Gun registration in California? They just signed a law giving gun owner information to outside parties..

[2aguy]

Again, I gave you one... Miller v. US.

Second Amendment is about militias and the government can regulate gun ownership.

That Scalia took the Crazy NRA position in Heller is the problem.

Nope....he explained it for you...he explained it so well even a child could understand it......since you don't seem to understand it, you are not as smart as a small child....

 

[JoeB131]

Moron.......they disarmed their people...and when the socialists took over their countries they handed over their Jews and other targets of the socialists for murder...to the tune of 12 million innocent men, women and children........

More innocent people murdered in 6 years, across Europe, than 82 years of criminals in the U.S. murdering other criminals with guns.....

The Nazis loosened gun laws... and the German people never rose up against Hitler, they fought for him to the last old man and little boy.

Germans still thought the July 20 Plotters were traitors well into the 1950's, until later governments reformed their reputations.

Those people had plenty of guns, they happily turned over their Jews because 2000 years of Christian propaganda made them hate Jews. Jews killed their magic God-man.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope....he explained it for you...he explained it so well even a child could understand it......since you don't seem to understand it, you are not as smart as a small child....

Yeah, he repeated a lot of the NRA spooge you guys repeat... but Heller ignored hundreds of years or precedent to give the NRA what it wanted.

 

[2aguy]

The Nazis loosened gun laws... and the German people never rose up against Hitler, they fought for him to the last old man and little boy.

Germans still thought the July 20 Plotters were traitors well into the 1950's, until later governments reformed their reputations.

Those people had plenty of guns, they happily turned over their Jews because 2000 years of Christian propaganda made them hate Jews. Jews killed their magic God-man.

Moron, they let nazi party members hqve guns and took them from Jews and the parties enemies…..and the disarmed population was already cowed into submission after they lost their guns in the 20s you idiot.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, he repeated a lot of the NRA spooge you guys repeat... but Heller ignored hundreds of years or precedent to give the NRA what it wanted.

Abatis already showed you the truth and Scalia explained the entire history going back to England you moron

 

[JoeB131]

Moron, they let nazi party members hqve guns and took them from Jews and the parties enemies…..and the disarmed population was already cowed into submission after they lost their guns in the 20s you idiot.

Actually, no. The problem with the Weimar Gun Laws (a sensible response to Nazis and Communists having pitched gun battles in the streets) is that they were poorly enforced. Thanks to the disintegration of the German military following World War I, you had Lugers and rifles in almost every house in Germany.

The reason why most Germans didn't oppose the Nazis is because most of them were perfectly fine with what Hitler was doing. If Hitler had died in 1939 before the War started, he'd probably be remembered as Germany's Greatest Chancellor.

The German people had plenty of guns. Rather than get rid of a government they hated, they used those guns to fight to the last man, at least on the Russian front.

The guy who brought gun control to Germany was Dwight Eisenhower, who got a little tired of Nazi Dead-enders taking pot shots at Allied troops and ordered house to house confiscation.

Abatis already showed you the truth and Scalia explained the entire history going back to England you moron

Yet England didn't have widespread gun ownership, and neither did the United States until recent decades.

 

[Donald H]

This chimera of gun-crazed maniacs you have invented

To what are you referring? We'll debate all the issues I feel need to be debated if you can control the insults and behave normally.
I'll propose the question of guns not being used for self defense to debate first. I've found volumes of evidence that says it's very rarely.

 

[Donald H]

WTF makes you think I am interested in your take of a point 2Aguy made?

Spin, distract, spin, dissemble, spin, misdirect . . .

.

That's fine with me if you have no interest. Maybe somebody else can back him up?

 

[M14 Shooter]

To what are you referring? We'll debate all the issues I feel need to be debated if you can control the insults and behave normally.

Unlikely.
See, "debate" implies the exchange of rational, reasoned positions, backed with facts.
The anti-gun side has none.

I'll propose the question of guns not being used for self defense to debate first. I've found volumes of evidence that says it's very rarely.

Firearms are used for self-defense at least 10x more often than for murder
Firearms are used for self-defense at least 5x more often than for suicide.
If firearms are "very rarely" used for self-defense, how would you charatcterize the incidenc of firarm use for murder and suicide?

 

[Donald H]

If firearms are "very rarely" used for self-defense, how would you charatcterize the incidenc of firarm use for murder and suicide?

It's an odd question that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Maybe you mean to somehow connect the very high incidence of murder and suicide in America with self-defence.
If so, I can't accept that without some sort of explanation.

warning: You will not get away with rudeness, personal insults, or spamming with me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's an odd question that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

It does when you include the part where firearms are used -far- more often for self-defense than murder and suicide.
If the former is "very rare" -as you said - what then is the latter?
Well?

 

[Donald H]

It does when you include the part where firearms are used -far- more often for self-defense than murder and suicide.
If the former is "very rare" -as you said - what then is the latter?
Well?

Very prevalent in America compared to other countries. There are a few third world exceptions.

All the sites I've found that are interested in an honest analysis of the situation are showing that self-defense with guns is very seldom.

The incidents of Americans with guns feeling threatened with a fist fight in a tavern for instance can't be included as self defense. If you're trying to include that then you may be able to build some case by including such altercations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Very prevalent in America compared to other countries. There are a few third world exceptions.

And yet, compared to the number of times a firearm is used in self-defense, murder and suicide with a firearm is very rare.
Indeed, compared to the number of guns in the US, the number of guns used for murder and suicide approach statistical zero.
Given this...
What's your point?
Where are you rational, reasoned positions, backed with facts?

 

[Donald H]

And yet, compared to the number of times a firearm is used in self-defense, murder and suicide with a firearm is very rare.
Indeed, compared to the number of guns in the US, the number of guns used for murder and suicide approach statistical zero.
Given this...
What's your point?
Where are you rational, reasoned positions, backed with facts?

https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/murder-suicide/

Murder-suicides are a shockingly common form of gun violence in the United States — an estimated 11 such incidents each week. VPC research has found that more than 1,200 Americans die in murder-suicides each year. Nine out of 10 murder-suicides involve a gun. In nearly two-thirds of all murder-suicides, an intimate partner of the shooter is among the victims.

We're not getting anywhere if you're not willing to acknowledge the facts.

However, if you're trying to make a point that the stats aren't significant then we've reached an impasse.

 

[M14 Shooter]

https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/murder-suicide/

And yet, compared to the number of times a firearm is used in self-defense, murder and suicide with a firearm is very rare.
So...?

 

[Donald H]

And yet, compared to the number of times a firearm is used in self-defense, murder and suicide with a firearm is very rare.
So...?

Disagree of course.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Disagree of course.

You disagree with facts?
So much for your willingness to debate.

 

[Abatis]

You kind of miss the point about Japanese-Americans. It wasn't the government that did it, it was the AMERICAN PEOPLE who did it.

By that description / definition, you are not discussing any right, thus this red herring is dismissed.

Not that we've learned anything in 80 years, given the response to Trump Plague was to go beat up some Asian people.

The vast majority of violence / assaults against Asians and Asian businesses were perpetrated by Blacks. Blacks have always had a grudge against Asians for their business models in Black neighborhoods and their success. COVID was just a convenient excuse for the perpetuation of the already existing hate and violence, and for its escalation.

I'm not sure if it was your point, (I can't assume it wasn't, given the stupid crap you throw out), but there certainly wasn't any motivation needed or marching orders received by Blacks from Trump, prodding them to assault Asians on the street.

And when was the last time someone in government was actually punished? I mean besides the occasional city cop who loses his job for shooting a black kid in the back? Clinton and Trump proved we really can't hold people in government accountable, that's the thing.

True Dat . . . But that does not alter the foundational principle.

Uh, huh. And who gets to decide that? Frankly, what you are recommending is anarchy, not a process.

The people demanding government to respect and obey the Constitution is not anarchy.

If the full rescinding of our consent to be governed is undertaken and successful, then establishing a new framework of government will again be in the people's hands . . . And that is a process, the process, as SCOTUS recognized in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.​

​

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.​

​

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? . . . "​

Does the significance and weight of that, register with you?


>>>reply to be continued . . .

 

[Abatis]

Let's take the 1/6 Riot. There was an election, they lost, so they stormed the capitol. What if they decided to show up with guns instead? YOu really think this is a good thing. Sadly, a lot of people on your side do, and that's the problem.

I'm all for the prosecution and punishment of anyone who rioted. I do not support persecutions for "What if's" . . .

Again, point is going right over your head. "Free Speech" is a nice principle, but I can point out a dozen cases where government has stepped in to limit it. The Hayes Commission was set up to censor movies, the Comic Book Code Authority was set up to censor comic books, right now, you have a bunch of people who want to censor what goes out on Social Media...

Seems to me your "self policing" examples are more comparable to the woke / cancel movement today in the private sector. The woke movement is doing exactly the same thing as the Hayes / Motion Picture Production Code was doing.

Whatever governmental action that's being proposed 'against' social media, is for government to remove special privileges and protections government had given to social media platforms for as long as they acted as impartial content platforms . . . Now that social media companies are using their platforms to advance policial agendas and are actively censoring content and people for political positions, I agree the protections should be removed. That isn't censorship.

>>>reply to be continued . . .

.

 

[Abatis]

Freedom of Religion? Okay, so if I want to cut out the heart of my enemy as a tribute to Quetzalcoatl, should I be able to do that because my religion says so? Should David Koresh been allowed to molest children?

And these are clear cut freedoms, not a kneejerk reaction like the Militia Amendment that has been distorted by the gun industry.

Bullshit argument, at least in the context of gun rights vs gun control. Are you arguing that the rights of consistence are defined by human sacrifice rituals in the same way you define the RKBA by murder?