NJ limits guns and clips to 10 rounds

[Likely Guy]

7 minutes ago, Menhir said:

Blah. Blah, blah...name calling...blah, blah, blah....

Why don't you 'splain how direction of travel factors into making a particular caliber "high velocity".

I never said direction of travel factors into "high velocity" I only meant that it factors into velocity.

That said, I'm done with you because this is entirely off topic.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, and then said:

According to who?  Seriously, what right does anyone - especially the government - have to tell a person what they need regarding self-defense?  2A isn't a suggestion, it's as immutable as the sunrise.  The fact that some people don't value that RIGHT does not remove it for everyone else.

Speaking as a pacifist and an outsider, I would have thought that limiting magazine size would have been a suitable middle ground - no ones right to own firearms have been infringed, only that now the magazines available are ten rounds only. 

[Menhir]

2 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

I never said direction of travel factors into "high velocity" I only meant that it factors into velocity.

I never said ignorance factors into "gross stupidity" I only meant that it factors into stupidity. 

LOL

 

[Menhir]

3 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Speaking as a pacifist and an outsider, I would have thought that limiting magazine size would have been a suitable middle ground - no ones right to own firearms have been infringed, only that now the magazines available are ten rounds only. 

Any limitation is an infringement.  Infringement does not require an outright ban.  Limiting magazine capacity is an infringement.

 

[David-C]

What MOS is "military long range marksman"? 

[Menhir]

2 minutes ago, David-C said:

What MOS is "military long range marksman"? 

It's not an MOS. 

[pallidin]

Let's use 20 rounds to kill a rabbit or a cayote.

 

[Menhir]

12 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Let's use 20 rounds to kill a rabbit or a cayote.

 

When that is specified as the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, sure.

[pallidin]

2 minutes ago, Menhir said:

When that is specified as the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, sure.

What about the Constitution of "common sense"

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

47 minutes ago, Menhir said:

Any limitation is an infringement.  Infringement does not require an outright ban.  Limiting magazine capacity is an infringement.

 

No freedom to bear arms is infringed, anyone can have whatever arms they desire. This way, you can only fire ten shots before having to change magazine, but you can fire those ten shots from whatever weapon you desire to possess.

[Menhir]

1 minute ago, pallidin said:

What about the Constitution of "common sense"

Post it here, including all amendments, and I'll let you know what I think of it.  I can't assess what I haven't seen...specifically, any "common sense" on the part of woukd be gun grabbers; but I'm willing to keep an open mind.

;-)

[pallidin]

I'm fairly certain that the Constitution does not provide for common citizens to utilize, say, a mini-gun or other assault weaponry.

The state militia is allowed.

[Menhir]

3 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

No freedom to bear arms is infringed, anyone can have whatever arms they desire. This way, you can only fire ten shots before having to change magazine, but you can fire those ten shots from whatever weapon you desire to possess.

Not being snarky, but you really do need to research what "infringement" means.

[Menhir]

4 minutes ago, pallidin said:

I'm fairly certain that the Constitution does not provide for common citizens to utilize, say, a mini-gun or other assault weaponry.

The state militia is allowed.

So...anything that can be used as a weapon to assault someone should not be allowed to be owned by "common citizens"-?

And the term "the state militia" does not appear in the 2nd A.  That's an interpretation invented by the gun grabbers.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Menhir

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Just now, Menhir said:

Not being snarky, but you really do need to research what "infringement" means.

Your right to bear arms, that is the freedom to own and fire when you deem fit, guns. To infringe such would require to to be told “you can’t have those types of guns”. Saying “no magazine sizes over X” isn’t an infringement of baring arms. It’s an infringement of the useage of such arms. But the second amendment is also very clear on when the useage of those arms was appropriate - the keeping in its place the government. 

[pallidin]

A States militia is under the governor's control.

One can't just say "I'm a militia member"... it has to be approved by the governor of the State per the Constitution.

[Menhir]

1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Saying “no magazine sizes over X” isn’t an infringement of baring arms. It’s an infringement of the useage of such arms. 

Negative.  If I am restricted on components of a firearm, that's an infringement of the bearing of said firearm...whether I use it or not.

[Menhir]

2 minutes ago, pallidin said:

A States militia is under the governor's control.

One can't just say "I'm a militia member"... it has to be approved by the governor of the State per the Constitution.

Where does the Constituition so state?

[pallidin]

1 minute ago, Menhir said:

Negative.  If I am restricted on components of a firearm, that's an infringement of the bearing of said firearm...whether I use it or not.

And you should be allowed nuclear weapons... Sure.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 minutes ago, Menhir said:

Negative.  If I am restricted on components of a firearm, that's an infringement of the bearing of said firearm...whether I use it or not.

Your right to use, therefore in your estimation “bear”, firearms is already restricted. For example, it against the law to murder someone with that firearm. Do you obvject to that restriction as well?

[Menhir]

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guardand Naval Militia.^[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.^[9]

[pallidin]

1 minute ago, Menhir said:

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guardand Naval Militia.^[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.^[9]

Unorganized militia fails on the "common sense" requirement for a State militia.

Duh...

[Unusual Tournament]

40 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Let's use 20 rounds to kill a rabbit or a cayote.

 

[Menhir]

Just now, pallidin said:

Unorganized militia fails on the "common sense" requirement for a State militia.

Duh...

It plainly states exactly otherwise.

[Menhir]

5 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Your right to use, therefore in your estimation “bear”, firearms is already restricted. For example, it against the law to murder someone with that firearm. Do you obvject to that restriction as well?

No.  I clearly delineated between bearing an arm and using a firearm.  You insist on feigning an inability to understand plain English.

Of course, such tactics are the primary strategy of anti-2A gun grabbers.