Are revolvers the most reviled of firearms available?

Blacks, women and gays were seeking expansion of protected rights; GCAs are seeking restrictions on protected rights.

Obergefell is why we know that restrictions on gay rights are unconstitutional. We don't have to wait for a law to be passed and review to know that. We know that discrimination by race is unconstitutional; we don't need to pass another law to have SCOTUS review it to know that a law restricting rights based on race is unconstitutional.

 

Just answer this.


Are you saying it is impossible?

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

 

deleted - how the hell did I post it on the wrong thread?

 

Then you are flat out wrong. Scotus can rule people belong in concentration camps. They can rule blacks are not persons. They can do these things because they already have.

They can also rule gun control is constitutional.


Anything is possible

 

They've already ruled that some gun control is allowed. They've not upheld any gun control laws reviewed in some number of decades. Given the current makeup, it's not going to change.

The Court that allowed Japanese-American internment was mainly appointed by FDR and held against Miller in US v Miller with spurious logic.

 

That is more opinion. You are entitled to it but it carries no weight. You know this. You are trying to.make predictions. It is based in hope not fact.


Fact


Scotus can and does reverse itself and that can apply to gun laws.


You can deny that fact.....but it is just silly.


Anything is possible

 

The implication here is that SCOTUS would need to reverse existing law in order to allow more gun control. Thanks for acknowledging that new gun control likely isn't Constitutional.

 

In your opinion. Thank you for admitting that is simply your opinion which carries no legal weight

 

Exactly. As far as what restrictions are concerned, it’s pretty simple. Nearly all SC justices have agreed, including Scalia, that Restrictions on, anyone, any firearm and any place is allowed.
You will find through out the country, that certain people, places and firearm types have all been restricted and allowed and have not all been challenged successfully. Even the Heller decsion, does not allow anyone, any place and any firearm. Regulations are the bond that have been written to support this concept. That’s why regulation in general is supported by the SC. According to Scalia, it’s up to the legislature to write and pass the legislation, not up the court’s to preemptively decide what the regulations are.
That’s decided by any challenge, hopefully before regulations are enacted...this is why, it’s a useless exercise to use the 2a as a reason to not allow some regulation. It’s not absolute.

 

"Not absolute" does not translate into next to nonexistent. "Not absolute" simply means the second amendment is almost absolute, and almost unlimited in terms of its scope. In numerical terms "not absolute" can mean ninety nine percent, rather than one hundred percent.

 

"All bearable firearms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or having "a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia" are protected. Why would bans on "assault weapons" fall outside these protections?

 

What YOU don't get is that your philosophy is intrinsic to totalitarianism and authoritarianism... and is not compatible with the philosophy of individual rights and personal liberty the Founders sought to codify through the Constitution.

I grew up around people who mowed lawns and collected cans and bottles to raise the money to walk into the local hardware store and buy their first guns when they weren't much older than 9 years old. Kids owned guns, and took their guns to school with them as a matter of habit... and there were no school shootings, and kids learned self-discipline and the value of hard work to achieve their goals. They understood guns, and thus understood personal responsibility at young ages. Today, people reject personal responsibility and are more childish and immature at 30 than the kids of previous generations were at 10.

 

And the fact SCOTUS can and has ruled in ways so obviously offensive to the Constitution proves their utter lack of credibility, and is exactly why we have a right to bear arms.... because clearly SCOTUS acts only as an arm of government that will rubberstamp abuses against people's liberty by the government. Sooner or later SCOTUS will go too far, and even the most complacent will be forced to sit up, take notice, and take action.

 

Got anyother scare tactic “ isms” you want to throw out there ?
I doubt if it’s a frightening “ism” if parents of slaughtered baby’s want to see something done about mass murders.

 

Guess you never did look up in the dictionary the difference between “ban” and “regulate”. As long as we persist on making up our own vocabulary, your comments are senseless.
We regulate weapon type, location and individuals. Always have.

 

Their children are in more danger at home from mommy and daddy, or getting to and from school than they are from mass shooters.

 

Tell that to the parents of slaughtered children. That less then ideal comparison doesn’t change what actually happened. Just because flying in a plane is safer then driving, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do everything we can to make flying safer. Your little NRA responses mean little to gun violence victims.

 

I can tell you’ve reach a point where you have no response. Can’t address that no rights are abosolute and everyone of them is subject to regulation. It must be painful to even think about by gun cultists.

 

Heller, McDonald and Caetano have changed what was allowed before, and we'll soon see that. I don't use the word "ban" by accident; I'm just repeating what the Democrats in Congress, Oregon, Washington State, New York, Connecticut, Maryland and Ohio are saying.

 

That's your answer? Can't actually address the relative risk and the irrational fear?

These parents aren't trying to make anything else safer. The media has made them scared at an irrational level. The fact that you refer to a slaughter of children, whose numbers are less than 100 in the last 18 years makes me wonder what you would call the 300 6 and under filicides we have every year with bare hands and feet of parents, or the 28,000 K-12 children killed in car wrecks since 2001.

You don't care about those numbers, though.

 

Prior to the Heller ruling, the district of columbia required anyone who wished to own a handgun to register it within the city. However the city provided no funding to the registration department for over thirty years. It was not a prohibition as far as legislation goes, merely a regulation that served to act as a prohibition in substance rather than in structure.

Regulation and prohibition go hand in hand if those in charge decide to do such. Do not claim otherwise without proof to the contrary.

 

Yet another useless, impotent, appeal to emotion. Demonstrating a lack of legitimacy on the part of yourself.

 

Oh, PLEASE spare me!

There is nothing of "scare tactics" in what I said; just simple reality. When guns were widespread and kids were taught responsibility with them our society was far safer than it is now.

Oh, for f*** sake. You want to talk about "scare tactics"? You've got nothing but hyperbole and rhetoric. You want to protect "babies" from slaughter, then advocate for proper security for schools instead of suppression of Constitutional rights and liberties!

 

You are laughably full of yourself.... and unable to recognize the amorality of your authoritarian viewpoint.

My rights are not yours to infringe upon, and I will resist the agendas of you and people like you by any means necessary. Period.