What law()s) would have stopped the Buffalo shooting?

For someone took a long time to research the validity of your arguments, you should able to do much better than this.
You should be able to demonstrate the cause you cite created the effect you claim.
Instead, you rest on a post-hoc fallacy - which, obviously, does not demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim.

You cite an effect and claim a cause. Onus is on you to demonstrate said cause.
And you can't.

Glad we could put that to rest.

 

Ah.
You don't understand that the burden of necessity lies with those that seek the restrictions.
You know you cannot demonstrate said necessity, which is why you want to reverse that burden.

 

I would advice you against it. Those threads are a serious analysis using references, quotes, links... facts! Not appropriate for people who only post pre-canned talking points. Besides, it's four different threads, the combination of which is likely to completely obliterate 2nd A dogmas that you probably have been hearing on MAGA-radio for many years. Caution: stay away!

 

No. You offered your unsound and irrelevant opinion.

 

Please lay out your argument as to why a "non partisan" USSC would not uphold Heller.
First, you have to define "non partisan" and tell us how you think that would ever come to be.

 

Funny how those all things are absent from your attempt to demonstrate the necessary relationship you claimed.

 

None of which ever comes close to dismissing Tench Coxe’s interpretation of the 2nd. Which states the American citizen has a right to the same sword and shield of a soldier. His expertise matters because he was there during the ratification of the constitution, was an elected official, and was a law graduate. I’ll take his opinion over yours.

 

And you'd be correct in doing so.

 

No I don't. I only need to demonstrate that the conclusion that the cause created the effect EXPECTED requires less assumptions than the conclusion that it was caused by something different. And unless you can show an alternative explanation for the decline that requires even LESS assumptions, my conclusion is the most reasonable. As I said: Occam's Razor.

It's easy for me, because people who don't do research can NEVER offer an alternative explanation. Not to mention one with less assumptions.

 

The cause you cite makes no sense whatsoever. If he was doing it because blacks were going to replace whites, killing ten blacks would have no effect whatsoever. He already had problem with blacks. He was looking for ready excuses and he found one. If not this one, something else. Not that nut jobs really need a reason.

My reason makes infinitely more sense than yours.

 

You're lying to yourself. It does not matter in any way that you -expected- B to follow A
That B follows A does not -demonstrate- A caused B - in fact it does not prove any relationship between A and B at all, other than chronological order.
You cannot demonstrate your claim that A caused B to be true because you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the two.
And that won't change.
Absent the demonstration of that necessarily relationship - using serious analysis, references, quotes, links... facts! - your claim is w/o merit.

 

The burden lies with whoever lawmakers decide to place the burden on. And I think it reasonable that if we ever had a Congress that would pass anything like this, that would mean that most lawmakers would agree that the burden should be placed on those whose position is most likely to produce loss of life. i.e. yours.

 

Dear God! You write post after post after post just to say "No". What a waste of time.

 

The only "interpretation" that matters right now is Scalia's Which was complete nonsense, as I prove in the "Guns" Forum. But... it is the law of the land.... Until it ceases to be.

 

As you know this is already in place -- since It took you a long time to research the validity of you arguments, you already know about strict scrutiny.
You want the state to place limits on exercise of a constitutionally protected right that will, for all intent and purposes, exterminate that right.
To do so, the state must demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of those restrictions.

You know -you- cannot make any such demonstration, so you want to reverse the burden.
As such, you knowingly peddle nonsense.

 

Nothing here changes the fact you "explained" nothing - you merely offered your unsound and irrelevant opinion.

 

You "proved" nothing - you merely offered your unsound and irrelevant opinion.

 

It doesn't. As per Occam's Razor it only demonstrates that B was most likely caused by A, given that that was the PURPOSE of A. And given that the same has happened multiple times. And absent any other cause with "less entities" (as Occam would say), it's the most CERTAIN explanation.

You shouldn't worry yourself. Logic is MY area, not yours. You should keep trying to draw me into the realm of "gun classifications". Just because you haven't had any luck bringing me into that narrative, doesn't mean you should stop trying. Who knows... I might one day fall for it.

 

Scalia’s opinion was written after he heard arguments that include Tench Coxe writings on original intent of the 2A. So if you can’t debunk his opinion, you will never debunk Scalia’s

 

That one is all over the news, and likely will be for weeks if not longer. The other two have already disappeared from the headlines.

 

Very true not very man people are killed with ar 15s

 

Wow, you really are a victim of wokeness. In fact, and ON AVERAGE, women are the "weaker sex". With exceptions, they are smaller, weaker, slower, and overall less athletic than men. That's a FACT that I guess you're wokeness won't even allow you to admit. There is a reason we separate sports by gender, and this is why.

I suppose you also think white boys are just as skilled as black boys when it comes to playing basketball, eh?

 

You are not only wrong, if you weren't, it would be highly illegal.

 

Wouldn't be illegal.

 

But it's NOT up to you, and you really add nothing to the debate because such an idea is black letter Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

I'd also point out to you that it only requires a CNC machine (or a 3d printer), the proper plans, and the knowhow to use them to make your own homemade firearms any time you like. Ammunition is equally easy to make at home, so even if by some miracle you got your wish, someone determined to use a firearm in a crime like that we're discussion only needs to acquire the necessary tools and skills, which aren't exactly rocket science.

A properly maintained firearm (which basically means cleaning and oiling it once every year or two) can last indefinitely, as in centuries. They're really simple mechanical devices.