FIRE MISSION ASSAULT WEAPON BAN HEARING 2/14 @3PM (Read 26212 times)

changemyoil66

Re: FIRE MISSION ASSAULT WEAPON BAN HEARING 2/14 @3PM
« Reply #120 on: February 20, 2024, 09:37:45 AM »
Forgot to add that Komrade Karl asked this for a 2nd time

"A knife to a nuke/bomb, where do we draw the line?  I think assault rifles is the line".

Heller and Cayatano SCOTUS ruling states otherwise. "in common use" is the line. Cayatano was about stun/tasers and 200,000 are in common use, thus protected by the 2a. There are 24,000,000 "assault rifles" in common use and more magazines.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: FIRE MISSION ASSAULT WEAPON BAN HEARING 2/14 @3PM
« Reply #121 on: February 20, 2024, 10:43:54 AM »
Forgot to add that Komrade Karl asked this for a 2nd time

"A knife to a nuke/bomb, where do we draw the line?  I think assault rifles is the line".

Heller and Cayatano SCOTUS ruling states otherwise. "in common use" is the line. Cayatano was about stun/tasers and 200,000 are in common use, thus protected by the 2a. There are 24,000,000 "assault rifles" in common use and more magazines.

The standard is any arm which an infantry member might carry into combat.

I don't know many units issuing nukes to the infantry.  Those would be one-time deals -- guaranteed suicide for the soldier and any unit members close to him.  Nukes are not defensive weapons unless used at a very long distance against other WMDs.

The line was already drawn, and they included "weapons of war."

But that was the Heler decision prescribed by SCOTUS, and we now know their opinions don't count in the land of Aloha.   :wtf:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

3xfut

Re: FIRE MISSION ASSAULT WEAPON BAN HEARING 2/14 @3PM
« Reply #122 on: February 23, 2024, 02:37:49 PM »
Look at the state disclosures for donations. Most of the donors benefit directly or supplementally from a disarmed populace

Where can I find this?

Q

Wchiro

Re: FIRE MISSION ASSAULT WEAPON BAN HEARING 2/14 @3PM
« Reply #124 on: February 23, 2024, 04:11:38 PM »

The standard is any arm which an infantry member might carry into combat.

The line was already drawn, and they included "weapons of war."

Don't forget, a bolt action rifle with a scope on it can be called a "weapon of war"  :shake: :shake:

Flapp_Jackson

Re: FIRE MISSION ASSAULT WEAPON BAN HEARING 2/14 @3PM
« Reply #125 on: February 23, 2024, 04:16:47 PM »
Don't forget, a bolt action rifle with a scope on it can be called a "weapon of war"  :shake: :shake:

So can a 1911, a Musket and most 12 gauge pump shottys.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

changemyoil66

Re: FIRE MISSION ASSAULT WEAPON BAN HEARING 2/14 @3PM
« Reply #126 on: February 23, 2024, 04:16:52 PM »
Don't forget, a bolt action rifle with a scope on it can be called a "weapon of war"  :shake: :shake:

P320, Baretta M9, Colt 1911 M45A1 are all used in wars in the past few years.

Begle1

Re: FIRE MISSION ASSAULT WEAPON BAN HEARING 2/14 @3PM
« Reply #127 on: February 23, 2024, 07:13:57 PM »
I like to ask why police need to carry "weapons of war"?

If police carry them or have ready access to them in our community, then they must by definition have a legal and legitimate use case in our community...