Embarrassed by my own state today

[g8trjax]

Originally Posted by co_gator89

Because anything over 15 rounds looks too scary.

So the next psycho kid killer can only shoot 15 at a time without reloading. Makes perfect sense, in a bizarre govt nanny state sort of way.

[PSGator66]

Hope it works better than the gun control measures in Chicago and Connecticut.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by co_gator89

I'll decide that for myself. No jagoff politician in Denver is going to tell me what item I can and can't have.

So by that logic you should be able to own mustard gas, flame-throwers, drones, machine guns, heroin, slaves, and atomic weapons...

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

A Lexus and/or a luxury home are not built for the sole purpose of killing other human beings, so yes, I ask the question, why does one need a 30 round magazine?

Why does anyone need a beer or cigarettes?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by gator10010

You obviously don't understand why we have the 2nd Amendment.

Actually I do, and I suspect you like the vast majority of gun owners have never bothered to even read it, let alone any scholarly work interpreting it.

Take a look at the following article from one of the greatest legal scholars of our time:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/b...ense-looseness

I don't accept that one has a 2nd Amendment right to own firearms (the Second Amendment is really about the antiquated notion about a State's need to maintain a militia). It is only a right by virtue of the 5-4 decision in Heller, and just like Plessy v. Ferguson, is only the law of the land until a majority of the SCOTUS says it's not.

[tegator80]

The legislation is nannyism at its finest. Happens all of the time.

Now the question is what will the voters do? Kick them out? Move? Businesses leave? Will Denver see a slowdown in tourism? Just one card has been played.

[HudsonGator]

Yes, I am sure Colorado will suffer a public backlash just like NYC (which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country) has.

[g8trjax]

Originally Posted by tegator80

The legislation is nannyism at its finest. Happens all of the time.

Now the question is what will the voters do? Kick them out? Move? Businesses leave? Will Denver see a slowdown in tourism? Just one card has been played.

For the Colorado legislature to even consider this law, probably confirms polling data indicating the public will be too stoned to remember come election time.

[PIMking]

imagine, the government limiting the size of ones magazine and no one does anything about it whats next? them telling us what size sodas we can drink? or whether or not we can feed our babies formula? oh wait...

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Actually I do, and I suspect you like the vast majority of gun-nuts have never bothered to even read it, let alone any scholarly work interpreting it.

Take a look at the following article from one of the greatest legal scholars of our time:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/b...ense-looseness

I don't accept that one has a 2nd Amendment right to own firearms (the Second Amendment is really about the antiquated notion about a State's need to maintain a militia). It is only a right by virtue of the 5-4 decision in Heller, and just like Plessy v. Ferguson, is only the law of the land until a majority of the SCOTUS says it's not.

so the Constitution is just a piece a paper that should be thrown away?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by PIMking

so the Constitution is just a piece a paper that should be thrown away?

Did I say that?

I merely pointed out that the Second Amendment is a bit more complicated than the vast majority seem understand.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Actually I do, and I suspect you like the vast majority of gun-nuts have never bothered to even read it, let alone any scholarly work interpreting it.

Take a look at the following article from one of the greatest legal scholars of our time:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/b...ense-looseness

I don't accept that one has a 2nd Amendment right to own firearms (the Second Amendment is really about the antiquated notion about a State's need to maintain a militia). It is only a right by virtue of the 5-4 decision in Heller, and just like Plessy v. Ferguson, is only the law of the land until a majority of the SCOTUS says it's not.

Did you miss that whole part of the amendment where it says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?" It says nothing about "the right of the states to have a militia shall not be infringed." The language of the amendment says what it says, and it's relatively clear if you have even a cursory understanding of history.

The "state" in the first half of the amendment does not refer to one of the 50 states (or 13 at the time of its writing), but any republic of the people (be it the nation, the state, the city, etc), and the militia consisted of all able bodied citizens who could take up arms as the last line of defense of (or from) the aforementioned state at an individual level. The founders recognized this as a necessity, and thus the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms in their own defense at an individual level. It's the "teeth" the people have as a deterrent from tyrannical rule, and against foreign invasion, and the right exists whether or not the state chooses to provide training of the militia (the well-regulated part).

You might also want to look at US v Miller, which established that there is protection for individually-owned weapons with a militia purpose.

On a more contemporary note, with respect to the 30 round magazines in question, the reason why there is a need for 30 round magazines for AR-15s is that the .223 or 5.56x45mm NATO round fired by the AR-15 is not necessarily going to drop someone on the first shot unless it manages to hit the central nervous system of the target or a major blood supply (which happens, but isn't necessarily easy to do, especially under threat). It's a small round with a lot of power behind it, but it's not going to have the terminal energy of something like a .308 or 30-06. This is especially true if the target is doped up on something (see Taliban fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan). The whole purpose of moving from the 7.62x51mm NATO used in the M14 to the 5.56x45 used in the M16/M4 platforms is that it allowed the operator to carry a greater amount of ammo. By reducing the size of the magazine, modular small caliber weapons platforms such as the AR-15 are effectively neutered as a defense against multiple assailants.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Did I say that?

I merely pointed out that the Second Amendment is a bit more complicated than the vast majority seem understand.

It is pretty straightforward. Like the rest of the bill of rights, it places a restriction on the federal government against infringement of an individual right. It only gets "complicated" when people try to treat both its language and context like Jodie Foster in "The Accused" and turn it into the lone amendment in the bill of rights that operates as a grant of more power to the government. This historically illiterate notion requires that the states -- who insisted on the Bill of Rights as a promise in exchange for ratification -- were demanding that they would only ratify if the new Congress sent out amendments that, in nine instances, articulated limits on the new government, but in one, arbitrarily placed second, that grants it more power than they were subject to under George III.

[bonelldonnell]

Originally Posted by wygator

The 2nd amendment isn't addressing hunting. It's about self defense.

If you have a home invasion of three or four men, you want the biggest magazine you can get your hands on. And there no reason you shouldn't have it.

Let's be accurate. The 2nd amendment is about militias. The Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia vs Harris (2008) utilized a very conservative interpretation of the 2nd amendment to actually add the words "self-defense."

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Did you miss that whole part of the amendment where it says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?" It says nothing about "the right of the states to have a militia shall not be infringed." The language of the amendment says what it says, and it's relatively clear if you have even a cursory understanding of history.

Actually the 2nd Amendemt is not that simple. Why does it mention a militia at all if the right to bear arms is all that is important?

Read Posner's article. He makes my argument better than I can.

Originally Posted by helix139

On a more contemporary note, with respect to the 30 round magazines in question, the reason why there is a need for 30 round magazines for AR-15s is that the .223 or 5.56x45mm NATO round fired by the AR-15 is not necessarily going to drop someone on the first shot unless it manages to hit the central nervous system of the target or a major blood supply (which happens, but isn't necessarily easy to do, especially under threat). It's a small round with a lot of power behind it, but it's not going to have the terminal energy of something like a .308 or 30-06. This is especially true if the target is doped up on something (see Taliban fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan). The whole purpose of moving from the 7.62x51mm NATO used in the M14 to the 5.56x45 used in the M16/M4 platforms is that it allowed the operator to carry a greater amount of ammo. By reducing the size of the magazine, modular small caliber weapons platforms such as the AR-15 are effectively neutered as a defense against multiple assailants.

That's a silly argument. I served in the infantry. I have fired thousands of rounds from an M-16. A 30 round magazine is about suppressive fire. A 5.56 mm round has plenty of stopping power to make your point on your average criminal. If you are that concerned about stopping power with respect to home defense, I would suggest the classic Colt .45.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by bonelldonnell

Let's be accurate. The 2nd amendment is about militias. The Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia vs Harris (2008) utilized a very conservative interpretation of the 2nd amendment to actually add the words "self-defense."

Did you want to be accurate, or perpetuate the ignorance that the 2nd Amendment is a grant of power to the government?

I don't know how many ways this can be slowed down, walked through, or reiterated -- the operative language of the sentence, not just legally but grammatically, is the second clause. The militia, meaning at the time the citizen raised force (i.e. not a function of the government anyway) made up of every able-bodied man, is necessary to the security of the free state, and the only means by which that militia can be well-regulated (made regular, functional, effective) is if the state cannot infringe the right of those able-bodied citizens to keep and bear arms. Not in a state run armory, themselves, in their homes.

[MichiGator2002]

A much more practical reality is that those who insist that individuals don't have the right to keep and bear arms are more than welcome to try their hand at enforcing their view on those that insist otherwise. Reminds me of the first job I had as a lifeguard, I was too zealous in my thinking about the pool's no smoking rule. Asked the manager if I should confiscate the pack of cigarettes I saw someone had sitting out. She answered "sure, of you want to get your ass kicked".

The right to own a firearm is as unambiguous as speech and religion. The limits of law are on when and how it may be used.

[PIMking]

[HudsonGator]

Here is the bottom-line boys and girls, you gun people won the first round 5-4 in the SCOTUS, I feel pretty good that with another couple Democratic appointments we may see the Court revist this issue.

You won the first battle, it remains to be seen if you'll win the war.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Here is the bottom-line boys and girls, you gun freaks won the first round 5-4 in the SCOTUS, I feel pretty good that with another couple Democratic appointments we may see the Court revist this issue.

You won the first battle, it remains to be seen if you'll win the war.

if that were to happen, there will be an actual war in this country.

I will not, I mean I WILL NOT, give up my weapons to those who think the government will do a better job protecting me and my family than myself. Those living in never never land thinking that if guns are banned we will be safer need to pull their heads out of a certain crevice on their bodies and look at Chicago as their Utopia of gun free communities.

Why dont the liberals just leave the union and create their own utopia? we will give you the NE, Northern Ill, and the Northwest, we will take the rest