Jon Stewart demolish a 2A fanatic

what legitimate power does the federal government have concerning firearms usage and possession by private citizens.

 

how many of those shootings were perpetrated by the firearms that dishonest scum in office call "assault weapons, before during and after the ban?

tell me, does a flash hider or a bayonet lug on an AR 15 make it more suitable for "mass shootings"?
do you have any idea what the clinton ban actually did?

 

I'm fairly certain you're going to find out just how wrong you are as the long-term ramifications of the Bruen decision sink in over the next few years, and you'll eventually figure out you've been wrong the whole time. And that's a good thing, as simple common sense dictates that a truly free society is one where people have an absolute right to defend themselves, which necessarily means the uninfringed right to own the tools required for that.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Legislatively speaking, it's untouchable.

Wanna change it? Amend the Constitution.

 

how about backing up your claims

 

Already have, that you don't accept it is irrelevant.

 

No, I have never seen any support for your one liners that are devoid of backing

 

So we can have limits applied to most other Amendments but not to the 2nd? Legal minds far more educated on the matter than either you or I have been, have said otherwise. Yet here you are trying to reason-out the legal implications and meanings. Really? LOL!!!!

 

...according to a few RW judges whose opinion is highly questioned by respected scholars.

No need. That has been established.

 

Any so called scholar that thinks the Constitution can be changed by legislation is a moron, or a liar.

Yeah, there's a need because it's the only way to change the Constitution.

 

Yes. Of course. Everyone knows that but you seem to think it needs to be pounded home.

THERE'S NO NEED because the SCOTUS has said that Amendments are all subject to limitations, like the 1st, the 4th, and the 10th to name just three.

 

Show us the Federal, state, or local laws banning speech. Any speech.

 

Look up the laws relating to juries and what they can say during trials. Look up laws on what happens if you threaten to kill a politician. Look up laws on lying to the FBI.

Want a few more?

 

Oh, so what you're saying is, it's how speech is used that can be illegal, such as lying under oath, or inciting violence. That sounds like the current laws we have that regulate how guns are used, assault, murder, wreckless discharge; not the keeping and bearing of those guns.


That's what I've thought all along. It seems you aren't on the same page. Why not?

 

You can't use a can of spray paint to "say" something in a message on someone's car. And you shouldn't be able to own a gun engineered to do maximum anti-personnel damage on the battlefield.

 

The first amendment doesn't mention anything about gag orders or what you can or cannot say to a politician. That was added as a limitation. The same is true of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. It was a limitation. So I think it is really you who is on another page.

 

And those legal minds (that may or may not be more educated than I am) have decided that any contemporary gun control law that does not have a historical sibling that existed in 1791 (sibling meaning an actual statute passed by an appropriate legislative body) is Unconstitutional and thus null and void. No such historical precedent means no can do in contemporary times. Which is a legal test almost all existing gun control laws (all 20,000 of them, give or take) are unlikely to pass. Unfortunately, in order for them to actually be ruled on in such a manner requires a defendant who has placed themselves at risk of prison if they lose. Personally, I can't afford to be a test case even if I do win, plus I won't do well in prison, so hopefully some people with actual legal standing will pave that path for the rest of us.

 

that's a common error among the anti gun left--they often say "we have laws against drunk driving" and suggest that justifies banning people owning guns when in reality we have laws against the reckless USE of firearms. They often talk about shouting Fire in a Crowded theater-in reality you can shout fire in a crowded theater if there is a fire or if it is part of a fire drill. Their analogy would demand no one could shout fire ever

 

Why?

 

John Oliver is very popular in the US, and is very intelligent.

If you are not willing to consider viewpoints the disagree with your own, why are you here?

 

Because Colion Noir would have made him look like *******. That why Stewart didn't debate him.

 

Oh, the irony...lol

 

I constantly consider-and destroy-anti gun view points. Most anti gun viewpoints are based on lies as to their motivation

 

The assault weapons ban banned guns. It wasn't a limitation on the use of those guns, like speed limits are a limitation on the use of cars. One can own a car that is capable of going 100 mph, but there is no public roadway where you can legally do 100 mph.