DC rejects Heller's gun registration application

Two points

First, I admire Mr. Heller for his choice of firearms. Designed mostly in 1903, and slightly modified somewhat later, the 1911A1 is one of the most ingenious pieces of machinery ever devised. Here we are over 100 years after the basic design was put into play, and it still rules the Practical Pistol competitions.

Secondly, I think those who dismiss revolvers are missing a great deal. Personally I have a Springfield 1911A1 MilSpec that I have customized as my carry gun when I travel. But that is partly due to my extreme fondness of the gun. I think, as a defensive firearm, the revolver is a better choice. Its always ready to go, but always safe even when fully loaded. Typically more powerful than autoloaders. The biggest advantage to autoloaders is the increased capacity and faster reloading. The speed at reloading can be cut to a tiny difference if you practice with speedloaders. And my personal theory has always been "If you can't solve the problem with 6 rounds, you should have been running".
 
Socrtease said:
machine gun

noun

an automatic gun, usually mounted and with a cooling apparatus, firing a rapid and continuous stream of bullets.

Don't be a fucking idiot. A semi automatic is NOT a machine gun because you have to pull the trigger one time to get ONLY one bullet to come out. It fires only as fast as you can pull the trigger. A machine only requires that the trigger is pulled once and multiple rounds come out.
Click to expand...

Socrtease, I was using DC's definition of the word. I should've put quotes around it to make it apparent what context I was talking in.
 
Good Luck said:
Hey, dumbass - ever hear of the 14th Amendment? It was written specifically to address the idea of constitutional protections as applied to state governments.

Tell us, what would your take be if your state decided you don't have the right to express your opinions on the internet? Or suppose your state instituted a state religion and mandates by law you must attend religious services daily. After all,by your argument, the first Amendment is also aimed specifically at what the federal government can or cannot do.

It's disgusting how both the uber left and uber right (and in some cases, not-so-far laft and not-so-far right) seem to think their political philosophy has right to ignore the constitution where convenient while simultaneously fanatically defending those parts they believe in.

it's very simple, people. You don't like the freedoms granted by the 2nd Amendment? Don't like the limitations on the federal government (mostly ignored these days) of the 10th amendment? Then get the support you need and CHANGE them! (While those of us who believe in the need for the 2nd, and the wisdom of the 10th fight you tooth and nail all the fucking way.)

And likewise, if you don't like the 4th amendment, think you canot defend this ation properly with it in place? You don't like the way the 9th amendment gives non-enumerated rights to the people which need to be defined occasionally by the courts? Then fucking CHANGE them! (And plan on those of us who believe in their necessity and wisdom fighting you tooth and nail all the way.)
Click to expand...

Good luck, that was satire. Of course I don't think that the supreme court doesn't have this right. I was mocking the right-wing use of the phrase "judicial activism", which mainly just means a decision a court made that they happen to disagree with. In the post-incorporation world since 1865, the second amendment should apply to all states and territories.
 
must be believers in, if at first you do not succeed, then try try again


sort of like the anti-abortionists - had to slip that in just in case any of you idiots want to go round and round on the abortion debate - not that it changes anyone's mind

this from bad old crumbling around the edges - me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top