California's Hateful Gun Laws are worthless

Again you look for a perfect system.....instead of a better one

 

meaning a BAN was worthless-duh

 

gun banners will demand more and more magazine round restrictions every time there is a shooting. we saw it in NY.

 

Not at all. No one can tell how many shootings were prevented. We do know this.....California has low gun deaths per capita

 

"The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

https://www.newsweek.com/antonin-sc...rt-orlando-shooting-newtown-sandy-hook-472460

 

But again...those laws proposed wouldn't have prevented majority of mass shootings. How is your system a 'better one' if it doesn't have any affect on majority of shootings?

 

They will.

 

None of which supports anything being claimed on the part of yourself. Especially since it is not possible to demonstrate which firearms, other than fully-automatic firearms, are not in common use in the current environment. Further, according to the interpretation by Brett Kavanaugh, a firearm qualifies as being in common use on the grounds that it is owned by the public, it does not even have to be used to be in common use. Therefore any firearms currently available for ownership on the private market are in common use by default, and cannot be prohibited from legal ownership under any circumstances.

Further, in Caetano a unanimous united state supreme court went out of its way to specify that for a weapon to be outside the scope of the second amendment, it must be simultaneously dangerous and unusual, Not merely one or the other. the court also went out of its way to specify that modern firearms cannot be counted as unusual simply because they are a design that did not exist at the time of the founding fathers.

 

Of course, I also recognize that you know California leadership is effectively worthless at the same time.

History is being written and will record, how Progressivism destroyed what once was among the largest economies in the World, and the home to one out of eight people living in the United States.

Their restrictions on freedom is just another step in that sad process.

 

Of course it does:

"The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

https://www.newsweek.com/antonin-sc...rt-orlando-shooting-newtown-sandy-hook-472460

 

California has low per capita gun deaths. Those laws are likely preventing far more shootings

 

Which would not have been said in the first place, if the second amendment did not protect and secure a right held by the public to keep and carry at least some weapons, in some manner, for some purposes.

 

Ask them to tell you the difference between a "strong" gun law and a "not-strong" gun law.

Then watch the blank stares.

Oh, and stupid responses.

 

CA gun murder rate per capita is 3.4
VT gun murder rate per capita is 0.3

 

Strong laws work and weak ones do not

 

Gun deaths sir.

 

Looks like you were too fast for my edit of my post.

 

Nope.

 

Why?

 

Because we should try to prevent all those deaths

 

No matter how many laws are on the books, if someone wants to kill themselves they will. Seeing how it's not against the law to take ones own life.

 

And yet states with the highest suicides have lax gun laws

 

Some, some, not all, which is my point.

 

well since I personally know at least four of Scalia's law clerks,I will educate you what he was saying

1) he was worried that rolling back the dishonest Commerce Clause expansions would prevent Justice Kennedy from joining the Pro gun Heller coalition so he supported the part of 18 USC 922 that bans certain groups such as fugitives and felons from owning any firearms

2)since the Second amendment was not incorporated pursuant the 14th amendment until McDonald (passed AFTER HELLER) he was noting state laws preventing people from carrying concealed weapons or carrying weapons into courtrooms etc were still valid and did not implicate the second amendment

3) and he correctly noted that the second amendment does not protect the ownership of stuff like anti aircraft missiles, WMDs or military grade weapons that are not of an individual nature that citizens would Keep and Bear

nothing he stated can properly be even implied to suggest that the government can ban common firearms often used by civilian police or other citizens.

 

which has nothing to do with the laws but are based on demographics