They Want to Take Your Guns

Sorry Kode, your lack of recent event, inability to weigh visuals or formulate significate changes from remarks/timelines and corresponding indicators makes it impossible to have any intelligent discussion with you, or putting it simply "You don't know much".

 

That is a hoot. Now per you, the government has control over your wallet. And you admit they control your car and run your life with insurance.

Does that hint something is wrong?

 

Funny, then how the gun control laws called for would not have prevented the crimes that precipitates said call.
If by "responsible" you mean "use the blood of innocents to push a pre-existing agenda, then yes, it was responsible.

See above.

If not for the GOP congress blocking the possibility of more gun control the gun sales would have been greater as the threat of more gun control - especially another mindless ban on 'assault weapons' - would have been FAR greater.

 

Putting it simply, your partisan loyalty renders discussion with you pointless.

 

I had said "The only responsible thing to do was to call for gun control"

You treat a projection based on hypotheticals as proven facts. LOL!!!

Yup, it's true. The right pushed a pre-existing agenda to increase gun ownership and enrich the gun industry by using the "blood of innocents" and you call it "responsible". So no, that is not what I meant.

That isn't making any more sense than your previous sentence. You're saying that the GOP congress caused a reduction in gun sales by blocking gun control. Not only do you have no data to support such a random opinion, -it's also illogical.

 

LMAO, if you say so slick

 

And you don't

 

TOG 6 is right. Under the Republicans gun sales have dropped:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a6ed597e4ca_story.html?utm_term=.0b39966639a1

As that link indicates, now that people know firearms are available, they are no longer buying them with the fear that Trump might declare them illegal tomorrow. Those who invested in firearms are not selling because the availability drives the prices down, making the weapons take beating in value.

When Obama was president, people bought .22 ammo, took it to flea markets and jacked the price up by 100 percent. No need now. Sorry that the principles of supply and demand elude you.

 

Yes. And then I aptly describes your definition of "responsibility"
It is patently irresponsible to use a tragedy to push regulations that have nothing to do with said tragedy.

Unsupportable nonsense.

Sure it does.
Gun sales were driven in part by the concern over the left wanting to further limit the right to keep ans bear arms.
This concern was limited by the fact the GOP congress would not let that happen.
Had the Dems been in control of Congress, the concern would have been greater and thus gun sales greater as well.

You can claim you don't understand the veracity of this argument of this all you want, but we both know better.

 

Supply and demand have nothing to do with it. I'm sorry you don't grasp the logic of facts.

"Those spikes in background checks, which must be conducted for any gun sale from a licensed dealer, have followed a number of devastating mass shootings this year, including the deadly incident at a historically black church in Charleston, S.C., in June that killed nine, the shooting at Umpqua Community College in October that killed nine and injured nine, a shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colo., in November that killed three and injured nine, and the latest shooting in San Bernardino, Calif.

Spikes in gun sales regularly occur following mass shootings"

http://time.com/4138559/gun-sales-san-bernardino-mass-shooting/

Shootings will continue. Worry about possible new gun laws will continue. So sales will continue.
Congress could have stepped in to prevent it or at least slow it significantly, but the known truth is that the NRA put plenty of money in Republicans' hands and 501c3 orgs. so Republicans wanted increased gun sales because they were paid to do it.

 

I suppose you will deny that Republicans made repeated public claims, warning the public that the Obama Administration wanted to "confiscate your guns". And I suppose you will assert that such statements don't contribute to increased gun sales.

 

Right. So, that means that a convicted felon will never ever get a gun.

 

Given the predictable reaction of the Obama administration and liberals in positions of power to these shootings, why do you think that is?

Unsupportable nonsense.
Not a single mass shooting would have been prevented by any of the restrictions The Obama wanted to enact in reaction to same.

 

Nowhere here do you address what I said - thus, I than you for agreeing with me.

 

I cannot force you to be right. Since Trump has become president, gun sales have dipped and those holding stock in gun companies are losing money.

The biggest threat to gun owners are morons in the legislatures trying to introduce gun control. Introduce a bill tomorrow to ban a gun and there will be a run on that class of weaponry within 72 hours.

 

“You have Rights antecedent to all earthly governments; Rights that
cannot he repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe.” John Adams, second president of the United States

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams, American statesman, political philosopher and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States

17th-century Englishman John Locke, philosopher discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity..."

"There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for me to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed or enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt." Ayn Rand

Regardless of a person's background, calling them a "criminal" will not impede their ability to get a firearm. You cannot turn back the clock on technology. If people have had a run in with the law, it is the duty of the courts and the penal system to punish the individual then rehabilitate them and even make them pay restitution. If they have not rehabilitated the individual nor punished them enough, what in the Hell are they doing returning them back into society?

 

What people like you can't grasp is that so many liberal cities with restrictive gun control like Chicago and Baltimore have horrific violent crime.

If their gun control laws were worth 2 cents, there would not be anymore crime there statistically, than the average rural area in America.

 

Let's not forget to compare the gun control laws and the gun-related crime rates of CA and VT.

 

Your established position was that the second amendment was outdated, because you do not see how it could be a vital principle in the modern world, because it apparently has no real impact on the quality of your own life. You are claiming that because you do not have need for a firearm, you do not consider anyone else having need of a firearm by extension.

That is the basis of this argument, your dismissal of a constitutional right being valid simply because you do not believe that it is necessary in the modern world, because you do not have a need to utilize it. Therefore it is reasonable to question what other constitutional rights would be considered as invalid under your presented standard of review, simply because you do not have need of using them.

 

Not everyone is capable of doing everything on their own. For every logical interpretation see by myself, there are countless others that have been seen and presented by others that escaped initial detection.

 

The Heller decision did far more than that. It also forbade laws that mandated firearms be rendered unusable, or otherwise locked up in any manner that would inhibit their immediate use for the purpose of self defense. Trigger lock requirements are no longer on the table as viable options.

Incorrect. Heller dealt specifically with a limited number of questions at trial. The above was not among them.

Factually incorrect. Absolutely none of the above was ever sanctioned by any part of the Heller ruling. At best you have nothing more than the united states supreme court stating that they were not undertaking an exhaustive examination of every single firearm-related restriction currently in existence.

The passage you are attempting to refer to reads as follows:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

Note the first bolded portion of the above. For what reason was this mentioned? There would be no rational basis, nor even a basic need, for the united states supreme court to go out of its way in spelling out the above, unless the second amendment protected a right to keep and carry at least some weapons, in at least some manner, for at least some legal purposes.

Note the second bolded portion of the above. Firearms that are in common use at the time are protected by the second amendment, such as the AR-15 and other similar firearms. The claim that such is not accurate, was undone when the united states supreme court ruled on the Caetano case, and went out of its way to spell out exactly what it meant when it spoke of dangerous and unusual weapons. Note the following:

The Supreme Judicial Court’s holding that stun guns may be banned as “dangerous and unusual weapons” fares no better. As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. Because the Court rejects the lower court’s conclusion that stun guns are “unusual,” it does not need to consider the lower court’s conclusion that they are also “dangerous.” See ante, at 1–2. But make no mistake—the decision below gravely erred on both grounds.

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘anything that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cas t at or strike another.’ ” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court ’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapon s: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.

The Supreme Judicial Court’s conclusion that stun guns are “unusual” rested largely on its premise that one must ask whether a weapon was commonly used in 1789. See 470 Mass., at 780–781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. As already discussed, that is simply wrong. See supra, at 4–6. The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3 d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26
N. E. 3d, at 693. But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 5 54 U. S., at 624. Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “ the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use. 554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.

Any notion that Heller allowed for prohibiting the ownership of certain common firearms currently on the market, was completely undone by their decision in Caetano thus taking that argument off of the table under all circumstances.

Which is not relevant to the discussion.

Storage requirements are rendered moot if the method of storage utilizes keys that an unauthorized individual may find. The mother of Adam Lanza kept her firearms secured in a locking safe, however he knew where the keys were, and used them, thus rendering the safe useless in preventing the Sandy Hook incident from transpiring.

 

No my actual position is that the second amendment needs to be reinterpreted for the modern world. This is not the world where an armed militia is going to actually be capable of defending the sovereignty of the nation.

 

It was. In 1939, 2008 and 2010.

 

You have apparently not paid attention to how the united state supreme court has ruled that the militia argument is no longer a valid argument to be making. For nearly a decade now, it has been established precedent that the second amendment to the united states protects an individual right to own firearms for all legal, lawful, and legitimate uses. This has been reiterated in both McDonald and Caetano each one of them going further and further than Heller ever did in establishing this fact. Caetano went even further than Heller and all but stated outright that no modern firearms can be prohibited from legal ownership.

 

The Heller and McDonald decisions never reinterpreted the Second Amendment. Most people don't understand that. Apparently they think the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to create a militia. They didn't.

The Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the individual Right to keep and bear Arms with the major benefit to the government of insuring the security of a free State. Whether the holier than thous can accept the history of militias is irrelevant. With or without the Second Amendment the Right exists. Court Jester ignores posts # 169 and #170 (on page 9 of this thread.) He/she has no legitimate issues to discuss on this thread.