View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Aussiesuede Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 10964
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Splash1 wrote: |
Like I said, you're google skills are notable but not impressive. Your whole prior argument was that sawed off shotguns were illegal. |
Ahem no. Unless you've less that a 5th grade level of reading comprehension, by no means was my whole prior argument, as you proclaim, that sawed off shotguns were illegal. That QUESTION was a followup to trying to get Mr Hunter to explain the reason for an exception for fully automatic vs semi-automatic rifles. The WHOLE point was to get Mr Hunter to state EXACTLY what he stated and admit , in his words:
The Supreme Court has held that the second amendment protects private ownership of firearms for traditional purposes (hunting, home protection, etc.)
THAT is where the "Question" of "Why are Sawed Off Shotguns Illegal?" came from. It was a followup to the prior question in an attempt to get Me Hunter to admit that the government does indeed have authority to regulate type and place a firearm can be possessed. Can you understand that ENTIRE line of thought, or is it beyond your grasp.
This tangent that you've gone off on is BEYOND the points being argued herein. This is not, and never was, a discussion about "sawed off shotguns". This discussion is about whether or not a state government can establish a basis for the regulation of firearms in the manner the State of Hawaii is considering. Comments are to be considered in that CONTEXT since THAT is what the dang thread is about - not some cherry picked statement (that was furthur clarified because these threads are rife will folks who drop in the middle and attempt to distract) contained in a RESPONSE to another poster.
Splash1 wrote: |
The correct term is Short Barrel Shotgun (SBS) because most SBS's aren't "sawed off" nor do manufacturers saw off the barrel prior to sale. Much like a compact car isn't a sawed off full sized car. A small number of people do saw off their barrels and if going under the 18 inch limit, they get an ATF tax stamp for SBS in order to modify their existing shotgun. In case you still don't get the point...you kept going on about sawed off shotguns. I'm giving you something for future reference. |
Didn't you just say you were not an expert by any means, then you state this stuff that pretty much only a gun nut would know the details of? Who's being pretentious exactly? _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 10964
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DuncanIdaho wrote: | Aussiesuede wrote: | Splash1 wrote: | Aussiesuede wrote: | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Aussiesuede wrote: | Explain the rationale as to why you can own the SAME rifle in non fully automatic vs not a fully automatic version?
What, in your view, gives the government the right to restrict your right to own one vs the other? |
The Supreme Court has held that the second amendment protects private ownership of firearms for traditional purposes (hunting, home protection, etc.). The Supreme Court also said that the government retains power to impose at least some restrictions on types of firearms and where you can take a firearm. So far, the lower courts have upheld restrictions on automatic weapons.
But you already know this. You're just making another goofy argument about the second amendment. Oh, yeah, the founding fathers must have been thinking about bows and arrows. Sheesh. |
So why is a sawed off shotgun illegal? That would be about the most useful weapon next to the bed for home protection? Why can the government restrict you from possessing this clearly useful version of the weapon just because they are afraid of it's effectiveness if used against them, even though a legal gun owner would never use it against them? Why should criminals use of this version of the weapon be allowed to place restrictions upon law abiding citizens? |
Can you please stop pretending you know what you're talking about? So you can google a bit but that doesn't make you knowledgeable in this particular subject. Sawing off the barrel of a shotgun is not illegal as long as it's not under 18 inches per NFA law. And not all SBS (short barrel shotgun) has a barrel sawed off. Many come that way from the factory as an NFA item. It's not all that useful either unless concealability and or close range damage is the only reason for use. The SBS platform is not very sought after. |
Geese,
Calm down and read forward a few posts to where I stated that sawed off shotguns were not illegal. Shooting your (bleep) before gathering all available info just makes her not return your calls. |
Am I missing something here? |
Yes, you missed this part:
Quote: | FWIW, Sawed off shotguns are only outright banned in 9 states |
The fact that there are disparate laws in each state addressing the legality (ie, some out right illegal, and others potentially legal) goes straight to the point that state governments do indeed have an authority to regulate firearms in a disparate manner and what's to be decided here is whether or not the State of Hawaii is exceeding it's governmental authority in it's attempt to balance the states rights vs a individuals constitutional rights. As of today, THIS particular issue has yet to be definitively decided. _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144432 Location: The Gold Coast
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DaMuleRules wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
You might want to do some investigation, but the vast majority of gun deaths in this country do not tie to gang members or terrorists and actually are sourced back to regular "law abiding" people. |
If someone shoots someone else they aren't law abiding. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144432 Location: The Gold Coast
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DaMuleRules wrote: | DuncanIdaho wrote: | DaMuleRules wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
You might want to do some investigation, but the vast majority of gun deaths in this country do not tie to gang members or terrorists and actually are sourced back to regular "law abiding" people. |
The majority of gun deaths are actually suicides. |
Most of whom aren't criminals . . . unfortunately. |
So what would be the point of them having insurance? _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 10964
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | DaMuleRules wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
You might want to do some investigation, but the vast majority of gun deaths in this country do not tie to gang members or terrorists and actually are sourced back to regular "law abiding" people. |
If someone shoots someone else they aren't law abiding. |
This isn't an attack, but rather a genuine question.
When you see someone put quotation marks around a word or phrase in the manner that DaMuleRules did with "Law Abiding" what do you believe the purpose of taking such an action is?
I'm afraid that some folks simply don't grasp the point of making statements in that manner, although I'd previously assumed it to be something that was universally understood. I may be wrong in that estimation? _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 10964
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | DaMuleRules wrote: | DuncanIdaho wrote: | DaMuleRules wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
You might want to do some investigation, but the vast majority of gun deaths in this country do not tie to gang members or terrorists and actually are sourced back to regular "law abiding" people. |
The majority of gun deaths are actually suicides. |
Most of whom aren't criminals . . . unfortunately. |
So what would be the point of them having insurance? |
To more seamlessly pay the bills which result from an innocent being on the receiving end of a gun owners bullet. Also, those with prior incidents would be identified through the risk assessment process of insurance companies and correctly assess higher premiums to those who are at greater risk to shoot someone.
What's the point of having a gun "registered"? (I better be abundantly clear, that's a rhetorical question.)
More seamlessly is highlighted for a reason. _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144432 Location: The Gold Coast
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aussiesuede wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | DaMuleRules wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
You might want to do some investigation, but the vast majority of gun deaths in this country do not tie to gang members or terrorists and actually are sourced back to regular "law abiding" people. |
If someone shoots someone else they aren't law abiding. |
This isn't an attack, but rather a genuine question.
When you see someone put quotation marks around a word or phrase in the manner that DaMuleRules did with "Law Abiding" what do you believe the purpose of taking such an action is?
I'm afraid that some folks simply don't grasp the point of making statements in that manner, although I'd previously assumed it to be something that was universally understood. I may be wrong in that estimation? |
You are wrong about quite a bit. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 10964
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | Aussiesuede wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | DaMuleRules wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
You might want to do some investigation, but the vast majority of gun deaths in this country do not tie to gang members or terrorists and actually are sourced back to regular "law abiding" people. |
If someone shoots someone else they aren't law abiding. |
This isn't an attack, but rather a genuine question.
When you see someone put quotation marks around a word or phrase in the manner that DaMuleRules did with "Law Abiding" what do you believe the purpose of taking such an action is?
I'm afraid that some folks simply don't grasp the point of making statements in that manner, although I'd previously assumed it to be something that was universally understood. I may be wrong in that estimation? |
You are wrong about quite a bit. |
Ouch,
So When you see someone put quotation marks around a word or phrase in the manner that DaMuleRules did with "Law Abiding" what do you believe the purpose of taking such an action is? _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52624 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | DaMuleRules wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
You might want to do some investigation, but the vast majority of gun deaths in this country do not tie to gang members or terrorists and actually are sourced back to regular "law abiding" people. |
If someone shoots someone else they aren't law abiding. |
Guess you missed the quotation marks (or intentionally ignored them).
You're a smart guy, so you shouldn't need the point laid out for you, And since you are purposely missing the point to be argumentative, I'm not going to waste my time responding to a troll post. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52624 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | Aussiesuede wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | DaMuleRules wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | Does anyone seriously think that gang members or terrorists will insure their weapons? And how would the government know who even owns guns if they decide on some enforcement action? |
You might want to do some investigation, but the vast majority of gun deaths in this country do not tie to gang members or terrorists and actually are sourced back to regular "law abiding" people. |
If someone shoots someone else they aren't law abiding. |
This isn't an attack, but rather a genuine question.
When you see someone put quotation marks around a word or phrase in the manner that DaMuleRules did with "Law Abiding" what do you believe the purpose of taking such an action is?
I'm afraid that some folks simply don't grasp the point of making statements in that manner, although I'd previously assumed it to be something that was universally understood. I may be wrong in that estimation? |
You are wrong about quite a bit. |
He's not wrong in this case.
You are though - and that's definitely a pattern for you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005 Posts: 10964
|
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More jurisdictions jumping on the insurance bandwagon:
Quote: | Hawaii, New Hampshire, New York, and Los Angeles are all considering mandatory gun liability insurance for gun owners. Should the four states manage to implement the legislation, violators could face fines of up to $10,000.
The gun liability insurance measures are similar to a provision in a bill proposed last year in Congress by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York. Maloney’s “Firearm Risk Protection Act” would require individuals to secure proof of liability insurance before they can purchase a firearm; failure to produce proof would result in a fine.
Hawaii’s proposal is very similar to Maloney’s bill, in that gun owners are required to have insurance for their firearms. The bill, proposed by State Sen. Josh Green, also requires gun owners to renew their registration every five years. The state currently requires guns to be registered, but the registration process is only done once and never again.
Rep. Katherine Rogers, D-Merrimack proposed an identical bill for the state of New Hampshire, requiring the seller, purchaser, and owner of a gun to be covered by a liability policy. The bill also has the same proposed fine of $10,000 for those gun owners caught without insurance.
In New York, the proposed legislation would require gun owners to maintain $250,000 in liability insurance coverage.
Los Angeles County officials are deliberating on whether they should implement more stringent gun control regulations. On top of an insurance requirement, the county is considering imposing local tax on firearms. |
Appetite for Gun Insurance Growing _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|