ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation

[11B4V]

Who would those people be?

Some guy named Berkut seems to be one of them.

I love it when people are so attached to their strawmen, that someone actually stating "I don't think that" doesn't even dissuade them demanding that they do...

I was wondering when the strawman defense would come out. 

[Berkut]

I may very well be making the wrong argument, but nobody would know, since neither of you have the balls to actually address my argument.

Instead you just fall back on this rather idiotic strawman.

[11B4V]

I may very well be making the wrong argument, but nobody would know, since neither of you have the balls to actually address my argument.

Instead you just fall back on this rather idiotic strawman.

Your whole argument is a strawman. I'm still here, DS is still here, so fuck your lack of balls. I will not let you off the hook with the musket reference. Your in defensive mode right now. All that's left is for you to gradually shift the discussion to some miniscule topic.


Got to go to work. See ya in 1.5 hours.

[CountDeMoney]

I can't fit 10 rounds into my revolver anyway, so it doesn't bother me a bit.

So you'd be okay with Maryland reducing the legal mag capacity to 7?

I'll have my dealer send you a copy of his FFL so you can transfer your P38 to me

Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.

And go fuck yourself with a fetus skull, Teabagger.

[derspiess]

Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.

It was??

And go fuck yourself with a fetus skull, Teabagger.

So that's a no, then?  I wanted a P38 to put next to my Tokarev

[Admiral Yi]

My point is that the founders were not familiar with the concept of a magazine, so it is clear that they could not have possibly intended for the second to cover a question about how many rounds a weapon can have in its magazine to begin with.

That isn't saying they would or would not approve had they been aware, simply that you cannot claim that a seven round limit is clearly a violation of the 2nd, while a 10 round limit is not - they had no idea about either of them, so hence could not have a viewpoint.

No, it's not clear they could not possibly have intended for the 2nd to cover the question of magazine size, just as it's not clear that they could not possibly have intended for equal protection to cover transexuals or for the 1st to cover the internet.

The much better argument is the one you switch to in the latter part of your post.  We have always recognized the possibility of limitations on our rights when the public policy objective that is the goal of those limitations is important enough. 

[11B4V]

I can't fit 10 rounds into my revolver anyway, so it doesn't bother me a bit.

So you'd be okay with Maryland reducing the legal mag capacity to 7?

I'll have my dealer send you a copy of his FFL so you can transfer your P38 to me

Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.

And go fuck yourself with a fetus skull, Teabagger.

and that's why it not an infringement on the right to bear arms. It's not an infringement on anything but opinion. Nowhere in the 2nd does it state you have the right to 15 rounds in a MAGAZINE. Hell get a Govmint model 1911. Capacity 7 rounds.

Look Ma.. no musket reference.

Most states I have lived in only allow 3 rounds loaded in a shotgun when bird hunting. I have used an old Remington Model 11 20 ga (semi-auto) since I was 12 for bird hunting. It will hold five shells in the tube if I take the plug out. The law states that cant be done and I'm allowed only three. It doesnt infringe on my right to own the shotgun and doesnt infringe on my right to hunt. Therefore any argument as to round capacity in that shotgun within the structure of the 2nd is irrelevant and only opinion.

[Berkut]

I can't fit 10 rounds into my revolver anyway, so it doesn't bother me a bit.

So you'd be okay with Maryland reducing the legal mag capacity to 7?

I'll have my dealer send you a copy of his FFL so you can transfer your P38 to me

Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.

And go fuck yourself with a fetus skull, Teabagger.

and that's why it not an infringement on the right to bear arms. It's not an infringement on anything but opinion. Nowhere in the 2nd does it state you have the right to 15 rounds in a MAGAZINE. Hell get a Govmint model 1911. Capacity 7 rounds.

I will take your concession on the argument.

The SAFE act provision restricting magazine sizes is not challengeable on second amendment grounds.

Noted that you didn't have the balls to just agree with me to begin with, and instead are doing so without actually having the courage to just say you were wrong in your idiotic characterization of my argument.

[Berkut]

I may very well be making the wrong argument, but nobody would know, since neither of you have the balls to actually address my argument.

Instead you just fall back on this rather idiotic strawman.

Your whole argument is a strawman.

My argument is that the second amendment has no bearing on the SAFE act provisions restricting magazine size. How can that be a strawman, since it is MY argument - I make no claim about anyone else's argument, except insofar as I mis-understood spiceys argument, he explained what he meant, and I agreed with him once he palced it in terms of liberal ideals of freedom, rather than second amendment ideals.

You know what? Saying I didn't understand his argument? It didn't even hurt a little bit - didn't make me feel less manly, didn't make me worry that others might not think I am smart or tough or anything. You really should try it sometime, it isn't as bad as you imagine it to be.

How could that possibly be a strawman?

Note the difference - I make an argument, you claim I said something I did not, I respond by saying I did not mean that, and you respond by insisting that I did, and that you won't even accept me saying that I don't believe that!

What is the point of this - the argument that the founding fathers only intended the 2nd to cover a musket is so infantile that nobody with half a brain would ever say that - yet you insist that in fact that MUST be what I meant, even after I simply state that it is not. Why? If you really think I am that stupid, why even bother arguing with me?

Answer: Because you know I never thought that, but want to hold onto to it because you imagine it is scoring you fake internet points?

[CountDeMoney]

Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.

It was??

I dunno, pretty sure it was something like that but I may be wrong.  Then again, I'm not a semi-auto fan, so it's not like I noticed.

[ulmont]

Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.

It was??

I dunno, pretty sure it was something like that but I may be wrong.  Then again, I'm not a semi-auto fan, so it's not like I noticed.

The Brady Bill is just the required background check, Seedy.  You're thinking of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and the cutoff was 10 rounds.

[derspiess]

Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.

It was??

I dunno, pretty sure it was something like that but I may be wrong.  Then again, I'm not a semi-auto fan, so it's not like I noticed.

The Brady Bill is just the required background check, Seedy.  You're thinking of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and the cutoff was 10 rounds.

Plus that only applied to the guns as sold.  My Glock 17 came with a 10-round magazine but in a separate transaction I bought a couple 17-round mags off the shelf in the same store.

[Berkut]

I just thought of something - with the SAFE act, my unregistered pistol is not unregistered in New York, AND has an illegal magazine!

I really should get rid of that thing...

[derspiess]

I just thought of something - with the SAFE act, my unregistered pistol is not unregistered in New York, AND has an illegal magazine!

I really should get rid of that thing...

I told you to find a gun buyback program and get yourself a nice $100 Amazon gift card for it.

[11B4V]

I can't fit 10 rounds into my revolver anyway, so it doesn't bother me a bit.

So you'd be okay with Maryland reducing the legal mag capacity to 7?

I'll have my dealer send you a copy of his FFL so you can transfer your P38 to me

Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.

And go fuck yourself with a fetus skull, Teabagger.

and that's why it not an infringement on the right to bear arms. It's not an infringement on anything but opinion. Nowhere in the 2nd does it state you have the right to 15 rounds in a MAGAZINE. Hell get a Govmint model 1911. Capacity 7 rounds.

I will take your concession on the argument.

The SAFE act provision restricting magazine sizes is not challengeable on second amendment grounds.

Noted that you didn't have the balls to just agree with me to begin with, and instead are doing so without actually having the courage to just say you were wrong in your idiotic characterization of my argument.

I "made" your arguement for you despite "your" error. Yi also point out your error more succinctly than I.  I told you, you were making the wrong arguement. I never agreed or disagreed on magazine capacties you dumb fuck. Never stated whether it was right, wrong or otherwise pior to Post #156. I disagreed with your retarded musket and founding fathers intentions BS. Scroll your fucking disingenuous pile of shit self back and check. You assumed I was on the opposite end of your arguement. Never stated I was, was I? Never made an arguement against your or anyone elses premise of the SAFE act. Another ERROR on your part. You just keep fuckin up aint ya boy.    I pointed out the idiocy you tried to spew with the musket/ FF's intentions. You, Berkut. Your idoitic error. You are a disingenuous person by your statements above.

Courage is lacked by you and your chicken shit inability to admit a mistake. Goes to your character.