Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-16-2013, 18:22   #21
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,980


Better hope the pro-RKBA justices stay healthy. Barry has his picks ready.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 18:27   #22
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by writwing View Post
...
If it goes to the SCOTUS we are in trouble.
What has changed since Heller and McDonald?
quan lot rbi do boi dep xe day doi ao so mi nu thoi trang cong so chup anh cho be
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Quote:
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...

Last edited by Syclone538; 05-15-2013 at 05:46..
Syclone538 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 18:44   #23
hogship
It's MY Island
 
hogship's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northwest territory, pardner!
Posts: 12,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAFinch View Post
Almost all constitutional laws/amendments are subject to reasonable restrictions. It doesn't seem like Scalia is making threats, just stating a fact. He firmly believes that the Constitution is a dead document that needs to be upheld based on its original interpretation, not re-examined during every socio-political fad that comes along.

It does normally take years for challenges to work their way up to the SCOTUS, but it looks Scalia is intentionally trying to speed up the process and lock in various pro-2A decisions before Obama finishes flipping the court to progressives. He's smart enough to know from history what will happen if the public is disarmed.
Man, I hope like hell you are right!

I'm so used to having government people do exactly what I never thought they would do, that I guess I just have learned to expect the worst, and hope for the best.

Your thoughts do make quite a bit of "horse sense", and if that's Scalia's plans, he will gain back some respect he lost with Obamacare decision.

ooc



Note: The more I think about it, the more I'm totally amazed that Elana Kagan has actually gone hunting with Scalia. I had her pegged as someone who wishes a total disarming of the American public.......this can't be a bad thing. I'm sure Scalia is working on her to support constitutional rights, and that can't be a bad thing either. Any change in Kagan's gun philosophy can't get any worse, and can only get better.

Very good on Scalia.......

ooc
__________________
NRA/VFW life, Harley Davidson FXDX, very patriotic!
Old iron pumper w/pony tail, Christian, lathe artist
Stevie Ray Vaughn, Janis Joplin, Johnny Cash
Visit my Vietnam photo album, 1968-69 click on link

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
hogship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 19:05   #24
The Machinist
No Compromise
 
The Machinist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Left Coast
Posts: 6,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogship View Post
I had her pegged as someone who wishes a total disarming of the American public.......this can't be a bad thing. I'm sure Scalia is working on her to support constitutional rights, and that can't be a bad thing either. Any change in Kagan's gun philosophy can't get any worse, and can only get better.

Very good on Scalia.......

ooc
Hypocrisy is a core tenet of liberalism. There are plenty of left-wingers who shoot guns, who would love to ban AR-15s, regardless. She may have personally a hunting trip, but as a progressive, her overriding goal in all things is to cement the power of the government over the citizenry.
__________________
Proud to be an infidel!
The Machinist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 06:52   #25
ArtyGuy
Senior Member
 
ArtyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyGuy View Post
Unless I'm very mistaken, the military uses a select-fire, fully automatic, M-16 carbine, as does many law enforcement agencies here in the U.S.
However, I doubt that since full autos have been "regulated" since 1934(?).
I doubt there's little chance that they will ever be obtainable (mainly due to the price) for the average guy but I do believe that we can protect our rights to own pistols and rifles that use semi-auto technology which has been around for more than a century.

The more anti-gun folks (i.e. Piers Morgan etc.) will occasionally toss in the inflamatory and complete B.S. about rocket launchers, bazookas and tanks, which I doubt any sane supporter of the Second Amendment, or SCOTUS would agree with.
We use both the M-16 and M-4. Neither shoot fully automatic. It fires semi-automatic or it fires a 3-rd burst. The changes were made a while back. The major reason for the change to burst, versus full auto, was due to inaccuracies in the full auto mode and ammo consumption. We do have a fully automatic weapon in squads- the M249 SAW. We also have the crew served M-240B, which replaced the M-60 machine gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M240_machine_gun
__________________
The King puts the balls where the Queen wants them.
ArtyGuy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 07:31   #26
railfancwb
Senior Member
 
railfancwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Shelbyville, Tennessee TN
Posts: 4,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-421 View Post
I could be wrong here, but doesn't the supreme court generally deal with stuff only after it's taken effect? Meaning that the gun laws have to be passed before the Supreme Court can rule on whether or not they're constitutional? Or can they rule on them while they're still in the bill stage?
Had ObamaCare taken effect when they ruled on it?
__________________
"Never give to your friend any power that your enemy may some day inherit." -- Paul Weyrich
railfancwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 07:36   #27
railfancwb
Senior Member
 
railfancwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Shelbyville, Tennessee TN
Posts: 4,193
Multi-round burst fire is considered fully automatic by BATFE. "More than one round with a single trigger pull" is the criteria. May be urban legend, but I've heard of people getting in serious trouble when their semi-automatic malfunctioned and fired multiple rounds with a single trigger pull.
__________________
"Never give to your friend any power that your enemy may some day inherit." -- Paul Weyrich
railfancwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 15:56   #28
hogship
It's MY Island
 
hogship's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northwest territory, pardner!
Posts: 12,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by railfancwb View Post
Had ObamaCare taken effect when they ruled on it?
I think you're confusing the issue with word definitions, and applications.

Obamacare was passed, and it was the law when the SCOTUS ruled on it. It was not fully implemented, and still isn't......

ooc
__________________
NRA/VFW life, Harley Davidson FXDX, very patriotic!
Old iron pumper w/pony tail, Christian, lathe artist
Stevie Ray Vaughn, Janis Joplin, Johnny Cash
Visit my Vietnam photo album, 1968-69 click on link

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
hogship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 00:43   #29
Edge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 336
scalia is very strong on 2nd amendment. i'm sure he was trying to convert kegan. lots of good discussion of judicial cases at illinoiscarry. guru and others trying to get cases before scotus before obama has a chance to flip court. this court is solidly 4-4 with kenedy as tie breaker who ruled in favor of 2nd on heller and mcdonald.
Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 02:09   #30
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,529
You need standing to get in front of the court, have to be adversely affected to have standing, hard to imagine how you'd be adversely affected by something that has not taken effect yet. Maybe I'm oversimplifying or don't understand that aspect of the law.

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 06:44   #31
Fear Night
NRA Life Member
 
Fear Night's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Posts: 3,853
I have heard Scalia mention in an interview soon after the Heller case that the 2A allows for arms up to what a modern ground infantry soldier would be issued. This is why things like Stinger missiles, mounted machine guns, landmines, tanks, etc. are still reasonable restrictions.

Would that mean the NFA could get overturned, or at least modified? I highly doubt we will be able to get selective fire but if they go down the ground infantry route they will have to address this issue.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Fear Night; 02-18-2013 at 06:49..
Fear Night is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 07:00   #32
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyGuy View Post
The more anti-gun folks (i.e. Piers Morgan etc.) will occasionally toss in the inflamatory and complete B.S. about rocket launchers, bazookas and tanks, which I doubt any sane supporter of the Second Amendment, or SCOTUS would agree with.
I have to ask why your owning a tank is any more dangerous to anyone than your owning an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, or a Glock 17 with a 33-round magazine, or a single-shot Mossberg .22, for that matter?

Would owning a tank suddenly turn on an 'evil' switch in you?

Do we accept that some military weapons simply provide too much temptation to commit acts of violence against innocent people?

Is it OK to ban tank ownership by civilians outright?

Why? Because the potential for destruction is so much higher? Like the potential of an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, as compared to a semi-automatic 'hunting' rifle with a 5-round magazine?
__________________
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks

Last edited by eracer; 02-18-2013 at 07:01..
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 21:38   #33
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 19,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
I have to ask why your owning a tank is any more dangerous to anyone than your owning an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, or a Glock 17 with a 33-round magazine, or a single-shot Mossberg .22, for that matter?

Would owning a tank suddenly turn on an 'evil' switch in you?

Do we accept that some military weapons simply provide too much temptation to commit acts of violence against innocent people?

Is it OK to ban tank ownership by civilians outright?

Why? Because the potential for destruction is so much higher? Like the potential of an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, as compared to a semi-automatic 'hunting' rifle with a 5-round magazine?
Goods questions, I've never seen answered on GT or anywhere. Do you know the answers?

Should civilians have anything they can afford to buy? I'd trust you to have hand grenades, for example. But I'd have concern if a criminal stole them from you, and then sold them to other more dangerous criminals.

When I say "concern", I don't mean laws, so I'm not jumping to conclusions.

Would criminals use hand grenades for mayhem? I don't know.

Or maybe they wouldn't be any more dangerous than guns. I don't know.

Either way, I'd first prefer keeping violent felons locked up in jail .

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?

Last edited by ithaca_deerslayer; 02-18-2013 at 21:40..
ithaca_deerslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 21:45   #34
Slug71
Senior Member
 
Slug71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon - U.S.A
Posts: 4,416
We should be writing and pressuring Scalia too.
__________________
GSSF Member
Bull Dawgs Club #571
Rimfire Club #571
Slug71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 00:08   #35
Atlas
transmogrifier
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 14,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogship View Post
Yes.....It mentions that Elana Keagan harvested a whitetail doe in Wyoming.

Familiarizing her with firearms isn't a bad thing, but I am not feeling very good about this at all.

What Scalia needs to do is teach her about what the constitution means.....and, if she is to uphold it, it really doesn't matter if she is pro or anti-gun.......the constitution is what it is, and it's about maintaining the relationship between "the people" and a militia. Because the second amendment is one sentence, and there is no room for doubt that arming private citizens for no other purpose than that of military preparedness is the sole focus, and objective of the document.

I'm getting really tired of hearing about hunting, and self defense. These things are included in the total meaning of the second amendment by default.....but they are not in any way, the purpose, or intent of the second amendment.

Why is Scalia not mentioning these things? I'll tell what I think all this means.........he is ready to fold under pressure, and not uphold the constitution for the very reason it was written, or exists.



ooc

Quote:
Originally Posted by snerd View Post
After Obamacare, anyone who thinks they will rule Constitutionally on guns is delusional.
You are both 100% correct.
__________________
June 28, 2012: the day the American republic died.

Uncontrolled, unaccountable government spending + Graduated income-tax = SLAVERY
Atlas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 00:10   #36
Atlas
transmogrifier
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 14,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by railfancwb View Post
Had ObamaCare taken effect when they ruled on it?
It had been passed into law.
__________________
June 28, 2012: the day the American republic died.

Uncontrolled, unaccountable government spending + Graduated income-tax = SLAVERY
Atlas is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:14.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 521
131 Members
390 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31