Supreme Court asked to recognize a Second Amendment right to sell guns

Keep trying with the falsehood, repetition might make it true along with wishes. Then, the world might turn out to be flat as well.

Deeper and deeper...

 

we of course both know it isn't a falsehood.

 

Again, prove it. So many words of deception when fewer could be expended answering the questions or referencing the relevant posts... anything else is perpetuating a lie. Go ahead, keep digging... you keep reaffirming why you have no credibility. Come on... sear controling ROF, no proof, just share the post number.
Must be embarrassing to have to repeatedly resort to dishonesty to maintain face already lost when it should be easy to reference the relevant post.

 

we've been over this. I already have. I am under no obligation to keep repeatedly re-proving your claims wrong.

 

The entirety of the argument presented by yourself pertaining to the rate of fire is based on the notion that it is simple physics. No effort at elaboration or proof has ever been presented by yourself. If it were indeed a lie, it would be quite easy to prove such. But such has not been done by yourself in this particular matter.

 

Many states regard carrying a firearm in public to be a right. Are they incorrect in their determination of such?

 

Your credibility and integrity completely trashed...I would think you’d want to win by proving you have done what you say you have by sharing the relevant post numbers...would be less work than repeated dishonest and unsupported posts that you have. Evidence...evidence.

 

very good

 

yes. And even in those states, you can't carry anything you want, anywhere you want.

 

and this is something else we both know is not true.

 

More dishonesty... you deliberately twisted and changed the meaning of his posts by quoting out context, a violation of forum rules.

 

nonsense. I left out the irrelevant parts, like I always do.

See the period at the end of his sentence? That sentence is the only relevant part of his post that needed responding to. the meaning can't be changed. It's a complete sentence.

 

Again, you can easily put it to bed with evidence supporting your claim. Continuing the deceit, provides a significant body of posts that attest to your lack of honesty, honor and integrity for evaluating any post you make.

 

already done. I will not continue to re-prove your claims false, simply because you keep repeating them.

 

correcting you isn't trolling.

 

They weren’t irrelevant...you cherry picked to support your dishonest narrative.

 

More dishonesty. You haven’t proven your narrative much less re-proved anything. Period.

 

of course they were

 

Again, dishonesty exhibited on the part of yourself. The Essence of his post was you have failed to demonstrate your assertion about how a full auto sear controls ROF. Your response was twisted to convey he understood and agreed with you it was ‘physics’; a completely dishonest reinterpretation of his post. If it wasn’t, see if he will agree with your interpretation of his post or if he sees your post as a deliberate and dishonest portrayal of his post.

 

I didn't say gun shop, and your argument did not limit the context to gun, despite the thread topic. You made the argument of a store's location being blocked based on what it sells. Are you hypothetical enough that you would limit a porn store based upon what it sells, but not a gun store?

 

Elementary to high schools. My point was if you don't feel a store's location should be limited just by what it sells, then you should not object, at least on a legal level, to a porn store being next to a school.

 

The location of a gun shop is the subject of this thread. Presuming you meant hypocritical rather than hypothetical, no, I have no problem with a porn shop being located next to a school. Every child can access the Internet, rendering such location restructions moot.

What would be the justification for keeping a gun shop 500 feet from a school, other than a desire to make things difficult or impossible for those types of shops to exist?

 

As a rule, that is not why kids want to see porn. That the store is next door to the school. If the store is a mile distant, they still can get that far. My city was preplanned. We started with farm fields and visualized a perfect city. We located groups of homes all over the vacant land on paper and included schools, shopping, parks and more to make life better for each enclave of homes. Anyway, boys know how to find stores showing flesh.

I see no reason for guns to be a special product. We have a central business district so a gun store could work there very well. But Democrats here have excluded gun shops in this city from all appearances. But this is California. The next door city has a gun range plus it is a gun store. It is a shame this city capitulated to the left. The next city to mine put their gun store and range in a light industrial area.

 

Because the community wants it that way. Same for a liquor store

 

There is no evidence that the community itself was given a say in the matter, rather than elected officials opting to make decisions based on what they want, rather than what the people may want.