"DeepDiver" wrote

Just posing hypotheticals to expose the gray area and absurdities in the
laws.
Lawyers like the gray areasin laws. Creates room to litigate. If the law
was crystal clear and ironclad, there wouldn't be much work for the lawyers.

It's kind of like shotgun barrel lengths: 18" = good; 17-15/16" = bad

Gotta draw the line somewhere.

Why? What makes a shotgun magically evil at less than 18"?

It's more concielable. I have no use for a shotgun with a barrel under 18".
It's really only good for close in gunfights with people. My 21" slug barrel
is just as efective for said purpose and as a bonus will group 2 1/2 " at 50
yards.

Considering how many criminals use guns (particularly the most violent of
criminals like drug dealers and gang members), it's quite clear that gun
control laws do little to abate the criminal use of firearms.


Or the ridiculous "assault weapon bans" where the criteria for
banning the weapon has to do with its cosmetic appearance.

That one expired over a year ago. It was a stupid law and wasn't
renewed.
It hasn't expired in California. (OK, technically, it's a different law,
but
the California law is very similar to the former federal law.)
It seems a lot of stupid laws get passed in Cal. Maybe because stupid people
elect stupid legislators and executives, which isn't a problem exclusive to
California. But it seems the left coast is on the cutting edge.



As for it now being renewed, that may only be a temporary reprieve.
True. Buy up everything you can afford now before it gets changed. All the
goodies will be grandfathered in , and the prices will rise.
President Bush, of all people, pledged to sign it back into law if passed
by
Congress.

A pretty safe bluff considering the republicans control both houses of
Congress.

And you can bet that President Hillary

You assume WAY too much. This country will never elect a woman to the white
house. in our lifetimes. Not mine anyway.

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed" is not clear to you?
I said some regulations are not clearly unconstitutional. The second
amendment is pretty clear, but there is disagreement among many over what it
means exactly.
Some believe the reference to a militia means the National Guard. I believe
the militia refered to is the people not in the military who have a right to
bear arms just like the military has. In other words an M-16 full auto with
a grenade launcher if I so choose. However I do not argue with the
regulations precluding felons from owning machineguns or any other firearm.
There are enough law abiding citizens in the country to take care of
homeland security should the armed forces fail to do the job orworse, turn
on the people.

Tom