Send a Message
to cnw95

Comments

309

Joined

Apr 14, 2011

cnw95 Profile

Recent Posts

Milwaukee, WI

Trayvon Martin - Milwaukee, WI

How did you link the Zimmerman case and your number 1 at mcdonalds???  (Aug 12, 2013 | post #43)

Milwaukee, WI

3 Wis. Dems Say They'll Propose Gun-Control Bills

Good analogy because at one time the insurance rates were HIGHER on red cars for the very reason you mentioned. There was an assumption that red cars were involved in more accidents than any other color vehicle. This justified HIGHER ins rates.  (Dec 26, 2012 | post #35)

Milwaukee, WI

3 Wis. Dems Say They'll Propose Gun-Control Bills

Actually, among other OBVIOUS vital statistics,the 94 assault weapons ban used cosmetics to determine what made an assault weapon an assault weapon. Sounds crazy but it's truth.  (Dec 25, 2012 | post #31)

Milwaukee, WI

3 Wis. Dems Say They'll Propose Gun-Control Bills

I never said i didn't like guns and that no one should have them. I stated my opinion on the practicality of assault weapons in a non military setting. That does not translate to me advocating for the ban of ALL weapons. As far as weapons bans go,why didn't they work??? What criteria do you use to reach the conclusion that weapons bans did not work??? (IE:the 94 assault weapons ban)  (Dec 25, 2012 | post #30)

Milwaukee, WI

U.S. gun website sued for alleged ties to slayings

I must also add that in response to the above comment that in DC V heller,the court left the door open to scrutinize the definition of what constitutes a "dangerous and unusual weapon". Quote from wiki:"(2)...M iller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. With this line, would it not be an easy thing to say that the fed gov could rule,for example,that assault weapons fall under the courts definition of a what a "dangerous and unusual weapon" is? So,as to fend off an attack by those who would uses this line to "disarm" the law-abiding citizen, what is the definition of a "dangerous and unusual weapon"???  (Dec 25, 2012 | post #160)

Milwaukee, WI

U.S. gun website sued for alleged ties to slayings

U.S. v miller was a rather confusing case. Both sides claimed victory. The court took the case and remanded it back to the lower court for further review but not before PARTIALLY making an opinion on a case that they claimed they did not have enough information to make a ruling on the main issue. Justice Mcreynolds stated:"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." This leaves the impression that the court never determined whether or not the weapon in question was used by the military. This is a strange case and there are many legal scholars that don't lend much weight to the opinion of it.  (Dec 25, 2012 | post #159)

Milwaukee, WI

U.S. gun website sued for alleged ties to slayings

If current definitions weren't used then the 2nd amendment would not cover the use of assault weapons because assault type weapons weren't around in 1789. The constitution has to be considered a living document in order to be applied to current conditions. The conservatives speak against this line of thinking and yet they use it to justify the fact that assault weapons are covered under the supreme law of the land.  (Dec 25, 2012 | post #153)

Milwaukee, WI

U.S. gun website sued for alleged ties to slayings

I ask because there are NUMEROUS federal firearm regulations including, the national firearms act,Gun Control Act of 1968,Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and a few others. If our 2nd amendment rights are not to be infringed,aren't these regulations an INFRINGEMENT and thus unconstitutional?? ?  (Dec 24, 2012 | post #144)

Milwaukee, WI

3 Wis. Dems Say They'll Propose Gun-Control Bills

The gov has already answered your question. The National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968 define what weapons are "good" and which ones are "bad". Type II weapons are weapons that the gov has determined need to be strictly regulated. The weapons regulated are machine guns,short barreled shot guns and short barreled rifles.  (Dec 21, 2012 | post #23)

Milwaukee, WI

3 Wis. Dems Say They'll Propose Gun-Control Bills

I do agree with part of your comments. Yes,practically anything can be turned into a weapon. And yes,the crazy folks are the MAIN problem when it comes to these mass killings. But these crazy mass killers have yet to use dental floss to kill many. Too bad that POS lanza didn't use dental floss. And as a side note,i was in the army stationed at ft knox,home of armor, and had many opportunities firing the M16 and actually was a little jealous of the tankers because they got to fire the tanks and the small caliber weapons on them like the .50 cal. During my tour doing this, i gained a VERY,VERY,healthy respect for firearms and the damage they can inflict. I've also seen GSWs as a fireman here in milwaukee. It was mostly small arms wounds and mostly on avg sized adults. I could not imagine what MULTIPLE GSW's look like on the bodily frame of a 1st grader. I wish it was easier to spot these nut jobs so as to avert these types of gut wrenching tragedies. Whatever the solution,we can't allow this to happen again.  (Dec 21, 2012 | post #18)

Milwaukee, WI

3 Wis. Dems Say They'll Propose Gun-Control Bills

These types of firearms have ALWAYS been a concern. From the introduction of the tommygun all the way up to today and the debate over the AR15 and everything in between. And the reason they have caused concern is because of the amount of damage they can inflict. Your comments assume that a firearm is a firearm is a firearm and that is clearly and legally not the case. If this were true,you wouldn't be making a fuss over a looming ban of this particular firearm. The law has a definition of what an assault weapon is. Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. There is a CLEAR difference between an AR15 and say a .25 saturday night special. Both have the capacity to inflict mortal wounds but it is obvious to even a firearm layperson that the demographics of the AR15 make it much more EFFICIENT at killing than the .25 saturday night special.  (Dec 21, 2012 | post #17)

Milwaukee, WI

U.S. gun website sued for alleged ties to slayings

Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is accurate, so are you saying that ANY regulation no matter how "minor" is unconstitutional?? ?  (Dec 21, 2012 | post #131)

Milwaukee, WI

U.S. gun website sued for alleged ties to slayings

Who needs target practice if you have a fully automatic weapon??? Full auto makes the term,"one shot ,one kill" obsolete. If one can't hit their target with full auto,that person should not be near a firearm. I'll give you the over zealous gov comment but if this describes our government,exercis ing your 2nd amendment rights won't do much to alleviate the problem. Our govs main issues have to do with economics.(taxes/s pending/debt etc..) If you employ your 2nd amendment rights to combat this problem,you'll end up spending a lot of time in the cooler. And yes,we all have 2nd amendment rights and the gov has the right to REGULATE that right,like it or not. In the wake of this 1st grade slaughter,there will changes to fed regs as it relates to assault weapons.  (Dec 21, 2012 | post #126)

Milwaukee, WI

3 Wis. Dems Say They'll Propose Gun-Control Bills

No we should not because the things you mention aren't designed to kill but the bushmaster is. Theres no practical use for military (fully automatic ie;M16) or close to military style (semi-auto ie; AR15) arms in a modern, urban,NON-MILITARY setting.  (Dec 20, 2012 | post #11)

Milwaukee, WI

U.S. gun website sued for alleged ties to slayings

But what is the practical use of a FULLY automatic machine gun in a non military setting???  (Dec 20, 2012 | post #119)