Trump ended the rule blocking mentally ill people from getting guns.

There are a lot of pro-gun Democrats.

 

You said "Explain how it is?"... taking up a position that it wasn't.
So the joke is on you.

Yeah how 6 million NRA members were gassed.... terrible times.

 

It wasn’t constitutional

The NRA has nothing to do with it...but treating people with mental health issues as criminals is nazi like

 

you previously said about it being legal... "It was, and it shouldn't have been".
flip flop flip

 

It wasn’t legal, but it was done by the president. I’m not flip flopping not once have I said I supported this cruel and sick treatment of the mentally ill by Obama

 

It either was unconstitutionally or it wasn't.

 

That is incorrect. Outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto rifles has nothing to do with public safety. Therefore anyone who wants to do so is overruled by the Constitution.

It is never fails that whenever someone argues for violating people's civil liberties, they always use terms like "reasonable" or "common sense".

 

The entire gun control movement in general.

That is incorrect. They are demanding measures that violate the Constitution, and which do nothing to prevent any fatalities.

How come every time someone calls to violate people's civil liberties, they always use terms like "sensible" or "reasonable"? It never fails.

 

They probably would have done so, except for the fact that this measure was reversed before it was ever implemented.

It is chilling the way progressives say that civil liberties are obsolete and should be abolished.

Not when we're talking about a measure that has nothing to do with preventing mass shootings.

Those are fraudulent definitions.

Semi-auto weapons are not assault weapons. Assault weapons have full-auto or burst-fire capability.

That is incorrect. No one can provide any justification for outlawing semi-auto weapons.

Banning semi-auto weapons will not do anything to prevent mass murder.

You're changing the subject. The question was not their political influence but their legal standing.

It is reasonable for people to ask why you changed the subject to political influence when the discussion was about legal standing.

Pointing out that you changed the subject to avoid the question has nothing to do with any president bypassing the Constitution.

You are wrong. It was never allowed.

It was blatantly unconstitutional.

 

SCOTUS does not buy off on libertarian or constitutionalist arguments on firearms.

The constitutionalists/libertarians can say 'such and such is unconstitutional,' and their denial is meaningless.

Only SCOTUS decides that, not bloggers.

 

We see what the Left have in store for Trump supporters or even anyone to the right of Stalin when they regain power. Thanks, but no thanks, we will keep our "massive weapons" and prevent cattle cars from being used to transport people in this country.

 

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008 ), McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) say otherwise.

And this October they will be deciding whether to go ahead with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York.

Progressives are already in full panic mode over that one. A group of progressive US Senators have actually tried threatening the Supreme Court with "restructuring" if they decide to go ahead with the case.

 

Nice appeal to authority fallacy.

It is true that Court rulings have the force of law. But that doesn't stop people from speaking out against unconstitutional laws in public forums.

 

It wasn’t. You can’t take someone’s rights without due process of the law

 

Logic fallacy on your part. This will help you: https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

I did not say you could not speak out your thoughts, but I did say SCOTUS makes decisions so if anyone does disagree it is meaningless.

 

Those are mainstream decisions. What is important is that Heller specifically reserves the right for SCOTUS to opine on all 2dA issues. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will disappoint you greatly.

 

Your fantasy people whom you cannot identify and yet contrive and assign positions to are not relevant to reality.

Most real Americans are demanding that the permissive firearm laws that makes the US the mecca of firearm fatalities be confronted and, despite the paranoia of the hopelessly gun-dependent, it is entirely constitutional to enact and enforce public safety measures such as universal background checks, "red flag" measures, and prohibition of assault weapons.

 

That is incorrect. The gun control movement is not a fantasy. These people really do want to violate our civil liberties for no reason.

That is incorrect. What you are wrongly calling assault weapons are just ordinary guns, and the Constitution forbids outlawing them.

 

Mainstream decisions that uphold the Constitution.

I think they already had that right.

Kavanaugh already has a good record on guns from the lower courts. And it is noteworthy that the Supreme Court quickly took a new gun rights case as soon as he was confirmed.

But, we'll see. I suspect that I'll be pretty happy with their rulings.

 

Paranoid delusions are not helpful in confronting the obscene level of firearm fatalities in the US. Your imaginary people whom you are unable to identify and quote are not relevant.

That is a proven falsehood. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, was signed into law on September 13, 1994, and expired on September 13, 2004. During that time, there were several constitutional challenges filed, but all failed.

 

Is the claim on the part of yourself, that if firearms simply were not available to the general public, the overall homicide rate would drop considerably overnight, and not simply continue unabated through other methods?

It should, but ultimately it is not. Elected representatives do not care about what their voting constituents actually want, they only care about being reelected so that they do not have to get an actual job and live like everyone else. The majority of the united states public did not want the affordable care act as it was written and presented, but those who held office at the time decided the united states public was going to get the affordable care act as it was written, and they would have no choice but to accept it.

What the people believe, and what is reality, are often two entirely different things.

 

The united state supreme court stated, in Heller, in absolute terms, the scope of the second amendment is not subject to a judicial interest balancing test where it is weighed and measured against vague concepts such as "public safety" whatever that may amount to for any given individual.

 

The gun control movement is hardly imaginary.

That doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional. It just means that progressives are getting away with violating people's civil liberties for no reason.

As an aside, I advocate blocking all new gun control measures, even if they are otherwise acceptable and would even save lives, until all of these unconstitutional monstrosities are ended and progressives are forced to pay compensation to their victims.

I think it is fair to let gun massacres keep happening until people stop violating our civil liberties.

 

Toggle, read Natty Bumpo. His grasp of the Constitution and the 2dA just does pass muster in law.

 

I did read him. And I replied. He's wrong.