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)
 
 
Old 02-14-2013, 12:41 PM
 
9,241 posts, read 8,038,547 times
Reputation: 2218

Advertisements

Quote:
Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.
I doubt any American will turn in their guns. They are protected under the constitution.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-14-2013, 12:45 PM
 
Location: Lincoln, NE (via SW Virginia)
1,644 posts, read 1,991,898 times
Reputation: 1060
An ASSAULT weapon.

Are you hunting white tail deer with an AK47?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2013, 12:48 PM
 
15,721 posts, read 10,822,805 times
Reputation: 6996
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
I doubt any American will turn in their guns. They are protected under the constitution.
Unregulated guns are not.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2013, 12:49 PM
 
19,005 posts, read 10,814,530 times
Reputation: 8842
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22 View Post
An ASSAULT weapon.

Are you hunting white tail deer with an AK47?
sigh. what part of stay out of my natural rights do you fail to understand?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2013, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Lincoln, NE (via SW Virginia)
1,644 posts, read 1,991,898 times
Reputation: 1060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
sigh. what part of stay out of my natural rights do you fail to understand?
What in the hell are natural rights?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2013, 12:51 PM
 
15,721 posts, read 10,822,805 times
Reputation: 6996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
sigh. what part of stay out of my natural rights do you fail to understand?
Owning an assault rifle isn't a natural right in this country. The Supreme Court has upheld the ability to restrict certain firearms.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2013, 12:55 PM
 
13,055 posts, read 12,235,035 times
Reputation: 2612
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
I doubt any American will turn in their guns. They are protected under the constitution.
Correct, their state constitution protects them unless a process allows them to amend their constitution, which they have already done in 2004 concerning concealed weapons. It is odd though, because the text of their right to bare arms section says "shall not be questioned", which if you look at the legal meaning suggests it can't even be brought to the table. Though looking at Brooks v. State, it is all manner of stupid on how they got it in.

Quote:
Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 17.

(2004) Section does not prohibit the General Assembly from enacting statutes allowing or disallowing the carrying of concealed weapons; the Concealed-Carry Act is therefore constitutional. Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844 (Mo.banc).
Missouri, your legislature is flipping you the bird.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2013, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Lincoln, NE (via SW Virginia)
1,644 posts, read 1,991,898 times
Reputation: 1060
Should we be able to manufacture our own nukes?

The 2nd Amendment says "arms" which is riddled with ambiguity. So...in keeping with your ironclad logic...my natural rights are to bear arms...technically nuclear weapons are "arms." Do you support the independent manufacture of WMD'S??? Is that constituionally protected?

The 2nd Amendment as passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2013, 12:56 PM
 
13,055 posts, read 12,235,035 times
Reputation: 2612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
Owning an assault rifle isn't a natural right in this country. The Supreme Court has upheld the ability to restrict certain firearms.

Where does it state that?

If you look at the state constitution, it has no discrepancy as to such.

So, where is it stated that a certain type of weapon is not a natural right?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2013, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Lincoln, NE (via SW Virginia)
1,644 posts, read 1,991,898 times
Reputation: 1060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Where does it state that?

If you look at the state constitution, it has no discrepancy as to such.

So, where is it stated that a certain type of weapon is not a natural right?
Do you support my right to cook up Nukes in my basement, Nomander?

By your own admission the state constitution makes no discrepancy between types of "Arms."
Rate this post positively 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.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top