Specifically to ban the AR-15 from citizens' hands.
Which gun will be next?

Congress must be irrelevant?


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560750

Bump

I'm issuing an executive order for Barry to suck my dogs dick

Obama isn't banning ARs or 5.56mm ammo. The proposed ATF regulation just bans the future sale of one type of armor piercing ammo which had been exempt from the 1986 law banning armor piercing ammo. And it's not an Executive Order either.

Just fuckem.

my executive order Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm issuing an executive order for Barry to suck
> my dogs dick


Were you absent the days they taught when to use possesive apostrophes?

The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police,

That not hard to do with any caliber, since most liberal ran PDs like to buy cheap armor protection for their cops anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBDYXW2gUlo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdmC8PWcTqk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0gIvaw_dPY


Used both the M855 and M193, you hit a rag at 0 to 100yds he fell, maybe. 100 to 300yrds they disappear or run off maybe to die or shoot back later or the next day.

Don't like them XM855 at ranges because they can bounce around especially them metal spinners or any metal target.

Well I better pick up me some green cans at Walmart.

Never Run Out of Ammo

Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People

Them or You

The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 04:46AM by Gunlover.

Almost any NATO round is going to be soft armor piercing since NATO doesn't allow hollow points.

giddyup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama isn't banning ARs or 5.56mm ammo. The
> proposed ATF regulation just bans the future sale
> of one type of armor piercing ammo which had been
> exempt from the 1986 law banning armor piercing
> ammo. And it's not an Executive Order either.

Yay! An actual sensible-person sighting.

As the braindead dumbfucks don't know either, the reclassification isn't even final yet. These gunfucks are just all tied up in an NRA-imagined right to purchase cop-killer ammo. It's laughable except for how tragic it is to have people that dumb out there loose and walking around.

Gunlover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called
> green tips, have been exempt for years...

They may not be anymore. Use in small semi-automatic weapons may have doomed them. And by the way, you are rapidly working your way up the rankings toward becoming the biggest fucking worthless braindead loser asshole on FFXU. Have a terrible day.

SCOTUS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2ndAmendment.jpg

The Second Amendment was written as part of the slave compromises needed to achieve ratification of the Constitution. It basically reassured southern states that the new and more powerful Congress would not attempt to end slavery by disarming state militias, thereby leaving slave-owners defenseless against dreaded slave uprisings, some of which occurred anyway. Indeed many of the supposed "militias" in the south were called "slave patrols" at the time.

C3Hn6 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Almost any NATO round is going to be soft armor
> piercing since NATO doesn't allow hollow points.

Does NATO fall under ATF now? I hadn't heard that...

4jbj6 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
And
> by the way, you are rapidly working your way up
> the rankings toward becoming the biggest fucking
> worthless braindead loser asshole on FFXU. Have a
> terrible day.


Don't worry gomer, you're still #1 and the top of that list and in no danger of losing the title.

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SCOTUS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 2ndAmendment.jpg
>
> The Second Amendment was written as part of the
> slave compromises needed to achieve ratification
> of the Constitution. It basically reassured
> southern states that the new and more powerful
> Congress would not attempt to end slavery by
> disarming state militias, thereby leaving
> slave-owners defenseless against dreaded slave
> uprisings, some of which occurred anyway. Indeed
> many of the supposed "militias" in the south were
> called "slave patrols" at the time.

I've heard this before and it's pure bullshit.

http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/30/the-second-amendment-was-not-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SCOTUS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 2ndAmendment.jpg
>
> The Second Amendment was written as part of the
> slave compromises needed to achieve ratification
> of the Constitution. It basically reassured
> southern states that the new and more powerful
> Congress would not attempt to end slavery by
> disarming state militias, thereby leaving
> slave-owners defenseless against dreaded slave
> uprisings, some of which occurred anyway. Indeed
> many of the supposed "militias" in the south were
> called "slave patrols" at the time.


You keep repeating this as if it will be true if you say it often enough.

Same old propaganda machine, different topic.

wuXLP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't worry gomer, you're still #1 and the top of
> that list and in no danger of losing the title.

People don't kill people. Stooge-fuck people WITH GUNS kill people.

GUNS = DEATH
MORE GUNS = MORE DEATH
NO GUNS = NO DEATH

ICanRead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've heard this before and it's pure bullshit.

No, it's spot-on accurate. Read Madison's notes. Read the anti-Federalist papers opposing ratification of the Constitution. There is absolutely no question of the 2nd Amendment's slave-related history. Except in the tripe-clogged minds of embarrassed latter-day goobers and gun-nuts.

By the way, as backers of global-warming deniers, the Independent Institute isn't really all that much of a source.

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You keep repeating this as if it will be true if you say it
> often enough. Same old propaganda machine, different topic.

It's flat-out true, as any impartial person with a capacity for historical research would quickly discover. All YOU are doing here is confirming your already well-understood status as an illiterate, uneducated, incompetent, and insignificant little dumbfuck.

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vexxxed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You keep repeating this as if it will be true if
> you say it
> > often enough. Same old propaganda machine,
> different topic.
>
> It's flat-out true, as any impartial person with a
> capacity for historical research would quickly
> discover. All YOU are doing here is confirming
> your already well-understood status as an
> illiterate, uneducated, incompetent, and
> insignificant little dumbfuck.

If it's "flat-out" (what's up with that hyphen?) true, why wasn't the 2nd done away with along with slavery?

This oughta be interesting.
Attachments:

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ICanRead Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've heard this before and it's pure bullshit.
>
> No, it's spot-on accurate. Read Madison's notes.
> Read the anti-Federalist papers opposing
> ratification of the Constitution. There is
> absolutely no question of the 2nd Amendment's
> slave-related history.

Links to the above or stfu. BTW, the anti-Federalists lost.

Matter of fact Wrote:

> No, it's spot-on accurate. Read Madison's notes.
> Read the anti-Federalist papers opposing
> ratification of the Constitution. There is
> absolutely no question of the 2nd Amendment's
> slave-related history. Except in the
> tripe-clogged minds of embarrassed latter-day
> goobers and gun-nuts.
>
> By the way, as backers of global-warming deniers,
> the Independent Institute isn't really all that
> much of a source.

Can you site which years Madison's notes and the anti-Federalist papers were ratified as the guide to how the people of the United States wanted to be governed?

I must have missed that somewhere in my studies.

Thanks.
Attachments:

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it's "flat-out" (what's up with that hyphen?)
> true, why wasn't the 2nd done away with along with
> slavery? This oughta be interesting.

Generally, hyphenate two or more words when they precede what they modify and act as a single idea, e.g., good-for-nothing asshole.

Slavery was ended by the amendments adopted after the Civil War. If you had ever managed to read the writings of the people who drafted those, you'd have known that they needed the 2nd Amendment as a pre-existing anti-racist bulwark for the arming of freed blacks in the south, all of whom were in grave peril at the hands of your forebears -- the violence-prone goober redneck dullards and dumbfucks of the day.

ICanRead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Links to the above or stfu.

LOL! Talk about a nanny state! What a worthless fucking lazy ass. By the way, you are not allowed to suck my dick, big boy. Deal with it.

> BTW, the anti-Federalists lost.

As well they should have. But the battle was a close one with the two "essential" states (NY and VA) being only narrowly won over through various tacks and compromises, including a promise to enact a Bill of Rights that among other things would assure a continued operation of slave patrols...er, state militias.

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can you site which years Madison's notes and the
> anti-Federalist papers were ratified as the guide
> to how the people of the United States wanted to
> be governed?

What? You are so fucking stupid! This is not some direct democracy. These founders whose assholes you morons like to blow up so much went to great lengths to prevent any such thing from coming about. The disinformed goober rabble in the streets were to be kept as far away from the workings of the new government as possible. It's like they knew Rush Limbaugh would come along some day.

> I must have missed that somewhere in my studies. Thanks.

Studies? LOL! You're as fucking dumb as a stick.

"at the hands of your forebears"

But not yours. Okay...glad we got that cleared up so I wont waste my time reading your digital sewage.
Attachments:

For 20 years the Constitution haters harped that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the police and military but the Supreme Court handed them their asses on a silver platter with the Heller ruling. It's an individual right whether they like it or not and they're spewing nonsense to try and hide their wounds.

Vexxxed Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> "at the hands of your forebears" But not yours.
> Okay...glad we got that cleared up.

No, not mine. I come from a long line of not-violence-prone-goober-redneck-dullards-and-dumbfucks.

> so I wont waste my time reading your digital sewage.

Yeah, wouldn't like want to LEARN something. That would be awful. Better to just keep on being the same old down-home stupid dumbfuck loser as always.

ccrkba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For 20 years the Constitution haters harped that
> the 2nd Amendment only applied to the police and
> military but the Supreme Court handed them their
> asses on a silver platter with the Heller ruling.
> It's an individual right whether they like it or
> not and they're spewing nonsense to try and hide
> their wounds.

20 years? Try more than 200 years. There had never been an individual right found until the revisionist Scalia invented one from whole cloth in perhaps the worst written opinion since Bush v Gore. And keep in mind that what Heller and McDonald provide is an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. There is nothing more. That's the extent of it. The decisions further affirm that all manner of restrictions and limitations may be imposed upon this right so long as they do not combine or operate so as to obviate the right itself. Small, small victory for guns nuts there, though rather few of them realize it.

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 20 years? Try more than 200 years. There had
> never been an individual right found until the
> revisionist Scalia invented one from whole cloth
> in perhaps the worst written opinion since Bush v
> Gore. And keep in mind that what Heller and
> McDonald provide is an individual right to possess
> a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such
> as self-defense within the home. There is nothing
> more. That's the extent of it. The decisions
> further affirm that all manner of restrictions and
> limitations may be imposed upon this right so long
> as they do not combine or operate so as to obviate
> the right itself. Small, small victory for guns
> nuts there, though rather few of them realize it.


BS. The principle of the right to defense of self and property (whether with a gun, blade, club, or other tool of the time available) goes back about as far as you care to try to trace it.

Likewise, the individual interpretation and intent and related structure of the amendment has been supported by legal scholars other than Scalia long before you claim that he "invented" it. e.g., among tons of others:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

But like a good ideologue you only absorb what you want to believe.

It's now "settled law" as you guys like to say when it's something favored. Get over it.

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ccrkba Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For 20 years the Constitution haters harped
> that
> > the 2nd Amendment only applied to the police
> and
> > military but the Supreme Court handed them
> their
> > asses on a silver platter with the Heller
> ruling.
> > It's an individual right whether they like it
> or
> > not and they're spewing nonsense to try and
> hide
> > their wounds.
>
> 20 years? Try more than 200 years. There had
> never been an individual right found until the
> revisionist Scalia invented one from whole cloth
> in perhaps the worst written opinion since Bush v
> Gore. And keep in mind that what Heller and
> McDonald provide is an individual right to possess
> a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such
> as self-defense within the home. There is nothing
> more. That's the extent of it. The decisions
> further affirm that all manner of restrictions and
> limitations may be imposed upon this right so long
> as they do not combine or operate so as to obviate
> the right itself. Small, small victory for guns
> nuts there, though rather few of them realize it.

When I said 20 years I was referring to the Brady Bunch and their ilk in more modern times. They were the ones who spent millions trying to convince the public and the courts the 2nd Amendment only applied to police and military
to no avail.

The first time I can really remember about any such efforts was
back in the early 60's when I used to read hunting magazines a lot. Most
people didn't take them seriously and they were regarded as a tiny group
of crackpots with nothing to do. I suppose we could delve into previous
court challenges but I see no need since Heller and McDonald has settled
that aspect.

"Small, small victory"? Is that why DC had to provide a program for conceal and carry whether they liked it or not? It's not just about "within the home" but
to bear them as well. Plenty of more court challenges in the works and Heller
gave the go ahead. Come to think of it, I need to find out DC's provisions for
raising a militia. Haven't gone there yet but I will.

giddyup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama isn't banning ARs or 5.56mm ammo. The
> proposed ATF regulation just bans the future sale
> of one type of armor piercing ammo which had been
> exempt from the 1986 law banning armor piercing
> ammo. And it's not an Executive Order either.

We could of guessed. The OP probably got this info from FOX News or some conservative bullshit magazine trying to make money off stupid conservatives.

Polly the Parrot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS. The principle of the right to defense of self
> and property (whether with a gun, blade, club, or
> other tool of the time available) goes back about
> as far as you care to try to trace it.

But not with firearms and not through the 2nd Amendment which only existed because slavery and fearful slave-owners did.

> Likewise, the individual interpretation and intent
> and related structure of the amendment has been
> supported by legal scholars other than Scalia long
> before you claim that he "invented" it. e.g.,
> among tons of others:

If you meant paid hacks enlisted by the NRA who waged a 20-year tobacco-company style war to invent and advance a theory of an individual right that had never existed before, you would be correct. Beyond that, no.

> But like a good ideologue you only absorb what you
> want to believe.

I'll just stick to the facts. You worthless assfucks can wallow all you want in the morass of manufactured right-wing goober bullshit.

> It's now "settled law" as you guys like to say
> when it's something favored. Get over it.

No, Heller is weakly and narrowly written.

"The disinformed goober rabble in the streets were to be kept as far away from the workings of the new government as possible. It's like they knew Rush Limbaugh would come along some day."

lol

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Polly the Parrot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BS. The principle of the right to defense of
> self
> > and property (whether with a gun, blade, club,
> or
> > other tool of the time available) goes back
> about
> > as far as you care to try to trace it.
>
> But not with firearms and not through the 2nd
> Amendment which only existed because slavery and
> fearful slave-owners did.


Principle remained(s) and went far beyond any aspects of slavery.


> > Likewise, the individual interpretation and
> intent
> > and related structure of the amendment has been
> > supported by legal scholars other than Scalia
> long
> > before you claim that he "invented" it. e.g.,
> > among tons of others:
>
> If you meant paid hacks enlisted by the NRA who
> waged a 20-year tobacco-company style war to
> invent and advance a theory of an individual right
> that had never existed before, you would be
> correct. Beyond that, no.
>


The question long precedes and has been the subject of legal analysis finding an individual right long before any significant influence on the part of the NRA. You're just parroting the nonsense of your trainers.


> > But like a good ideologue you only absorb what
> you
> > want to believe.
>
> I'll just stick to the facts. You worthless
> assfucks can wallow all you want in the morass of
> manufactured right-wing goober bullshit.
>

Picking and choosing those that you like. lol


> > It's now "settled law" as you guys like to say
> > when it's something favored. Get over it.
>
> No, Heller is weakly and narrowly written.

Not with respect to the basic principle of an individual right it's not.

Polly the Parrot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Principle remained(s)...

Interesting usage. Not sure I've ever seen it before.

> ...and went far beyond any aspects of slavery.

No, the whole amendment grew out of the slave compromises. Without the (probably legitimate) fears of southern slave-owners, there never would have been a 2nd Amendment.

> The question long precedes and has been the
> subject of legal analysis finding an individual
> right long before any significant influence on the
> part of the NRA. You're just parroting the
> nonsense of your trainers.

Garbage. The only existing precedent prior to the 20-year or so campaigns of whackjob NRA fabricators was US v Miller (1939), upholding the National Firearms Act of 1934 in its ban on sawed-off shotguns. The ruling was made in light of the fact that the Court could not discern in a sawed-off shotgun "...any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia..." There was neither an existence nor a finding of any individual right prior to Heller. Those are just the facts of the matter.

> Picking and choosing those that you like. lol

Which ones did I leave out? Let's be blunt here -- you haven't got any facts at all. None. You know jack-shit about any of this.

> Not with respect to the basic principle of an
> individual right it's not.

Yes, it is. There being no actual precedent for it, Scalia's arguments for an individual right are vague and imprecise references to what amounts to a national mythology. This is anything but durable, well-reasoned, well-supported jurisprudence.

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Polly the Parrot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Principle remained(s)...
>
> Interesting usage. Not sure I've ever seen it
> before.
>
> > ...and went far beyond any aspects of slavery.
>
> No, the whole amendment grew out of the slave
> compromises. Without the (probably legitimate)
> fears of southern slave-owners, there never would
> have been a 2nd Amendment.

Wrong. The same appears in various state documents preceding the Constitution done independent of and before any concern for bringing them into some compromise or anything related to slavery. Let go of your white guilt. It doesn't explain everything.

>
> > The question long precedes and has been the
> > subject of legal analysis finding an individual
> > right long before any significant influence on
> the
> > part of the NRA. You're just parroting the
> > nonsense of your trainers.
>
> Garbage. The only existing precedent prior to the
> 20-year or so campaigns of whackjob NRA
> fabricators was US v Miller (1939),
> upholding the National Firearms Act of 1934 in its
> ban on sawed-off shotguns. The ruling was made in
> light of the fact that the Court could not discern
> in a sawed-off shotgun "...any reasonable relation
> to the preservation or efficiency of a well
> regulated militia..." There was neither an
> existence nor a finding of any individual right
> prior to Heller. Those are just the facts of the
> matter.

And it was argued otherwise many times beyond that over the years in other contexts/cases long before the NRA was even a player.

>
> > Picking and choosing those that you like. lol
>
> Which ones did I leave out? Let's be blunt here --
> you haven't got any facts at all. None. You know
> jack-shit about any of this.


All of those which don't align with your predetermined ideology. As is typical for those like you.


> > Not with respect to the basic principle of an
> > individual right it's not.
>
> Yes, it is. There being no actual precedent for
> it, Scalia's arguments for an individual right are
> vague and imprecise references to what amounts to
> a national mythology. This is anything but
> durable, well-reasoned, well-supported
> jurisprudence.

It's "settled law." You know... like Obamacare. Deal with it.

Polly the Parrot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong. The same appears in various state
> documents preceding the Constitution done
> independent of and before any concern for bringing
> them into some compromise or anything related to
> slavery.

LOL! Get a grip, Polly. The 2nd Amendment reads as badly as it does in part because there were multiple and even last minute revisions done to it. The deals and compromises made in Philadelphia and thereafter had nothing to do with the mish-mash of state laws anywhere at any time. This was national level dickering wherein the Federalists were trying to cobble together the favorable votes of nine states as needed to reach ratification. Assurances (chiefly from Madison) that the new Congress would not try to abolish slavery by disarming state militias were critical to the process. Without them, the narrow result in Virginia would not likely have been achieved, and without the vote of Virginia, the Constitution itself likely would not have been ratified. Madison followed through on his promises early on in the First Congress, but the wording of what became the 2nd Amendment was still an unsettled mess even to that point.

> Let go of your white guilt. It doesn't explain everything.

Pathetic gooberisms do not trump well established history.

> And it was argued otherwise many times beyond that
> over the years in other contexts/cases long before
> the NRA was even a player.

Want to cite something or just babble like a magpie?

> All of those which don't align with your predetermined
> ideology. As is typical for those like you.

History isn't an ideology. It's a discipline. Likely why you've fared so poorly at it.

> It's "settled law." You know... like Obamacare.
> Deal with it.

No, it's barely established law. The right that it sets out is quite narrow and the degrees of regulation and limitation that may allowably be put upon it are quite broad. It is in many ways an illusion to view Heller as a victory for gun nuts.

Why can't I bring my gun to watch house or seneat sessions?
I mean they are run by repubs and guns make us safer so heck you should be mandated to bring a gun.

Put up or sit up...

Stand up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why can't I bring my gun to watch house or seneat
> sessions?
> I mean they are run by repubs and guns make us
> safer so heck you should be mandated to bring a
> gun.
>
> Put up or sit up...


I may be swaying a bit on the whole gun ownership/qualification thing.

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> LOL! Get a grip, Polly. The 2nd Amendment reads
> as badly as it does in part because there were
> multiple and even last minute revisions done to
> it. The deals and compromises made in
> Philadelphia and thereafter had nothing to do with
> the mish-mash of state laws anywhere at any time.
> This was national level dickering wherein the
> Federalists were trying to cobble together the
> favorable votes of nine states as needed to reach
> ratification. Assurances (chiefly from Madison)
> that the new Congress would not try to abolish
> slavery by disarming state militias were critical
> to the process. Without them, the narrow result in
> Virginia would not likely have been achieved, and
> without the vote of Virginia, the Constitution
> itself likely would not have been ratified.
> Madison followed through on his promises early on
> in the First Congress, but the wording of what
> became the 2nd Amendment was still an unsettled
> mess even to that point.
>

It reads no worse than many other sections constructed with similar prefatory clauses. It absolutely does have to do with various state laws since that's its origin - the very similar enumerations of the right to arms in various state declarations which existed well prior to any compromise made in Philadelphia. That includes some specifically and clearly establishing an individual right. Because various states had multiple various concerns regarding a standing Federal army and they also had slaves (which was the majority of them), doesn't mean that slavery was the only or the primary concern. You are the only one attempting to give it some primacy.

>
> Pathetic gooberisms do not trump well established
> history.

Yes, your gooberisms attempting to tie such things to slavery are pathetic.

>
> Want to cite something or just babble like a
> magpie?
>

I'm not even going to start down that rabbit hole with you and waste my time going through various decisions just to have you blow it off with your usual "goober" bullshit. The court did not rule directly on the matter of an individual right in Miller or attempt to address whether the right applied to the individual or state. It simply found a means for justifying restricting "gangster" weapons on that basis. There are any number of others addressing the matter of the 2nd being an individual right more directly (Presser v. Illinois which preceded Miller), Dred Scott, and multiple others defining "the people" and the application of the Bill of Rights as *individual* rights versus rights of the States.

>
> History isn't an ideology. It's a discipline.
> Likely why you've fared so poorly at it.


It is when you selectively alter and interpret it to your preferences. lol

>
> No, it's barely established law. The right that
> it sets out is quite narrow and the degrees of
> regulation and limitation that may allowably be
> put upon it are quite broad. It is in many ways
> an illusion to view Heller as a victory for gun
> nuts.

None of which affects the basis for establishing the INDIVIDUAL right. What limits may be permissible beyond that is a separate matter.