In common use

7 Likes

How about we ban any gun that the gun has fired a bullet that murdered someone or illegally caused great bodily harm or has been used to beat an innocent person to death or cause great bodily harm.

1 Like

There’s a lot of focus on this right now in Miller v Bonta (California’s AWB). The tyrants are even arguing that their ban covers more than just the AR-15 platform that are so popular, so it should stand because it also covers all of the less popular “assault weapons”, claiming they’re not “in common use”.

It’s also a heavy focus in “Duncan v Bonta” (magazine capacity limits).

On a side note, reading the CA-DOJ’s description of the devastating destruction caused by .223 rounds is still giving me nightmares. They spilled a lot of ink in their arguments on velocities in excess of 3,000fps and how the bullet tumbles around in human flesh, rips through drywall walls, body armor, etc., etc… Nothing can stop it! I’m still not sure how any of that relates to pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, folding or telescoping stocks, detachable magazines, etc. But I guess that means they don’t have much of an argument to make since their ban is on firearms and not the super scary .223 round. And I guess anything not chambered in .223 is okay? :thinking:

4 Likes

What good would punishing an inanimate object do?

Banning the specific guns criminals use while the criminals walk free won’t stop them from committing more crimes. Getting the criminals who commit the crimes off the streets sounds like a much better idea to me.

4 Likes

I didn’t even see it coming. What a fabulous idea.:bulb:

2 Likes

No popcorn for you.

2 Likes

:cry:

12345 (to meet the required six characters to post:)

3 Likes

Ridiculous topics require ridiculous replies

2 Likes

😢

2 Likes

I don’t think putting the topic up for discussion is ridiculous. Though I find the vague concept of In Common Use to be ridiculous. There would never be any new firearms or other arms if each new model had to be in common use by the general public before anyone could buy one.

It seems obvious to me that the original crafters of the 2A intended for citizens to have access to weapons at least as good if not better than those in common use by the typical combat soldier in modern armies.

2 Likes

What am I missing? Isn’t the topic common use?
I think I just set myself up.

2 Likes

Since there is no way for me to even know all the things I don’t know there is no way I can tell you what you don’t know:)

You mean what I am missing?

1 Like

Do you know what you are missing?:wink:

I was mostly just messing around while also referring to the Dunning Kruger Effect. Obviously the people making all of these anti self defense laws and restrictions have never heard of it. But we are all subject to it.

1 Like

It works in both directions. One can also underestimate their ability. My guess is that is not what you were referring to. Well more than a guess.

1 Like

This is one of the rare times you were being very subtle in your response and Shamrock totally missed it. I believe that was because you typically appear to be a complete idiot. Based on your post, I would have to assume you only want to appear stupid, but are actually smarter than you appear in your posts. Your online persona is quite intriguing.

Like Peter Paul

I wasn’t referring to anyone in particular and wasn’t really referring to any of your posts either. Mostly just making a random comment about how everyone needs to be aware of what they don’t know. Especially the anti self defense folks who don’t appear to know anything about the issues they are trying to force everyone to bend to their will on.

PS- I know you were being facetious with the brilliant idea post.

2 Likes

Yeah, I meant to put that in italics, I think I got side tracked.

1 Like