Girly Man?

[ra]

Originally posted by fd ski
How may crimes were commited in United States using Nuclear Weapons ? Is there a reason why i can't have one ?
Only criminals will have nuclear weapons this way !!!!

Wow, a rolleyes.   That must mean you made a good point.

In the US it is not customary to pass a law restricting the rights of citizens unless there is some public benefit.  Is an unwieldy .50 really more useful to a criminal than a .308 hunting rifle?  Or than a shotgun?  Obviously not, as criminals have not used the .50 to commit crimes.  This law just lets Arnold position himself as a moderate, the people of California are no safer because of it.

ra

[lazs2]

fifty caliber ammo was allready illegal to import or sell in the country..  the democrat controled state of California and the finestein boxer witch's have a real anti gun agenda.      Arnold needs to give some concession to em or he will get nothing back... he probly feels that since the ammo was banned allready and it affects so few gun owners...  And.. I don't think arnie really knows much about guns in any case.

I dissagree with his stance even tho I am not at this time interested in the fifties but..

fd... you flaming socialist... how many people own nukes?   lots of people own rfity calibers and they are completely problem free.  why are you against fifty caliber weapons?  what is the reason?

see how this incrementalism works?   demonize one type of gun then go after the next and then the next until the country gets used to the idea that the gun is the problem...  

lazs

[AKIron]

Is it only rifles that are banned? What about this baby?

[lazs2]

the reasoning that finestein and company used to try to get the ban passed for years now is....  that the rifle could kill from miles away and penetrate the armor of armored limos.

in other words... the government... the ruling class feared em as a threat to them... not to ordinary citizens... unless you consider citizens who travel in armored limos "ordinary" of course.

the ruling class fears these weapons.   I don't know how the case was presented to Arnie but my guess is that he wanted some co operation from the democrat controled government.



lazs

[Wanker]

Originally posted by lazs2

in other words... the government... the ruling class feared em as a threat to them... not to ordinary citizens... unless you consider citizens who travel in armored limos "ordinary" of course.

the ruling class fears these weapons.  
lazs

Lazs, if you vote for President Bush this fall, doesn't that make you a supporter of the ruling class?

[lazs2]

yes... it probly does but... the alternative is to vote for a quicker slide into socialism.   I will admit to voting against kerrie and the socialist womanly democratic party more than actually voting for Bush.  

I believe that is how most Americans really see it and that is why the election will go the way it will.

lazs

[gofaster]

So no more WW2 movies will be made in California?

[capt. apathy]

Originally posted by AKIron
Is it only rifles that are banned? What about this baby?

I think you're ok for now.
 I doubt that cannon is chambered for the .50-BMG.

[Saurdaukar]

The BMG?  No, of course not... but if it was... oh baby what a pop that would make, eh?

Youd hit yourself in the face with the pistol after you pulled the trigger.

[AKIron]

Don't know if you've ever seen one of the S&W 500's but they are big enough so that there's no need to shoot anyone with it, just reach out and tap 'em.

[Terror]

This is just wrong. A single shot rifle banned. And to think a 300 Win Mag or 300 Remington Ultra Mag are more accurate and deadly at extreme ranges than the .50 Cal. The Anti-Gun groups are just nibbling away caliber by caliber.

We need to get these laws in court and have them struck down as unconstitutional.

Terror

[Ohio330]

Originally posted by Blooz
Unconstitutional.

I wish someone would challenge Californias disregard for Federal law.

You can ban the import, sale, transportation, manufacture and ammunition but you can't ban ownership of a firearm.

California gun owners. Stand up!

Your state law cannot violate Federal law!

  States are allowed to make any law they want unless it
is in conflict with federal law.  Your above statement lacks merit because there IS no federal law that  allows assault weapons... just a law that expired DISallowing it.

  No federal law= no conflict= constitutional

[lasersailor184]

That's the S&W 500.  Not quite as powerful as the BMG.

[Terror]

Originally posted by Ohio330
States are allowed to make any law they want unless it
is in conflict with federal law.  Your above statement lacks merit because there IS no federal law that  allows assault weapons... just a law that expired DISallowing it.

  No federal law= no conflict= constitutional

Federal Law can conflict with the Constitution just the same as a State Law.  States are allowed to make laws as long as they do not conflict with Federal Law OR the US Constitution.

The Second Amendment says:

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.

This does not say "Arms=small caliber rifles" nor does it say "arms != assault rifles".  I would say any state law that says you cannot own a firearm (even of a specific type) is definitely in conflict with the US Constitution.  

It also says "the right of the people".  This means all law-abiding citizens, not just law enforcement or military people.

I think the only way for the government(State or Federal) to "Constitutionally" ban firearms from law-abiding citizens would be to amend the Constitution.  Otherwise, the Second Amendment is pretty clear.  You cannot infringe the RIGHT of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.

Terror

[Ohio330]

Originally posted by Terror
Federal Law can conflict with the Constitution just the same as a State Law.  States are allowed to make laws as long as they do not conflict with Federal Law OR the US Constitution.

The Second Amendment says:


This does not say "Arms=small caliber rifles" nor does it say "arms != assault rifles".  I would say any state law that says you cannot own a firearm (even of a specific type) is definitely in conflict with the US Constitution.  

It also says "the right of the people".  This means all law-abiding citizens, not just law enforcement or military people.

I think the only way for the government(State or Federal) to "Constitutionally" ban firearms from law-abiding citizens would be to amend the Constitution.  Otherwise, the Second Amendment is pretty clear.  You cannot infringe the RIGHT of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.

Terror

  I see what your saying and agree with you.  But unless the Feds
take issue with it, nothing will happen.
   Secondly, one can argue by saying  "here's your snub-nosed .38..  your all set"
    Thirdly, I gather that your opinion is that the feds violated the constitution banning the assault weapons was unconstitutional.
No court took issue with that one (that I'm aware of anyways),
or if they did, it's obvious it wasn't found to be unconstitutional.
  Btw, I'm pro-gun myself, so don't get me wrong.  I personally feal that if ya wanna own a TANK you should have the right to do so.  Im glad my state recently alllowed CCW.  The only thing this adds to the pool is HONEST and LAW abiding people having guns..not more criminals (they had em anyways)