Why do anti gun extremists hate stories about self defense

Quantify "safe environment"

also support women's reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ rights. I bring balance to the Force.

I support Constitutional laws. Laws that aren't Constitutional, like those in those countries, are and should be unacceptable. Should the government be allowed to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS?

That's great that you support allowing citizens to own "assault weapons", and that you understand that between passing the Senate and the effective date every single available AR-15 and semiautomatic AK-47 will be purchased. That ought to increase the total number of those two types of rifles in civilian hands to about 30 million or so. I might even invest in a dozen or so for later sales as an investment.

To be frank, SCOTUS would kill it immediately. Congress can't ban classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes.

 

What is unnecessary and ineffective is a value judgement. Your skewed opinion is outside the norm, dangerous for society and belongs to the past in my opinion.
I have demonstrated the reduction in crime due to gun laws in the past to my satisfaction....not to yours, but continue to copy and past your comments.

 

You believe the prohibition of any weapon, including nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, is an infringement.
Thus, YOU support the right of the people to keep and bear nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

 

Fallacy: appeal to popularity

Absent your usual use of your usual post hoc fallacy, you cannot demonstrate these laws are 'effective"

Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of rights should be unacceptable to everyone.

You are not a moderate. You are a radical anti-2A fundamentalist.

 

Efficacy is a quantitative judgement.
Ineffective restrictions on the exercise of rights are, by their nature, unnecessary
So... no.

Your skewed opinion is outside the norm, and devoid of logic and reason..
You rest on post hoc fallacy, which, being a fallacy is meaningless.
And thus, you have not demonstrated anything, other than your obstinate and unreasonable attachment to a irrational belief.

 

the vast majority of americans who support dem gun schemes are clueless about guns or the laws. Why don't you tell me why people who don't cause crime should be harassed or have their rights restricted?

 

classic case of a leftwing operative who sees gun control as a useful way to harass voters who don't support her collectivist values

 

I love the "to my satisfaction" line.
It means he knows it will not stand up to any level of knowledgeable, honest scrutiny.

 

Then direct your response to @TOG 6, since he's the one bringing nuclear missiles into the thread.

Yes, he is capering about all nimbly bimbly. But you seem to have to focus on me. He brought nuclear tipped missiles into the thread, yet you only respond to me on the issue. If you have a point about it, go to the person who brought it up.

And the only thing I've presented in this thread, is what the 2A actually says.

No opinions of mine are stated, AFAIK.

This thread is not about me or my opinions.
It's about 2A, gun rights and perhaps self defense.

EDIT: I do remember 1 comment/opinion I made in this thread. Is everyone has their line in the sand on what should be infringed.

I bet you even have a line in the sand on certain infringements.

 

You've repeated this fantasy of yours several times.
Your untruth is over whelming. Are you doing so intentionally?

I did ask you for my quote supporting people to keep and bear nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
All I've presented is the words of the 2A.
And made no commentary on it.

 

You;re the (only) one talking about how firearms are only a small part of "arms" and that any restriction on 'arms" is an infringement.
Thus, you believe the 2nd protects the right to nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
Keeping your statement in mind, tell me you do not, and why.

 

You're the one who asked him about them, and you asked about them just now so I've responded to you. You're welcome.

Is he? He made a correct statement of law you still don't understand.

Indeed, and "ARMS" as used in what the 2a actually says applies to weapons which may be carried about the person. See Heller.

Which is why I asked you directly your opinions on the issue.

Its definitely about the opinions of the posters. Its a discussion forum. You want to discuss? Announce your position.

Sure: The laws in place regarding guns at the time of the founding, with the added caveat that 14th amendment incorporation applies the 2a as against the states directly.
You know: What Bruen says.

 

I didn't write the 2A, sorry.
And the 2A doesn't explicitly state arms as firearms. Why would you even bring that up?

Can you stick to the topic? Or just repeat what has now become and intentional untruth.

 

Nope, I did not.

 

This thread isn't that long.
Here's most of the posting about this so called nuclear tipped missiles. Who brought it into the thread.
If you have some issue with it, as I suggested to you several times now. Ask the one who brought it up.

 

I didn't say you asked him first. I said you asked him.

Now, for the 3rd time that I'm asking you, what gun laws do you think are acceptable?

 

As stated: arms as it is used in the 2a applies to weapons you might bear upon a person. Someone with a basic understanding of the case law on the 2nd amendment, ie a person with an informed opinion, would know this and not need more than the short hand explanation which has previously been given.

 

Dead horse flogged. Move on.

 

Why don't you tell us what gun laws you think are acceptable?

 

I asked him what?
Why keep coming at me on the nuke missile claim.
I made no claim one way or the other.
The other poster is intentionally telling an untruth.
I have never said I was for citizens bearing any nukes.

 

I already have, and you've ignored it: Those with an historical analog during the Founding, with the caveat that post 14th amendment (which causes the bill of rights to be incorporated against the states as well) many of those laws won't pass because while they may have been acceptable as exercises of state rather than federal power pre 14th amendment, post 14th amendment they apply against the states so if the feds can't do it neither can they. And the feds basically can't do **** in the founding era understanding, essentially any law you care to mention is state only.
You know: Exactly what Bruen holds.

So what do YOU think are acceptable? For the 4th or 5th time now

 

Because you asked the question. We've been over this. Why must you deflect? Why do you not have the courage of your convictions to state what you believe to be right and explain your reasoning?

 

Yes, people who oppose the 2nd ammandmemt hate stories about self defense and people who support the 2nd ammendment hate stories how legally purchased guns were used in mass shooting or how children killed by legally purchased gus of their parents - IT IS LOGICAL
So what is the purpose to talk about the facts which are OBVIOUS to any average intelligent humane? Boredom?

 

I accept the fact that in a free society, some people will use legally purchased guns to engage in premeditated crime. However, based on the fact that the war on drugs has failed, I note that even if guns were not legally available people would still commit premeditated murders. The interesting thing about your point is that gun owners hate tragedies, gun banners hate positive stories where evil people are shot by good people. Conclusion-gun banners sympathize with criminals!