Biden on Gun Control

[Crixus]

[
I KNOW! Thanks to Obama, I sold one subpar AR 15 that I got for $350 for $850. That was an Olympic arms gun I grabbed in a pawn shop and cleaned up.

ARs have never been cheaper -- buy a bunch now and douple-triple your money later.

Shit, just grab a thousand rounds of lake city and grab all the gen2 magpull hicaps and you will be in cigarette money for months!

Should they ever be banned again, I can retire on my M14 magazines.

Hell, you should be close now. Those are pricy mags.

 

[2aguy]

As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.

The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.

They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?

Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.

Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.

If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.

I'm sure you suspect lots of crazy stuff. Where does Heller say guns can't be regulated? Whether they are in common use doesn't matter for the purposes of regulation. All guns are already regulated in many aspects of their manufacture, sale, and use. Heller doesn't throw all that out, and it doesn't prevent changes in the existing regulations or the addition of new regulations. You've become accustom to pointing at Heller to justify anything you might want to spout, but it doesn't work that way. I would tell you to read it for yourself, but you've already made it clear that you are incapable of understanding it. Instead, you should ask a sane person to explain that part to you. Taking the word of another gun nut won't help you understand it.

You are the one who is ignoring Heller.......

Heller limits special locations and felons.....and the dangerously mentally ill...

Show us where it says they can regulate weapons in Heller......

What Heller actually says, and Scalia then clarifies in Friedman v Highland Park..

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.

What do we have......

Felons
Mentally ill
sensitive places
Conditions and qualifications for commercial sale....as in product liability for defective or fraudulent sales..

No where does it say you can put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

No where does it say you can not put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

Yes...actually, it does...

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land....nothing is above it. The Supreme Court can decide if something is Constitutional but when they do not specifically address something, the Constitution is the law...

They said nothing in Heller about your prohibitory regulations......therefore, the 2nd Amendment stands......which states the Right to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed....

Again...this is what the Supreme Court stated...

What Heller actually says, and Scalia then clarifies in Friedman v Highland Park..

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.

What do we have......

Felons
Mentally ill
sensitive places
Conditions and qualifications for commercial sale....as in product liability for defective or fraudulent sales..

No where does it say you can put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

 

[2aguy]

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

LOL, you're real dunce. And your reaction said it all. Triggered by own stupidity.

I told you two times already, all arms “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns. If you're law abiding citizen, you have right to keep and bear arms, that is all regulation that should exists. If you're a felon, you lose that right. The regulations in force today are not infringing constitutional rights, because they're mostly related to interstate commerce that is actual enumerated power of Congress.

My question is related to this conversation, and I asked few times already. Without making case of "why regulation", you don't get to discuss infringing constitutional rights. You said there are lots of reasons, like you know what you're talking about, and still cant make a case, just like Congress, that would pass the constitutionality test.

Please quote Heller where it says regulation is not permissable.

And here......Justice Alito takes on the stupid idea of "dangerous and unusual."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

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 “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
-------

----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 “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast 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” weapons: “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 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. 3d, 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.” 554 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.

 

[Cosmos]

As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.

The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.

They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?

Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.

Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.

If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

 

[progressive hunter]

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

the 2nd amendment doesnt say citizen nor does it say felons or the the mentally ill,,,

 

[Desperado]

If anyone asks, I have already sold all my guns.

 

[2aguy]

If anyone asks, I have already sold all my guns.

I gave all of mine to a no questions asked, police buy back...

 

[Cosmos]

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

the 2nd amendment doesnt say citizen nor does it say felons or the the mentally ill,,,

But it does say, "the People", and I think Heller addressed that. As to the other two criteria.......I think the legal and political battles continue.

 

[Ame®icano]

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

I think you lost her on word "looking".

 

[BULLDOG]

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.

I'm sure you suspect lots of crazy stuff. Where does Heller say guns can't be regulated? Whether they are in common use doesn't matter for the purposes of regulation. All guns are already regulated in many aspects of their manufacture, sale, and use. Heller doesn't throw all that out, and it doesn't prevent changes in the existing regulations or the addition of new regulations. You've become accustom to pointing at Heller to justify anything you might want to spout, but it doesn't work that way. I would tell you to read it for yourself, but you've already made it clear that you are incapable of understanding it. Instead, you should ask a sane person to explain that part to you. Taking the word of another gun nut won't help you understand it.

So you didn't read it, or you're clueless what Heller is about, and repeating already known leftist hysteria.

One more time, WHY do you think semi-auto guns should be banned or regulated?

I never advocated banning anything but bump stocks. Why and what to regulate is the next conversation. Finish this one first.

Is your switch stuck on stupid, or there is simply no switch, just plain "stupid"?

You can't have conversation about banning or regulating guns without reason why to ban or regulate them at first place.

If there is no reason to regulate, why should you regulate?

You're acting like a child with an idea... "hey, how about we regulate sun rays", and when faced with the the question "why would you want to do that"?, you say, "that's another conversation". ******* hilarious.

Go it. You realize there is nothing preventing gun regultion, so you want to change the subject.

 

[BULLDOG]

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.

I'm sure you suspect lots of crazy stuff. Where does Heller say guns can't be regulated? Whether they are in common use doesn't matter for the purposes of regulation. All guns are already regulated in many aspects of their manufacture, sale, and use. Heller doesn't throw all that out, and it doesn't prevent changes in the existing regulations or the addition of new regulations. You've become accustom to pointing at Heller to justify anything you might want to spout, but it doesn't work that way. I would tell you to read it for yourself, but you've already made it clear that you are incapable of understanding it. Instead, you should ask a sane person to explain that part to you. Taking the word of another gun nut won't help you understand it.

You are the one who is ignoring Heller.......

Heller limits special locations and felons.....and the dangerously mentally ill...

Show us where it says they can regulate weapons in Heller......

What Heller actually says, and Scalia then clarifies in Friedman v Highland Park..

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.

What do we have......

Felons
Mentally ill
sensitive places
Conditions and qualifications for commercial sale....as in product liability for defective or fraudulent sales..

No where does it say you can put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

No where does it say you can not put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

Because Heller is not about regulation of models or types of guns. Show where does it say you can put regulation on it.

Ooooh, it doesn't. That's where you go back to the Constitution, dunce.

Hel,l dumb ass. It doesn't say anything about a lot of stuff. That doesn't mean you can just make up what you want.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

LOL, you're real dunce. And your reaction said it all. Triggered by own stupidity.

I told you two times already, all arms “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns. If you're law abiding citizen, you have right to keep and bear arms, that is all regulation that should exists. If you're a felon, you lose that right. The regulations in force today are not infringing constitutional rights, because they're mostly related to interstate commerce that is actual enumerated power of Congress.

My question is related to this conversation, and I asked few times already. Without making case of "why regulation", you don't get to discuss infringing constitutional rights. You said there are lots of reasons, like you know what you're talking about, and still cant make a case, just like Congress, that would pass the constitutionality test.

Please quote Heller where it says regulation is not permissable.

You can't show something that doesn't exist. OK, let's try this way...

Please quote Heller where it says gay marriage is constitutional right.

You just broke the idiot meter. Good day.

 

[Desperado]

I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.

I'm sure you suspect lots of crazy stuff. Where does Heller say guns can't be regulated? Whether they are in common use doesn't matter for the purposes of regulation. All guns are already regulated in many aspects of their manufacture, sale, and use. Heller doesn't throw all that out, and it doesn't prevent changes in the existing regulations or the addition of new regulations. You've become accustom to pointing at Heller to justify anything you might want to spout, but it doesn't work that way. I would tell you to read it for yourself, but you've already made it clear that you are incapable of understanding it. Instead, you should ask a sane person to explain that part to you. Taking the word of another gun nut won't help you understand it.

So you didn't read it, or you're clueless what Heller is about, and repeating already known leftist hysteria.

One more time, WHY do you think semi-auto guns should be banned or regulated?

I never advocated banning anything but bump stocks. Why and what to regulate is the next conversation. Finish this one first.

Is your switch stuck on stupid, or there is simply no switch, just plain "stupid"?

You can't have conversation about banning or regulating guns without reason why to ban or regulate them at first place.

If there is no reason to regulate, why should you regulate?

You're acting like a child with an idea... "hey, how about we regulate sun rays", and when faced with the the question "why would you want to do that"?, you say, "that's another conversation". ******* hilarious.

Go it. You realize there is nothing preventing gun regultion, so you want to change the subject.

Yes there is, it is called the Second Amendment

 

[BULLDOG]

The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.

As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.

The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.

They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?

Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.

Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.

If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

It all depends on what you mean by "regulation". Regulations that remove their functionality or make them unavailable or impose taxes that make them prohibitively expensive would not be acceptable or allowable under the 2nd Amendment/Heller. I don't see a problem with keeping them out of the hands of felons or mentally ill. These red flag laws are on very shaky ground if they don't allow due process.

Due process is a wide open term. It can mean a wide range of things.

 

[BULLDOG]

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.

I'm sure you suspect lots of crazy stuff. Where does Heller say guns can't be regulated? Whether they are in common use doesn't matter for the purposes of regulation. All guns are already regulated in many aspects of their manufacture, sale, and use. Heller doesn't throw all that out, and it doesn't prevent changes in the existing regulations or the addition of new regulations. You've become accustom to pointing at Heller to justify anything you might want to spout, but it doesn't work that way. I would tell you to read it for yourself, but you've already made it clear that you are incapable of understanding it. Instead, you should ask a sane person to explain that part to you. Taking the word of another gun nut won't help you understand it.

You are the one who is ignoring Heller.......

Heller limits special locations and felons.....and the dangerously mentally ill...

Show us where it says they can regulate weapons in Heller......

What Heller actually says, and Scalia then clarifies in Friedman v Highland Park..

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.

What do we have......

Felons
Mentally ill
sensitive places
Conditions and qualifications for commercial sale....as in product liability for defective or fraudulent sales..

No where does it say you can put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

No where does it say you can not put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

Yes...actually, it does...

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land....nothing is above it. The Supreme Court can decide if something is Constitutional but when they do not specifically address something, the Constitution is the law...

They said nothing in Heller about your prohibitory regulations......therefore, the 2nd Amendment stands......which states the Right to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed....

Again...this is what the Supreme Court stated...

What Heller actually says, and Scalia then clarifies in Friedman v Highland Park..

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.

What do we have......

Felons
Mentally ill
sensitive places
Conditions and qualifications for commercial sale....as in product liability for defective or fraudulent sales..

No where does it say you can put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

Again, it doesn't say you can't put regulations on them. I see you choose to be dumb. I can't prevent you from doing that.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

LOL, you're real dunce. And your reaction said it all. Triggered by own stupidity.

I told you two times already, all arms “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns. If you're law abiding citizen, you have right to keep and bear arms, that is all regulation that should exists. If you're a felon, you lose that right. The regulations in force today are not infringing constitutional rights, because they're mostly related to interstate commerce that is actual enumerated power of Congress.

My question is related to this conversation, and I asked few times already. Without making case of "why regulation", you don't get to discuss infringing constitutional rights. You said there are lots of reasons, like you know what you're talking about, and still cant make a case, just like Congress, that would pass the constitutionality test.

Please quote Heller where it says regulation is not permissable.

And here......Justice Alito takes on the stupid idea of "dangerous and unusual."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

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 “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
-------

----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 “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast 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” weapons: “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 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. 3d, 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.” 554 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.

All that is related to an out right ban. It has nothing to do with regulation.

 

[BULLDOG]

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.

All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.

 

[Cosmos]

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.

All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.

Ok. So what regulations do you have in mind that will reduce gun crime? Don't you really think it would be more effective to regulate criminals instead of guns?

 

[Ame®icano]

I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.

I'm sure you suspect lots of crazy stuff. Where does Heller say guns can't be regulated? Whether they are in common use doesn't matter for the purposes of regulation. All guns are already regulated in many aspects of their manufacture, sale, and use. Heller doesn't throw all that out, and it doesn't prevent changes in the existing regulations or the addition of new regulations. You've become accustom to pointing at Heller to justify anything you might want to spout, but it doesn't work that way. I would tell you to read it for yourself, but you've already made it clear that you are incapable of understanding it. Instead, you should ask a sane person to explain that part to you. Taking the word of another gun nut won't help you understand it.

So you didn't read it, or you're clueless what Heller is about, and repeating already known leftist hysteria.

One more time, WHY do you think semi-auto guns should be banned or regulated?

I never advocated banning anything but bump stocks. Why and what to regulate is the next conversation. Finish this one first.

Is your switch stuck on stupid, or there is simply no switch, just plain "stupid"?

You can't have conversation about banning or regulating guns without reason why to ban or regulate them at first place.

If there is no reason to regulate, why should you regulate?

You're acting like a child with an idea... "hey, how about we regulate sun rays", and when faced with the the question "why would you want to do that"?, you say, "that's another conversation". ******* hilarious.

Go it. You realize there is nothing preventing gun regultion, so you want to change the subject.

Second Amendment is preventing it, otherwise it would be done already.

I am not changing the subject, you're just refusing to say why regulating guns is needed?

 

[Ame®icano]

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

LOL, you're real dunce. And your reaction said it all. Triggered by own stupidity.

I told you two times already, all arms “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns. If you're law abiding citizen, you have right to keep and bear arms, that is all regulation that should exists. If you're a felon, you lose that right. The regulations in force today are not infringing constitutional rights, because they're mostly related to interstate commerce that is actual enumerated power of Congress.

My question is related to this conversation, and I asked few times already. Without making case of "why regulation", you don't get to discuss infringing constitutional rights. You said there are lots of reasons, like you know what you're talking about, and still cant make a case, just like Congress, that would pass the constitutionality test.

Please quote Heller where it says regulation is not permissable.

You can't show something that doesn't exist. OK, let's try this way...

Please quote Heller where it says gay marriage is constitutional right.

You just broke the idiot meter. Good day.

Right... No answer. Classic leftist shitstain.