Gun Control

[The Two Jerseys]

Is DEAT being deleted?

Yes.

[The New California Republic]

Is DEAT being deleted?

Yes, it is the deletion of a single nation. DOS is far worse (Delete on Sight), when your main nation and all your puppets get deleted, and the mods will delete any new nation you create. DOS is rarer than DEAT. For a player to get DOS'd, they need to be a persistent pain in the backside, or break rules in such a serious fashion that a DEAT simply does not cut it.

[Albrenia]

Well, hopefully Keshiland's player can learn from their mistakes and return one day with a new nation and outlook.

[Atkemri]

Well, hopefully Keshiland's player can learn from their mistakes and return one day with a new nation and outlook.

He won't

[Wysten]

Oh praise the lord Jesus Christ above Keshi is gone HUZZAH

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Y'all he's gone. There are still rules against gloating.

[NewLiberalParty]

I didn't know that political nicknaming counted for actual politicians I thought it was for players. -_- oh well

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

I didn't know that political nicknaming countered for actual politicians I thought it was for players. -_- oh well

Wot? It's always been for actual politicians...

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Anyhow, gun control. Yeah. All that. Let's go back to that.

[Arlenton]

Anyhow, gun control. Yeah. All that. Let's go back to eliminate that.

Fixed.

[Telconi]

Anyhow, gun control. Yeah. All that. Let's go back to eliminate that.

Fixed.

Seconded!

All in favor say aye!

[Topoliani]

Fixed.

Seconded!

All in favor say aye!

Nay

I say we abolish ALL WEAPON REGULATIONS

[Grinning Dragon]

Going to pull a post from the Gun Talk Thread to here as the Miller v. United States was brought up.

Quick question: Why are sawed-off shotguns illegal? I mean, I don't think shortening the barrel and cutting off the stock is going to make it more deadly, but then again, I'm not an expert on this sorta thing.

Concealability. A sawed off shotgun was seen as a weapon that has no use beyond criminal enterprises. At the time the NFA was passed "short barrelled" trench guns were longer than 18". And so the idea was that anything shorter than a trench gun had no battlefield use, and was therefore not covered by the 2nd. (See a case brief of United States v. Miller in 1939)

Looking over this ruling, and has been mentioned for years, as one of the most misinterpreted USSC rulings in justification for some sort of legislative gun control laws.
Full text of the ruling can be found here

Reading through the ruling, you can see that in deciding U.S. v. Miller the Court only declared that ownership of a firearm could be restricted if, and only if, it had no connection to military or militia activity. I've always found it curious as to why this hasn't been challenged again at the USSC?

JPFO did a break down of this ruling

[Telconi]

Going to pull a post from the Gun Talk Thread to here as the Miller v. United States was brought up.

Concealability. A sawed off shotgun was seen as a weapon that has no use beyond criminal enterprises. At the time the NFA was passed "short barrelled" trench guns were longer than 18". And so the idea was that anything shorter than a trench gun had no battlefield use, and was therefore not covered by the 2nd. (See a case brief of United States v. Miller in 1939)

Looking over this ruling, and has been mentioned for years, as one of the most misinterpreted USSC rulings in justification for some sort of legislative gun control laws.
Full text of the ruling can be found here

Reading through the ruling, you can see that in deciding U.S. v. Miller the Court only declared that ownership of a firearm could be restricted if, and only if, it had no connection to military or militia activity. I've always found it curious as to why this hasn't been challenged again at the USSC?

JPFO did a break down of this ruling

At the time the judgement was passed Mr. Miller had passed away. Thus while the court deliberated and made a decision, the decision was never actually handed down, and therefore never became judicial precedent.

[Grinning Dragon]

Going to pull a post from the Gun Talk Thread to here as the Miller v. United States was brought up.




Looking over this ruling, and has been mentioned for years, as one of the most misinterpreted USSC rulings in justification for some sort of legislative gun control laws.
Full text of the ruling can be found here

Reading through the ruling, you can see that in deciding U.S. v. Miller the Court only declared that ownership of a firearm could be restricted if, and only if, it had no connection to military or militia activity. I've always found it curious as to why this hasn't been challenged again at the USSC?

JPFO did a break down of this ruling

At the time the judgement was passed Mr. Miller had passed away. Thus while the court deliberated and made a decision, the decision was never actually handed down, and therefore never became judicial precedent.

Which I get, and to me the District court ruling then should have been the default ruling, which was ruled that the nfa was unconstitutional.

[Telconi]

At the time the judgement was passed Mr. Miller had passed away. Thus while the court deliberated and made a decision, the decision was never actually handed down, and therefore never became judicial precedent.

Which I get, and to me the District court ruling then should have been the default ruling, which was ruled that the nfa was unconstitutional.

Yeah, curse you Mr. Miller, you couldn't have lived just a little bit longer?

[Grinning Dragon]

Which I get, and to me the District court ruling then should have been the default ruling, which was ruled that the nfa was unconstitutional.

Yeah, curse you Mr. Miller, you couldn't have lived just a little bit longer?

At the least, Miller's lawyer could have showed up instead of saying fuck it, than to just leave the govt to argue with itself over it all.
/sigh

[Thermodolia]

Fixed.

Seconded!

All in favor say aye!

Aye!

[Hurtful Thoughts]

No use talking to the dead Therms.

Oh hes still here. He got DEATd not DOSd

I kinda miss the days when forum posters would cram their foot so hard into their mouths arguing with the mods about DEATs they got DOS'd...

RIP: Hataria and your 23 alts.

Right, back to topicality!

Anyhow, gun control. Yeah. All that. Let's go back to eliminate that.

Fixed.

Seconded, aye, motion carried. Not a naysayer in the group here.

Still can't help but feel as though something is missing in this discussion.

[Valgora]

Oh hes still here. He got DEATd not DOSd

I kinda miss the days when forum posters would cram their foot so hard into their mouths arguing with the mods about DEATs they got DOS'd...

RIP: Hataria and your 23 alts.

Right, back to topicality!

Fixed.

Seconded, aye, motion carried. Not a naysayer in the group here.

Still can't help but feel as though something is missing in this discussion.

There ain't a person to give an incredibly irrational argument for gun control? Is that's what missing?
Keshi ain't DoS. He might come back.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I kinda miss the days when forum posters would cram their foot so hard into their mouths arguing with the mods about DEATs they got DOS'd...

RIP: Hataria and your 23 alts.

Right, back to topicality!

Seconded, aye, motion carried. Not a naysayer in the group here.

Still can't help but feel as though something is missing in this discussion.

There ain't a person to give an incredibly irrational argument for gun control? Is that's what missing?
Keshi ain't DoS. He might come back.

I mean, we could shop around for another one, but it just wouldn't be the same... sure, it'd make the same noises and do the same things... but still...

[Big Jim P]

Fixed.

Seconded!

All in favor say aye!

Aye!

[Big Jim P]

There ain't a person to give an incredibly irrational argument for gun control? Is that's what missing?
Keshi ain't DoS. He might come back.

I mean, we could shop around for another one, but it just wouldn't be the same... sure, it'd make the same noises and do the same things... but still...

Maybe one of us could volunteer to play the role?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I mean, we could shop around for another one, but it just wouldn't be the same... sure, it'd make the same noises and do the same things... but still...

Maybe one of us could volunteer to play the role?

I'm not very good at the role, so I'll just sequentially present three videos related to gun violence and control in rapid succession to make an arbritrary point.

[1] Meet Evan

[2] What do you expect?

[3] Rant that sums up Hurty's thoughts on the subject

[Len Hyet]

I mean, we could shop around for another one, but it just wouldn't be the same... sure, it'd make the same noises and do the same things... but still...

Maybe one of us could volunteer to play the role?

Guns are like, for killing, and killing is bad, so things for killing should be bad, so guns are bad.

What do I win?