Simple questions for those who support strong gun control laws

In terms of gun control laws - how far is too far?
What do you believe qualifies as an "infringement" under the 2nd Amendment?
Can you name any state or federal gun laws you believe go too far should be struck?

 

One of the reasons (not the main one) I escaped California was gun laws like "bullet buttons", ten round limitation on magazines, waiting periods for purchasing guns, red laws, background checks every time you bought ammo, and more.

 

And the anti-gun left believes none of these things violates the constitution.
Thus my question.

 

When I escaped California I moved to Texas which is "sanctuary" for the Second Amendment in the spirit of "Immigration Sanctuary" or illegal immigration in blue states. The difference being, of course, that we defend a right spelled out in the Bill of rights while those blue states defend crime.

 

If any of those things violate the constitution, then we need to change the constitution.

The end result of this is you guys are going to lose the 2nd amendment, because you keep using it as a shield.

I'm not suggesting it will happen in our lifetime, but as long as people say the 2nd amendment is the barrier between reasonable gun restrictions, then eventually the 2nd amendment is going to become the target, and it will be changed.

If the 2nd amendment dies, it will be because of the pro gun folks.

 

Gun control is predicated on the supposition that a woman, raped and strangled with her pantyhose, is morally superior to that same woman explaining to a cop how her attempted rapist got that bullet hole in his head.

 

It's not. I'm not even entertaining your insanity.

 

My insanity? Can you explain that nasty, immature, childish insult please?

 

Nope.

 

I didn't hink you could. Without any specific facts its just bloviating... hot air. We get it.

 

Yes, you will.

That's the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and indeed of the Bill of Rights.

There is no end to what the gun control advocates consider to be "reasonable gun restrictions". They've already told us the goal: "end gun violence", "no more mass shootings", "no more school shootings". No amount of "reasonable gun restrictions" will get us there.

Find a recent red/blue map of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

 

You did not address the questions in the OP.
Please do.

 

How is it "reasonable" to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of a right by those who hold it?

 

Actually, he did answer the question. His answer is: no infringement is too far.

 

Is it reasonable to take guns away from a man who has been arrested twice for beating his wife and has threatened to shoot her?

 

Of course you can't.

What other rights do you favor stripping American citizens of?

So you think it's better for women to be victims instead of for them to successfully defend theirselves?

 

Doesn't the Lautenberg Amendment cover that?

Given that 45% of adult female homicide victims are killed by non-firearm means, what else besides banning his possession of firearms should the government do?

 

If he's too dangerous to own a gun, he's dangerous enough to go to prison. That's reasonable.

 

There comes a point were the search for the perfect answer becomes the enemy of the good answer.
So the claim that some restrictions on firearms won't fix ALL the problems must prevent trying ANY restrictions from being tried at all ...? Not buying it. And I support
the right to own firearms - just not in an absolute manner.

 

Were you intending to respond to a totally different post than mine?

 

we will change the Constitution when we want to. Until then these laws all need to be challenged as they are unconstitutional.

Yeah that's what it was written for to limit government. It's purpose is to be a shield.

there isn't the such thing as a reasonable gun restriction. None of the restrictions listed in that post or reasonable they're insane and their unconstitutional yes I'm using it as a shield for its intended purpose against unconstitutional laws. That's the whole point of writing the constitution in the first place to shield the citizens from government getting too big for its britches.

So far the Second amendment is pretty safe. People that want to make up the stupid little Petty laws to try and interfere with rights are quite a minority.

how do you figure because we understand the law it can educate others on it?

 

Meeting you don't understand and can't argue yet we're going to kill the Second amendment. Lol

 

next thing you know people are going to be using the fifth amendment to shield themselves from self-incriminating, or the fourth amendment to shield themselves from unlawful search.

It was just be so much easier if you just lay down and let fascism happen just quit fighting it.

Yeah this opinion of what is reasonable seems to be all over the place personally I think all gun laws in the entire country yard unconstitutional because the Second amendment says you can't do that.

And I see more and more people making persuasive arguments for this. Because they don't rely on just saying something is rational they can rationalize it.

 

Can he get a gun illegally? If yes and that represents a danger to the public and he shouldn't be out of custody until he is no longer a danger.

Somebody who is going to commit premeditated murder likely doesn't care much for a gun charge.

So if he is released the system that released him his responsible not all the gun owners that have to jump through BS hoop that isn't going to stop this crime anyway.

 

Gun ownership was intended to be mandatory not optional when the Second Amendment was written. The real infringement happened when the well-regulated militia was replaced with the National Guard and thus the people no longer needed to own guns to fulfill their militia duties (because they didn't have any). Nowadays, the Second Amendment is misused to resolve disputes about public safety issues, but that was not what the Second Amendment was originally intended for. Asking if laws mandating waiting periods, background checks, limits on magazine size and so on are constitutional is besides the point.

"The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution. It has only been in recent years that the National Guard has been an organized force, capable of being assimilated with ease into the regular military establishment of the United States. From the days of the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord until just before World War I, the various militias embodied the concept of a citizen army, but lacked the equipment and training necessary for their use as an integral part of the reserve force of the United States Armed Forces. The passage of the National Defense Act of 1916 materially altered the status of the militias by constituting them as the National Guard."
- Maryland v. United States