What do you think about gun control laws?

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 28, 2022, 06:42:53 AM

Fire is hot.


Make a point.

The point is the whole thread is like arguing whether or not grass is green.

Firearm ownership is legal in the USA, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.  Federal restrictions are necessarily Unconstitutional.  Eventually all such Federal restrictions will be lifted, as long as the USA remains a Constitutional Republic.  The number of States instituting Constitutional Carry is growing rapidly.  I think it's up to 22 States.  At a certain point, the recognized right to carry a firearm will reach what Marijuana levels.... essentially overriding the Federal rules anyway.

And, no, it doesn't matter if "reasonable people agree to xyz thing" ... The Constitution along with the 2nd and 10th Amendments mean arguing over Gun Control Laws in the USA is a silly exercise... kind of like arguing against a Round Earth...

If people here, or even more ridiculous people from other countries, don't like that fact... oh well... Get Over It.

finally
buddy decides to make a point and has somting to discuss.


no it's not
the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.

restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.
if the people have access to a gun, then it is NOT unconstitutional.
having a fed registry doesn't impede the right.

yes
states get to decide, not the feds.
that's the 2ndA.
the argument is what laws are appropriate.
if the people vote for the stupid laws, they get the stupid laws.
more to the fact, if people continue to support ted cruz, he wil continue to support the big gun lobby at the cost to his constiuents.

argueing roudn earth vs gun control laws is not the same.
govt make policy that affect the people.
if people don't like the policy being put on them, they vote them out.
what do you think gov't is supposed to do?

Guns kill.
Guns are supposed to kill.
Guns are scary when seen because they mean someone might wanna kill you.

Police (civillians with guns. *Hint hint* ) are basically scared all the damn time of being shot because anyone or everyone could have a gun and want them dead.

This is why police in America is a shit job, has shit training, and are trained to shoot first.  Because hesitation means dying.

the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.

restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.

Federal Restrictions are Unconstitutional.  That's not really debatable as the language is quite clear.  "Experts" can be wrong... see other threads on that topic.  So, the fact that any given SCOTUS has ruled on firearm restrictions in the past, makes no difference in the plain language Unconstitutional status of Federal firearm restrictions.

states get to decide, not the feds.

Partly true, but misleading.  States _or_ The People.  Don't blur reality.  That happens way too much on this forum anyway...

that's the 2ndA.

No, that's the 10th Amendment.

---

The rest of your post is irrevelant due to discussing Federal legislative and such.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 28, 2022, 07:56:23 AM

the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.

restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.

Federal Restrictions are Unconstitutional.  That's not really debatable as the language is quite clear.  "Experts" can be wrong... see other threads on that topic.  So, the fact that any given SCOTUS has ruled on firearm restrictions in the past, makes no difference in the plain language Unconstitutional status of Federal firearm restrictions.

Know what the federal government can't do?  Give gun licenses.
Know what they can do?  Restrict what can or can't be sold.  Including guns.

Eighty-five percent of the children in the world who are killed by guns are killed in the United States. (ABC World News, Jan. 8, 2013)

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 28, 2022, 07:56:23 AM

the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.

restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.

Federal Restrictions are Unconstitutional.  That's not really debatable as the language is quite clear.  "Experts" can be wrong... see other threads on that topic.  So, the fact that any given SCOTUS has ruled on firearm restrictions in the past, makes no difference in the plain language Unconstitutional status of Federal firearm restrictions.

I hate to be the guy to bring this up in every second amendment debate but you're misunderstanding the purpose of this amendment.  It was added as a way to appease the slave states by making a way to create a militia for the purpose of suppressing slave uprisings.

This whole safeguard against tyranny idea was made up later on.  You can make an argument that 2a is good for that but that's not what it was written for.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 28, 2022, 07:56:23 AM

the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.

restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.

Federal Restrictions are Unconstitutional.  That's not really debatable as the language is quite clear.  "Experts" can be wrong... see other threads on that topic.  So, the fact that any given SCOTUS has ruled on firearm restrictions in the past, makes no difference in the plain language Unconstitutional status of Federal firearm restrictions.

Quote

states get to decide, not the feds.

Partly true, but misleading.  States _or_ The People.  Don't blur reality.  That happens way too much on this forum anyway...

Quote

that's the 2ndA.

No, that's the 10th Amendment.

---

The rest of your post is irrevelant due to discussing Federal legislative and such.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


exegsisly and literally speaking

the people have the right to bear arms.
the people will also be regulated and part of a militia.

you, being a single person, must earn the right to qualify for the militia.
the scotus who deemed self defense was paid off by the NRA and should be impeached.
same with the ajckasses who made a corporation a person and whatever other stupid decisions in recent history that fked over the country.



necessary for free state - meaning the regulated state militia/ guard should have access to military grade and heavy artillery because... you can't go against the fed army if all you got are pewpews.

restrictions are not infringements.
let's take it by level:
1  in self defense terms - if i gave you a derringer, it classifies as arms, you aren't infringed.
2  however a derringer will not keep the state free from military forces so then it is infringement.
3  unless there's a well regulated milita (state guard) that has access to big boy guns.   looks like there is.   so it's not infrignement.

great
check mate, king me, uker, touchdown.

must earn the right to qualify for the militia.

Wrong.

The militia was, at the time of the 2nd Amendment, consisted of common citizens and was locally organized.  It was not a Government run institution, federal or otherwise. And, it was very much BYOF ... Bring Your Own Firearm.

The Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, as written, literally means... "The Commoner's right to have a firearm that is as powerful as the Government's firearms... Shall not be infringed."

let's all take note you're cherry picking and "conveniently" omited some words to take the statement out of context.

what do you think a well regulated militia means?

probably didn't think before you chose the other word "literally".

the people.
not the person.
literally.


while we agree the WELL REGULATED militia gets to ahve big guns.
army and militia kick people out all the time for being unfit for service.
you, timissiess, must qualify you're not a liabilty to the others.
if you're going to be a liability, you get the practice wooden gun and a whistle.

what do you think a well regulated militia means?

Since the Constitution is the Law of the Land, and the 2nd Amendment was instituted pretty much directly after the Revolution which secured The People's freedom from what was termed a Tyrannical King George III... and the Constitution was written specifically as a list of Powers the People **granted to** the Government... not the other way around...

It's nonsensical to argue that the 2nd Amendment referred to a strong central Government licensing and regulating citizens.  It's simply an absurd argument to try to make on your part.

But, hey! ... If Americans don't want the 2nd Amendment anymore... all that needs to happen is:

1. Congress needs to pass an Amendment rescinding the 2nd.
2. The new Amendment needs to be passed by 2/3 of the States.

Good luck with that, since almost 1/2 the States have already passed Constitutional Carry.

---

However, it's fun to have circular and nonsensical discussions on the Interwebs with arm chair opponents of various political proclivities and nationalities.

It's nonsensical to argue that the 2nd Amendment referred to a strong central Government licensing and regulating citizens.  It's simply an absurd argument to try to make on your part.


regulation is not an infringement.
at what point is it an infringement?

keep repeating it doesn't further your attempt at a point.
it's only circular because i ask you a question to expand your thought, and you repeat the same 1st stupid thing.

state why it's an infringement.
break the loop.


the 2ndA didn't ref to a strong central gov't licensing.
ti dint' ref to
and it didn't ref against.
i never made the agrument it did.
i made an arugment that there should - adn that is different.
it is absurd you put words in my mouth for the sole purpsoe to call it absurd.
very tuckerC/ jWatters/ tactic of you.


state why it's an infringment.





you're right.
it's nonsensincal to exchange ideas with badfaith POS like yourself - what article said the immune ssystme would shutdown for 2wks?


however
in a society, as ideas exchange, repeated, explored, they like language become common knowledge.
then people will create a belief system based on those discussions.
20yrs ago smoking and drinking and driving weren't that bad.
30yrs ago it was not that bad to use Fggt and Nrggr

you're really not very good at this.

Quote from: appletoast on April 28, 2022, 05:17:35 AM

The current restrictions will be the maximum restrictions because that the way Constitutional America works.  Those who aren't on board with that, get over it.

Why? 

The constitution says nothing about high capacity magazines, fully automatic weapons, SAMs, tanks, armed drones, attack helicopters, etc.  because they didn’t exist at the time.  Most normal people would agree at least some of those things shouldn’t be available to the general public, so it’s clearly up for debate what restrictions should apply to modern weapons in modern society.

Or just draw the line at flintlock muskets and pistols.

Weapons at that time were state of the art and the founders knew that.   
Don't pretend they were too tardid to know shit would advance further.

It's amazing some folks believe the second amendment is the one sentence they fucked up.

Quote from: Unconvinced on April 28, 2022, 05:58:20 AM

Quote from: appletoast on April 28, 2022, 05:17:35 AM

The current restrictions will be the maximum restrictions because that the way Constitutional America works.  Those who aren't on board with that, get over it.

Why? 

The constitution says nothing about high capacity magazines, fully automatic weapons, SAMs, tanks, armed drones, attack helicopters, etc.  because they didn’t exist at the time.  Most normal people would agree at least some of those things shouldn’t be available to the general public, so it’s clearly up for debate what restrictions should apply to modern weapons in modern society.

Or just draw the line at flintlock muskets and pistols.

Weapons at that time were state of the art and the founders knew that.   
Don't pretend they were too tardid to know shit would advance further.

It's amazing some folks believe the second amendment is the one sentence they fucked up.

Right.  So do you believe that members of the public should have access to the level of firepower your government has?

Assuming you’re not completely insane, I take it you believe there should be some restrictions.  How do you decide what restrictions are appropriate?  The constitution won’t help you make that decision.

"Tyranical" is iffy.  They certainly hated the taxes without having a spot in parliament.  And soldiers started being dicks/killing.

But they also were polarized so basically King George was hitler before hitler.


And while the founders knew arms would advance, they probably didn't imagine cruise missiles, talks, or atomic weapons.  That shit is the power of GOD.

That being said, the local police force is technically a well regulated malitia.  Its run by an elected official and employed by civillians and has access to alot of big guns and ensures a free state. (Free from slave uprisings)

But again, taken literally without checks, that means a prisoner has the right to bear arms in prison. And we all know thats a dumb argument.

If people here, or even more ridiculous people from other countries, don't like that fact... oh well... Get Over It.

Less ridiculous than suggesting  open carry guns would reduce knife crime my country though.

I don’t really have anything to get over.  It’s just fascinating to talk to Americans about the completely out of control gun problem you have, which most developed countries don’t.

Do you actually have any ideas on how to address it?  Do you want it addressed?  Or just pretend that it’s all fine because the constitution?

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 28, 2022, 07:56:23 AM

the thread is deciding if the current level of regulation is appropriate or not - not that firearm ownership is legal or not.

restrictions are NOT unconstitutional.

Federal Restrictions are Unconstitutional.  That's not really debatable as the language is quite clear. 

This particular federal restriction was not found to be unconstitutional:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

The 10-year ban was passed by the US Congress on September 13, 1994, following a close 52–48 vote in the US Senate, and was signed into law by US President Bill Clinton on the same day. The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded.

"Experts" can be wrong... see other threads on that topic.  So, the fact that any given SCOTUS has ruled on firearm restrictions in the past, makes no difference in the plain language Unconstitutional status of Federal firearm restrictions.

I guess the SCOTUS is irrelevant then? I mean, that's sort of their job, you know, ruling on constitutional matters - And they happen to be the last stop when it comes to such matters.

I should have my own nuclear arsenal. I promise I would be very responsible with it!

But again, taken literally without checks, that means a prisoner has the right to bear arms in prison. And we all know thats a dumb argument.

First time I've seen someone wack their own strawman.   

I should have my own nuclear arsenal. I promise I would be very responsible with it!

I would rather have you control the codes than any politician. 

Quote from: appletoast on April 28, 2022, 07:12:19 AM

If people here, or even more ridiculous people from other countries, don't like that fact... oh well... Get Over It.

Less ridiculous than suggesting  open carry guns would reduce knife crime my country though.

I don’t really have anything to get over.  It’s just fascinating to talk to Americans about the completely out of control gun problem you have, which most developed countries don’t.

Do you actually have any ideas on how to address it?  Do you want it addressed?  Or just pretend that it’s all fine because the constitution?

This.

It isn't that I have any irons in this fire, it's just seeing a country or a good part of it ignore the fact that the more guns they buy the more of their own people die so, they buy more guns.

It's like in the name of my freedom I will continue to hit this wasp nest because back when they had buckles on their shoes it seemed like a good idea, the rest of the world has worked this out but you can't.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on April 28, 2022, 11:37:55 AM

I should have my own nuclear arsenal. I promise I would be very responsible with it!

I would rather have you control the codes than any politician.

I vote to give SCG the football.

No one ever used a beanie baby to kill anyone.

I want to disagree out of pure spite but I can't find any evidence this is untrue.

Quote from: Unconvinced on April 28, 2022, 11:26:39 AM

Quote from: appletoast on April 28, 2022, 07:12:19 AM

If people here, or even more ridiculous people from other countries, don't like that fact... oh well... Get Over It.

Less ridiculous than suggesting  open carry guns would reduce knife crime my country though.

I don’t really have anything to get over.  It’s just fascinating to talk to Americans about the completely out of control gun problem you have, which most developed countries don’t.

Do you actually have any ideas on how to address it?  Do you want it addressed?  Or just pretend that it’s all fine because the constitution?

This.

It isn't that I have any irons in this fire, it's just seeing a country or a good part of it ignore the fact that the more guns they buy the more of their own people die so, they buy more guns.

It's like in the name of my freedom I will continue to hit this wasp nest because back when they had buckles on their shoes it seemed like a good idea, the rest of the world has worked this out but you can't.

sort of like they were groomed to say "i will die before i wear a mask or take a vaccine"

Quote from: appletoast on April 28, 2022, 07:12:19 AM

If people here, or even more ridiculous people from other countries, don't like that fact... oh well... Get Over It.

Less ridiculous than suggesting  open carry guns would reduce knife crime my country though.

I don’t really have anything to get over.  It’s just fascinating to talk to Americans about the completely out of control gun problem you have, which most developed countries don’t.

Do you actually have any ideas on how to address it?  Do you want it addressed?  Or just pretend that it’s all fine because the constitution?

Guns are illegal in Mexico.  I live less than a mile from Tijuana. 
I hear gunfire almost every night.

Laws don't solve anything.  Prosecution does.
Plenty of laws, not much punishment. 

So much for that argument.   

I am safe in my neighborhood. 
Seven miles North, Bario Logan, (less than two square miles),   
couple of murders per week.
Why do you think that is.
(HINT: that's where the gangs live)


Remember when someone poisoned Tylenol? 

Now there is a foil top on everything.  Like a hypodermic needle couldn't shoot poison into a container through foil.   

Also, take off your shoes so the plane doesn't explode.   


Safety is an illusion. 

I guess the SCOTUS is irrelevant then?

I didn't write that.  You quoted my own words and then expanded on them to insert something I did not write nor imply.

Of course SCOTUS is relevant.  But they have reversed themselves on some rather important issues in the past... which necessarily means that SCOTUS can be wrong and is _sometimes_ honest enough to admit it.

Therefore, placing any given SCOTUS ruling as "proof" of Constitutionality is not actually proof.  The reality is: the plain language of the 2nd and 10th necessarily mean that Federal Congress has _no say_ in firearm restrictions in the USA.  Eventually, a future SCOTUS will have the balls, or vaginal fortitude - as the case may be - to ensure that the Federal government gets out of the firearm regulation business... OR... the States will make that ruling OBE.

Note, I always capitalize States.... because that's the true nature of Constitutional America.

Note also, that I did not place any "goodness" or "badness" to the actual reality that the 2nd and 10th give citizens of the USA the literal right to Firearms that are comparable to the Government.  That's simply the literal Constitutional guaranteed right as written _and_ intended by the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If one is to have an honest discussion on this topic, one must include in the discussion Tyrannical Government and how a citizen lead militia would defend The People from that Tyranny. 

i've obviously moved your quote around.

Therefore, placing any given SCOTUS ruling as "proof" of Constitutionality is not actually proof. 
Eventually, a future SCOTUS will have the balls, or vaginal fortitude - as the case may be - to ensure that the Federal government gets out of the firearm regulation business... OR... the States will make that ruling OBE.

agreed
self defense is not a valid interpretation of the 2ndA

That's simply the literal Constitutional guaranteed right as written _and_ intended by the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The reality is: the plain language of the 2nd and 10th necessarily mean that Federal Congress has _no say_ in firearm restrictions in the USA. 

If one is to have an honest discussion on this topic, one must include in the discussion Tyrannical Government and how a citizen lead militia would defend The People from that Tyranny.

reality is you literally have no fkcingclue what literally means when you literally take it unilterally  (i'm pretty sure i ralph wiggums that)

If one is to have an honest discussion on this topic, one must include in the discussion Tyrannical Government and how a citizen lead militia would defend The People from that Tyranny.

aside from "citizen lead" - no it just has to not necessarily be lead but more be made up of conscrip soldiers.... like the definition of militia.
ah there we go
that's what i've been saying.
THE PEOPLE
in a well REGULATED MILITIA.

aka the state guard.



thanks for agreeing with me.

Just to be clear, the Government does not give us rights.   

Our rights exist independent of a government.   

THE PEOPLE
in a well REGULATED MILITIA.

aka the state guard.

Nope.

You have it absolutely wrong.

This not about a State funded police unit.  This is about The People... the actual humans called citizens doing something which is actually written in the Declaration of Independence...

[our citizen lead] duty to throw off that Government...

That's _literally_ what they did and what they included in their newly minted nation's Constitutional Bill of Rights.

THE PEOPLE  in a well REGULATED MILITIA.

aka the state guard.

Regulated meant outfitted and militia was any male 18 years or older.
They could have inked "State Guard" if they wanted to.  They did not.Those words were available to them, yet not chosen by them. 

Is it that one sentence you hate, or the entire Constitution?

i'll have to disagree



Depending on the state, they may be variously named as state military, state military force, state guard, state militia, or state military reserve.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force