CDZ How We Will Finally Deal With Guns America

[skews13]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No..."shall not be infringed:

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle,

Can you prohibit the guns and ammo from other countries that cross the border with illegal drugs, like those in picture below?
No thank you, until the government shuts the border to illegals coming with drugs and guns, I will continue to keep mine.
My AR-15, .308 and Bullpup weapon have yet to take a life. But if the government wants to try to take them away.........

 

[martybegan]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

When will the police give up theirs?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Another way to stop all this gun violence is to round up every XXXXXXX miserable liberal(that is all of them) and send them to Cuba, when all the unhappy, law breaking, worthless liberals are no longer in this country, then the rest of US would be happy and no one would be killing anymore.

It is just that simple.

I apologize for cursing on the CDZ, but if some idiot wants an open debate they need to post it not here.

 

[Vastator]

No..."shall not be infringed:

Most of these people don’t have a working knowledge of the definition of that word. It’s a shame too. It’s a rather important word...

 

[Weatherman2020]

In three years the left will be lined up screaming that yesterdays shooter must not be sentenced to death.

There's your solution.

Quick speedy trial and public execution. Drawn and quartered preferred method.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Nope...sorry. Deal with it.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Another way to stop all this gun violence is to round up every fucking miserable liberal(that is all of them) and send them to Cuba

I say Madagascar...they have the plague there.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Another way to stop all this gun violence is to round up every fucking miserable liberal(that is all of them) and send them to Cuba

I say Madagascar...they have the plague there.

I wouldn't wish, even the plague, to be infested by liberals. I do have morals you know?

 

[skews13]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

 

[Weatherman2020]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

Maybe we should make it against the law to shoot people who are not a threat.

 

[thanatos144]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Germany did this to the Jews as well... That didnt turn out so good.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

Well you can try...but you'll fail. Take it to the bank...it's much bigger than you are, pee wee

 

[thanatos144]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The English langue is important ... Things like commas mean things.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The English langue is important ... Thing like commas mean things.

That pesky comma is a real thorn in their sides

 

[thanatos144]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The English langue is important ... Thing like commas mean things.

That pesky comma is a real thorn in their sides

Yep. Never trust a person who wants to sell you utopia at the expense of freedom.

 

[Pogo]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Unfortunately no it really isn't that simple. Laws are one thing, and the real world is another. While the former may try to guide the latter, the reality is that the reach of law is finite. If all gun manufacturing were to cease tomorrow, forever, and any manner of stringent restrictions were placed on their access, there are still more than enough firearms for every man woman and child in this country to wipe each other out several times over, and if one wanted a firearm one would get it, regardless what level of criminality it required.

Legislation is largely pointless as long as we live and breathe a culture of violence that glorifies blowing things up. That's what has to change. And you can't change a culture by legislation.

For that matter when the typical mass shooter reserves his last bullet for himself, he's automatically circumventing any legal penalty anyway. The gun nuts will tell you, laws mean nothing to a criminal who's dedicated to criminality. And in that point, they're right.

 

[Pogo]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The English langue is important ... Things like commas mean things.

Leaving aside how important the "English langue" is, any literate reader would have to conclude that in the case of this document language, particularly given the passage of 240 years, commas don't necessarily mean things, I don't care what Gertrude Stein says.

I'm far more interested in the subordinate clause that opens the whole thing up. Because it's a basis of reasoning given where no basis of reasoning is needed (and which appears nowhere else in any Amendment). That begs the question of what its function is.

Bottom line (comma) commas or no commas, the 2A is a grammatical train wreck. And that matters because it makes the intent inscrutably vague.

 

[Pogo]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Germany did this to the Jews as well... That didnt turn out so good.

Link?