Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[Cecilie1200]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Punishing people for things they didn't do is just what fascists like you enjoy.......it doesn't solve any actual crime, but it does give you an adrenaline rush of power.....

Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.

Sorry, not the same thing. We do NOT hold pool makers, or car makers, or any other manufacturer responsible in the same way that leftists want to hold gun manufacturers responsible. Your own examples prove it. Sta-Rite wasn't sued because their product worked exactly as it was supposed to and someone used it incorrectly and got hurt; they were sued because their product was badly made and inherently unsafe. Likewise, talcum powder is inherently unsafe; it's not like it was a perfectly safe product and someone decided to eat the whole bottle instead of sprinkling it on their tush and died. I don't know which General Motors case you're talking about, since you were very vague, but I'm guessing it also wasn't a case of a perfectly functional car that someone chose to drive into oncoming traffic.

Nope, wrong about Sta-Rite. They were sued, not for how the product was made, but because they did not put a warning label on the product concerning removing the drain cover. The product was made correctly. The drain was installed correctly by the installer. But some kids, being kids, took the drain cover off. And a girl had her insides sucked out.

Yeah, um, providing explanations as to how to use it properly is part of making the product. Moron.

Moron? Wow, stupid *****. So, if a gun manufacturer doesn't clearly indicate within the packaging that it is imperative to keep that gun secure and unloaded and some little kid finds Daddy's loaded gun and accidently shoots his friend, which has happened TWICE IN THE LAST FREAKIN MONTH in my area, then the families can sue the gun manufacturer? Is that what you are saying? I mean pull your freakin head out of your ass.

You're trying to compare a pool pump, which most people who aren't mechanics or pool repairmen wouldn't know anything about, to guns. AND you're comparing knowing how a pool pump operates to knowing not to leave a gun where a kid can get ahold of it, and YOU are telling ME to pull my head out of my ass?

Yeah, I'll get right on valuing YOUR opinion. Any moment now, it's sure to happen.

Seriously, does anyone NOT know that guns shouldn't be left where kids can find them? ANYONE? Is this just an admission from you that YOU are ******* stupid enough to need a label on your gun saying, "Now, be sure not to give this to kids" in order to not do that? Likewise, I'm sure most people know not to drop a pool pump on their foot, but that's about the only actual comparison here that's valid.

So take your apples-and-oranges comparisons and your sad attempts to make them relevant and shove them UP your ass . . . just as soon as you pull YOUR head out of the way.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing. The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right. Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation. Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense. Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia. That was what the debate was about. Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous. That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory. It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns. Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago. In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina. By 1720 you could count them on your hands. To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal. All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands. Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS. I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force. The founders would be appalled. A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for. A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia. Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves. I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But this shit is not about right and about left. There is no right and left to ETHICS. This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness. Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham. I mean it was the golden age. But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation. There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment. Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Yet another one who believes they can tell me what I do or don't need when it comes to a firearm. It's none of your business what kind of firearm I own. Yes, Americans of yesteryear did own guns. People out in the wilderness did have to worry about Indians, and since there were no Kroger stores at the time, they actually had to go hunt for their food or starve.

So what's so bad about an AR or AK? It looks scary. And because it looks scary, Democrats want to forbid us from owning scary looking firearms. But anybody who knows Democrats understands that is just one of many stepping stones. If the Republicans approached the Democrats, and stated they will go along with banning AR's and AK's provided they sign a contract with America they will never bring up the firearms issue again win, lose or draw, do you think the Democrats would sign it? Of course not.

I remember as a teen when the left said let gays out of the closet. That's all we ask, just let them out of the closet and we'll be happy. Fast forward to today, and gays are adopting children, forced states to accept their marriage, and lip kissing on a park bench in front of your children.

I remember when they said they wanted lead out of the gasoline to make our air cleaner. That's all they want, just get the lead out of gasoline. Fast forward to today, and there are over 3 dozen blends of gasoline for cleaner burning purposes. But lead was just the start. They've been eliminating products ever since one by one in the name of the environment.

I remember when they said they wanted to ban smoking in movie theaters. That's all they wanted, just ban tobacco in movie theaters. Fast forward to today, some places you can't even have a cigarette outside on the beach. It's banned almost everywhere indoors, and even some apartment buildings.

So anybody that tells me that if we go along with these Democrat bans, they'll be happy, they obviously don't know the record of the Democrat party.

 

[woodwork201]

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing. The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right. Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation. Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense. Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia. That was what the debate was about. Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous. That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory. It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns. Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago. In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina. By 1720 you could count them on your hands. To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal. All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands. Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS. I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force. The founders would be appalled. A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for. A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia. Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves. I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But this shit is not about right and about left. There is no right and left to ETHICS. This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness. Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham. I mean it was the golden age. But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation. There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment. Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

No, I don't need an AR-15 for target shooting or home defense. So what? What about them make you think I shouldn't have one? How are they different from any other rifle that makes you afraid of them?

Please post one quote from the Founders that implies that the 2nd Amendment was about a collective right?

And what makes you think we don't still need a militia? Do you think the National Guard is going to protect us from tyrannical government?

And, yes, the ban on sawed-off shotguns is illegal. Short-barreled shotguns are commonly used in the military and the Supreme Court, in Miller, ruled that the right protected military weapons over and above other weapons.

Please provide any historical evidence that "most cities" required gun owners to store their guns in an armory. Please provide a list of cities with any such requirement. Please provide the Supreme Court ruling that such a requirement was constitutional.

 

[woodwork201]

Less than 4000 people a year drown in ALL BODIES of water.

Guns are designed to kill people. that's why there should be greater scrutiny in who gets them.

So you admit that your goal is the removal of all guns from the hands of the people. Otherwise, you'd understand and acknowledge that fewer than 500 people are killed each year by long-guns of any type. Pools are far, far, more dangerous than all long-guns combined, in the United States.

So you think there should be greater scrutiny on whose life is worth saving and whose life is not worth saving?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And, in these cases, it is even more clear that the rapist didn't do it your way; they clearly kept the gun because they raped with the gun:

I reviewed your posts and nowhere did the first two links state the rapist continued holding a gun during the act. The last one was from another country somewhere and we are talking about the US here.

Honestly, I expected better from you based on your posts I've seen so far. You're just twisting every logical argument to make it fit your emotion based gun control objectives. That's what I'd expect from the most left of the leftists here. Laws preventing rapists from having guns do nothing to prevent rapes any more than do laws against rape serve to reduce rape.

So you really believe that rape sentences should be reduced for rapists that use a knife? You're a gun controller, just as are any of the most left on this board and Joe Biden, himself. The only difference between you and Joe Biden, you and David Chipman, is the amount of gun control you're calling for.

Your last link, the same thing. It was obviously not in this country. Nowhere in that article does it state he held the gun to her during the act.

I never said a rapist should get a reduced sentence if a knife is used. You twisted what I said. What I really said is that a convicted felon using a gun they were not legally allowed to have will get additional time because they used a firearm. Once a felon is released from prison, he is allowed to carry a knife within legal length. If he uses that knife to commit rape, then it's just part of the atttack. However a felon using a firearm is an additional crime which means he gets additional time in prison. There is no reduced anything here.

I didn't say that those first links said that the rapist put down the gun. I said that they didn't make any claim that the gun was put down. You said that the rapist puts down the gun before the rape. I'd like to see where you get such an idea. Please share your findings, research, or experience. Otherwise, it's just plain bullshit.

And you think US rapists with guns behave differently than rapists with guns in other countries? Really?

And you most certainly did say that rapists with guns should get longer sentences which absolutely means that rapists without guns should get lesser sentences.

You're justifying your support for gun control on longer sentences for just 6% of convicted rapists rather than supporting longer sentences for all rapists. The logic doesn't hold and you know it. You simply support gun control and that lame excuse supports your support for gun control.

How bright does a rapist need to be to realize that holding onto a gun when you're close enough to your victim to be forcibly having sex with her gives her the possibility of taking it away from him and shooting him? Or, for that matter, the possibility of it going off accidentally? You pretty much only have to have had sex at some point to see the logistical problems there.

Not saying it never happens, but as a matter purely of efficiency, one would be better off using the gun to intimidate and gain compliance so that the victim can be subdued in some other fashion for the long-term. Cops use their guns in the same way. Have you ever seen a cop arresting and cuffing a suspect while still holding his gun in one hand? No, you haven't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I didn't say that those first links said that the rapist put down the gun. I said that they didn't make any claim that the gun was put down. You said that the rapist puts down the gun before the rape. I'd like to see where you get such an idea. Please share your findings, research, or experience. Otherwise, it's just plain bullshit.

And you think US rapists with guns behave differently than rapists with guns in other countries? Really?

And you most certainly did say that rapists with guns should get longer sentences which absolutely means that rapists without guns should get lesser sentences.

You're justifying your support for gun control on longer sentences for just 6% of convicted rapists rather than supporting longer sentences for all rapists. The logic doesn't hold and you know it. You simply support gun control and that lame excuse supports your support for gun control.

No, it is not a reduced sentence for using any other weapon. It's an ADDITIONAL offense for using a gun.

Now I don't want to get too involved in your personal life, but when I'm having sex, there is no way I could hold a gun while I'm doing it. Maybe you are more keyed down than I am. So your articles didn't claim they held the gun throughout the action, but it didn't say they didn't either. So your articles proved nothing.

I also didn't say only a rapist should get additional charges for using a gun, I said any unlawful act using a gun. A convicted felon cannot even have one in the house unless they live with another person who is not a felon making claim the gun is theirs.

 

[woodwork201]

No...you don't understand.....if you lock up gun offenders for long periods of time, they will stop carrying and using guns. This is how they stopped the yakuza in Japan from using guns more often.....they even point a gun in a crime, they go away for life.......yakuza stopped carrying guns.....they still use them when they want them, but random gun crime went down.

we need to focus on gun criminals in order to keep uninformed Americans from giving power to anti-gun extremists to ban and confiscate guns....

Are you seriously going to call yourself 2aguy and suggest that the United States follow Japan's lead in gun control? Japan has the most restrictive gun control on the entire planet:

Gun Control in Japan - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

If organized crime is using guns to commit murder, then arrest organized crime murderers and charge them with murder.

You, like Joe Biden, think that we need to reduce or eliminate gun crime. Gun crime should not be a category of crime. The murdered is no more dead when they were killed with a gun than if they were killed with a knife or a Samurai sword.

You're wrong. I understand completely. I understand that gun control is unconstitutional. It is you and other fake conservatives, fake gun-rights advocates, and fake supporters of the 2nd Amendment who do not understand. When you allow some unconstitutional gun control, you concede to the Government the power and authority to do whatever they want, even to violate explicit restrictions in the Constitution. Since you have surrendered that power, you, and unfortunately me, too, must now beg the government for permission to exercise any right.

What you need to focus on is crime, and not the fantasy of "gun crime". You need to focus on requiring the Government to limit their actions to those permitted explicitly in the Constitution. You need to focus on defending the 2nd Amendment. It's more than a screen name.

 

[woodwork201]

I didn't say that those first links said that the rapist put down the gun. I said that they didn't make any claim that the gun was put down. You said that the rapist puts down the gun before the rape. I'd like to see where you get such an idea. Please share your findings, research, or experience. Otherwise, it's just plain bullshit.

And you think US rapists with guns behave differently than rapists with guns in other countries? Really?

And you most certainly did say that rapists with guns should get longer sentences which absolutely means that rapists without guns should get lesser sentences.

You're justifying your support for gun control on longer sentences for just 6% of convicted rapists rather than supporting longer sentences for all rapists. The logic doesn't hold and you know it. You simply support gun control and that lame excuse supports your support for gun control.

No, it is not a reduced sentence for using any other weapon. It's an ADDITIONAL offense for using a gun.

Now I don't want to get too involved in your personal life, but when I'm having sex, there is no way I could hold a gun while I'm doing it. Maybe you are more keyed down than I am. So your articles didn't claim they held the gun throughout the action, but it didn't say they didn't either. So your articles proved nothing.

I also didn't say only a rapist should get additional charges for using a gun, I said any unlawful act using a gun. A convicted felon cannot even have one in the house unless they live with another person who is not a felon making claim the gun is theirs.

So you now admit that it's the gun and not the rape that you want punished. Earlier you said your wish was to make sure rapists got longer sentences and that one way to extend those sentences was the gun-crime add-on.

And you're wrong about a felon having a gun in the house if there's a not-forbidden-person in the house. Here's one example; there are more.

NJ Court: Husband Loses Gun Rights Because Wife Is a Felon

Last week a New Jersey appellate court upheld the ruling that a southern New Jersey man cannot own guns because his wife is a felon "who's been accused of domestic violence."

www.breitbart.com

I only ask one thing: that you admit you support gun control and that you're not a defender of the 2nd Amendment protections of the right to keep and bear arms. You want "reasonable gun control measures" just like all other gun controllers. You only disagree with them on what is or is not reasonable.

 

[Winston]

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing. The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right. Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation. Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense. Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia. That was what the debate was about. Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous. That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory. It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns. Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago. In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina. By 1720 you could count them on your hands. To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal. All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands. Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS. I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force. The founders would be appalled. A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for. A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia. Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves. I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But this shit is not about right and about left. There is no right and left to ETHICS. This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness. Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham. I mean it was the golden age. But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation. There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment. Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

No, I don't need an AR-15 for target shooting or home defense. So what? What about them make you think I shouldn't have one? How are they different from any other rifle that makes you afraid of them?

Please post one quote from the Founders that implies that the 2nd Amendment was about a collective right?

And what makes you think we don't still need a militia? Do you think the National Guard is going to protect us from tyrannical government?

And, yes, the ban on sawed-off shotguns is illegal. Short-barreled shotguns are commonly used in the military and the Supreme Court, in Miller, ruled that the right protected military weapons over and above other weapons.

Please provide any historical evidence that "most cities" required gun owners to store their guns in an armory. Please provide a list of cities with any such requirement. Please provide the Supreme Court ruling that such a requirement was constitutional.

Dealing with the easiest first. Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory. What the **** do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about? Just exactly where were the British marching? I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.

To the banning of sawed off shotguns. Last I checked, it is still in effect. Hell, has anyone filed a suit to protest it. Sorry, but your lame ass opinion means absolutely nothing. And no, dumbass, sawed off shotguns are not commonly used in the military. I mean WTF version of reality do you live in.

But you want quotes from the founders. Sorry, you can find the debates online if you look hard enough. Problem is if you google second amendment debate you get bombarded with five hundred damn lame ass nutcase gun proponent websites pushing single line quotes that are not in context. But I will give you a quote, from a Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice,

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option

www.urbanreviewstl.com/2019/08/opinion-repeal-2nd-amendment-to-return-to-collective-rights-over-individual-rights/

There you have it. You dumbass shits done overplayed your hand. In the end, when enough people get killed in mass shootings which seem to be epidemic now, your precious second amendment is going to be eliminated. You got one hope, reinstitute the draft, eliminate the professional standing army, and then perhaps you might be able to preserve your precious second amendment. But who the hell am I kidding. You gun nuts are all hat and no cattle. To actually use your precious AR-15 to defend anything other than your own precious ass is the last thing you self-absorbed pieces of shit would do.

 

[woodwork201]

Criminals are rational actors and respond to consequences......Japan shows this....if a criminal gets 30 years as a felon in possession of a gun, he won't carry that gun on a daily basis...cutting down on random shootings.

If the criminal would get a couple of years for a rape, but gets life in prison if he uses a gun during the commission of that rape...he won't use the gun....

This is about taking away the argument from gun grabbers, reducing the number of gun criminals they can drag out to take our guns.....

You really need to change your screen name if you're going to promote Japanese-style gun control for the US. You are every bit the gun controller that JoeB131 is. You and he simply disagree on some of the infringements to implement.

 

[freyasman]

Except we aren't talking about releasing "Shooters", we are talking about releasing people who got caught carrying a gun.

Again - 10 million arrests, 2 million prison cells. Where do you put the other 8 million people? And that's every year. You'll have to throw out the current prisoners to make room for some of the new ones.

The real problem is that you take a gun away from one of these guys, they can just get another, because the gun industry has made it soooo darned easy to get guns. The NRA wants criminals to get guns so every tiny-peckered white guy wants one, too.

In NYC they had a Stop and Frisk policy. Violent crime and gun crime reduced significantly and saved a lot of lives, particularly black lives. Why? Because anybody illegally carrying a gun could get busted for just the gun if searched. They got rid of Stop and Frisk, and gun crime and murders went back up. Guess what? It had nothing to do with the NRA.

While some murders are planned, most are just reactionary out of anger. I see it here all the time. Two guys get into a verbal argument at a bar, they both go outside to fight, and one of them pulls a gun and shoots the other one. I'm sure it goes on in Chicago ten-fold. Now, if these people didn't have a gun, they would have fought, one man wins and the other man loses, and that's the extent of the violence.

One was carrying a gun illegally. He was drinking at the bar when he used the gun. He illegally shot another man. What does he get for carrying the gun illegally? Maybe a year at most. In possession of a firearm under disability? Maybe a few months if that. The most time he will get is for assault with a deadly weapon or murder if the victim doesn't survive.

Make illegally in possession of a firearm a minimum of five years, you'd see a lot less people carrying guns that shouldn't have them. A minimum of 20 years for using a firearm in commission of any crime, you'll see crimes with gun use drop in half.

Bearing arms is a right; how are you going to make possession of one a crime?

 

[woodwork201]

Dealing with the easiest first. Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory. What the **** do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about? Just exactly where were the British marching? I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.

You're going to claim those battles as evidence that, in the United States, which didn't yet exist, required guns to be kept in an armory? There was a freaking war fought over those rules. So you admit that you made it up about most cities in the United States having the armory rule. That explains your anger in the rest of your post; liars generally do react with anger when caught in a lie.

To the banning of sawed off shotguns. Last I checked, it is still in effect. Hell, has anyone filed a suit to protest it. Sorry, but your lame ass opinion means absolutely nothing. And no, dumbass, sawed off shotguns are not commonly used in the military. I mean WTF version of reality do you live in.

There are plenty of unconstitutional laws in effect, gun-related or otherwise. That they are in effect does not make them constitutional. Even a leftist must admit that, considering all the lawsuits the left files against existing law.

And I didn't say that sawed-off shotguns are used in the military; I said that short-barreled shotguns are used in the military. Here's just one article about them but you could spend 6 months reading about short-barreled shotguns in military use:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Combat Shotguns Of The Vietnam War

Shotguns with familiar names—Ithaca, Remington, Winchester, Savage and Stevens—served American troops with distinction in the steaming jungles of Vietnam.

www.americanrifleman.org

The sawed-off shotgun was not banned because it was sawed off; it was banned if sawing it off made it a short-barreled shotgun. I can saw off my 30-inch Ithaca to 18.25 inches and be perfectly legal. Sawed-off shotguns are not banned; short-barreled shotguns are.

But you want quotes from the founders. Sorry, you can find the debates online if you look hard enough. Problem is if you google second amendment debate you get bombarded with five hundred damn lame ass nutcase gun proponent websites pushing single line quotes that are not in context. But I will give you a quote, from a Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice,

I asked for quotes from the Founders because you said that they treated gun rights as a collective right. Now you admit that you can't support that statement. Yet another made-up lie and you're acting like a 12-year-old, trying to make sure that no one questions your lies because the cost of questioning is your anger. So the Founders actually did NOT view it as a collective right. You cannot provide a single quote to back up your lie.

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option

www.urbanreviewstl.com/2019/08/opinion-repeal-2nd-amendment-to-return-to-collective-rights-over-individual-rights/

Justice Stevens was among the most liberal justices in modern times. If you recall, he dissented in Heller. That means that his opinion was in the minority. You argue that the ban on short-barreled shotguns is constitutional because no majority of Supreme Court Justices have declared it unconstitutional and then claim Stevens is right on a case that the Court did decide. You really like to have it both ways.

So, in reality, my opinion is the only one that matters to me, just as yours is to you. That the Supreme Court ruled something constitutional or did not rule it so is pretty meaningless. That Burger's Court claimed that the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right was overturned. Did the Constitution change? No; new Justices came with different opinions. That the Supreme Court overturns itself from time to time, that 9 brilliant legal scholars disagree on simple points of law, just proves that their opinions are, literally, nothing more than their opinions. Often, though, the left wing of the Court actually knows that they're lying so their expressed "opinion" is not actually their opinion; it's their agenda.

Generally, Supreme Court Justices are smart people. I'm always interested in their opinions and consider both sides, the decision and the dissent, in forming my own opinions but, in the end, the Constitution is not difficult to understand and I understand it quite well.

There you have it. You dumbass shits done overplayed your hand. In the end, when enough people get killed in mass shootings which seem to be epidemic now, your precious second amendment is going to be eliminated. You got one hope, reinstitute the draft, eliminate the professional standing army, and then perhaps you might be able to preserve your precious second amendment. But who the hell am I kidding. You gun nuts are all hat and no cattle. To actually use your precious AR-15 to defend anything other than your own precious ass is the last thing you self-absorbed pieces of shit would do.

And yet you say nothing about the mass shootings every single day in Chicago. Like all leftists, you hate minorities and you only use them to further your socialist agenda.

 

[freyasman]

The hell you say. You want to show me where the Constitution specifically guarantees you the right to own an AR-15.

Very simple: An AR-15 is considered an arm. The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms.

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Why wouldn't we?

 

[freyasman]

The hell you say. You want to show me where the Constitution specifically guarantees you the right to own an AR-15.

Very simple: An AR-15 is considered an arm. The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms.

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

That would fit the "Dangerous and Unusual...." See Heller.....AR-15 rifles...however, do not fit "Dangerous and Unusual...."

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

I don't care, I'm keeping mine.

 

[woodwork201]

The underlying cause of crime is that the criminal wants something someone else has. Period.

Not at all. The rest of the industrial world has nowhere near out crime rates.

Why?

They treat addiction as a medical problem.
They have extensive social programs to fight poverty.
They don't let every citizen have a gun who wants one.

So while the US has to lock up 2 million people, the Japanese only lock up 69,000. The Germans only lock up 78,000.

They have never had our criminal violence...until now....now they have imported violent 3rd world killers to run their illegal drug businesses and they aren't afraid to use guns to enforce their territories...


And.....Europeans have left it to their governments to murder innocent men, women and children...

American criminals kill other criminals....European governments murder innocent men, women and children.....after they disarmed their citizens, they murdered 12 million people who never committed any crime...

You prefer government murder...of innocents....


The Japanese are also far more law abiding and they submit to authority as a reflex....their police have massive powers over them and have a 95% conviction rate ....that is how they keep all crime low in Japan...you know this, and you lie about it...

Japan: Gun Control and People Control

Japan's low crime rate has almost nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with people control. Americans, used to their own traditions of freedom, would not accept Japan's system of people controls and gun controls.



Robbery in Japan is about as rare as murder. Japan's annual robbery rate is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; America's is 205.4. Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? No, they don't. A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.

The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.

15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
residents."

The police box system contrasts sharply with the practice in America. Here, most departments adopt a policy of "stranger policing." To prevent corruption, police are frequently rotated from one neighborhood to another. But as federal judge Charles Silberman writes, "the cure is worse than the disease, for officers develop no sense of identification with their beats, hence no emotional stake in improving the quality of life there."

Thus, the U.S. citizenry does not develop a supportive relationship with the police. One poll showed that 60% of police officers believe "it is difficult to persuade people to give patrolmen the information they need."

The Japanese police do not spend all their time in the koban boxes. As the Japanese government puts it: "Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police boxes." Making annual visits to each home in their beat, officers keep track of who lives where, and which family member to contact in case of emergency. The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.

Gun banners might rejoice at a society where the police keep such a sharp eye on citizens' guns. But the price is that the police keep an eye on everything.

Policemen are apt to tell people reading sexually-oriented magazines to read something more worthwhile. Japan's major official year-end police report includes statistics like "Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct." In 1985, the police determined that 37.4% of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had had sex "voluntarily." For the volunteers, 19.6% acted "out of curiosity", while for 18.1%, the motive was "liked particular boy." The year-end police report also includes sections on labor demands, and on anti-nuclear or anti-military demonstrations.

All that, and, yet, you use the Japanese as the standard of the success of the gun control you like. You still don't see what's wrong with your pro-gun-control arguments?

 

[woodwork201]

Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.

More lies. We hold companies responsible when they knowingly produce and market a defective device. Ford, Firestone, GM, and many others paid for choosing an acceptable level of deaths over the expense of fixing known flaws in their products. But we have never once held an automaker responsible for the death caused by a drunk driver or for a drunk person who jumped into a pool.

These are totally different from the case of holding the maker of a tool responsible for someone else's intentional, illegal, use of that tool.

Considering that more people are killed each year with hammers or other blunt objects, we don't hold Estwing responsible when someone beats their spouse to death with an Estwing hammer.

 

[freyasman]

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing. The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right. Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation. Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense. Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia. That was what the debate was about. Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous. That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory. It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns. Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago. In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina. By 1720 you could count them on your hands. To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal. All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands. Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS. I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force. The founders would be appalled. A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for. A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia. Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves. I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But this shit is not about right and about left. There is no right and left to ETHICS. This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness. Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham. I mean it was the golden age. But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation. There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment. Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

No, I don't need an AR-15 for target shooting or home defense. So what? What about them make you think I shouldn't have one? How are they different from any other rifle that makes you afraid of them?

Please post one quote from the Founders that implies that the 2nd Amendment was about a collective right?

And what makes you think we don't still need a militia? Do you think the National Guard is going to protect us from tyrannical government?

And, yes, the ban on sawed-off shotguns is illegal. Short-barreled shotguns are commonly used in the military and the Supreme Court, in Miller, ruled that the right protected military weapons over and above other weapons.

Please provide any historical evidence that "most cities" required gun owners to store their guns in an armory. Please provide a list of cities with any such requirement. Please provide the Supreme Court ruling that such a requirement was constitutional.

Dealing with the easiest first. Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory. What the **** do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about? Just exactly where were the British marching? I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.

To the banning of sawed off shotguns. Last I checked, it is still in effect. Hell, has anyone filed a suit to protest it. Sorry, but your lame ass opinion means absolutely nothing. And no, dumbass, sawed off shotguns are not commonly used in the military. I mean WTF version of reality do you live in.

But you want quotes from the founders. Sorry, you can find the debates online if you look hard enough. Problem is if you google second amendment debate you get bombarded with five hundred damn lame ass nutcase gun proponent websites pushing single line quotes that are not in context. But I will give you a quote, from a Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice,

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option

www.urbanreviewstl.com/2019/08/opinion-repeal-2nd-amendment-to-return-to-collective-rights-over-individual-rights/

There you have it. You dumbass shits done overplayed your hand. In the end, when enough people get killed in mass shootings which seem to be epidemic now, your precious second amendment is going to be eliminated. You got one hope, reinstitute the draft, eliminate the professional standing army, and then perhaps you might be able to preserve your precious second amendment. But who the hell am I kidding. You gun nuts are all hat and no cattle. To actually use your precious AR-15 to defend anything other than your own precious ass is the last thing you self-absorbed pieces of shit would do.

All bullshit.

 

[freyasman]

Dealing with the easiest first. Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory. What the **** do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about? Just exactly where were the British marching? I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.

You're going to claim those battles as evidence that, in the United States, which didn't yet exist, required guns to be kept in an armory? There was a freaking war fought over those rules. So you admit that you made it up about most cities in the United States having the armory rule. That explains your anger in the rest of your post; liars generally do react with anger when caught in a lie.

To the banning of sawed off shotguns. Last I checked, it is still in effect. Hell, has anyone filed a suit to protest it. Sorry, but your lame ass opinion means absolutely nothing. And no, dumbass, sawed off shotguns are not commonly used in the military. I mean WTF version of reality do you live in.

There are plenty of unconstitutional laws in effect, gun-related or otherwise. That they are in effect does not make them constitutional. Even a leftist must admit that, considering all the lawsuits the left files against existing law.

And I didn't say that sawed-off shotguns are used in the military; I said that short-barreled shotguns are used in the military. Here's just one article about them but you could spend 6 months reading about short-barreled shotguns in military use:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Combat Shotguns Of The Vietnam War

Shotguns with familiar names—Ithaca, Remington, Winchester, Savage and Stevens—served American troops with distinction in the steaming jungles of Vietnam.

www.americanrifleman.org

The sawed-off shotgun was not banned because it was sawed off; it was banned if sawing it off made it a short-barreled shotgun. I can saw off my 30-inch Ithaca to 18.25 inches and be perfectly legal. Sawed-off shotguns are not banned; short-barreled shotguns are.

But you want quotes from the founders. Sorry, you can find the debates online if you look hard enough. Problem is if you google second amendment debate you get bombarded with five hundred damn lame ass nutcase gun proponent websites pushing single line quotes that are not in context. But I will give you a quote, from a Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice,

I asked for quotes from the Founders because you said that they treated gun rights as a collective right. Now you admit that you can't support that statement. Yet another made-up lie and you're acting like a 12-year-old, trying to make sure that no one questions your lies because the cost of questioning is your anger. So the Founders actually did NOT view it as a collective right. You cannot provide a single quote to back up your lie.

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option

www.urbanreviewstl.com/2019/08/opinion-repeal-2nd-amendment-to-return-to-collective-rights-over-individual-rights/

Justice Stevens was among the most liberal justices in modern times. If you recall, he dissented in Heller. That means that his opinion was in the minority. You argue that the ban on short-barreled shotguns is constitutional because no majority of Supreme Court Justices have declared it unconstitutional and then claim Stevens is right on a case that the Court did decide. You really like to have it both ways.

So, in reality, my opinion is the only one that matters to me, just as yours is to you. That the Supreme Court ruled something constitutional or did not rule it so is pretty meaningless. That Burger's Court claimed that the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right was overturned. Did the Constitution change? No; new Justices came with different opinions. That the Supreme Court overturns itself from time to time, that 9 brilliant legal scholars disagree on simple points of law, just proves that their opinions are, literally, nothing more than their opinions. Often, though, the left wing of the Court actually knows that they're lying so their expressed "opinion" is not actually their opinion; it's their agenda.

Generally, Supreme Court Justices are smart people. I'm always interested in their opinions and consider both sides, the decision and the dissent, in forming my own opinions but, in the end, the Constitution is not difficult to understand and I understand it quite well.

There you have it. You dumbass shits done overplayed your hand. In the end, when enough people get killed in mass shootings which seem to be epidemic now, your precious second amendment is going to be eliminated. You got one hope, reinstitute the draft, eliminate the professional standing army, and then perhaps you might be able to preserve your precious second amendment. But who the hell am I kidding. You gun nuts are all hat and no cattle. To actually use your precious AR-15 to defend anything other than your own precious ass is the last thing you self-absorbed pieces of shit would do.

And yet you say nothing about the mass shootings every single day in Chicago. Like all leftists, you hate minorities and you only use them to further your socialist agenda.

He's just a liar, and a wanna-be bully, why are you wasting time with a piece of shit like him?

 

[woodwork201]

No, it is not a reduced sentence for using any other weapon. It's an ADDITIONAL offense for using a gun.

Rapist 1 uses a gun. He gets 12 years for rape and 10 years for the gun.
Rapist 2 uses a knife. He gets 12 years for rape.

Which one got the lesser sentence? This is Sesame Street level stuff. Surely you can figure it out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rapist 1 uses a gun. He gets 12 years for rape and 10 years for the gun.
Rapist 2 uses a knife. He gets 12 years for rape.

Which one got the lesser sentence? This is Sesame Street level stuff. Surely you can figure it out.

You didn't say a lesser sentence you said a reduced sentence. Better go back to Sesame street. A reduced sentence is a sentence that has been reduced. The judge sentenced him to 12 years in prison for rape, but suspended 4 of those years. That's a reduced sentence.