Well, remember also the mission of Breitbart is primarily to stir the pot and push conspiracy theories...or just outright lie.

Thank god nobody from that organization ever had their hands in US policy.

Actually, I remember the mission of Breitbart to be different than your BS portrayal. Nor is your BS relevant to my response to wdmso.

What, to destroy the GOP establishment and replace it with a corrupt, anti-American, racist, bigoted and misogynistic perversion of a party?

Sounds like a great mission.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Breitbart is not racist, corrupt, anti-American, bigoted, or misogynistic. The GOP and much more so the Democrat parties have been corrupted from what used to be American into a globalist, elitist, authoritarian cabal. I understand from your posts that you are enamored of such corruption. It makes you a bigot in support of it.

The original brietbart wasnt. The Steve bannon version is most of those things.

How does the NWO fit in to your rant?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bannon is not the whole of Breitbart. But, OK, fill me in on how he is most of those things. And my "rant" was in response to Spence's rant. Like begets like.

the answer is "YES"....the original intent of the NFA was to tax, regulate and create a National Registry for all firearms...not to "outlaw machine guns"

you forgot homophobic, xenophobic, nativist, capitalist, sexist, ageist, fundamentalist, radical, extremist....wait...I think you've been predicting the destruction of the GOP establishment for like 15 years...are you suggesting we're finally here?

neither were written to confuse....but to clarify....those "seeking answers" regarding "intent" are usually seeking ways around the "intent" :hihi:...but, hey...here in the "modern world" where we see what we want to see....of what matter is "intent"

I guess you missed (Firearm Confiscation ) in the lead banner

The comment section is a hoot ..

Great post.

That sleazy group is trying their hardest to dig up dirt on Moore's accusers. I wonder if they will come up with a video?

they should put Hillary in charge..she needs a job and has experience :hihi:

I'm not sure what you are saying here but perhaps not since you don't make sense at all.

We don't position Budweiser an accomplice in drunk driving accidents and deaths now do we? Yet there are some who want to blame manufacturers for cause of deaths and it is going on in CT. but that is a different case

Having an opinion, no matter how strong your opinion is, does not mean that you have not heard the other side, or sides. It means you believe your "side" is right.

Sleazy is in the eye of the beholder. Some eyes would behold digging up dirt on Moore was sleazy.

No. Is there a initiative worthy of noting to do away with any NFA-34 regulations other than removing suppressors from Title II? Is there any court case pending that is challenging the NFA-34 restrictions on machine guns?

"The Second Amendment says that: “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.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). "

DC v. HELLER, 478 F. 3d 370, 2008 (Breyer, S., dissenting)

Essentially the 4 Heller dissenters signed on to two opinions that said the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right and Breyer's dissent (which the other three dissenters signed) states that individual right interpretation is a continuance of the Court's precedent. So, your "for the moment" is actually "forever".

Correct. The right to possess and use arms that fail the protection criteria is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. These are sometimes refereed to "dangerous and unusual" arms which is a legally specific term, not an descriptor that the government gets to argue for restrictions, see Aymette v State as cited in Miller.

Congratulations! Of all the questions about the constitutionality of "gun control", that one, "taking away the handguns from law-abiding people" has been answered unequivocally.

If you are saying that to try to assuage gun rights supporter's fears that you don't want "too" much, well I'll just say, good for you, at least you're gonna save yourself that embarrassment.

Semi-auto detachable magazine rifles -- sometimes refereed to as "assault weapons"-- are NOT machineguns under any applicable law . . . Which again forces me to ask, why are you bringing full-auto guns into the conversation?

It certainly is a pro-gun control commentary.

I appreciate that for some detrimental public issues it is acknowledged that we should do "everything we can do" to stop some problems. If only that was applied to the criminal misuse of guns. Of course all that's proposed to reduce gun misuse is the same-old-same-old, demanding laws we already have and doing stuff that's already mandated in law.

Yawn.

Agreed. This is a totally different topic from garden-variety street crime.

These mass shootings are often carried out (when not acts of Islamic jihad) by warped, frustrated weirdos. Obviously, the sexy look of these guns appeals to the Rambo-wannabe psyche of these people. The gun manufacturer counts on that...that's why these guns (which don't function like machine guns) are made to resemble military weaponry, as much as humanly possible. If these guns function like boring rifles, there is a very specific reason the manufacturers do everything they can, to make them look like assault rifles.

The visual appearance of these weapons, fuels the fantasies, of a lot of us. This is exactly why so many people buy these AR-15 type rifles, instead of buying a rifle that functions the same way, but looks a lot more boring. Some of those fantasies, most in fact, are harmless. Some are very wicked.

To deny this, is to be incapable of rational thought on the issue.

I don't think I'd support a ban on "rifles that are intended to look like assault rifles but really are not", probably because there are so many already out there, a ban would have little impact. I would support a ban on accessories that modify the functionality of these weapons, to make them function more like military weaponry. I absolutely support those bans, (bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc) and that doesn't come close to meaning that I'm in favor of shredding the constitution and imposing tyranny.

you crack me up :rotf3:

In that case the beer is the emotional issue and the car the weapon. Hence why we have laws against drunk driving regardless if you hurt another person or not.

Nope, you're now a flaming liberal.

We have laws against shooting people too, both are about equally as effective. Keeps the people who know better from doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because a court finding for an individual right doesn't validate anything and certainly doesn't justify inaction on solving a very real public health issue.

You can cut and paste all day long, the problem is just getting worse as you spin around and around.

Doing something about health problems is either preventing them or curing them. So, since you frame gun deaths as a health issue, what should be done to cure or prevent the even greater "very real public health issue" of gun deaths and injuries due to hand guns?

It's just like fisheries management. Need a systems driven solution. The problem is the true believers would rather kill the debate than level up and drive any change.

Hey . . . wdmso, you don't like verbal gymnastics . . . how about this doozie provided by Spence?:

"In that case the beer is the emotional issue and the car the weapon. Hence why we have laws against drunk driving regardless if you hurt another person or not."

Ooops . . . wdmso . . . you gotta like this one!! should be worth a 10 on the Olympic verbal gymnastics scale (again, provided by the ever reliable Spence):

"It's just like fisheries management. Need a systems driven solution. The problem is the true believers would rather kill the debate than level up and drive any change."

We have laws against murder also. If those were prosecuted and sentenced accordingly, then maybe it would help as a deterrent but murderers go free and law abiding citizens have the screws put to them.

Spence , you are not going to solve the human condition with that kind of wordsmithing.

Extreme hyperbole.

Expand on the human condition in this context.

Takes gymnast to recognize a gymnast
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In one brief stroke of the keyboard you admit that Spence is a verbal gymnast AND that you also are one since you recognize gymnasts AND that you are also a hypocrite who calls out someone for the very thing you are.

Pot meet kettle.

Right back at ya. I was already identified as a kettle or pot by another kettle or pot--so welcome to the huddle. You can be a pot or a kettle. Or both--meet yourself--look in mirror.

You sound a lot like Jeff Sessions testifying before Congress today.

OK, so the Mini-14 is safe then

at this time, for now :hidin:

Didn’t take long for another nut with a semi auto rifle to add to the death toll for November’s carnage. I guess we can all this one a “mini” mass murder, I guess he’s just a bad shot or not good under pressure.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's a peculiar phrasing. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of the law.

I'm not arguing the "individual right" determination validates anything or that it justifies inaction. I argue that it invalidates the BS theories that justified gun control action. Whatever inaction is forced is simply respecting the limits of governmental power inherently demanded by the Constitution.

How pathetic.

No matter how you spin it, me proving you to be wrong is not perpetuating the problem of criminal gun use.

You can denigrate my proof as mere cut-n-paste, you can call it spin, but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong, irreconcilably wrong on the law. It's past time to admit you have no argument that the Constitution or the law supports you or your gun control agenda.

You need to come up with solutions that do not implicate the right to arms . . . Or you need to come clean and admit that you don't give a crap about the Constitution and you would eagerly vote for people who would violate their oaths to uphold it.

.

The point being a "Mini" doesn't look like a black effing gun so people leave it alone.