• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

Captain_Swoop said:
And shotguns with a larger bore.
You can buy a 4 and 2 bore double rifles.
They are monsters.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is some sort of historical exception for those. Good lord, a 2 gauge rifle means an 8oz round ball. I'll refrain from ever firing one. But, I read an article somewhere years ago that modern 12 gauge and 10 gauge rifled barrels are in a sort of legal conundrum.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
To be entirely fair, there are a lot of posters, and the wording of the 2nd doesn't really help.
Click to expand...
To be entirely fair, most of the posters involved have been going round and round on this for years. They've had plenty of time to reason out their own interpretation of the amendment, find their own sources and cites, and resume the debate starting from that work they've already done.

Instead, it always seems to come back to "what does 'arms' even mean, anyway?"

crescent said:
And SC opinions have changed. Heller was the first time the court recognized an individual right to own guns.
Click to expand...
Even just starting from Heller would be a huge improvement, instead of every time trying to reinvent the entire debate up to Heller, from first principles, as if none of this--including Heller!--has ever been thought of before.

lobosrul5 said:
Err, actually I know of the major supreme court decisions. DC v. Heller is newer and supersedes US v. Miller. But that doesn't mean it won't itself be superseded once more. Furthermore, the DC v. Heller decision doesn't contradict anything I said. I mean in part, the majority decision states: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:".
Click to expand...
And yet here you are, starting from "what does 'arms' even mean?", as if you've never heard of the two century's worth of court decisions and public debate on the question of gun control.
 
theprestige said:
And yet here you are, starting from "what does 'arms' even mean?", as if you've never heard of the two century's worth of court decisions and public debate on the question of gun control.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that these interpretations, for instance the definition of 'arms', are now fixed and cannot be reinterpreted by another court decision somewhere?

If that's the case, then you have an excellent point. If all of the interpretations you mention above can be undone by another decision of another court somewhere then the "what is meant by 'arms'?" and other questions are entirely legitimate.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
Not exactly, but I expected a distortion. The law in this regard is the Constitution and currently as interpreted by the Courts the 2nd Amendment is the law. Neither Congress nor the President can change that. So, in essence if Congress banned any firearm or by decree the President declared anything banned, THEY would be breaking the law. I wouldn't expect most outsiders to understand and this thread established that clearly.
Click to expand...


That's not true. Some firearms, like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, are already banned or tightly restricted under existing federal law. The assault-weapons ban, flawed though it was, was never ruled unconstitutional. State laws regarding firearms, magazine size, access, registration, waiting periods etc. have been upheld.
Although the Heller decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court made it clear that the right to possess a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions. The Court indicated that the Second Amendment continues to allow for limits on guns like the following:

Not allowing everyone to possess a gun. The right can be withheld from felons and the mentally ill, for example.

Not allowing guns to be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding people from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, remain valid.

Certain restrictions on the sale of guns. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms continue to be allowed.

Banning certain types of guns. The Second Amendment does not protect guns that are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. (The Court endorsed the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'")

Outlawing concealed weapons. Laws prohibiting concealed weapons probably remain valid.
Click to expand...
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/right-own-gun-under-heller-30295.html
 
Bob001 said:
Just curious. Is a "full-auto Glock" something that is actually marketed, or was a standard semi-auto Glock doctored? If the latter, what would Glock need to do to make such a modification impossible?
Click to expand...

Any self loading firearm (semi auto) can be converted to full auto with the proper knowledge and tools ... there is no way to make it impossible.

Even Bolt action firearms can be converted to full auto with enough patience.

In fact a double barrel black powder muscle loading MUSKET, can be converted to fire full auto with simple handyman tools.
 
3point14 said:
I don't think someone needs to know the details of the four stroke engine cycle or the difference between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini to opine that speed limits are a good idea.
Click to expand...

Why are vehicles constructed in a way that allows them to exceed the speed limits?
 
3point14 said:
Are you saying that these interpretations, for instance the definition of 'arms', are now fixed and cannot be reinterpreted by another court decision somewhere?
Click to expand...
I am not saying that.

If that's the case, then you have an excellent point. If all of the interpretations you mention above can be undone by another decision of another court somewhere then the "what is meant by 'arms'?" and other questions are entirely legitimate.
Click to expand...
This does not follow.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
“detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon...”

This is how arbitrary it al becomes...

Illegal:

[qimg]https://www.apexgunparts.com/media/catalog/category/Russian_AK47.jpg[/qimg]

Legal:

[qimg]https://s3.amazonaws.com/mgm-content/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2012/02/19/310345_01_sa_85m_hungarian_ak47_thumbhol_640.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

In Canada some firearms can be made legal by simply manufacturing them without the CARRY HANDLE :)
 
Hellbound said:
Actually, I think just automatic weapons ... are banned at the federal level ...
Click to expand...

Nope .. not even in Canada .. I've been to a Full Auto Firearm shoot before, right in my Province, plenty of people legally own full auto "machine guns" here.
 
Yeggster said:
Name one successful drug ban? You know an illegal drug that does not exist now because it was banned by the government?
Click to expand...

This argument only works if you propose legalizing drugs.

Drugs are illegal, but available. Speeding is illegal but it happens. Prostitution is illegal, but one can still find prostitutes. Lots of things are like that.

Guns, however, are the only one that conservatives think should be legal based solely on unwillingness to follow the law (ETA: or hypothetically proposed laws). Its a very inconsistent approach.
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
This argument only works if you propose legalizing drugs.

Drugs are illegal, but available. Speeding is illegal but it happens. Prostitution is illegal, but one can still find prostitutes. Lots of things are like that.

Guns, however, are the only one that conservatives think should be legal based solely on unwillingness to follow the law (ETA: or hypothetically proposed laws). Its a very inconsistent approach.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense

Most "recreational drugs' ARE legal as well ......

And ... no-one I know of thinks legal gun ownership is based solely on ANY one factor, there are MANY factors ... same as everything else.
 
Last edited:
Yeggster said:
Any self loading firearm (semi auto) can be converted to full auto with the proper knowledge and tools ... there is no way to make it impossible.

Even Bolt action firearms can be converted to full auto with enough patience.

In fact a double barrel black powder muscle loading MUSKET, can be converted to fire full auto with simple handyman tools.
Click to expand...

I think I saw a patent drawing of how that is accomplished. It looked quite complicated and impractical. I'd love to see how a black power muzzle loader can be full auto. Unless you just mean both barrels with one trigger pull.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I think I saw a patent drawing of how that is accomplished. It looked quite complicated and impractical. I'd love to see how a black power muzzle loader can be full auto. Unless you just mean both barrels with one trigger pull.
Click to expand...

I agree there! .. the bolt action modifications I have seen were dismal!

At one time double loads in each chamber or barrel were manufactured and sold in black power firearms .. a 6 chamber gun, could fire 12 shots before needing to be reloaded for example.

The double barrel Muzzle loader conversion is simply ... multiple shot and powder loads (as described above) are placed in each barrel, and connecting holes are drilled to allow the powder flame from the left barrel to ignite the powder in the right barrel

... and vice a versa down the barrel to the start till all loads have been discharged.
 
theprestige said:
And yet here you are, starting from "what does 'arms' even mean?", as if you've never heard of the two century's worth of court decisions and public debate on the question of gun control.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but nowhere did I ever type that which you put in quotes. That's not even an accurate pseudo-quote. Did the framer's of the constitution intend that everyone be allowed to own whatever types of arms available? I never asked for the word 'arms' to be defined. There is a long history of denying private citizens certain types of arms that no SC decision has ever ruled against. That is relevant in a debate about the constitutionality of banning certain types of firearms.

I also wouldn't expect everyone, especially the non-Americans, on this thread to be an expert on "two century's worth of court decisions and public debate".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom