+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Interesting research on mass shootings (/showthread.php?tid=276769)
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - pdq - 05-03-2023
Yeah, so-called “originalists” are nothing of the sort. At the time the second amendment was written, there were specific meanings for “militia” and “bearing arms”, and the arms they were talking about was flintlock rifles. That’s the original meaning, and any honest true originalist would agree.
Now, gunners (and their “originalist” far-right allies) have decided that it means anyone is guaranteed their semi-automatic assault rifles, in any number, for any purpose. By this logic, anyone should also be guaranteed their personal stock of Sarin or phosgene gas. Hey, they’re chemical arms.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - Mr645 - 05-03-2023
pdq wrote:First, there is no such thing as a semi automatic assault weapon. Assault weapons are clearly defined as medium powered, cartridge fed rifles that feature full automatic of selective fire capability. But liberals call anything black and long as an "assault style weapon" When the trans gender killer killed in Nashville the used a KelTek 9mm Carbine pistol, but it's black and long and the media called it an assault rifle. If you look at a Ruger Mini 14, that's called a hunting rifle because it features a wood stock and no barrel shroud, but fires the same .223 rounds, at the same rate, using the same magazines as common AR-15s. As far as poison gas, our military is not even allowed to have that, and poison gas offers no defensive purpose. The 2nd amendment provides everyone the right to defense, semi automatic hand guns, revolvers, rifles, shotguns all do a great job as personal defense. Even fully automatic rifles can be argued as defensive but most would say a semi auto rifle is a better option. Semi auto rifles, pistols and revolvers all fire at the same rate, all are perfectly deadly. A 9mm pistol, a .357 magnum revolver or an AR-15 all kill based on shot placement, the pistol does not leave you less dead. In real world use, the rifle is the easiest for someone to shoot. Rifles are more accurate, less recoil, then comes most semi auto pistols and revolvers are typically have the most recoil
Yeah, so-called “originalists” are nothing of the sort. At the time the second amendment was written, there were specific meanings for “militia” and “bearing arms”, and the arms they were talking about was flintlock rifles. That’s the original meaning, and any honest true originalist would agree.
By the same thought, the 1st amendment only applies to written letters and other technologies from the period. However rifles at the time the bill of rights were written were full grade military weapons, today those military weapons are tightly regulated.
Now, gunners (and their “originalist” far-right allies) have decided that it means anyone is guaranteed their semi-automatic assault rifles, in any number, for any purpose. By this logic, anyone should also be guaranteed their personal stock of Sarin or phosgene gas. Hey, they’re chemical arms.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - Acer - 05-03-2023
Definitions. Always definitions. How do flooding the threads with definitions really help solve the problem.
Gun. Bullet. Dead.
How do we stop this sequence of events from occurring every hour of every day?
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - pdq - 05-03-2023
Mr645 wrote:First, there is no such thing as a semi automatic assault weapon. Assault weapons are clearly defined as medium powered, cartridge fed rifles that feature full automatic of selective fire capability. But liberals call anything black and long as an "assault style weapon" When the trans gender killer killed in Nashville the used a KelTek 9mm Carbine pistol, but it's black and long and the media called it an assault rifle. If you look at a Ruger Mini 14, that's called a hunting rifle because it features a wood stock and no barrel shroud, but fires the same .223 rounds, at the same rate, using the same magazines as common AR-15s. As far as poison gas, our military is not even allowed to have that, and poison gas offers no defensive purpose. The 2nd amendment provides everyone the right to defense, semi automatic hand guns, revolvers, rifles, shotguns all do a great job as personal defense. Even fully automatic rifles can be argued as defensive but most would say a semi auto rifle is a better option. Semi auto rifles, pistols and revolvers all fire at the same rate, all are perfectly deadly. A 9mm pistol, a .357 magnum revolver or an AR-15 all kill based on shot placement, the pistol does not leave you less dead. In real world use, the rifle is the easiest for someone to shoot. Rifles are more accurate, less recoil, then comes most semi auto pistols and revolvers are typically have the most recoil
[quote=pdq]
Yeah, so-called “originalists” are nothing of the sort. At the time the second amendment was written, there were specific meanings for “militia” and “bearing arms”, and the arms they were talking about was flintlock rifles. That’s the original meaning, and any honest true originalist would agree.
By the same thought, the 1st amendment only applies to written letters and other technologies from the period. However rifles at the time the bill of rights were written were full grade military weapons, today those military weapons are tightly regulated.
Now, gunners (and their “originalist” far-right allies) have decided that it means anyone is guaranteed their semi-automatic assault rifles, in any number, for any purpose. By this logic, anyone should also be guaranteed their personal stock of Sarin or phosgene gas. Hey, they’re chemical arms.
miley-laughing001:Seems I hit a gunner nerve.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - DeusxMac - 05-03-2023
Acer wrote:
Definitions. Always definitions. How do flooding the threads with definitions really help solve the problem.
Gun. Bullet. Dead.
How do we stop this sequence of events from occurring every hour of every day?
When they're unable to address their errors for the primary issue, they turn to...
Logic chopping fallacy - Focusing on trivial details of an argument, rather than the main point of the argumentation.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - pdq - 05-03-2023
Oh my God those commies have even gotten to Webster’s dictionary:
Assault weapon
noun
Any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms
miley-laughing001:
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - Racer X - 05-04-2023
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=Smote]
Violate the Constitution and try and ban handguns? The 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right to own firearms for common defense, and personal defense.
No, the Second Amendment itself does NOT say that!
“II. 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.”
Further…
“Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power...”
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the “Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
“Article 2, Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”
Smote wrote: Banning handguns would violate the Constitution. It has already been tried and ruled on.
- The Roe v. Wade decision was the law… until it wasn’t.
- The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was the law… until it wasn’t.
District of Columbia v. Heller could ALSO be overturned!
Right now, today's reality, is it was decided by the highest authority court in the United States, that ithe 2nd A also includes an individual right, and encompasses self defense.
Right now, today, that is our reality. Until it changes, its what we must abide by, or pay the consequences of Civil Rights violations. Our politicians refuse to accept this, and are breaking the law. But since they voted themselves qualified immunity long ago, they can't really be punished like you and I can. The Illinois ban was passed AFTER Bruen, as was Washington's. And Washington's magazine capacity limit was passed before, but not enacted until after. They could have pulled it back, in light of the Bruen decision, but that wouldn't look good, the governor and AG admitting defeat. So the taxpayers get to pay for their defeat in court.
California is also ignoring that their ban was kicked back to the district court, where it was already declared unconstitutional by Judge Benitez, and California won't accept that it is a done deal. It's unconstitutional.
And there is another lawsuit in California because of their "roster" your pistol must be on. It is beyond assinine. I "think" there is already an injunction on that one too, courtesy of Judge Benitez possibly.
Oregon has at least one lawsuit, and one more as of last Friday.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - pdq - 05-04-2023
Benitez was slapped down by a 3 judge panel of the Appeals Court:
Appeals court blocks federal judge’s ruling to overturn California’s assault weapons ban
Try to keep up, will ya?
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - Racer X - 05-04-2023
pdq wrote:
Benitez was slapped down by a 3 judge panel of the Appeals Court:
Appeals court blocks federal judge’s ruling to overturn California’s assault weapons ban
Try to keep up, will ya?
And it was kicked back down to the district court almost 2 years later because of the Bruen decision a year ago. "By Timothy Bella
June 22, 2021 at 8:37 a.m. EDT" Try and keep up with the rest of the class. That article was from 2021.
Re: Interesting research on mass shootings - DeusxMac - 05-04-2023
Smote wrote:
And it was kicked back down to the district court almost 2 years later because of the Bruen decision a year ago. "By Timothy Bella
June 22, 2021 at 8:37 a.m. EDT" Try and keep up with the rest of the class. That article was from 2021.
May 3, 2023
“…a state appeals court has upheld a ban on semiautomatic AR-15-style rifles that state law classifies as ‘assault weapons’.”
“The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento said the high-capacity rifles, which can be fired repeatedly without reloading, are weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” That means a state can still prohibit their sale and possession, the court said, even under the tightened standards the Supreme Court announced last June.”
Court upholds California’s AR-15 ban in first ruling since new Supreme Court standards https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-ar15-ban-18074641.php