[QUOTE=yawmwen;39224586]anyone who doesn't realize that this is what executive orders do is deluding themselves in paranoia.
the president cannot create new laws, only give guidelines to federal agencies regarding enforcement of laws already on the books.[/QUOTE]
uh what?
Executive order is a real thing, it is "temporary" law for 90 days and during those 90 days congress can try and over turn it but it is essentially the president making a law.
This is going to put me out of a job :((
can the internet be used as a weapon to kill someone idk lol
obvious the issue isn't large magazines but weapons on a larger scale. this is what we call a baby step if that is the direction we are headed
I don't care either way
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;39224597]When your 'ethics' are 'you don't need that think of the children' you can fuck off[/QUOTE]
okay then *sigh*
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;39224607]can the internet be used as a weapon to kill someone idk lol
obvious the issue isn't large magazines but weapons on a larger scale. this is what we call a baby step if that is the direction we are headed
I don't care either way
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
okay then *sigh*[/QUOTE]
Yeah a baby step to larger restrictions.
You give anti gun people an inch and they will push and push for more till they themselves die.
That damn Feinstein woman is in her 80s and she is still going on about assault weapons
What's wrong with that
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;39224643]What's wrong with that[/QUOTE]
clearly you haven't kept up to date on our daily FP gun debates
that is an accurate statement
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39224575]
by simple definition you are infringing on the peoples right to bear arms, it's pretty clear cut at least how I see it[/QUOTE]
No you're not? You still have full rights to own whatever weapon you have your heart set on, you just cant own hi-cap mags.
As I interpret it, the "right to bear arms" is seen as ones right to own and use any type of arm they feel suitable. Nowhere is it outlined that you have the right to have as large magazine as seen fitting.
and now you can't keep up to date hehe
[QUOTE=killerteacup;39224593]This is not an acceptable justification[/QUOTE]
That's so backwards. You don't have to justify not banning something, you have to justify banning it in the first place.
What are you doing?
[QUOTE=areolop;39224662]No you're not? You still have full rights to own whatever weapon you have your heart set on, you just cant own hi-cap mags.
As I interpret it, the "right to bear arms" is seen as ones right to own and use any type of arm they feel suitable. Nowhere is it outlined that you have the right to have as large magazine as seen fitting.[/QUOTE]
you have a really narrow view of the 2nd amend. then.
Why can't I feel a 75rnd drum is suitable?
and just putting aside that entire 2nd amend. interpretation and narrowing in on high capacity mags; why shouldn't civilians be able to own them? Give me specific reasons not "they don't need them"
[QUOTE=areolop;39224551]Second amendment literally says nothing about the ammunition. Everyone would still be entitled to bear arms, but they wouldn't have 30+ round mags.[/QUOTE]
Ammunition is implied by the presence of "arms". By that same logic, we're allowed guns but not ammunition for those guns.
specifically the words "bear arms" as you cannot bear arms without ammunition.
[QUOTE=Ybbats;39224445]Literally NO REASON TO BAN IT EITHER.
No gays need to get married, why can't we ban gay marriage?[/QUOTE]
Are you really comparing your right to load more than 10 rounds into your gun to my right to get married?
If Obama enacts any sort of ban via executive order, it'll be taken as a message that he doesn't give two fucks about his peers and the people he was elected to serve and just wants his own way (whether or not that's actually his intention). In a way I feel kinda sorry for him, there's just no way he can please a majority of people here.
Its my interpretation of it.
If this stuff does go through, im sure it'll go straight to the supreme court, and then they get to interpret it also
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;39224695]Are you really comparing your right to load more than 10 rounds into your gun to my right to get married?[/QUOTE]
I see no problem with allowing people the freedom to do either.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;39224695]Are you really comparing your right to load more than 10 rounds into your gun to my right to get married?[/QUOTE]
Gay marriage isn't necessary. It does nothing for procreation. Besides, you don't have a right to marriage.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39224738]I see no problem with allowing people the freedom to do either.[/QUOTE]
But this magazine goes to [I]11[/I]
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;39224695]Are you really comparing your right to load more than 10 rounds into your gun to my right to get married?[/QUOTE]
Banning both is pointless. In that sense its a valid comparison.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39224757]But this magazine goes to [I]11[/I][/QUOTE]
That's one step too far, son.
Turn yourself in, quickly.
[QUOTE=kman866;39224602]This is going to put me out of a job :(([/QUOTE]
47 you are above the law.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39224759]Banning both is pointless. In that sense its a valid comparison.[/QUOTE]
Not really. An unnaturally high proliferation of homosexual marriage doesn't result in more violent crime, for one.
Two, with a higher incidence of gay marriage, people don't gain the ability to purchase a means to inflict harm and death upon whomever they please.
Third, a homosexual who gets married may very well be happy for life. A man who buys a banana clip may very well fire 31 rounds without reloading.
Do I really need to go on? It was a pretty idiotic comparison.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;39224822]Not really. An unnaturally high proliferation of homosexual marriage doesn't result in more violent crime, for one.
Two, with a higher incidence of gay marriage, people don't gain the ability to purchase a means to inflict harm and death upon whomever they please.
Third, do I really need to go on? It was a pretty idiotic comparison.[/QUOTE]
I think your comparison is even more dumb and baseless.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;39224822]Not really. An unnaturally high proliferation of homosexual marriage doesn't result in more violent crime, for one. [/QUOTE]
neither does a high proliferation of firearms
UK has more violent crime per capita than US, but less gun deaths. think before you type hombre
[quote]Third, a homosexual who gets married may very well be happy for life. A man who buys a banana clip may very well fire 31 rounds without reloading.[/quote]
says you? I'm pretty happy firing guns tbh lol
[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;39224503]They go against the constitution.[/QUOTE]
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about high capacity clips?
The Constitution was written with muskets in mind. Not high powered rifles
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39224843]Where in the Constitution does it say anything about high capacity clips?
The Constitution was written with muskets in mind. Not high powered rifles[/QUOTE]
show me where in the constitution where it says muskets and I'll show you where it says high capicity magazines
multiple shot weapons existed back then, its public record.
My point is that the comparison was shit, so not a lot of logic can be derived from it. It's a complete non sequitur. When I try and relate the two logically, it sounds absurd because there is no connection.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39224600]uh what?
Executive order is a real thing, it is "temporary" law for 90 days and during those 90 days congress can try and over turn it but it is essentially the president making a law.[/QUOTE]
source on the please.
because afaik an executive order only applies to federal agencies that take orders from the executive branch. they aren't laws, they are orders regarding how federal agents prioritize law.
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;39224843]Where in the Constitution does it say anything about high capacity clips?
The Constitution was written with muskets in mind. Not high powered rifles[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=US Supreme Court, 2008]Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
