Re: Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment

x-no-idiots: yes x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 23:59:09 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch
  Quoted Text Here  



Goodness! You whip out that "liar" stuff more quickly than Matt Dillon whipped out his .45 in Gunsmoke!
I have read both pieces briefly once, then again more carefully... and, Gunner-guy, I have to ask if we read the same piece?
Congress in the summer of 1956... legislatively, it followed almost immediately upon the heels of P.L. 84-851, which mandated that "In God We Trust" would appear on our currency... it also happened in 1956; however, that one was late in the 84th Congress' term. The Korean War had just wrapped up and the Cold War was moving to the front burner; in March of '56, 96 U.S. Congressmen had signed the "Southern Manifesto" as a protest against the 1954 Supreme Court ruling (Brown v. Board of Education) desegregating public education. (It was generally a pretty quiet year.)
It was all cosmetic, though. Essentially, according to 861, the militia is everybody and everything. And, as we well know, the quickest way to make something become logically nothing is to define it as being everything. You're not in the militia any more than you're making a theological statement by spending a dollar.
Jones

x-no-idiots: yes x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:21:36 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
  Quoted Text Here  
Well, that's your usual position on almost anything: "That's stupid", "No!" "No!" "No!" "No!"
It's just like our national health care: it was proceeding and you were invited to have participated; instead, you sat on the sidelines as the moral critics and practiced obstructionism. Then, after it passed anyway, you whine, bitch, and moan about it.
We're not keeping what we have; that's out of the question. The only question is: do you want to have some input into what it looks like in a few years or do we just do it without your help?
Jones

On 4/17/2018 4:19 PM, !Jones wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
It certainly fits here. To restore what you clipped so that others can see just how silly your position is, You say: "A civilian gun is a bolt action rifle or shotgun with a magazine capacity not exceeding six rounds counting the one in the chamber. ... Anything else is a military gun
My response:
According to your definition, every pistol and revolver is a military gun, because it's not a rifle or shotgun.
By your definition, any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun is a military gun because they're not bolt action. According to you, this is a military gun: https://www.remington.com/shotguns/autoloading/v3-field-sport
By your definition, just about any .22LR rifle, is a military gun, because they hold more than six rounds. According to you, this is a military gun: https://ruger.com/products/1022Sporter/models.html
Meanwhile, any bolt action rifle with a limited magazine is a civilian gun even if it's got a removable mag, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, and a bayonet lug.
By your definition, any bolt action with a limited mag is a civilian gun, even this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2010_Enhanced_Sniper_Rifle
I ask again, Where do you come up with such bullshit?

x-no-idiots: yes x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:50:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
  Quoted Text Here  
I'm sure that "others" are waiting with great anticipation.
The question wasn't "what is *MY* position"; I know *my* position. The question I asked was: "What's your position?"
Jones

On 4/17/2018 6:58 PM, !Jones wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Bullshit, you didn't ask. But you already know my position because I have recently posted it and you replied to my posts. My position is that there is no meaningful way to distinguish between a "military firearm" and a "civilian firearm". Those are just emotionally charged semantic labels.

On 04/17/2018 04:19 PM, !Jones wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
National health care? You mean that overflowing barrel of pork that was passed to the health care industry? Need I remind you that Max Baucus, who gutted the fish before it even got to Congress was the DEMOCRATIC Senator from Montana? The Democrats passes Obamacare with no help at all from the Republicans, but they were too spineless to even attempt a single payer system.

x-no-idiots: yes x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:58:11 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
  Quoted Text Here  
Calm down; don't be so quick to get yer panties in a big wad.
I didn't say it was great; I said that the republicans sat on the sidelines as moral critics. The world is full of critics; the honor goes to the people who show up and work it... even if it's not perfect.
Jones

On 04/17/2018 07:11 PM, !Jones wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Not perfect? Fortunately I am enrolled in a single payer healthcare system. The people I work with who are younger than 65 say it sucks. They pay a lot more for a lot less. The only happy faces are in Big pharma and the insurance industry -- the same people that drop generous contributions into the Democratic piggy bank and have them on speed dial.