Bigfoot3814
Deity
I remember reading that AK-47s go for about $300 American on the black market. Of course, that's an even bigger no-no.
SCOTUS to rule on 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Bugfatty300
- Start date
I remember reading that AK-47s go for about $300 American on the black market. Of course, that's an even bigger no-no.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Well thats about how much I paid for mine. But it wasn't black market. Not a full auto but it has a grenade launcher.
Of course getting live grenades for it is not very practical.
Israeli dummy rounds are fun though. But you have to spend all day looking for it.
Full-auto is way overrated anyway. Statistically well aimed single shots are far more dangerous.
Of course getting live grenades for it is not very practical. Israeli dummy rounds are fun though. But you have to spend all day looking for it.Full-auto is way overrated anyway. Statistically well aimed single shots are far more dangerous.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Not to mention prohibitively expensive to shoot with todays ammo prices. A full auto .223 burns through thirty rounds in 4 seconds and costs 9 bucks.
Fully auto is nice in a CQB situation, but it is not everyday the ordinary citizen finds himself in one.
Still would be nice to pick up an MP5 for less than 20 grand.
~Chris
brennan
Argumentative Brit
What makes it a self-defence situation? This is akin to saying you should assault someone on the street pre-emptively if you think they are looking at you funny.
Spoiler :
No, that would pretty obviously be a self-defence situation. The aggressor has forced the issue beyond the realm where due process can reasonably be applied. Conversely, unless you can show that all burglars are violent criminals then you can no more shoot them and call it 'self defence' than you can shoot a tree surgeon standing in the street with his chainsaw on and claim you thought he was leatherface.I suppose you are against police using deadly force (or executions as you call them) because the suspect that is shooting up their patrol car or running at them with a chainsaw hasn't been given due process?
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
If you hear a knock on your door and there is a claim of being a police officer, then you ask for identification. Law enforcement officials are obligated by law to identify themselves. After they identify themselves, then you ask them what they want. If what they want is to enter the premises, then you ask them if they have a warrant. If they present you with a warrant, you read the warrant and allow them to enter. If at any point they fail to identify themselves properly and/or state their intentions and justifications, then you notify them that they have done just that and you do not believe that they are law enforcement officers. You tell them that if they attempt to force their way into your residence without properly identifying themselves and presenting you with a warrant, then you will defend yourself with deadly force.
Of course, what are the chances that law enforcement will force their way into your home?
Of limited value? Maybe not in your militia, but they're of considerable value in mine.
Well for starters looking at you funny or tree surgery are not serious crimes. But if you're going to get into judicial standards like "innocent until proven guilty", you need to look at affirmative defenses too - if the intruder is in my home unlawfully, then he has the burden to prove that he is no physical threat to me, rather than my having to prove that he is.
SCOTUS has just upheld the DC Circuit Court's ruling that the DC handgun ban is an infringement on Second Amendment rights.
Bigfoot3814
Deity
SCOTUS has just upheld the DC Circuit Court's ruling that the DC handgun ban is an infringement on Second Amendment rights.
Just heard on WCBS. Wing-o Constitutional rights! Power to the people!
Bigfoot3814
Deity
Where is what? Washington DC?
"Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally ********, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales."
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
As Drudge headlined, carry on....
"Scalia wrote opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg..."
Bigfoot3814
Deity
EDIT: Rats, augery beat me to it.
You had Scalia but not Thomas? I though Thomas was Scalia's second vote!
Scalia authored the majority, which was of him, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy. Stevens and Breyer each wrote separate dissents, and Ginsburg and Souter joined them.
Oh, and:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
But that server's probably melting down right about now...
So really, the status quo stays the same outside of DC.
skadistic
Caomhanach
Now I just need to find out how long utill I can transfer mt CCP to DC.
Even Scalia is an activist. What part of "shall not be infringted" does he not understand?
Similar threads
