Simple questions for those who support strong gun control laws

Did you notice your ham-handed attempt to avoid the questions I asked?
I did. So did everyone else.
Thank your for demonstrating your inability to meaningfully respond.

 

How are unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of a right by the law abiding -ever- a good answer?

 

I didn't think you could. Emotional insults are inherently irrational.

 

well when the real goal is creating restrictions on the rights of honest people, you have your answer

 

You forgot the "roster"

 

Here's your problem, you throw around "reasonable" like you saying it make it true. It doesn't.

 

reasonable is a subjective term. Me saying it makes it true, because I am the one using the term.

 

"Reasonable" is based on "reason", which is objective.
Thus, you saying it is reasonable does - not - make it so.

 

Reasonable is a subjective term. Me saying it makes it true, because I am the one using the term.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat this falsehood, it remains false.
You claiming something is reasonable does not, in and of itself, make it so.

 

It's only true if everyone agree with your definition related to guns.

 

Trying to get an objective limit from the gun control crowd is impossible. I've tried with similar threads. Objectivity is no friend of the gun control movement, never has been. The logical conclusion is they will tend to consider any restriction to be 'reasonable', which renders the term 'reasonable' itself meaningless in the context of gun control.

They're happy to do to gun rights what many 'pro-lifers' seem to be happy to do to abortion: pandor about 'regulation' while allowing the regulation to progress to a de-facto ban (which is not 'regulation' in any meaningful way).

 

Nothing you say is true till you prove it.

 

It's pretty clear they do not believe any restriction on the exercise of the right to keep an bear arms by the law abiding qualifies as an infringement upon same.

And then thy wonder why we will not give an inch..

 

the anti gun left's concept of reasonable

1) can they pass it
2) if they do, will it not cost them seats in congress
3) will it harass honest gun owners

if the answer to the above is YES to all three-then it is reasonable

 

In all reality, they stop at 1)

 

This is an empty threat. The gun control movement is like that knight with no arms and legs in the Monty Python sketch. They have no power to do anything.

Yes it is.

He posted no insanity. His post is accurate.

 

Can he be convicted of a crime for having done this?

I would be more comfortable if his guns were taken away due to conviction in a criminal trial, just to ensure that guns are not seized from an innocent person who has been falsely accused.

But assuming adequate due process to protect innocent people who are falsely accused, I would have no problem with it.

 

That never happened. The militia cannot be replaced by the national guard.

how can a militia be if it doesn't have weapons. Sand no the national guard is not a replacement or anything like a militia in any way. The national guard is made up of servicemen employed by the national government since the word national in front of the word guard. It can't be a militia it violates the meaning.

The second amendment was intended to make sure the people were able to have guns that's why it says that specifically in the Second amendment.

And safety issues as in the security of a free state was written in the second amendment from the beginning.

they aren't constitutional. The Constitution protects someone's right to own a gun for a lawful purpose.

If I want to go to the gun range and shoot 30 rounds without changing a magazine that is a lawful purpose so I have every right to have whatever capacity magazine I want. Any law restricting it is a violation of the Second amendment.

no it's not. If it was the militia it would be called the militia. Different spellings and pronunciations indicate different meanings.

so it's more of a standing military under the control of the federal government not really a militia at all.

no that's not what a militia is. You're talking about the military.

The different pronunciations and spellings of those two words should have clued you in. A militia is made up of ordinary People not military and they muster to defend their town. That has nothing to do with national defense or the armed forces or anything like that at all.

You're dead set on this mistake the national guard does not serve the same purpose as the militia they never did.

That's why it's not called the militia.

 

You haven't actually read 10 USC 246, have you?

 

Hiller v US, a fairly recent Supreme Court decision, firmly asserted that the "militia" reference in he 2d amendment in no way restricted a citizen's "right to bear arms".

 

"Heller", and there are 60 million men age 17 to 44 who are part of the unorganized militia.

The National Guard is only part of the militia.

 

You didn't read USC 246.

The national guard is considered the organized militia the existence of the organized militia does not end the existence of the unorganized militia.

 

Gun control is predicated on the belief that a woman found dead, raped, and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to that same woman explaining to a cop how her attempted racist got that hole in his head.

 

We're in 100% agreement. Where did you get lost?