Biden on Gun Control

[Ame®icano]

You were saying it's about regulation.

Our discussion is about regulation. Heller is not.

It's about regulation? Great, then please tell us finally, why guns need to be regulated?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

So what regulation did you have in mind that would reduce gun crime or anything you perceive as a gun-related problem? Any? Can you even describe one?

Universal background checks would be a good start.

Oh-oh, she got her talking points.

Good, now tell us, would universal background check prevent shootings we had so far?

Again, have you heard of NICS?

 

[Cosmos]

You were saying it's about regulation.

Our discussion is about regulation. Heller is not.

It's about regulation? Great, then please tell us finally, why guns need to be regulated?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

So what regulation did you have in mind that would reduce gun crime or anything you perceive as a gun-related problem? Any? Can you even describe one?

Universal background checks would be a good start.

We already have the NICS system. I've no problem with that, although we've seen that it is poorly maintained and flawed. How about we just fix what we have and make sure it's working correctly before we make new laws? And if we do make new laws, let's make sure they have a real purpose that will reduce gun crime. That's the objective, right?

And then, you said it was "a good start". See. Now that's a problem. Looks like you already know "universal background checks" won't do any good so we have to take further steps. So what would those further steps be?

 

[2aguy]

Our discussion is about regulation. Heller is not.

It's about regulation? Great, then please tell us finally, why guns need to be regulated?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

So what regulation did you have in mind that would reduce gun crime or anything you perceive as a gun-related problem? Any? Can you even describe one?

Universal background checks would be a good start.

We already have the NICS system. I've no problem with that, although we've seen that it is poorly maintained and flawed. How about we just fix what we have and make sure it's working correctly before we make new laws? And if we do make new laws, let's make sure they have a real purpose that will reduce gun crime. That's the objective, right?

And then, you said it was "a good start". See. Now that's a problem. Looks like you already know "universal background checks" won't do any good so we have to take further steps. So what would those further steps be?

So.....at this point...

Universal Background Checks.....

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....so it has no effect on crime.

Creates more red tape and legal peril for normal gun owners through accidental non-compliance, more time, more cost......

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

Are you finally ready to admit that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is just a meaningless remark in relation to gun regulation, and is certainly nothing to prevent common sense gun control?

Of course it's not meaningless. That's what fundamentally protects our rights. It means that the default position of the Government is that you have the right to keep and bear arms. The burden of proof is on the Government to show cause why any of those rights should ever be taken away. Good grief.

The supreme court ruled that regulation is not taking your rights away a long time ago, and they are not about to change that.

No they didn't. That's an extremely vague statement. The Supreme Court did nothing of the kind.

I'm not sure if there was a ruling specifically worded as such, but it is inherant in countless rulings that might burden gun owners. One could argue that requirements for registration or background checks when purchasing a gun from a gun dealer, or special approvals for ownership and use of fully automatic weapons are infringements, but the courts ruled that the interests of society can and must be considered when ruling on the constitutionality of such requirements. Regulating is not infringement.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

Are you finally ready to admit that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is just a meaningless remark in relation to gun regulation, and is certainly nothing to prevent common sense gun control?

Of course it's not meaningless. That's what fundamentally protects our rights. It means that the default position of the Government is that you have the right to keep and bear arms. The burden of proof is on the Government to show cause why any of those rights should ever be taken away. Good grief.

The supreme court ruled that regulation is not taking your rights away a long time ago, and they are not about to change that.

No they didn't. That's an extremely vague statement. The Supreme Court did nothing of the kind.

I'm not sure if there was a ruling specifically worded as such, but it is inherant in countless rulings that might burden gun owners. One could argue that requirements for registration or background checks when purchasing a gun from a gun dealer, or special approvals for ownership and use of fully automatic weapons are infringements, but the courts ruled that the interests of society can and must be considered when ruling on the constitutionality of such requirements. Regulating is not infringement.

yes it is,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

Now you are catching on.

You were saying it's about regulation.

Our discussion is about regulation. Heller is not.

It's about regulation? Great, then please tell us finally, why guns need to be regulated?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

You can't discuss regulation without discussing if regulation is needed. You still haven't explained why additional regulations are needed.

Nobody, except you lefties, is equating regulations with banning. Because, for YOU lefties, every regulation you're proposing is leading to ban.

You or your like minded gun nuts have brought up banning guns throughout this discussion. I have maintained throughout that they are not the same. It's the main point of what I've said dumb ass.

 

[progressive hunter]

You were saying it's about regulation.

Our discussion is about regulation. Heller is not.

It's about regulation? Great, then please tell us finally, why guns need to be regulated?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

You can't discuss regulation without discussing if regulation is needed. You still haven't explained why additional regulations are needed.

Nobody, except you lefties, is equating regulations with banning. Because, for YOU lefties, every regulation you're proposing is leading to ban.

You or your like minded gun nuts have brought up banning guns throughout this discussion. I have maintained throughout that they are not the same. It's the main point of what I've said dumb ass.

you have a reading comprehension problem

 

[2aguy]

You were saying it's about regulation.

Our discussion is about regulation. Heller is not.

It's about regulation? Great, then please tell us finally, why guns need to be regulated?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

You can't discuss regulation without discussing if regulation is needed. You still haven't explained why additional regulations are needed.

Nobody, except you lefties, is equating regulations with banning. Because, for YOU lefties, every regulation you're proposing is leading to ban.

You or your like minded gun nuts have brought up banning guns throughout this discussion. I have maintained throughout that they are not the same. It's the main point of what I've said dumb ass.

And you are not honest........

10 round magazine limit? Means you are banning current models of gun that use more than 10 rounds.......

 

[Cosmos]

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?

Are you finally ready to admit that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is just a meaningless remark in relation to gun regulation, and is certainly nothing to prevent common sense gun control?

Of course it's not meaningless. That's what fundamentally protects our rights. It means that the default position of the Government is that you have the right to keep and bear arms. The burden of proof is on the Government to show cause why any of those rights should ever be taken away. Good grief.

The supreme court ruled that regulation is not taking your rights away a long time ago, and they are not about to change that.

No they didn't. That's an extremely vague statement. The Supreme Court did nothing of the kind.

I'm not sure if there was a ruling specifically worded as such, but it is inherant in countless rulings that might burden gun owners. One could argue that requirements for registration or background checks when purchasing a gun from a gun dealer, or special approvals for ownership and use of fully automatic weapons are infringements, but the courts ruled that the interests of society can and must be considered when ruling on the constitutionality of such requirements. Regulating is not infringement.

Yes. We understand that regulations exist that have actually withstood the test of time. That does not open the door wide open to any regulation under the sun though. And it doesn't prevent any of these regulations from being overturned at some point in time. The 2nd Amendment is not going away.

What we have seen with regard to regulations, and these other guys have done a good job of pointing out, is that regulations on guns really don't do much good. We've had long periods in our history were guns were far less regulated but the kinds of horrific shootings we've seen were unheard of. What's really going on is a deep societal problem, not a gun problem. Most of us are not willing to surrender to the notion that we're just too stupid or unreliable or sane or honest enough to own a firearm and we should just let the government rule us like a tyrant. Because that is where your regulations are heading.

 

[2aguy]

You were saying it's about regulation.

Our discussion is about regulation. Heller is not.

It's about regulation? Great, then please tell us finally, why guns need to be regulated?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

You can't discuss regulation without discussing if regulation is needed. You still haven't explained why additional regulations are needed.

Nobody, except you lefties, is equating regulations with banning. Because, for YOU lefties, every regulation you're proposing is leading to ban.

You or your like minded gun nuts have brought up banning guns throughout this discussion. I have maintained throughout that they are not the same. It's the main point of what I've said dumb ass.

Come on...don't be shy........you are saying regulation isn't banning or confiscating....name these regulations........

 

[2aguy]

Are you finally ready to admit that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is just a meaningless remark in relation to gun regulation, and is certainly nothing to prevent common sense gun control?

Of course it's not meaningless. That's what fundamentally protects our rights. It means that the default position of the Government is that you have the right to keep and bear arms. The burden of proof is on the Government to show cause why any of those rights should ever be taken away. Good grief.

The supreme court ruled that regulation is not taking your rights away a long time ago, and they are not about to change that.

No they didn't. That's an extremely vague statement. The Supreme Court did nothing of the kind.

I'm not sure if there was a ruling specifically worded as such, but it is inherant in countless rulings that might burden gun owners. One could argue that requirements for registration or background checks when purchasing a gun from a gun dealer, or special approvals for ownership and use of fully automatic weapons are infringements, but the courts ruled that the interests of society can and must be considered when ruling on the constitutionality of such requirements. Regulating is not infringement.

Yes. We understand that regulations exist that have actually withstood the test of time. That does not open the door wide open to any regulation under the sun though. And it doesn't prevent any of these regulations from being overturned at some point in time. The 2nd Amendment is not going away.

What we have seen with regard to regulations, and these other guys have done a good job of pointing out, is that regulations on guns really don't do much good. We've had long periods in our history were guns were far less regulated but the kinds of horrific shootings we've seen were unheard of. What's really going on is a deep societal problem, not a gun problem. Most of us are not willing to surrender to the notion that we're just too stupid or unreliable or sane or honest enough to own a firearm and we should just let the government rule us like a tyrant. Because that is where your regulations are heading.

Exactly.....

 

[Cosmos]

It's about regulation? Great, then please tell us finally, why guns need to be regulated?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

So what regulation did you have in mind that would reduce gun crime or anything you perceive as a gun-related problem? Any? Can you even describe one?

Universal background checks would be a good start.

We already have the NICS system. I've no problem with that, although we've seen that it is poorly maintained and flawed. How about we just fix what we have and make sure it's working correctly before we make new laws? And if we do make new laws, let's make sure they have a real purpose that will reduce gun crime. That's the objective, right?

And then, you said it was "a good start". See. Now that's a problem. Looks like you already know "universal background checks" won't do any good so we have to take further steps. So what would those further steps be?

So.....at this point...

Universal Background Checks.....

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....so it has no effect on crime.

Creates more red tape and legal peril for normal gun owners through accidental non-compliance, more time, more cost......

Ineffective, feel-good, leftist regulations that have no purpose. And it only perpetuates the calls for even further encroachment on our rights.

 

[Ame®icano]

Our discussion is about regulation. Heller is not.

It's about regulation? Great, then please tell us finally, why guns need to be regulated?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

So what regulation did you have in mind that would reduce gun crime or anything you perceive as a gun-related problem? Any? Can you even describe one?

Universal background checks would be a good start.

We already have the NICS system. I've no problem with that, although we've seen that it is poorly maintained and flawed. How about we just fix what we have and make sure it's working correctly before we make new laws? And if we do make new laws, let's make sure they have a real purpose that will reduce gun crime. That's the objective, right?

And then, you said it was "a good start". See. Now that's a problem. Looks like you already know "universal background checks" won't do any good so we have to take further steps. So what would those further steps be?

We do have universal background check. NICS exists for more than 20 years, I think.

NICS is the database checked during gun purchases to ensure individuals with criminal records & mental illness aren't allowed to purchase guns.

Than, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. Yet many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding for almost every year that Barry was in office.

Somewhere I read that they granted only 5% of the total authorized amount. Even for those few years when Democrats controlled both sides of Congress, and has a Democrat as President, they still couldn't fund this one? They passed the law to do it... Dang, I guess the cost of CommieCare was higher then they thought it would be.

 

[2aguy]

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

So what regulation did you have in mind that would reduce gun crime or anything you perceive as a gun-related problem? Any? Can you even describe one?

Universal background checks would be a good start.

We already have the NICS system. I've no problem with that, although we've seen that it is poorly maintained and flawed. How about we just fix what we have and make sure it's working correctly before we make new laws? And if we do make new laws, let's make sure they have a real purpose that will reduce gun crime. That's the objective, right?

And then, you said it was "a good start". See. Now that's a problem. Looks like you already know "universal background checks" won't do any good so we have to take further steps. So what would those further steps be?

So.....at this point...

Universal Background Checks.....

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....so it has no effect on crime.

Creates more red tape and legal peril for normal gun owners through accidental non-compliance, more time, more cost......

Ineffective, feel-good, leftist regulations that have no purpose. And it only perpetuates the calls for even further encroachment on our rights.

Oh...it has a purpose......

They demand Universal Background Checks knowing they don't do anything. They pass UBCs and after a period of time with no change in crime and some mass public shootings, they then come back and demand universal gun registration....stating....UBCs obviously can't work without universal gun registration.....

They need Universal Background Checks to position their demand for gun registration.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

Are you finally ready to admit that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is just a meaningless remark in relation to gun regulation, and is certainly nothing to prevent common sense gun control?

Of course it's not meaningless. That's what fundamentally protects our rights. It means that the default position of the Government is that you have the right to keep and bear arms. The burden of proof is on the Government to show cause why any of those rights should ever be taken away. Good grief.

It is meaningless.

TO THEM.

You'd think they care about individual rights, your rights, mine? They don't.

If you’ve watched those on the side of gun control deny the duly elected president due process during the “impeachment inquiry”... if they’re willing to do that to the president to regain power, how far do you think they’ll go to retain it, and what do you think they’d do to a threat from unarmed commoners to remain in power?

To us, it's not meaningless. Because we, the law abiding citizens of the US, don’t like the prospect of being loaded into box cars for “re-education” by power hungry despots.

You just earned your Conspiracy Theory Nut merit badge.

Coming from someone that said that constitutional rights are meaningless, I am spot on what your intentions are.

You gotta show where I said that, or admit you are lying again.

 

[Cosmos]

It's about regulation? Great, then please tell us finally, why guns need to be regulated?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

So what regulation did you have in mind that would reduce gun crime or anything you perceive as a gun-related problem? Any? Can you even describe one?

Universal background checks would be a good start.

We already have the NICS system. I've no problem with that, although we've seen that it is poorly maintained and flawed. How about we just fix what we have and make sure it's working correctly before we make new laws? And if we do make new laws, let's make sure they have a real purpose that will reduce gun crime. That's the objective, right?

And then, you said it was "a good start". See. Now that's a problem. Looks like you already know "universal background checks" won't do any good so we have to take further steps. So what would those further steps be?

We do have universal background check. NICS exists for more than 20 years, I think.

NICS is the database checked during gun purchases to ensure individuals with criminal records & mental illness aren't allowed to purchase guns.

Than, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. Yet many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding for almost every year that Barry was in office.

Somewhere I read that they granted only 5% of the total authorized amount. Even for those few years when Democrats controlled both sides of Congress, and has a Democrat as President, they still couldn't fund this one? They passed the law to do it... Dang, I guess the cost of CommieCare was higher then they thought it would be.

I think what we're seeing is that as soon as they find out something is hard and expensive to do, it's really easier for the politicians to give up on it, let it perform poorly and call for new regulations instead. Because that's an exciting political issue they can use in the next election, not boring crap of actually doing the job they already have.

 

[BULLDOG]

I posted this question several times: “Why should "assault weapons", whatever they might be, be illegal?”

The civilian firearms that look similar to but are not, and never have been military firearms, appear to be the targeted so called "assault weapons". They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles which are the most popular type of rifle in the US. Gun owners need not defend their legality, the naysayers need to present an overwhelming convincing argument to the People why the rights of the People should be restricted. It doesn't matter how many times they've been asked, they refuse to answer.

This is the key to your question....

They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles which are the most popular type of rifle in the US.

If the anti-gun extremists like bulldog can get the "Assault weapons," banned, leading with the AR-15......then what case does anyone have to say that all other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns shouldn't also be banned....as your quote points out........

They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles.......

The anti-gun extremists.....once they get the AR-15 banned, will be back, and they will state....those other rifles are just as deadly as the AR-15...they function the same...and if the AR-15 is too deadly for people...all those other rifles are too.....

Then, they will go after semi-auto pistols...you can see that in the posts of the anti-gunners here.....and among the democrat party politicians....and then shotguns and bolt action rifles.....since those are actual military weapons...

The even yelled it at the CNN anti-gun town hall, they cheered when one of the anti-gunners said we needed to ban all semi-automatic weapons....

You must have some sort of mental block. I keep talking about regulation, and you keep talking about banning. I guess that straw man is all you have to argue about.

Only one with mental issues here is you.

You said it yourself, you don't care about rights, to you Constitution is meaningless.

Link?

You forgot what you said yeaterday?

Are you finally ready to admit that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is just a meaningless remark in relation to gun regulation, and is certainly nothing to prevent common sense gun control?

Don't missrepresent what I said.

 

[Cosmos]

So what regulation did you have in mind that would reduce gun crime or anything you perceive as a gun-related problem? Any? Can you even describe one?

Universal background checks would be a good start.

We already have the NICS system. I've no problem with that, although we've seen that it is poorly maintained and flawed. How about we just fix what we have and make sure it's working correctly before we make new laws? And if we do make new laws, let's make sure they have a real purpose that will reduce gun crime. That's the objective, right?

And then, you said it was "a good start". See. Now that's a problem. Looks like you already know "universal background checks" won't do any good so we have to take further steps. So what would those further steps be?

So.....at this point...

Universal Background Checks.....

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....so it has no effect on crime.

Creates more red tape and legal peril for normal gun owners through accidental non-compliance, more time, more cost......

Ineffective, feel-good, leftist regulations that have no purpose. And it only perpetuates the calls for even further encroachment on our rights.

Oh...it has a purpose......

They demand Universal Background Checks knowing they don't do anything. They pass UBCs and after a period of time with no change in crime and some mass public shootings, they then come back and demand universal gun registration....stating....UBCs obviously can't work without universal gun registration.....

They need Universal Background Checks to position their demand for gun registration.

Yep. I invited her to spell out what the next steps would be after she got her "good start", but she won't fess up to it. We all know registration is what they want. And after that, confiscation.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hellooooo, anyone home?

Any regulation that doesn't infringe your rights is constitutional.

You need license for any business, not just to manufacture guns. You can't even run lemonade stand without it anymore.
Putting serial number on a gun doesn't infringe individual right to keep and bear arms.

You're getting there. Regulation is not infringement. Now just concentrate a little longer, and you might understand.

I think we've been over this ground before. It all depends on what the "regulation" is, doesn't it. In the last few years we've seen all kinds of onerous proposals for regulations. All the way from trigger locks to excessive taxation to registration to outright confiscation. And the one common thread among all of them is that NONE of them are useful in preventing CRIMINALS from committing CRIMES with guns.

What about guns need to be regulated that already isn't?

If they're proposing new regulations, they need to demonstrate that they will be effective. For instance, would their proposed regulation have prevented any act of violence in the past? What's use of banning semi auto rifles, they they call "assault weapons", if most of the shooting is done by handguns? There is no use of course, so they're not really aiming to prevent crime, but to confiscate guns. All guns.

No matter how many times they try to write laws legislating morality, people still kill each other. They find new ways. If they ban semi auto rifles, criminals would use handguns. You ban handguns, they'll use knives. You ban knives, they'll turn to baseball clubs, or acid, or... take that fiend that murdered all the people in Las Vegas could have done a much better job with a truck. Get his speed up on HWY 91 there and plow into the back of the crowd all the way up to the stage. Then, because it’s a huge open space he could maneuver around running over others. You get the picture. To think that this person wouldn’t have killed so many others because he didn’t have a semi auto rifle is ludicrous.

Laws and regulations don't stop criminals. And, if you are worried about children dying take their cell phones away. You can actually ban them without conflict with individual rights protected by the Constitution.

I will discuss banning guns some other time. I don't care to discuss that now. It is unrelated to what i have been saying.

That is not what I am asking.

You're talking about regulations, and my question was why do you think regulations are needed.

If you want to move on to another subject, you have to admit that regulation is not the same as infringement, I have not advocated, and will not advocate banning any guns, and hat the phrase "will not be infringed" is meaningless when discussing many different aspects of regulation.

I'm not saying that phrase isn't a worthwhile precept, or that it is unimportant, only that it isn't pertinant to a discussion about constitutionally acceptable regulation.

Are you ready to admit those things yet?

 

[2aguy]

You're getting there. Regulation is not infringement. Now just concentrate a little longer, and you might understand.

I think we've been over this ground before. It all depends on what the "regulation" is, doesn't it. In the last few years we've seen all kinds of onerous proposals for regulations. All the way from trigger locks to excessive taxation to registration to outright confiscation. And the one common thread among all of them is that NONE of them are useful in preventing CRIMINALS from committing CRIMES with guns.

What about guns need to be regulated that already isn't?

If they're proposing new regulations, they need to demonstrate that they will be effective. For instance, would their proposed regulation have prevented any act of violence in the past? What's use of banning semi auto rifles, they they call "assault weapons", if most of the shooting is done by handguns? There is no use of course, so they're not really aiming to prevent crime, but to confiscate guns. All guns.

No matter how many times they try to write laws legislating morality, people still kill each other. They find new ways. If they ban semi auto rifles, criminals would use handguns. You ban handguns, they'll use knives. You ban knives, they'll turn to baseball clubs, or acid, or... take that fiend that murdered all the people in Las Vegas could have done a much better job with a truck. Get his speed up on HWY 91 there and plow into the back of the crowd all the way up to the stage. Then, because it’s a huge open space he could maneuver around running over others. You get the picture. To think that this person wouldn’t have killed so many others because he didn’t have a semi auto rifle is ludicrous.

Laws and regulations don't stop criminals. And, if you are worried about children dying take their cell phones away. You can actually ban them without conflict with individual rights protected by the Constitution.

I will discuss banning guns some other time. I don't care to discuss that now. It is unrelated to what i have been saying.

That is not what I am asking.

You're talking about regulations, and my question was why do you think regulations are needed.

If you want to move on to another subject, you have to admit that regulation is not the same as infringement, I have not advocated, and will not advocate banning any guns, and hat the phrase "will not be infringed" is meaningless when discussing many different aspects of regulation.

I'm not saying that phrase isn't a worthwhile precept, or that it is unimportant, only that it isn't pertinant to a discussion about constitutionally acceptable regulation.

Are you ready to admit those things yet?

So....you don't want to list which "regulations," you want that you say are not infringements on the Right to keep and bear arms...

Got it.