Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing will be a fix all. A combination of common sense regulations will lower the number of people who get killed each year under the current status quo.

Thank you for continuing to prove you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and proving they are both arbitrary and capricious.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The 2nd is one of the most ambiguous statements within COTUS.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Don't like it?
Too bad.

BULLSHIT: Heller was an opinion which was decided 5-4.

See: A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

From the LINK:

The main argument about the amendment has always been a semantic one: What is meant? What is the intention? I use the present tense, because grammatical deconstruction is done in the here and now. We are not trying to divine intentions from our personal beliefs of what the Founders “stood for” or what they “believed.” The Founders are dead, but their words remain alive in the present, and their words, as well as their meticulous grammatical construction, leave no doubt as to their intentions.

Read these sentences:

“Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”

“Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”

In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.

 

[sealybobo]

Nothing will be a fix all. A combination of common sense regulations will lower the number of people who get killed each year under the current status quo.

Thank you for continuing to prove you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and proving they are both arbitrary and capricious.

It's like arguing why abortion rights are good or that global warming is man made. You ain't gonna listen.

 

[M14 Shooter]

BULLSHIT: Heller was an opinion which was decided 5-4.

Heller is the law.
Don't like it?
Too bad.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing will be a fix all. A combination of common sense regulations will lower the number of people who get killed each year under the current status quo.

Thank you for continuing to prove you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and proving they are both arbitrary and capricious.

It's like arguing why abortion rights are good or that global warming is man made. You ain't gonna listen.

Thank you for continuing to prove you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and proving they are both arbitrary and capricious.

 

[sealybobo]

Nothing will be a fix all. A combination of common sense regulations will lower the number of people who get killed each year under the current status quo.

Thank you for continuing to prove you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and proving they are both arbitrary and capricious.

It's like arguing why abortion rights are good or that global warming is man made. You ain't gonna listen.

Thank you for continuing to prove you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and proving they are both arbitrary and capricious.

You're welcome?

 

[sealybobo]

BULLSHIT: Heller was an opinion which was decided 5-4.

Heller is the law.
Don't like it?
Too bad.

We don't like it that Republican judges are legislating from the bench. Get used to that cry btw.

 

[M14 Shooter]

BULLSHIT: Heller was an opinion which was decided 5-4.

Heller is the law.
Don't like it?
Too bad.

We don't like it that Republican judges are legislating from the bench. Get used to that cry btw.

Again:
Heller is the law.
Don't like it?
Too bad.

 

[EGR one]

They do not work!

Then repeal the 2nd Amendment. That's pretty much all you have left.

BULLSHIT

The 2nd is one of the most ambiguous statements within COTUS.

Herein is a rebuttal to BLF's Bullshit:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

From the link:


Read these sentences:

“Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”

“Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”

In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.

Your interpretation of the second amendment is irrational at best, and dishonest at it's worst. No national government needs a constitutional provision allowing it to arm, train, or discipline, a militia. Consequently, that is not the purpose of the second amendment.

However, at the time the amendment was written and adopted, every national government did their best to keep their citizens disarmed. The second amendment to our Constitution was designed to ensure that our national government could not disarm our citizens.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nothing will be a fix all. A combination of common sense regulations will lower the number of people who get killed each year under the current status quo.

A more effective, less liberty-ass-******* method is to remove kill zones (aka "gun-free" zones) and crack down on drug prescription practices of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other psychiatric or psychoactive drugs.

I don't think we have come anywhere CLOSE to considering the least intrusive means of preventing gun violence, which re-affirms my very reasonable and rational belief that there are many who do, in fact, want to confiscate all guns.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

BULLSHIT: Heller was an opinion which was decided 5-4.

You know what we call a 5-4 SCOTUS decision?

The law.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your interpretation of the second amendment is irrational at best, and dishonest at it's worst.

And, since it does not coincide with established jurisprudence, his interpretation is irrelevant.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's like arguing why abortion rights are good or that global warming is man made. You ain't gonna listen.

I will listen. Will you listen to my response in good faith?

.

 

[Blues Man]

Not one person here has told me that the federal gun laws are not common sense.

So what exactly about our federal gun laws lacks common sense?

They do not work!

Us Democrats need to feel safe

Your irrational fears are not a sound argument for the restriction of my rights.

Your obsession with guns and gun control are bordering on an irrational fear that someone will come and take away your guns.

Wow. That reach was sad, even for you

The fact that you don't see your concern for your Right to own a gun or guns without any infringement is selfish

Just reading the Constitution and taking it at its word. You should try it.

and disregards the grief of the parents whose children went to school one day, and never came home.

Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by fallacious appeals to emotion -- why are you?

But you don't care, it's all about you, a spoiled child.

Translation:
You know you cannot make your point with facts or rational, reasoned thought.
Not a surprise.

Fact remains:
Your irrational fears are not a sound argument for the restriction of my rights

I didn't expect a spoiled brat like you to take kindly to my statement. I do expect some readers will see you and 2aguy are so obsessed with guns and have zero concern for the innocent victims, dead, wounded and psychological damaged.

The fact that your kind LIE CONSTANTLY that the goal of gun control is to confiscate all guns in private hands, and that the 2nd A. Right cannot be infringed; yet is everyday in terms of a persons history, the type of arms and ammunition.

You should STFU and get some therapy, paranoia can lead you too, to break the law.

They are not enforced.

No law that is not enforced works

Do you realize that anyone caught illegally possessing a firearm has committed a federal crime punishable by a minimum of 5 years in federal prison?

If people caught committing gun crimes were actually prosecuted on both the state and federal level and were made to serve the federal time after the state time was served we would see a huge decline in all gun crimes because we all know most gun crimes are committed by people who illegally possess those guns and who have committed crimes before

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing will be a fix all. A combination of common sense regulations will lower the number of people who get killed each year under the current status quo.

Thank you for continuing to prove you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and proving they are both arbitrary and capricious.

It's like arguing why abortion rights are good or that global warming is man made. You ain't gonna listen.

Thank you for continuing to prove you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and proving they are both arbitrary and capricious.

You're welcome?

When you can present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and show they are they are neither arbitrary nor capricious, let us know.
I shan't hold my breath.

 

[ph3iron]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an eveil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Of course they are. That's what lefties mean by "common sense gun regulations." It's code for abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

Have you got one example baby boy?
Of course not
Still enjoying your leftie VA SS Medicare benefits?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Millions of responsible gun owners are perfectly capable of keeping and responsibly using firearms of all types and capacities, including full-autos.

That is undeniable.

.

 

[ph3iron]

Millions of responsible gun owners are perfectly capable of keeping and responsibly using firearms of all types and capacities, including full-autos.

That is undeniable.

.

Of course.
It's only zero college con cultists who believe "leftists" say no one should be allowed

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course.
It's only zero college con cultists who believe "leftists" say no one should be allowed

Magazine capacities apply to all people. "Assault" weapon bans apply to all people.

.

 

[sealybobo]

Nothing will be a fix all. A combination of common sense regulations will lower the number of people who get killed each year under the current status quo.

Thank you for continuing to prove you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and proving they are both arbitrary and capricious.

It's like arguing why abortion rights are good or that global warming is man made. You ain't gonna listen.

Thank you for continuing to prove you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and proving they are both arbitrary and capricious.

You're welcome?

When you can present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and show they are they are neither arbitrary nor capricious, let us know.
I shan't hold my breath.

No please hold your breath until I reply back. I'm writing something up right now. Hold it! Don't cheat.