• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Uncooperative Tom

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

400 posts in this topic

 

 

 

 

Thankfully, the NRA owns enough of the FL legislature that the D's who proposed it can't get it passed here.

Much like the French aristo's discovered a few centuries ago, denying the will of the people only works for so long.

 

We have several FL voters here and a thread on the topic. Not one has said they support it.

 

Of course, saying you oppose it will result in being called a racist, so they don't do that either. (Assuming any are, in fact, opposed to the idea.)

 

Out in Washington State, banning .22's is more in line with the will of the people and the NRA is weak, so your observation is really more applicable out there.

 

You relief that the NRA owns "enough" of the FL legislature seems to imply that you are not confident in this statement.

 

No, I'm pretty confident that the .22 ban won't make it out of committee in our legislature.

 

Do you agree that ordinary .22's should be banned as "assault weapons" or not? Careful now. One answer will reveal you're a jackass and the other will get you called a racist.

 

 

 

Poor Tom, reduced to trying to create faux outrage. Sad. Bigly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you agree that ordinary .22's should be banned as "assault weapons" or not? Careful now. One answer will reveal you're a jackass and the other will get you called a racist.

 

Careful now. One answer will have Tom hound you about guns, the other answer will have Tom hound you about guns. If you don't answer, Tom will hound you about guns. Favre. Bigly ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you agree that ordinary .22's should be banned as "assault weapons" or not? Careful now. One answer will reveal you're a jackass and the other will get you called a racist.

 

Careful now. One answer will have Tom hound you about guns, the other answer will have Tom hound you about guns. If you don't answer, Tom will hound you about guns. Favre. Bigly ;)

 

 

 

 

No no no. Its Favre, Bigly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I hound someone for agreeing with me that a Ruger 10-22 is not an "assault weapon" that should be banned?

 

I'd just warn that person that others will be coming along to say what a racist moron he must be for not agreeing with Democrat gun bans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I hound someone for agreeing with me that a Ruger 10-22 is not an "assault weapon" that should be banned?

 

I'd just warn that person that others will be coming along to say what a racist moron he must be for not agreeing with Democrat gun bans.

 

We don't know why you hound people when it comes to the subject of guns, Tom. Only that you do so. The reasons are really immaterial at this point. It's your actions that matter and it's those actions which paint you as a tedious, dishonest little man with an obsession we don't particularly want to indulge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's truly Sad. Bigly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would I hound someone for agreeing with me that a Ruger 10-22 is not an "assault weapon" that should be banned?

 

I'd just warn that person that others will be coming along to say what a racist moron he must be for not agreeing with Democrat gun bans.

 

We don't know why you hound people when it comes to the subject of guns, Tom. Only that you do so.....

 

You know some weird things. Knowing that I hound people who agree with me about gun bans is probably the weirdest example yet. I don't recall ever having done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why would I hound someone for agreeing with me that a Ruger 10-22 is not an "assault weapon" that should be banned?

 

I'd just warn that person that others will be coming along to say what a racist moron he must be for not agreeing with Democrat gun bans.

 

We don't know why you hound people when it comes to the subject of guns, Tom. Only that you do so.....

 

You know some weird things. Knowing that I hound people who agree with me about gun bans is probably the weirdest example yet. I don't recall ever having done that.

 

Talk to Jeffie. Remember to also tell him how he's both a member of the left and doesn't consider you tedious. Your recollection has quite a few blind spots. He is one of them who manages (occasionally) to call you out on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I gather about Florida, if they take away their guns they'll have nothing left but meth, incest, insane folks, and those weird boats with aircraft pusher props in massive cages.

 

.....and occasional outbreaks of alligator rape.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A local mass shooter hanged himself in his cell this week.

He had shot up a shopping mall in Burlington WA. He used a .22 with an LCM.

He had grabbed the gun from a relative's house.

EMF then STFU.

 

Gee, if only someone would propose a law saying that no one can have a relative who owns a squirrel assault rifle, we'd all be lots safer!

 

Oh wait! Someone did!

 

Oddly, the Florida voters on this forum are not flocking to support this common sense gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A local mass shooter hanged himself in his cell this week.

He had shot up a shopping mall in Burlington WA. He used a .22 with an LCM.

He had grabbed the gun from a relative's house.

EMF then STFU.

 

Gee, if only someone would propose a law saying that no one can have a relative who owns a squirrel assault rifle, we'd all be lots safer!

 

Oh wait! Someone did!

 

Oddly, the Florida voters on this forum are not flocking to support this common sense gun control.

 

 

Five dead. Stupid shit. Hardy har har.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

...

Which guns are "half the duopoly"  "trying to regulate out of existence"?  In your answer, try to be specific, in touch with reality, and not hyperbolic. Thanks.

The topic post contains a link to the proposed ban. It's pretty specific. It even defines my old tube fed .22 as an assault weapon. And I'm in touch with reality enough to see that there's no exemption in that definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The slime from your swamp must have influenced such a mucous transfer from another thread. In context, your stupid post content reveals that Larry Pratt has a poodle named Dave Workman. He's a prominent pro-rights voice in Washington State. Mr. Workman does not share your confusion about .22 rifles being the like of M-16's. (Your six-month talking point, eh?)

Let us wank together in the Florida swamps, the story of my life, signed, Pooplius..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Wow

Jocal  really _is_ turning into Trigglypuff.

 

Well Mikey, get some content and bring it back. You can't discuss this subject. I suggest that you and Larry Pratt can't keep up. 

Gun Control in Colonial Times.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2017 at 6:59 AM, jocal505 said:

 Mr. Workman does not share your confusion about .22 rifles being the like of M-16's. (Your six-month talking point, eh?)

...

That would be your confusion, not mine. Of course Workman doesn't share it. He's not hoplophobic.

Why did you say my wife's rifle should be banned again? Because it has a LCM and is therefore like an M16. Go ahead, cite Kolbe again and prove that you're the one saying .22's are "like" M16's and are most useful for military purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That would be your confusion, not mine. Of course Workman doesn't share it. He's not hoplophobic.

Why did you say my wife's rifle should be banned again? Because it has a LCM and is therefore like an M16. Go ahead, cite Kolbe again and prove that you're the one saying .22's are "like" M16's and are most useful for military purposes.

I didn't say such a thing, but hi Pooplius. The logic behind what I intended to say can be repeated...when I repeat it you will fog it with the swamp gas. 

First:, well, the pathetic cosmetics uproar was vapor, just a bumper sticker. You will find that nowdays the deal-breaker with the legal criteria for unacceptable gun mayhem is the LCM. The caliber.involved is your straw man, it's your hand on your dick.again.

Second: Pooplius has informed us that the sky has been falling, a lot. We've had a dud, a non-issue: sheer low caliber panic, an empty  farce.

FOR SIX MONTHS. 

 

QUALITY CONTROL TO AISLE SIX, FIND POOPLIUS

You embarassed yourself Tom. The phrasing of the rimfire or other law in WA State has not caused even a mention by Dave Workman, our local Bannonesque gun guru..

Only in the samp gas of FL are Washington State's plinkers facing regulation or confiscation. I found that your work, your disinformation, once rivaled Workman's, then you went downhill. As you were wanking, he was presenting a variety of jaded, poorly informed pro-gun journalism. Not silly content.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I miss both Pooplius and Jeffie on the gun forums. No dog whistle is good enough to fetch them. We played whack-a-mole until the two remaining moles had headaches.

This thread needs a bikini pic

Pee Wee dresses for Jeffie.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of mischief, I did a search for SELF DEFENSE>Tom Ray. It came up 11 pages.

I hereby serve bold notice. I firmly suggest that Pooplius has zip for a platform based on self defense, per se.

The baseline knowledge revealed in Peruta, is that a :right: to Concealed Carry is a recent wet dream, an newish urban myth being presented by loud Libertarians. I need to warn you that such historical precedent, as encouraged in Heller, is now being extended to the self defense concepts, as such, of Central and North America. Seriously, there is only a poor or nonexistent legal "baseline" behind the idea of a "right" to self defense. This history will flush out, eloquenty, in the higher courts.

Quote

 Self-Defense, Defense of Others, and the State. Darrel MIller, 2017,  21 pgs  127 footnotew

 INTRODUCTION p85

Self-defense often is described as being innate, inalienable, and individual. But the Supreme Court has never expressly held self-defense to be a constitutional right.1 

 1. Geoffrey Christopher Rapp, Defense Against Outrage and the Perils of Parasitic Torts, 45 GA. L. REV. 107, 173 (2010) (“[T]he Supreme Court has never articulated self-defense as a constitutional right . . . .”); Eugene Volokh, Medical Self-Defense, Prohibited Experimental Therapies, and Payment for Organs, 120 HARV. L. REV. 1813, 1818 (2007) (“Lethal self-defense is so broadly accepted that courts have rarely encountered grave restrictions on it, and thus haven’t squarely decided whether the federal Constitution protects it.”).

http://lcp.law.duke.edu/article/self-defense-defense-of-others-and-the-state-miller-vol80-iss2/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I didn't say such a thing, but hi Pooplius. The logic behind what I intended to say can be repeated...when I repeat it you will fog it with the swamp gas. 

First:, well, the pathetic cosmetics uproar was vapor, just a bumper sticker. You will find that nowdays the deal-breaker with the legal criteria for unacceptable gun mayhem is the LCM. The caliber.involved is your straw man, it's your hand on your dick.again.

 

I asked whether you thought my wife's .22 is an assault weapon and you said:

On 1/12/2017 at 8:44 AM, jocal505 said:

I thought I already answered that. Hell yes.

...

I can't help it that the ban being discussed includes .22's and that you agree that they're assault weapons that should be banned. You wanted to talk specifics? Those are the specifics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a liar, skewing the "specifics". Quote me properly, Pooplius.. I didn't say that .22's "should be banned", or that your wife's was was "the like of an M-16". You mis-quoted both my words and my position, twice, forming up a dishonest, useless interchange. Twice.

 

 

Your post is an un-truthful evasion. Are you a legal expert on self defense? Have any expertise on that subject?

Quote

Jocal: Out of mischief, I did a search for SELF DEFENSE>Tom Ray. It came up 11 pages.

Do you read my posts well? Your boy Eugene Volokh is quoted saying something controversial (see the first footnote) in a very intelligent post, above. The writer is Darrel Miller, and he did his homework. Your entire self-defense platform is another poorly supported sham. You need to do some reading on this subject, for your own sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are "assault weapons" really "the like" of M16's or are they not?

Be sure to quote Kolbe again in your answer.

Try to contain your joy over banning "assault weapons" like our squirrel shooters a bit more this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misquoting Tom likes to pull old quotes out of context. It's who he is. It's what he does. I imagine he does a little victory jig ever time he "gets" someone. Although the jig isn't quite as cute post-op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Misquoting Tom likes to pull old quotes with a link back to them for context, like the one above.

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Fixed.

How was the jig? Hip ok? ( misquoting a text complaining about how you misquote. classic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Raz'r said:

How was the jig? Hip ok? ( misquoting a text complaining about how you misquote. classic)

What jig?

Getting better.

I might attack the messenger too if the alternative was defending the ridiculous ban on ordinary .22's that your elk have proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Are "assault weapons" really "the like" of M16's or are they not?

Be sure to quote Kolbe again in your answer.

Try to contain your joy over banning "assault weapons" like our squirrel shooters a bit more this time.

Why do you hate Kolbe? Kolbe is a friend of Heller. Kolbe quotes Heller like Pee Wee quotes Jeffie.

Kolbe ran your tosser militia right off the road. 

Quote

Kolbe vs Hogan 3/2017: AW's Not a Constitutional Right

P59 File: Pooplius Scores an F on  The Popularity Test 

'"At bottom, the dissent concludes that the so-called popularity of the banned assault weapons --- which were owned by less than 1% of Americans as recently as 2013 --- inhibits any effort by the other 99% to stop those weapons from being used again and again to perpretrate mass slaughters. We simply cannot agree."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3470578-Kolbe-v-Hogan-en-Banc-Opinion.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Raz'r said:

How was the jig? Hip ok? ( misquoting a text complaining about how you misquote. classic)

LOL. Another classic. Tom had to clip that three-line quotation.

Quote

Jocal Posted January 12 · 

I thought I already answered that. Hell yes.

Were you born a wanker?

How did you get tossed from TWO private high schools?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2017 at 6:50 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Ruger 10-22 Carbine

 

A scary .22 caliber battlefield weapon in any color!

 

top.jpg

Just what I thought. Misleading ^^^.  The Florida legislation wants fewer shots in play. It objects to LCM's, based on prudence.

 

Ruger 10-22 with magazine.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misleading.

The "10" in 10/22 is for ten rounds. That's the standard magazine.

That's a large capacity magazine according to the legislation proposed, since it holds more than seven.

The ones in the pic I posted have the standard 10 round LCM. Yes, they can also hold a bigger magazine, like the one in your misleading picture.

But even with a magazine like that one, I have never seen one on a battlefield. Only grabbers who know zip about guns think these squirrel guns are something that needs to be banned.

On 1/9/2016 at 8:26 AM, jocal505 said:

Tom, I know zip about guns.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Misleading.

The "10" in 10/22 is for ten rounds. That's the standard magazine.

That's a large capacity magazine according to the legislation proposed, since it holds more than seven.

The ones in the pic I posted have the standard 10 round LCM. Yes, they can also hold a bigger magazine, like the one in your misleading picture.

But even with a magazine like that one, I have never seen one on a battlefield. Only grabbers who know zip about guns think these squirrel guns are something that needs to be banned.

 

 

4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Misleading.

The "10" in 10/22 is for ten rounds. That's the standard magazine.

That's a large capacity magazine according to the legislation proposed, since it holds more than seven.

The ones in the pic I posted have the standard 10 round LCM. Yes, they can also hold a bigger magazine, like the one in your misleading picture.

But even with a magazine like that one, I have never seen one on a battlefield. Only grabbers who know zip about guns think these squirrel guns are something that needs to be banned.

 

Your post and pictures are not just misleading, but deceptive. Like Joyce Baby, what you leave out may come back to gitcha.

Pooplius, with my pride solidly intact, I still know very little about guns. But we can see a banana clip in the honest picture that holds more than ten rounds.

Instead of whining and lying, just face the facts at the heart of the matter. The 10-22's (deceitfully unpresented) 10-round+ LCM is the problem in the case of one of your guns, and the 17 round capacity is the problem with the other, and only in NJ.

Find something else to lie and whine about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread topic legislation:

Quote

(d)“Large capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 7 rounds

The ones in my pic have standard ten round LCM's. Battlefield squirrel shooters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The thread topic legislation:

The ones in my pic have standard ten round LCM's. Battlefield squirrel shooters.

The "ones in my pic" are not visible, yet the weapon is fitted out for LCM's. Your presentation was dishonest. You used the same gag with billy's Mini 14 and were busted on the Stoopid Law thread. 

If you didn't have no dis-honesty, you wouldn't have no honesty at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard ten-round LCM that comes with a 10/22 does not protrude beneath the gun. Of course they're not visible.

But they hold ten rounds, making them scary LCM's, even if you can't see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2017 at 1:08 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The standard ten-round LCM that comes with a 10/22 does not protrude beneath the gun. Of course they're not visible.

But they hold ten rounds, making them scary LCM's, even if you can't see them.

Don't just defend your deception. The scary capacity is the problem, the defining issue. An honest picture would have communicated the receiver for the LCM. You pulled the same crap on billy's thread, when the Mini 14's 20 round OEM was not shown in the photo you chose.

You have credibility issues, Pooplius. Being deceitful has become routine for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what the law says about capacity:

Quote

(d)“Large capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 7 rounds

The ones in my picture have 10 round LCM's. We're discussing the law that says those are battlefield M's, remember?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2017 at 1:08 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

...remember?

What we will remember is that you post profiles of innocent-looking wooden guns, pointedly omitting their LCM cosmetics. Then you defend it with content not worth posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

What we will remember is that you post profiles of innocent-looking wooden guns, pointedly omitting their LCM cosmetics. Then you defend it with content not worth posting.

Huh? I commented on the cosmetics:

The standard ten-round LCM that comes with a 10/22 does not protrude beneath the gun.

Concealing the LCM is a feature of the gun.

The law defines the gun as an assault weapon because of the LCM. We own one. I posted a pic in a discussion of it and commented on how the LCM is concealed.

I really don't see your problem here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Huh? I commented on the cosmetics:

The standard ten-round LCM that comes with a 10/22 does not protrude beneath the gun.

Concealing the LCM is a feature of the gun.

The law defines the gun as an assault weapon because of the LCM. We own one. I posted a pic in a discussion of it and commented on how the LCM is concealed.

I really don't see your problem here.

Right. What was the confusion in how billy's gun model was presented? Once again, you showed a picture of a pretty wooden gun, sans the very pertinent banana clip.

Waah. Sniff. Some districts want seven round limits. Waaah! Others have ten round limits. Shriek. Wail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Once again, you showed a picture of a pretty wooden gun, sans the very pertinent banana clip.

What do you mean once again? If you have a question in another thread ask it there.

In this one, as I already explained, the guns I showed HAVE their LCM's inserted.

Why are you once again lying about that fact? You can't see the LCM's when they are inserted in these guns. That doesn't mean that they are not there nor that they are not scary LCM's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

What do you mean once again? If you have a question in another thread ask it there.

In this one, as I already explained, the guns I showed HAVE their LCM's inserted.

Why are you once again lying about that fact? You can't see the LCM's when they are inserted in these guns. That doesn't mean that they are not there nor that they are not scary LCM's.

RUGER N.R.A. SPECIAL EDITION 10/22 NEW IN BOX UNFIRED MUST SEE
NEW THIS WEEK!
THIS IS A DAVIS SPECIAL 10/22 IN CAMO WITH FIBER OPTIC SITES, ALL NEW IN ORIGINAL BOX COMES WITH N.R.A. SPEICAL CASE AS SHOWN,1 10 ROUND MAGAZINE 1 25 ROUND RUGER MAGAZINE, SCOPE MOUNT,SHOULDER STRAP, ...Click for more info
Seller: ANTIQUESBYUS
Quote

(Jocal to Pooplius, a repeat) If you didn't have no dis-honesty, you wouldn't have no honesty at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to even wade into such waters but the guys at Medical Triage did a very nice overall assessment of the impact of gun regulation on health.  They go out of their way to be as neutral on the topic and present the evidence.  They do a really good job IMHO.  One of the more interesting studies looked at the age of guns used to commit crimes in California before and after their recent restrictions.  His last 3 minutes are particularly worth listening too IMHO.

 

 

 

 

This video is the one on suicide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Why don't both of the LCM's merit red ink, Joe?

Hmmm. Ruger markets a 25 round mag, right with the new gun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

This week, you posted a innocent-looking long gun picture, failing to display the offending feature within the .22 weapon, an LCM receiver. When corrected you didn't man up. (You played boring, coy, girly games about your deception.)

 


Actually, I posted the picture in January.

And, as I have now pointed out three times, it DOES display the 10 round LCM. At least, as much of it as can usually be seen.

You have never "corrected" that fact because you can't. It's a fact.

I posted the gun we own, in its standard configuration, because it's among those to be banned in the proposed law.

What is so deceptive about posting a picture of the gun that grabbers want to ban in the configuration to be banned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Actually, I posted the picture in January.

And, as I have now pointed out three times, it DOES display the 10 round LCM. At least, as much of it as can usually be seen.

You have never "corrected" that fact because you can't. It's a fact.

I posted the gun we own, in its standard configuration, because it's among those to be banned in the proposed law.

What is so deceptive about posting a picture of the gun that grabbers want to ban in the configuration to be banned?

Praline and dick flavor ^^^.Try to avoid half-truths. Or accept the trashy reputation you have built. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2017 at 3:07 PM, jocal505 said:

I still know very little about guns.

This is probably THE truest and most relevant thing you've ever posted here.  Most people at this point of their self-awareness curve would tell themselves to STFU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

This is probably THE truest and most relevant thing you've ever posted here.  Most people at this point of their self-awareness curve would tell themselves to STFU.

Are you here to share your breakthrough Heller insights? 

Quote

 Sportbloat Jeff  On 3/7/2012 at 6:04 AM, JBSF said:

I don't pay that close attention to the SC rulings, but did Heller v DC only limit the ruling to inside the home? I didn't realize it was that narrow. Or even worse that there is a distinction between inside and outside a property.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2017 at 0:09 PM, jocal505 said:

Hmmm. Ruger markets a 25 round mag, right with the new gun. 

No they don't. One private seller did, but he's not the company. You really do know zip about this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No they don't. One private seller did, but he's not the company. You really do know zip about this subject.

EBAY ALERT

Hi to flakey boi. Hi to the daily fib factory.  "Special Edition" Notice. Post 344

To: All Hollywood Rednecks: This Ruger product was marketed in at least one offer, "new in the box," one un-fired Davis-modded Ruger 10-22, complete with an OEM 25-round LCM. This Ruger's LCM comes unscratched, in bubble wrap.

 

 

If Pooplius didn't have no praline and dick flavoring he wouldn't have no aftertaste at all.

NGS Trailer Park.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Is this better?

Scary22AWsw.jpg

Still deceitful, Poopius.

 

From Bing images (where it shows your pic too).  file: Ruger 10/22.

ruger 10-22 with sling.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No they don't. One private seller did, but he's not the company. You really do know zip about this subject.

Tom, why don't you give me a 10-22 and you start running, so we can see how seriously you take this weapon?

I'll give you a good head start.

I have personally sent to Jesus, quite a few largish feral pigs with a 22 LR.  Takes a few rounds sometimes but they do die.  Dangerous fucking weapon no matter what colour it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, set random up with the Ebay offer (the "NRA Special Edition"). Out of the box, it gives him 35 chances to put negligible .22 LR lead in your ass. I can gopro your nonchalance from the Golf Cart of Death, at speed, while tossing out Diet Cokes. Pics to Rivas or it never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also guessing, (no personal experience in this) that toddlers are not very 22 proof.  You know, those that find mum or dad's weapon lying about and decide to play cowboys and indians with their siblings.

But maybe Tom doesn't care about toddlers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Is this better?

Scary22AWsw.jpg

Still deceitful, Poopius.

But why? It's just a picture of guns to be banned by the topic law. You may want to pretend they are not covered or falsely imply that only bigger magazines than the ones shown would be banned by the topic law, but I see nothing "deceitful" about showing pictures of the guns to be banned in a thread about a gun ban.

Random, why do you pretend that a typical Aussie like yourself would be allowed to own battlefield weapons like these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, random said:

I'm also guessing, (no personal experience in this) that toddlers are not very 22 proof.  You know, those that find mum or dad's weapon lying about and decide to play cowboys and indians with their siblings.

But maybe Tom doesn't care about toddlers.

You misunderstand this fine man. He is a grandpa. (Well, his grandkids have a great grandmother who is armed.)

Plus, he teaches his gun rules to the neighbor boys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, random said:

But maybe Tom doesn't care about toddlers.

I'm hoping to include them in benwynn's elderly-elimination program. Can't feed yourself? OUT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Random, why do you pretend that a typical Aussie like yourself would be allowed to own battlefield weapons like these?

One large boar I killed with two head shots from a 22 LR, had a projectile embedded in the armour plate they grow over the shoulder parts.  We dug it out with a knife to see what it was.  But the pig's head was not armoured enough.

We had the 22s to harvest Kangaroos at night, spotlights and scopes.  Roos are very sensitive to 22 projectiles to the head I found.  The ammo is cheap and effective.  It would be pretty effective on a human head, but I'm guessing of course.

They should be banned, good that they were, fucking dangerous things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, random said:

One large boar I killed with two head shots from a 22 LR, had a projectile embedded in the armour plate they grow over the shoulder parts.  We dug it out with a knife to see what it was.  But the pig's head was not armoured enough.

We had the 22s to harvest Kangaroos at night, spotlights and scopes.  Roos are very sensitive to 22 projectiles to the head I found.  The ammo is cheap and effective.  It would be pretty effective on a human head, but I'm guessing of course.

They should be banned, good that they were, fucking dangerous things.

So are you pretending that you were allowed to own a semi-auto?

What should you have been using, if the gun you were using should have been banned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So are you pretending that you were allowed to own a semi-auto?

What should you have been using, if the gun you were using should have been banned?

That was pre-1996.  I gladly sold the guns to the government for good money after I discovered how dangerous they really were!  Well there was that and ... and, well, I grew up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, random said:

I gladly sold the guns to the government for good money after I discovered how dangerous they really were! 

Did this "discovery" happen to coincide with the government requirement that you get rid of your battlefield weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Did this "discovery" happen to coincide with the government requirement that you get rid of your battlefield weapons?

Did this "growing up" occur in spite of the swamp gas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎31‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 2:09 AM, jocal505 said:

Hmmm. Ruger markets a 25 round mag, right with the new gun. 

No they don't all new 10/22' come with a 10 round mag

http://www.ruger.com/products/1022/overview.html

I prefer the SR 22 rifle it's black to make bedwetters like you even more scared even though it uses the exact same parts for the action barrel etc, as they say once you go black you will never go back.

http://www.ruger.com/products/sr22Rifle/models.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

I prefer the SR 22 rifle it's black to make bedwetters like you even more scared even though it uses the exact same parts for the action barrel etc, as they say once you go black you will never go back.

http://www.ruger.com/products/sr22Rifle/models.html

 

Whenever I see guns like that, I always think of the plastic cars from Tokyo Drift.

 

TokyoDriftMovie.us1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

No they don't all new 10/22' come with a 10 round mag

http://www.ruger.com/products/1022/overview.html

No, all accessories offered by any manufacturer are actually standard. Just ask Joe. He saw it on eBay, so that means it must be true and anyone who has actually bought one (like my wife) and knows better just deserves to be insulted again. It's what all the smart people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damn gun, meaning the Ruger 10/22, takes LCM's, eh? As demonstrated, the model is available in today's market by a common supplier, complete with a new, trademarked, Ruger brand, 25-round LCM. The Ruger 10-22 is a banana clip model, but was not presented as one. 

You want standard clips ONLY represented, you say? The Mini 14 is also a banana clip model, and was  presented (by yourself) in a photo without its standard clip. (Dishonesty.)

I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The damn gun, meaning the Ruger 10/22, takes LCM's, eh?

Asked and answered:

Scary22AWsw.jpg

 

For more fun with scary rifles, how about this: can you spot the assault weapon in this picture?

marlins-99.jpg

That's right, it's the one with the fixed LCM. The same model that New Jersey gave to Joseph Pelleteri before they later declared it an assault weapon and took it.

Is that the model of assault weapon that you own, Joe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An Assault weapon is a gun that could be used to Assault one or more people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

An Assault weapon is a gun that could be used to Assault one or more people.

That seems to be a general consensus of our grabbers.

Here's a list of guns that they don't think should be banned:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That seems to be a general consensus of our grabbers.

Here's a list of guns that they don't think should be banned:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So how many people dead from gunshot wounds is tolerable Tom?  One at a time from a single shot is ok?  Five at a time from a small clip?  Is one toddler shot in the head from one of the guns lying about the house ok by you?

How many dead people is the allowable limit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, random said:

So how many people dead from gunshot wounds is tolerable Tom?  One at a time from a single shot is ok?  Five at a time from a small clip?  Is one toddler shot in the head from one of the guns lying about the house ok by you?

How many dead people is the allowable limit?

Gun deaths per Gun Violence Archives (excluding 22,000 suicides/yr average)

2014 12,547

2015 13,474

2016 14,941 Up 16% in three years

 

Teens killed or injured (ages 12-17, not incl suicides)

2014 2,330

2015 2,693

2016 3,096 Up 25% in three years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, random said:

So how many people dead from gunshot wounds is tolerable Tom?  One at a time from a single shot is ok?  Five at a time from a small clip?  Is one toddler shot in the head from one of the guns lying about the house ok by you?

How many dead people is the allowable limit?

Depends how many needed shooting.

Yes, one at a time from a single shot is OK.

Five at a time from a small magazine would be OK too.

Most toddlers don't need shooting and the ones that do are generally on airplanes, where it's not allowed, so I'd say no to your third question.

There's no limit on allowable dead people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no limit on allowable dead people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

There's no limit on allowable dead people?

Not that I'm aware of, no. It seems like a weird question. Do you know of one? Who sets it? And how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The public health sector. They declared gun violence to be of epidemic proportion.

July 2016, Pooplius:

Quote

American Medical Association Calls Gun Violence a Public Health Crisis

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-14/ama-calls-gun-violence-a-public-health-crisis

 

We the people won't allow this level carnage, and the disinformation which causes it.

Quote

(Front Page) NYT Dec, 2015 , End the Gun Epidemic in America

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/gun-debate-yields-page-1-editorial.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. So there is an allowable level of carnage? What is it? And who sets it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I see. So there is an allowable level of carnage? What is it? And who sets it?

You DON'T see. You make a point of not grasping the outcome of your policies. Kooks like you are causing gun confiscation now. 

Hey Goofball. You kinda need to correct your idea that no country set up a legal format to fight tyrants. That right was well understood by the FF. It was a mature process, for mature citizens. Hamilton referenced this English right in Fed 29.

Halbrook leaves the process out unfortunately, to make individual insurrection shit up.

 

Quote

 WILLIAM HENRY DRAYTON, THE CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY (Apr. 23, 1776),

See p 438, Cleveland State Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2009 

 Drayton reminded the jury that the forefathers of the Glorious Revolution vested the protections of the 1689 Declaration of Rights and that the Revolution established an affirmative right of the people to usurp the government when their unalienable rights were ruined.621 He catalogued the “attempts to enslave America” by “king and parliament” prior to hostilities, 622

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

...

 

For more fun with scary rifles, how about this: can you spot the assault weapon in this picture?

marlins-99.jpg

That's right, it's the one with the fixed LCM. The same model that New Jersey gave to Joseph Pelleteri before they later declared it an assault weapon and took it.

Is that the model of assault weapon that you own, Joe?

How about answering a question that's relevant to the thread, Joe.

Is that the model of assault weapon that you own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

How about answering a question that's relevant to the thread, Joe.

Is that the model of assault weapon that you own?

Sillyness in inappropriate at the moment. You have made four untruthful statements since Aug. 9, each while quoting The Federalist 29. You evidently lack the understanding of the background of Hamilton's comment. Don't you owe the community an honest correction?  

Multiple Pooplius fibs can be gathered into a pile now. They need correction. You need to keep up mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2017 at 2:48 PM, random said:

That was pre-1996.  I gladly sold the guns to the government for good money after I discovered how dangerous they really were!  Well there was that and ... and, well, I grew up.

Let me translate for randummy.....  "I sold my weapons to the gov't so I could buy some weed..... and well I shit my pants at the power and danger of the .22LR.   So in summary, I'm a hipster Fag."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sold my semi-auto guns because I am a law abiding citizen.  In addition I do give a fuck about the society I live in and I a willing to play my part in making it safer for everyone else.

You and the other gun-nuts are only interested in yourselves, scared of black men, scared of your white neightbours and have to have more guns than they do to stop pissing you pants in bed.  Scared of everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, random said:

I sold my semi-auto guns because I am a law abiding citizen.  In addition I do give a fuck about the society I live in and I a willing to play my part in making it safer for everyone else.

You and the other gun-nuts are only interested in yourselves, scared of black men, scared of your white neightbours and have to have more guns than they do to stop pissing you pants in bed.  Scared of everything.

Were you scared that you would make your society less safe by being Uncooperative and keeping your guns when told to turn them in?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2017 at 3:03 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Were you scared that you would make your society less safe by being Uncooperative and keeping your guns when told to turn them in?

Are you supporting lawbreaking down under now? Not just in four or five U.S. states? Are you going intercontinental in promoting lawlessness?

Did you read the post you quoted? In that post, random stated that he acted to support "law abiding" and  "safer."  Nothing wrong with that. 

Quote

 I a(m) willing to play my part in making it safer for everyone else.

Tom, what is the point of your support of "uncooperative behavior" in the Southern Hemisphere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just asked a question. It seemed from his post, which I did read, that he feared his gun would "make it less safe for everyone else." So I asked whether that perception was correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I just asked a question. It seemed from his post, which I did read, that he feared his gun would "make it less safe for everyone else." So I asked whether that perception was correct.

I see. You are NOT promoting being "Uncooperative" (your term) in the Southern Hemisphere You just need random to explain more than once why he followed his gun laws.

Quote

I sold my semi-auto guns because I am a law abiding citizen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I just asked a question. It seemed from his post, which I did read, that he feared his gun would "make it less safe for everyone else." So I asked whether that perception was correct.

Yes it would be less safe with my guns at my place. 

Study: Guns in home increase suicide, homicide risk

They could be stolen and fall into the hands of criminals.  One of my family could somehow find them and harm themselves or someone else.  So yeah, it would have been less safe if I had not handed them in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2017 at 4:07 PM, Happy said:

...........................

 

.....and occasional outbreaks of alligator rape.....

they do like their Gator Tail now don't they... The FWC is working on the consent form now but also said  between August 15th and Nov 1st. that SMS mesg will be accepted if sent along with a photo of the willing Gator for ID purposes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, random said:

They could be stolen and fall into the hands of criminals.  One of my family could somehow find them and harm themselves or someone else.  So yeah, it would have been less safe if I had not handed them in.

But those things are not a problem for the ones you kept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess government approval makes guns safe. Random's approved guns can't fall into the hands of criminals or family members. Good thing he has the nanny state to keep himself and his family safe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2017 at 6:36 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

 

 

Quote

After two mass shootings in the state, some Florida lawmakers want an all-out ban on assault rifles.

 

Florida would join a small handful of states in the Northeast and California if it passed a ban.

 

The legislation calls for banning assault-style automatic rifles.

 

...

 

"When I hear the debate, I'm usually pretty shocked because in Canada we don't have assault rifles. They're not allowed," said Chris Wilson

 

 

Eh?

 

The bill bans a variety of gun models by name. I support one of those: the shotgun called the Streetsweeper. My respect for first and second amendment rights has limits and those idiots deserve to have their gun banned just for giving it that name. Maybe I should be Streetsweeper Tom next? But I digress...

 

What the bill actually does is create a closed registry for lots of ordinary rifles, including two we own. If we get our certificate of possession in time, current voters could keep guns purchased before this coming July. But we would be the last generation of voters able to own these scary "assault style automatic rifles." <---FAKE NEWS

 

The proposed legislation is here.

 

This part covers my wife's Ruger 10-22, a pretty ordinary semi-automatic .22 caliber squirrel shooter. I don't know if Canadians are allowed to have those but I'm going to assume they are just for fun.

Quote

a. A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

(I) A folding or telescoping stock;

(II) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon or any feature functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand...

 

 

 

And this part covers my dad's old .22 rifle because the tube magazine holds more than ten rounds.

 

Quote
d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

 

 

Another part of the definitions specifically say that a tubular magazine on a .22 rifle is not a "large capacity" magazine, so it's not covered by that section, but it's still covered under the definition of an "assault weapon."

 

Quote
(3) POSSESSION.—
(a) Except as provided in subsection (5), any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine, except as provided in this section or as otherwise authorized by law, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, with a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 1 year.

 

 

I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on what I believe is an error in that part. It's actually subsection (4) that covers legal possession by current voters (but not their descendants). Subsection 5 covers legal transfers to a dealer. Anyway, I assume that would be corrected if this had a snowball's chance in hell of passing, which, thankfully, it does not.

 

Anyway, it bans provides for a reasonable regulatory prohibition of assault weapons (as defined above) OR "large capacity" magazines. (You're welcome, Raz'r.)

 

Undeterred by the fact that the NY SAFE Act's provision banning magazines holding more than 7 rounds was thrown out as unconstitutional, this proposal contains that definition of "large capacity" magazine.

 

I don't really think of my wife's .22 gun as a scary "assault style automatic rifle." I don't even think of it as a scary assault style semi-automatic rifle, despite the black furniture she put on it. Yes, even though the factory supplied ten round magazine is defined as "large" so we could not avoid the ban just by putting the original wood furniture back on the gun.

 

I don't think of my dad's old .22 as an "assault weapon" either, despite the definition posted above. I guess it's nice that they acknowledge that the magazine is on a .22 and so is not "large capacity" but it could be excluded only by striking the word "rimfire" from the definition.

 

Maybe legislative compromise could result in excluding .22's from the definitions entirely. It would not matter because I'd buy lots of the guns and magazines that are covered. I'm deplorable that way.

 

 

 

The topic bill died in committee last May. Thank you, NRA.

Senator Stewart is on the job, though, and has introduced a new bill to ban ordinary .22's.

SB 196

I expect that once again, gun nutz will be the only ones to object. Fortunately, there are enough of us and we have enough to $ay to stop this nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ordinary? What is "ordinary" about a rifle that will hold seventeen rounds, and shoot eighteen?

Your state voters get to decide this matter. Then the state regulating kicks in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Ordinary? What is "ordinary" about a rifle that will hold seventeen rounds, and shoot eighteen?

You tell me. You own one.

Or, tell me why your gun should be banned. Is it a dangerous and unusual battlefield weapon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Or, tell me why your gun should be banned. Is it a dangerous and unusual battlefield weapon?

Girdle been in a twist for ten months? About little or nothing?

(ZZzzzz...yawn...rubs eyes...)  Asked and answered. Some states may not want shootouts with eighteen uninterrupted rounds, I guess. My state is not one of them.

Quote

You tell me. You own one.

So what? IIRC, way back when, you said your dad had one of these Marlins, and was in your possession. Have you read any good books lately? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 9:50 PM, jocal505 said:

Ordinary? What is "ordinary" about a rifle that will hold seventeen rounds, and shoot eighteen?

Ordinary?  The AR-15 is the most commonly sold rifle in the US.  Has been for many years now.  It's probably more "ordinary" these days than your .22 AW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Asked and answered. Some states may not want shootouts with eighteen uninterrupted rounds, I guess. My state is not one of them.

So you don't have an opinion unless a government gives it to you?

That explains a lot.

I don't think there's anything particularly dangerous and unusual about your gun. I've never seen one on a battlefield. Those are the Kolbe criteria for banning, right? I mean, other than the one that was unanimously overturned in Caetano.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So you don't have an opinion unless a government gives it to you?

That explains a lot.

I don't think there's anything particularly dangerous and unusual about your gun. I've never seen one on a battlefield. Those are the Kolbe criteria for banning, right? I mean, other than the one that was unanimously overturned in Caetano.

I dunno - you guys wanted a personal right. State Legislators LOVE regulating personal rights....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So you don't have an opinion unless a government gives it to you?

That explains a lot.

I don't think there's anything particularly dangerous and unusual about your gun. I've never seen one on a battlefield

Those are the Kolbe criteria for banning, right?

Correct. You are childishly conflating Kolbe objections to the objections of NJ State law.

Quote

I mean, other than the one that was unanimously overturned in Caetano

 

Keep us posted. That decision was brief, far from sweeping. This case was sent back to state superior court, where they will restrict Ms.Caetano from open carrying her stun gun. 

Here's the good news first

Quote

 

"Just recently, in Caetano v, Massachusetts, the Court reiterated two points made by Heller:

--first, "that the Second Amendment 'extends…to…arms…that were  in existence at the time of the founding,"; and,

--second, that there is no merit to "the proposition 'that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.'"

 Meanwhile, the Heller majority said nothing to confirm that it was sponsoring the popularity test. Nevertheless, our dissenting colleagues also claim support for the popularity test from the recent two-justice concurring opinion in Caetano, which propounded that, under Heller, “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” See Caetano, 136 S. Ct. at 1031 (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment).

 

Kolbe was able to benefit from your Caetano decision

Quote

If the majority were correct, then any state “would be free to ban all weapons except handguns, because handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” Caetano, 136 S. Ct. 1032

 

 (p90)“the carrying of  ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” has been prohibited as a matter of “historical tradition.” Id. at 627; see Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1028 (2016)

Here's what is lacking in Caetano, according to Eugene Volokh.

Quote

Caetano herself was carrying a stun gun in public, but the Massachusetts ban nor the Massachusetts high court decision distinguished home possession of a stun gun from possession in public; and though the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stated that “The conduct at issue in this case falls outside the ‘core’ of the Second Amendment, insofar as the defendant was not using the stun gun to defend herself in her home,” the court categorically said that “the Second Amendment right articulated by Heller” does not “cover stun guns,” without distinguish home possession from public possession. The Caetano Supreme Court opinion thus doesn’t decide whether the Second Amendment applies to possessing stun guns — or any other weapons — in public places.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/21/unanimous-pro-second-amendment-stun-gun-decision-from-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.73dbd2dd4d3b

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So you don't have an opinion

I try not to be bogged down by opinions. I'm open to quality information, which affects my opinions.

Quote

unless a government gives it to you?

That explains a lot.

My opinions are detached from set dogmas, and from "government" viewpoints, as such. Though skeptical, my opinions were open to the SAF five years ago. . My opinions have benefited from your fine libertarian emphasis, up to a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Ordinary?  The AR-15 is the most commonly sold rifle in the US.  Has been for many years now.  It's probably more "ordinary" these days than your .22 AW.

The discussion WAS about my plinker. The eighteen round capacity is pretty extraordinary, IMO. It seemed a bit radical to me in '76 when I got it in Albq.. If some state has a beef with the capacity, I get that. YMMV> Let each state decide. 

I'm happy that you think AR15's are "ordinary." However, such acceptance does not drive constitutionality. Kolbe explains it pretty well...

Quote

(p90)  My colleagues in the majority reject the foregoing “common use” analysis, characterizing it as a “popularity test” founded on “circular” reasoning such that “a state-of-the-art and extraordinarily lethal new weapon . . . would need only be p91 flooded on the market prior to any governmental prohibition in order to ensure it constitutional protection.”

 Meanwhile, the Heller majority said nothing to confirm that it was sponsoring the popularity test...

Jeff, please note the parsing of Pooplius's successful gun rights within Post 398, above: 

The Caetano Supreme Court opinion thus doesn’t decide whether the Second Amendment applies to possessing stun guns — or any other weapons — in public places.

Outdoor gun right discussions are in a void. They're the talk of the town, mate. You've been schooled on SAILING ANARCHY.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0