U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 01:45 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,716 posts, read 33,976,479 times
Reputation: 14330

Advertisements

California Judge attempting to nullify Second Amendment rights of all citizens.


Staton, in her ruling, “cited congressional findings that semi-automatic rifles have a rate of fire, 300 to 500 rounds per minute, that makes them ‘virtually undistinguishable’ from machine guns, and that they are the ‘weapons of choice’ for gangs, hate groups, and ‘mentally deranged persons bent on mass murder,’”



https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-...nt-rights.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 01:52 PM
 
836 posts, read 150,105 times
Reputation: 506
uh pretty much the whole state you mean. I don't know whats going on out there buy they are all nutters
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:47 PM
 
9,455 posts, read 9,301,736 times
Reputation: 11947
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
California Judge attempting to nullify Second Amendment rights of all citizens.
Staton, in her ruling, “cited congressional findings that semi-automatic rifles have a rate of fire, 300 to 500 rounds per minute, that makes them ‘virtually undistinguishable’ from machine guns, and that they are the ‘weapons of choice’ for gangs, hate groups, and ‘mentally deranged persons bent on mass murder,’”
I realize that you're just repeating what the writer said, but you really you study up on what "treason" means. By the silly standard of that author, wanting to repeal Prohibition would be "treason."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:53 PM
 
Location: San Diego CA
4,932 posts, read 3,420,083 times
Reputation: 7917
So a duly appointed judge acting within the parameters of her authority makes a legal decision you disapprove of and you accuse her of treason? Another example of how extreme political ideologies twist and turn our democracy and steer it toward authoritarianism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
18,323 posts, read 10,197,320 times
Reputation: 7120
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
California Judge attempting to nullify Second Amendment rights of all citizens.


Staton, in her ruling, “cited congressional findings that semi-automatic rifles have a rate of fire, 300 to 500 rounds per minute, that makes them ‘virtually undistinguishable’ from machine guns, and that they are the ‘weapons of choice’ for gangs, hate groups, and ‘mentally deranged persons bent on mass murder,’”



https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-...nt-rights.html
"Treason"? How so?

I don't think it means what you think it means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,710 posts, read 7,577,242 times
Reputation: 7555
I do not want to start a war here, but I would like one definitive answer to a question, I have yet to have answered by anyone, pro or con on the gun issue.
This is a simple question, but yet people who have answered other post when I have asked this question, never answer the question, but counter with their beliefs about gun ownership, of no gun ownership.

Here is the question, and once again I hope someone has some sort of explanation as an answer.

We all know what the 2nd amendment says, so no need to print it out here.
Her is my question.

The 2nd states, "a well regulated militia".
Why were those words included in the 2nd if the people were the intention of the 2nd?
I have always felt the 2nd was aimed at the militia, and not the general public, so again, if it wasn't intended for the militia, then why was the militia even mentioned?
Let's not get into a discussion of how the courts have ruled, just answer why you believe the militia was mentioned in the 2nd.

Bob.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:36 AM
 
9,659 posts, read 5,977,276 times
Reputation: 6571
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
I do not want to start a war here, but I would like one definitive answer to a question, I have yet to have answered by anyone, pro or con on the gun issue.
This is a simple question, but yet people who have answered other post when I have asked this question, never answer the question, but counter with their beliefs about gun ownership, of no gun ownership.

Here is the question, and once again I hope someone has some sort of explanation as an answer.

We all know what the 2nd amendment says, so no need to print it out here.
Her is my question.

The 2nd states, "a well regulated militia".
Why were those words included in the 2nd if the people were the intention of the 2nd?
I have always felt the 2nd was aimed at the militia, and not the general public, so again, if it wasn't intended for the militia, then why was the militia even mentioned?
Let's not get into a discussion of how the courts have ruled, just answer why you believe the militia was mentioned in the 2nd.

Bob.

I'm with you, the reason the founding fathers specifically mentioned militia is because they only wanted militiamen to have the rights to own guns. And not just any militia, a "well regulated" one. One that meets the standards of the government. It can't be two drunk guys with anger issues banding together and calling themselves a "militia". Only properly trained, well informed people with the right temperament can own guns.

Of course, the problem is that pretty much disqualifies 90% of the gun nuts.
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:32 AM
 
Location: San Diego
30 posts, read 6,855 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
Her is my question.

The 2nd states, "a well regulated militia".
Why were those words included in the 2nd if the people were the intention of the 2nd?
I have always felt the 2nd was aimed at the militia, and not the general public, so again, if it wasn't intended for the militia, then why was the militia even mentioned?
Let's not get into a discussion of how the courts have ruled, just answer why you believe the militia was mentioned in the 2nd.

To ignore what the courts have said is to ignore the best source of an answer. Why put that constraint on your question? Heller v DC is full of citations regarding the meaning of militia. If you don't want to read any of it, I guess the most oversimplified answer for the inclusion of that word is that it was the vernacular of the time.


Anyway, on topic, this latest ruling is troubling (not treasonous though) for two reasons. One, it's formulated on erroneous information; among other things, the judge said that bullets fired from semi-auto rifles can pass though people as if the mechanism has something to do with it. And two (and worse), is the decision seems to be a beacon to lawmakers to enact bans on a whole class of firearms. That's a bad precedent no matter which side of this argument someone's on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:19 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
9,878 posts, read 5,529,800 times
Reputation: 8426
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
I do not want to start a war here, but I would like one definitive answer to a question, I have yet to have answered by anyone, pro or con on the gun issue.
This is a simple question, but yet people who have answered other post when I have asked this question, never answer the question, but counter with their beliefs about gun ownership, of no gun ownership.

Here is the question, and once again I hope someone has some sort of explanation as an answer.

We all know what the 2nd amendment says, so no need to print it out here.
Her is my question.

The 2nd states, "a well regulated militia".
Why were those words included in the 2nd if the people were the intention of the 2nd?
I have always felt the 2nd was aimed at the militia, and not the general public, so again, if it wasn't intended for the militia, then why was the militia even mentioned?
Let's not get into a discussion of how the courts have ruled, just answer why you believe the militia was mentioned in the 2nd.

Bob.
Because at that time, the people WERE the militia. To say that meant the general public. It's in the Federalist Papers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29

They didn't mean the "National Guard" or such, they meant, it was known to mean, the people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:19 AM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
18,323 posts, read 10,197,320 times
Reputation: 7120
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
I do not want to start a war here, but I would like one definitive answer to a question, I have yet to have answered by anyone, pro or con on the gun issue.
This is a simple question, but yet people who have answered other post when I have asked this question, never answer the question, but counter with their beliefs about gun ownership, of no gun ownership.

Here is the question, and once again I hope someone has some sort of explanation as an answer.

We all know what the 2nd amendment says, so no need to print it out here.
Her is my question.

The 2nd states, "a well regulated militia".
Why were those words included in the 2nd if the people were the intention of the 2nd?
I have always felt the 2nd was aimed at the militia, and not the general public, so again, if it wasn't intended for the militia, then why was the militia even mentioned?
Let's not get into a discussion of how the courts have ruled, just answer why you believe the militia was mentioned in the 2nd.

Bob.
In Colonial days, state militias were formed in case of a surprise attack to hold off the enemy until troops could be mustered. 2A wasn't ratified until December of 1791, and the Continental Army had been disbanded after the Revolutionary War ended in 1783.

The militias existed to meet any unexpected attacks on the country <<<under the command of the president>>>, until such time as a formal army could be raised. They trained regularly, hence were "well-regulated".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top