). Similarly, I doubt you'll find anyone sane who'll argue that banning human sacrifices is a violation of free religion rights. Why should the second amendment be any different from the first? It can still be valid in the vast majority of cases that would apply to law-abiding citizens but certain restrictions can be allowed.
I'm not seeing anything so far that actually screams "He gonna take our guns!" Though I'm only a quarter through the executive orders. Mostly tightening background checks.
I'm not seeing anything so far that actually screams "He gonna take our guns!" Though I'm only a quarter through the executive orders. Mostly tightening background checks.
That's all there is cause that's all he can really do with an executive order.
I'm fine with most of the stuff he said. Its really just the magazine ban and "Assault Weapons" Ban that I worry about and even then it wouldn't do much either way. Its more principle than anything else. I just think that a criminal with 3 10 round mags could do just as much damage as a criminal with 1 30 round mag if he knew what he was doing. And any other banned feature is purely cosmetic which is just silly. If we do see this pass we'll just see a lot more rifles that look like Saigas and not much else will change, at least from those parts of the bill.
Tactically, it doesn't make much of a difference how fast you can shoot if no one else is armed. I'm not explicitly against an assault weapons ban, but I'm against people who are stupid enough to be for it.
I'd like to add that restrictions on the other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights have already been considered Constitutionally valid. For example, there's the classic case of not being able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater not being a violation of free speech rights (and this is also not dealing with the fact that obscenity is also not protected, although the definition of "obscenity" is highly debatable). Similarly, I doubt you'll find anyone sane who'll argue that banning human sacrifices is a violation of free religion rights. Why should the second amendment be any different from the first? It can still be valid in the vast majority of cases that would apply to law-abiding citizens but certain restrictions can be allowed.
Still waiting for background checks to keep crazy people from buying soapboxes.
low cap mags mean you have to reload more often, a few of the shooters got punked when they went to reload, you know if I'm going to die in a shooter it's when I'm reloading
//or when I hit E and eject from the plane instead of reloading damnnn you Planetside 2.
I just don't buy the reloading saves lives argument. It's the anti-gun lobby equivalent of the "well if only other people were carrying concealed weapons they would shoot the guy dead" arugment. It's completely situation and unlikely to change any meaningful gun crime statistic while drastically inconveniencing thousands of legal owners.
Besides, high cap drum mags are significantly more likely to jam than low caps.
Jared Loughner got taken out when he went to reload.
only bonus of high cap mags is they tend to jam more right?
Depends on how you define high capacity - If you mean really big mags, like hundred round beta C mags, yeah, they jam like crazy if you don't baby them. That's what happened in Aurora, Holmes fired less than 30 shots before it jammed.
Yeah, Loughner was taken down when he went to reload, so was the Monash University shooter - Of course, the thing they had in common was that they chose to stand right in the middle of a crowd when they started shooting. If your shooter isn't standing in the middle of a crowd like that, the difference in reload times and frequency isn't going to make much of a difference.
Honestly seems to me like you could turn a tidy profit by buying up guns when they are cheap and then putting a bunch up after every scare. Morbid, sure, but that's capitalism.
Last guy I heard say that was an old army ranger. It's true.
Honestly seems to me like you could turn a tidy profit by buying up guns when they are cheap and then putting a bunch up after every scare. Morbid, sure, but that's capitalism.
Possibly, but if a ban on the sale or transfer of "assault" weapons goes through, then you're gonna get hosed. Look at NY right now, folks have gobs of pre-ban 30 rd mags that they have one year to move out, and they will be selling them to states where they have been legal for the past 8 years. Anybody who went in on high cap mags is either going to take a bath selling them, or keep them and become a felon.
I just don't buy the reloading saves lives argument. It's the anti-gun lobby equivalent of the "well if only other people were carrying concealed weapons they would shoot the guy dead" arugment. It's completely situation and unlikely to change any meaningful gun crime statistic while drastically inconveniencing thousands of legal owners.
Besides, high cap drum mags are significantly more likely to jam than low caps.
I don't buy the "concealed carry person will shoot the shooter" argument. I prefer the "the possibility of someone in the crowd having a concealed carry weapon will cause a mass shooter to choose a different location for their mass shooting" argument instead. One argument is response based while the other is preventative.
Are there reliable stats showing the impact of concealed carry on gun crimes based on areas going from no guns to maybe guns?
I'm a little unclear about the possibilities of a pre-ban market. What I've seen is a requirement for background checks for all transfers, but nothing saying that you can't sell pre-ban firearms and accessories. Did I miss something?
I'm a little unclear about the possibilities of a pre-ban market. What I've seen is a requirement for background checks for all transfers, but nothing saying that you can't sell pre-ban firearms and accessories. Did I miss something?
They removed the portion of the old legislation that exempted magazines from before the ban. It goes into effect one year after the date the bill was signed.
Weapons that are now banned are grandfathered in, but can no longer be sold or transferred within the state.
I'd like to add that restrictions on the other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights have already been considered Constitutionally valid. For example, there's the classic case of not being able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater not being a violation of free speech rights (and this is also not dealing with the fact that obscenity is also not protected, although the definition of "obscenity" is highly debatable). Similarly, I doubt you'll find anyone sane who'll argue that banning human sacrifices is a violation of free religion rights. Why should the second amendment be any different from the first? It can still be valid in the vast majority of cases that would apply to law-abiding citizens but certain restrictions can be allowed.
Still waiting for background checks to keep crazy people from buying soapboxes.
A crazy guy on a soapbox can't really cause any harm to anyone, unlike screaming "fire" in a crowded theater or performing a human sacrifice, unless he somehow causes a riot or something along those lines (which is covered by the "screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater" doctrine). About all he can do is yell and pout. Even ignoring that, you can't compare the various rights in the Bill of Rights on an apples-to-apples basis as they all have their own contexts, scenarios, and so on, and sometimes may conflict with each other, as in the case where one religion may have a doctrine where you have to severely punish blasphemy, even as an individual acting outside the law of the land, but blasphemy is protected by freedom of speech. That's a conflict between freedom of religion (the right to practice your own religion and therefore punish a blasphemer) and free speech (the right to blashpheme). In this case, freedom of speech has thusfar always won out.
There is a major flaw in free speech vs blasphemy. The punishment power of a religious group is generally limited to its membership. If a member commits blasphemy the religion is free to excomunicate them for the act. The member is free ro speak and the religion is free to respond. What the religion may not do is punish nonmembers in any real legal way for their alleged blasphemy without running afoul of free speech laws.
So religious law does hold a limited level of power over free speech when members of the group commit blasphemy .
A crazy guy on a soapbox can cause serious harm. If his megaphone is loud enough and his tongue coated in silver he can do a great deal of harm.
I'm a little unclear about the possibilities of a pre-ban market. What I've seen is a requirement for background checks for all transfers, but nothing saying that you can't sell pre-ban firearms and accessories. Did I miss something?
They removed the portion of the old legislation that exempted magazines from before the ban. It goes into effect one year after the date the bill was signed.
Weapons that are now banned are grandfathered in, but can no longer be sold or transferred within the state.
BUT EX POST FACTO!!!!
Only Nuri and Pete will get this joke. Also Brice finally relented on this position yesterday.
Comments
I want to pick up a nice .223 bolt gun once it's gone. I'm thinking a CZ 527 American.
//or when I hit E and eject from the plane instead of reloading damnnn you Planetside 2.
only bonus of high cap mags is they tend to jam more right?
Besides, high cap drum mags are significantly more likely to jam than low caps.
Yeah, Loughner was taken down when he went to reload, so was the Monash University shooter - Of course, the thing they had in common was that they chose to stand right in the middle of a crowd when they started shooting. If your shooter isn't standing in the middle of a crowd like that, the difference in reload times and frequency isn't going to make much of a difference.
Are there reliable stats showing the impact of concealed carry on gun crimes based on areas going from no guns to maybe guns?
Weapons that are now banned are grandfathered in, but can no longer be sold or transferred within the state.
So religious law does hold a limited level of power over free speech when members of the group commit blasphemy .
A crazy guy on a soapbox can cause serious harm. If his megaphone is loud enough and his tongue coated in silver he can do a great deal of harm.
Only Nuri and Pete will get this joke. Also Brice finally relented on this position yesterday.