Serious question Re: guns

[Into the Night]

If what you say is true, the riddle me this: why is it that when the AR-15 (and various types) came off the ban list in 2004, it started showing up in an increasing number of mass shootings hence?

For the same reason they started showing up in stores. Sheesh.

Now let's look at the mass shooters:

Folks that were fucked up by psychquackery, and given mind altering drugs that left them with homicidal tendencies.
Folks that mutilated themselves due to Democrat propaganda pushing 'gender equality', and discovering it's not worth living anymore, then going out in 'style', taking other with them in their anger to what they done to themselves.

Most mass shootings involved a .22 rifle or .22 pistol. Source: FBI

 

[Into the Night]

No, it's not....because the dog comparison is not compatible, being that pit bulls are currently being bought and sold and have NOT had a motion for a national ban (breeding, selling, owning, etc.) in my lifetime.

And last time I checked, no nut case drove up to a crowd and released a truck of starving, raging pit bulls on them.

Essentially, you are doing EXACTLY what I previously said ... being insipidly stubborn by just repeating the SOS and ignoring any fact based/rational rebuttal (unless one counts the absurdity you just previously gave).

The Constitution of the United States is not absurd, Taichi.

 

[Into the Night]

Why are all you guys so scared all the time?

They're not. They have a gun.

 

[Into the Night]

The FACT is that YOU NEVER HAD THE "RIGHT" TO ANY TYPE OF WEAPON YOU WANTED.

Blatant lie.

Since you were born, there were state and federal gun regulations .... LIMITS ... as to what type of weapon was "legal" for a civilian to have.

Unconstitutional.

Grow a pair and do some honest research on the subject ... hell, when there was only one type of gun/rifle in colonial America,

Blatant lie. The Constitution does not have an expiration date either.

there were RULES as to what was necessary to be part of the local militia, particularly about upkeep and such of the weapon.

You do not need to be a member of any militia to own a gun or any other weapon.

Again, your childish fantasy as to interpreting the 2nd Amendment just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. But being an insipidly stubborn, ALL facts aren't necessary.

The Constitution does not give rights. The right to self defense is inherent. The 2nd amendment prohibits any government with interfering with that right in any way.

 

[IBDaMann]

Now you have the "right" to own a WHOLE LOTTA OTHER WEAPONS, just not a relative few deemed to dangerous for the general public.

I missed that clause in the Constitution whereby the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed if the weapon is "deemed" too dangerous for the general public. Would you point it out?

 

[IBDaMann]

That explains the 2nd and why it does not mean anything to today.

It means everything today, just as it did back then. Your promotion of tyranny is dismissed.

 

[Crepitus]

They're not. They have a gun.

 

[domer76]

Here’s the bottom line on guns in this country.

1) It never has been a right to possess any gun, at any place, at any time, for any purpose. Never. Pre-Constitution or post-Constitution.

2) The Second Amendment was written in the context of the military. Period. To “bear arms” did not mean to grab a gun to shoot dinner. The original conscientious objector clause validates the intention of that amendment from the get go. There is no argument to be had here. Those are indisputable facts.

3) Heller does not prohibit restrictions on the manufacturer, transport, sale or possession of certain firearms. Scalia noted that specifically in his majority opinion. There is no argument to be had here. Those are indisputable facts.

4) The reason the US is the leader in gun violence is simple. Too many guns in the hands of too many people that should never be allowed to possess them in the first place. There is no argument to be had here. Those are indisputable facts.

Until this country comes to its senses and address #4, we will continue to be the world’s leader in gun violence. American exceptionalism!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I am tired of your confident ignorance. You have proven no such thing because you are wrong as usual. Hope you enjoy your flintlock.

i've provided you with numerous pieces of historical documentation. You've only provided one ignorant chief justices asinine opinion and a text that was never ratified. I win.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That quote has never been debunked because that’s the EXACT wording, which reflects the sentiment and intent of the 2nd. Not some shit the NRA convinced idiots like you to believe.

Nobody knows how or why the wording got changed because the Senate committee working on the wording never recorded the debates.

Even with the fuckup of the Heller decision, “vehicles cannot be necessary”, gun restrictions are still constitutional

hey, moron, the wording was not changed after 50 states ratified the Bill of Rights. That is by far the stupidest theory ever put out there ROFL

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Look, this guy once told me that “vehicles cannot be necessary” in a modern society because they are not explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.

He still believes it’s a right to carry anything, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. DESPITE any SCOTUS decisions. Nothing that moron claims has any credibility.

1. that is not what I said and you know it.
2. SCOTUS has no power to change, modify, or alter the meaning of anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

One could look at it a couple ways. It may not have been a right all along. The pro-life claim that on abortion.

My take on the 2nd is that it was never an individual right like Heller decided. Historically, it was a collective right in the context of the militia.

half a dozen+ court cases prior to heller prove you wrong.

 

[domer76]

hey, moron, the wording was not changed after 50 states ratified the Bill of Rights. That is by far the stupidest theory ever put out there ROFL

^“Vehicles cannot be necessary”

LOL

 

[Nordberg]

i've provided you with numerous pieces of historical documentation. You've only provided one ignorant chief justices asinine opinion and a text that was never ratified. I win.

You are so weak. Stubbornness is not a good quality. Nor is your Trumpiam attitude of declaring yourself the winner, when you lose. The chief justice is ignorant and you are qualified for sucj\h a proclamation. Your are so far off.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Here’s the bottom line on guns in this country.

1) It never has been a right to possess any gun, at any place, at any time, for any purpose. Never. Pre-Constitution or post-Constitution.

2) The Second Amendment was written in the context of the military. Period. To “bear arms” did not mean to grab a gun to shoot dinner. The original conscientious objector clause validates the intention of that amendment from the get go. There is no argument to be had here. Those are indisputable facts.

3) Heller does not prohibit restrictions on the manufacturer, transport, sale or possession of certain firearms. Scalia noted that specifically in his majority opinion. There is no argument to be had here. Those are indisputable facts.

4) The reason the US is the leader in gun violence is simple. Too many guns in the hands of too many people that should never be allowed to possess them in the first place. There is no argument to be had here. Those are indisputable facts.

Until this country comes to its senses and address #4, we will continue to be the world’s leader in gun violence. American exceptionalism!

1. wrong. numerous pieces of historical evidence has been provided to your willfully ignorant idiocy.
2. wrong. The BoR discusses what the government cannot do.
3. your argument for rights restrictions fails in light of the founders intent.
4. fail upon fail. you have no concept of the history of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Until you do, your opinion is irrelevantly shit.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

^“Vehicles cannot be necessary”

LOL

care to provide the whole, entire, quote? or do you need to rely on your cherry picking to make you look less idiotic?
that's called rhetorical, by the way.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You are so weak. Stubbornness is not a good quality. Nor is your Trumpiam attitude of declaring yourself the winner, when you lose. The chief justice is ignorant and you are qualified for sucj\h a proclamation. Your are so far off.

projection, on your part. it's ok, I understand that, as a leftist, you can't help being a dumbass.

 

[domer76]

1. that is not what I said and you know it.
2. SCOTUS has no power to change, modify, or alter the meaning of anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

care to provide the whole, entire, quote? or do you need to rely on your cherry picking to make you look less idiotic?
that's called rhetorical, by the way.

“Vehicles cannot be necessary” when they’re not an enumerated right. That’s what you fucking said. That’s what you fucking meant.

LOL

 

[SmarterthanYou]

“Vehicles cannot be necessary” when they’re not an enumerated right. That’s what you fucking said. That’s what you fucking meant.

LOL

liar. that is not what I said. and we all see your attempt to derail the thread by you lying about another post from years ago, that you also get wrong because otherwise you look like the idiot you are.

 

[Kamala Trump]

walking around acting as if you're in a war zone in an American city is.

like BLM?