Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Feinstein's 2013 Assault Weapon legislation summary
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hb712" data-source="post: 12559539" data-attributes="member: 42038"><p>So, some morons believe that a legal definition is a correct definition, fantastic. Last I checked, legal "terms of art" do not typically conform to the actual definition of a word. Maybe people who are not in, or have not been to law school should avoid trying to use statutory language as an argument. Oh, I should also point out that you're using a state law to define a nationally used term.</p><p></p><p>BTW, why does anyone care what a Canadian thinks about U.S. policies? He clearly has no clue what he's talking about and is simply expressing his distaste for that which he does not understand through assumption, generalization, and emotion.</p><p></p><p>Finally, let's just take a look at the U.S. Supreme Court's recent opinion of what types of weapons the Second Amendment protects:</p><p></p><p>"We therefore read <em>Miller</em> to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes...." <em>Dist. of Columbia v. Heller</em>, 554 U.S. 570, 625, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2815-16, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).</p><p></p><p>It would appear that "assault weapons," as defined by our liberal, gun-fearing friends, are typically "possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" and are protected by the Second Amendment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hb712, post: 12559539, member: 42038"] So, some morons believe that a legal definition is a correct definition, fantastic. Last I checked, legal "terms of art" do not typically conform to the actual definition of a word. Maybe people who are not in, or have not been to law school should avoid trying to use statutory language as an argument. Oh, I should also point out that you're using a state law to define a nationally used term. BTW, why does anyone care what a Canadian thinks about U.S. policies? He clearly has no clue what he's talking about and is simply expressing his distaste for that which he does not understand through assumption, generalization, and emotion. Finally, let's just take a look at the U.S. Supreme Court's recent opinion of what types of weapons the Second Amendment protects: "We therefore read [I]Miller[/I] to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes...." [I]Dist. of Columbia v. Heller[/I], 554 U.S. 570, 625, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2815-16, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). It would appear that "assault weapons," as defined by our liberal, gun-fearing friends, are typically "possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" and are protected by the Second Amendment. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Feinstein's 2013 Assault Weapon legislation summary
Top