One of the biggest lies in the current political divide

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Turtledude, Oct 20, 2022.

  1. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,261
    Likes Received:
    20,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    so the supreme court ruling on Roe really isn't something the the pro abortion crowd should be worried about-after all it's not legislation. You seem to think that the GOP justices will live forever or that senile Joe and the Dems won't try to pack the court
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2022
  2. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,622
    Likes Received:
    13,914
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll let you worry about your imaginary scenarios. I live in reality.
     
  3. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,261
    Likes Received:
    20,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only reality I see is you are afraid to actually address the points I made =something others have seen as well.
     
  4. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess we're supposed to believe the Democrats are lying about wanting all the restrictions they say they want.
    Funny thing though - in places where they know they don't have to worry about losing power, they enact those restrictions.
    What's that tell you?
    The -only- reason Democrats do not enact the restrictions they say they want is they know they will lose power if they do.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  5. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,261
    Likes Received:
    20,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Common sense or "reasonable" gun control to democrats involves the following

    1) can they pass it?
    2) if they pass it, will it cost them subsequent elections
    3) will it pander to low wattage yappers who want SOMETHING DONE
    4) will it harass lawful gun owners
     
  6. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    First of all, these left wing hacks want open borders, and second of all, many of their base openly and willingly does business with murdering criminal cartels and biker gangs, so right away they prove they don't care about controlling anybody's guns but white suburban types who are mostly law abiding. If they were really serious they would demand closing the borders, ratting out all their doper friends, and demand sweeps of ethnic ghettoes, i.e. go after the real perpetrators of most murders and shootings in this country. When they do all that then we can take them semi-seriously; until then they are just worthless wastes of time and and suck oxygen out of the air.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  7. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This professor's research found that there was a signficant decline in mass shootings during the the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB).
    https://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/faculty-profiles/az/profile.html?xid=37032

    "As society searches for effective policies to prevent the next mass shooting, we must consider the overwhelming evidence that bans on assault weapons and/or large-capacity magazines work.... We suspect that these outcomes may be improved by removing existing semiautomatic weapons with large bullet capacity by creating a buyback program for all rapid-firing weapons. Moreover, the legislation would be strengthened if it closed loopholes that allow gun buyers to get around the background check legislation and other purchase prohibitions by exempting gun shows and internet or person-to-person purchases, which were exempted from the FAWB and LCM ban [87]."
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8103291/
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2022
  8. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,261
    Likes Received:
    20,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    sorry, that's complete and utter bullshit. They want gun confiscation and they lie about its efficacy. There are not exemptions for gun shows etc. When they lie that much their conclusions have to be rejected
     
    Farnsworth likes this.
  9. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,261
    Likes Received:
    20,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    some of the other obvious lies from the anti gun left

    1) that there are "gun show" exemptions. there are not-the laws of a state apply at a gun show, a swap meet or someone's back yard. If a state requires background checks for private sales, they apply to private sellers at Gun shows. If a state does not require private sales background checks-that is true at a gun show, a Knights of Columbus swap meet or classified sales in a local newspaper by non-licensed individuals

    2) you cannot buy a gun on line and have it delivered to you by a common carrier unless you have an FFL. You cannot buy or sell a gun to anyone who lives in another state unless you are licensed or the other party is licensed and that is only in some circumstances. NO private sales are allowed across state lines. If you pay for a gun from a private party (who lives in your state) on line, there must be a face to face delivery of the firearm

    3) 11 round magazines are not high capacity magazines for most firearms that can accept an 11 round magazine
     
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does not matter how many times you repeat this falsehood, it remains a falsehood.
    The 1994 AWB did nothing to reduce mass shootings because the 1994 AWB did nothing to reduce access to 'assault weapons".

    upload_2022-10-26_14-1-13.png
     
  11. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is there a single mass shooting with an "assault weapon" post 1994 that couldn't have been committed with a post-ban AR-15?

    Why does the author not look solely at mass shootings committed with "assault weapons"? Does a limitation on "assault weapons" influence mass shootings with revolvers or shotguns?
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2022
    Turtledude likes this.
  12. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,261
    Likes Received:
    20,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    the entire garbage studies are nothing more than dishonest propaganda. we all know that
     
  13. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Turtledude and Rucker61 like this.
  14. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    83
    For young people new to the debates over U.S. gun control and our history re firearms and civilians, I would highly recommend Clayton Cramer's collection of historical resources along with his many excellent articles on legislation.

    Primary historical sources, not just about guns:

    https://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/primary.html

    Many might be surprised that most gun control legislation in the U.S. was based on state statutes based on racism, not Constitutional law. for instance.

    https://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/journals.htm

    And an article on the dishonesty in academia.

    http://hnn.us/articles/1185.html
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  15. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The term attrition comes to mind.

    That's why there can be no compromise we have this right if you try to take it you will suffer the consequences and if that makes me sound violent good sometimes violence is the answer.

    That's why I threw out all of human history we have made and advanced weaponry. In fact most significant inventions that we have were born out of the need to kill other people.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2022
    Turtledude likes this.
  16. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    IMO:
    1) Both sides are wrong about the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers wanted a well-armed, well-regulated citizen militia to protect the security of a free state. Neither side cares about that anymore.
    2) Gun control advocates have the stronger argument when it comes to the dangers of guns in society. Gun activists keep peddling nonsense about a gun saturated society somehow being a safer society year after year.
     
  17. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the Founding Fathers didn't want the people to be armed for self defense, they wouldn't have included that right in state constitutions concurrent with the ratification of the Bill of Rights and ratified by the same legislatures that ratified both.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  18. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,261
    Likes Received:
    20,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    there is no doubt that the founding fathers never intended the federal government to have any authority to limit or interfere with private citizens' choice of arms. Gun control activists are almost 100% left-wingers and have been ever since the Democrats started pretending that gun control was a valid substitute for crime control and gun owners called bullshit on that.
     
  19. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I don't think that right was included in many of the earliest (18th Century) state constitutions. Regardless, that wasn't what the Founders were trying to resolve when they drafted the Second Amendment. Private self defense was not a federal issue (just like abortion isn't).
     
  20. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    And now the Supreme Court holds that federal and state governments are equally empowered to regulate guns: federal/state restrictions which pass strict scrutiny are acceptable. That's interesting. Race-based affirmative action has also been found to pass strict scrutiny. It seems like a very subjective standard.
     
  21. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The two-stage scrutiny test no longer exists; Bruen has implemented a "historical tradition test". Notice that after Bruen SCOTUS sent lower court decisions like Bianchi v Frosh and Rupp v Becerra back for examination under this new standard.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  22. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That it appears at all is notable.

    Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

    Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

    Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.

    Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.

    Indiana: 1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.

    Mississippi: 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.

    Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).

    Missouri: 1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.

    The constitutions and courts of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times..
    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

    It wasn't an issue because the Federal government had no power to restrict the right to bear arms for self defense.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  23. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rational basis / intermediate scrutiny / strict scrutiny no longer apply to the 2nd Amendment.
    v Bruen
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2022
    Turtledude and Rucker61 like this.
  24. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    31,938
    Likes Received:
    15,597
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No weapons were confiscated after the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban was implemented. No weapons were confiscated in MA when Assault Weapons ban was implemented. Logical deduction will help people understand there is a massive difference between wanting to do something versus being able to do something. The idiots who might WANT guns to be confiscated don't have to be ok with millions of said banned guns still in private hands. They can whine all they like but that ain't gonna confiscate guns from anybody.
     
  25. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    USSC:
    When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.
     

Share This Page