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

[2aguy]

I can always tell when I've won when the nutters start repeating slogans.

Gun ownership is not a right.. most of the world doesn't let average citizens own guns, because that would be stupid. Actually, there are no "rights" at all, there are only privileges society agrees you should have. Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".



Really... but then you say this...

Well, which is it, buddy? Should crazy people be allowed to have guns or not? Because, frankly, when you start of with the premise that gun ownership is a right, it's kind of hard to deny a crazy person a gun.




Uh, yes, guy, I see small children being wheeled out of their pre-school in body bags, I have an emotional response to that... but also a logical one.

Adam Lanza never should have had access to a military grade-assault rifle designed for use on a battlefield.

(And don't go saying, "Well, an AR-15 can't fire full automatic" or whatever mental self-pleasuring your fetishists go through. It was designed for the army to fight in Vietnam.)



It never really had to until recently. Up until the 1970's, no one held the crazy opinion that gun ownership was a right. The issue in Miller was the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act limiting what kinds of guns could be sold. This was passed because as a result of prohibition, people were machine gunning each other in the streets.

As stated (I noticed you avoided the discussion) was that common sense gun laws were supported by the NRA up until the 1970's.

This only became an issue after nuts took over the NRA like Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre.

Most of the world governments have committed mass murder and genocide against their own citizens.....and keep them disarmed so that they are easily controlled.....

So....sell that crap to biden voters...

 

[JoeB131]

Most of the world governments have committed mass murder and genocide against their own citizens.

So have we.

So let's review American genocide and mass murder.
Um. Slavery.
Genocide of Native Americans
My personal favorite, the Philippine war, where we killed 200,000 Filipinos for merely wanting their own country.
We killed 3 million Vietnamese and a million Iraqis. I guess they don't count because they aren't "Citizens", but we sure as hell murdered the shit out of them.

 

[2aguy]

So have we.

So let's review American genocide and mass murder.
Um. Slavery.
Genocide of Native Americans
My personal favorite, the Philippine war, where we killed 200,000 Filipinos for merely wanting their own country.
We killed 3 million Vietnamese and a million Iraqis. I guess they don't count because they aren't "Citizens", but we sure as hell murdered the shit out of them.

Slavery......slaves captured by Africans, transported on European ships....

Slavery ended by the U.S. after Republicans defeated the democrat party slave owners in the Civil War.....a war over slavery started by the political party you vote for....

Native Americans were torturing and murdering each other long before the Europeans showed up, and died because they didn't have immunities to European viruses....

Vietnam, brought to you by the political philosophy, communism...that you support....

 

[JoeB131]

Slavery......slaves

Slavery was the policy of the US government, and the ONLY reason why it ended was because the South had a bowl of dumbass and tried to secede. Left to his own devices, Lincoln never would have ended slavery, merely limited it's expansion.

It was a genocidal policy carried out for centuries... from1619 onwards.

Native Americans were torturing and murdering each other long before the Europeans showed up, and died because they didn't have immunities to European viruses....

Our genocidal policies sere a lot more thorough than that. We sent in the Army to slaughter the Buffalo to deprive them of their main food source.

We forced them on to Reservations, which were so efficient that they were the model for Hitler's concentration camps.

Guns do not keep government from acting shitty.

Okay, so you skipped over the Philippine War, you know, that genocidal war we fought against probably the nicest people in Asia because they merely wanted their own country. Probably a good call on your part. Fortunately for you, most Americans don't even know we ever fought a war in the Philippines, much less how bad it was.

Vietnam, brought to you by the political philosophy, communism...that you support....

Uh, no, guy, what brought us the Vietnam War was our attempt to impose a form of government on them THEY DIDN'T WANT.

Our own government admitted if Ho Chi Mihn was on the ballot, he'd have won an election in South Vietnam.

The point that goes over your head is...

Guns do not make governments act better. Ever. That we should tolerate 43,000 deaths every year because hey, it make government scared, that's just a stupid reason.

 

[justinacolmena]

This is just one reason not to give in to the insane demand to register guns...

California Governor Gavin Newsom, having survived his recall election, has taken the next step in his agenda on gun control. He signed California Assembly Bill 173 into law, amending the California Penal Code Section 11106 to include this new authorization to release personally identifiable information about every California gun owner to researchers.

That's what they did to me in Washington State after I legally purchased some firearms after obtaining a Concealed Pistol License.

Cops picked me up, threw me in the psychiatric ward revoked my rights and now I'm an armed & dangerous felon the rest of my life, and the cops shoot at me whenever they feel like it even if they haven't actually convicted me of a felony for possessing legally purchased firearms in my own name.

 

[miketx]

 

[Abatis]

I can always tell when I've won when the nutters start repeating slogans.

That sentence isn't a slogan, it is a quote from the Supreme Court.

I repeated it twice because you twice made the same dumb point that the right comes from the Constitution, that the right to arms exists "because the constitution said so" and because the framers "couldn't define a militia clearly".

In truth, the Court has been boringly consistent reaffirming the "not granted [thus] not in any manner dependent" principle for going on 145 years.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense in public from the KKK by former slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."​

​

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "​

​

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

I can always tell I've won when imbecilic anti-gunners don't recognize the quote and can't comprehend what the quote means and are completely ignorant how that quote destroys their ridiculous arguments.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually, there are no "rights" at all, there are only privileges society agrees you should have. Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".

And that is all that really needs to be said. I have no idea why any of you even bother, it is like trying to explain why the sky is blue to someone that thinks it is fundamentally orange. He just does not have a clue what the concept of rights even means let alone show any capacity to apply the concept. Trying to establish that you have one protected by the second amendment is pointless, my dog has a better chance of learning calculus.

It is not as though this is a new statement.

 

[JoeB131]

And that is all that really needs to be said. I have no idea why any of you even bother, it is like trying to explain why the sky is blue to someone that thinks it is fundamentally orange. He just does not have a clue what the concept of rights even means let alone show any capacity to apply the concept. Trying to establish that you have one protected by the second amendment is pointless, my dog has a better chance of learning calculus.

There are no rights. Never were any rights.

There's only the privileges the rest of society lets you have because, 'Yeah, that seems reasonable".

The First Amendment doesn't mean you can practice human sacrifice because your imaginary friend in the sky demands it.

The Second Amendment shouldn't meant that Joker Holmes should be able to buy a gun because he wants one.

 

[JoeB131]

I repeated it twice because you twice made the same dumb point that the right comes from the Constitution, that the right to arms exists "because the constitution said so" and because the framers "couldn't define a militia clearly".

Really, I thought it was because you were a high-functioning retard.

There are no rights.
The Second Amendment is about militias
There is no right for crazy people to own guns.

 

[Abatis]

And that is all that really needs to be said. I have no idea why any of you even bother, it is like trying to explain why the sky is blue to someone that thinks it is fundamentally orange. He just does not have a clue what the concept of rights even means let alone show any capacity to apply the concept. Trying to establish that you have one protected by the second amendment is pointless, my dog has a better chance of learning calculus.

Speaking for myself, I have no illusions I could ever sway someone like Joe. I don't post to him, I post to the many lurkers. I find it interesting that gun threads always have a high page count, a lot of people read 2nd Amendment threads and there needs to be effective rebuttal to the anti-gun idiocy . . . Plus it's fun!

 

[FA_Q2]

Speaking for myself, I have no illusions I could ever sway someone like Joe. I don't post to him, I post to the many lurkers. I find it interesting that gun threads always have a high page count, a lot of people read 2nd Amendment threads and there needs to be effective rebuttal to the anti-gun idiocy . . . Plus it's fun!

lol, point taken. I feel the same way many times as well.

 

[Donald H]

A simple acceptance of the fact that AR type weapons shouldn't be permitted on account of the attraction to mentally deficient characters who dress up in pseudo military costumes, would go a long way on settling the gun debate.

Rational people could easily accept hunters and gun enthusiastics being permitted to have semi-auto weapons such as the M1 Garand, Wild Bill's Garland rifle, or even semi-auto shotguns.

 

[2aguy]

A simple acceptance of the fact that AR type weapons shouldn't be permitted on account of the attraction to bad guys, would go a long way on settling the gun debate.

Rational people could easily accept hunters and gun enthusiastics being permitted to have semi-auto weapons such as the M1 Garand, Wild Bill's Garland rifle, or even semi-auto shotguns.

There is no difference between those weapons.......you anti-gun extremists are just insane.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A simple acceptance of the fact that AR type weapons shouldn't be permitted...

You cannot present a sound argument to this effect.

 

[Donald H]

There is no difference between those weapons.......you anti-gun extremists are just insane.

In fact the biggest difference and the most harmful difference is that most of the AR type weapons are black.
At casual first glance the distinction wouldn't seem to make much difference, but it does.

It's in the questionable mindset of the person who chooses a black AR type weapon instead of some other much better choice for his preferred shooting sport.

One only needs observe a person with an AR type weapon blazing away at a human silouetter target to set off alarm bells.

On whom does he intend on turning his weapon?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In fact the biggest difference and the most harmful difference is that most of the AR type weapons are black.

You cannot present a sound argument to this effect.

 

[2aguy]

In fact the biggest difference and the most harmful difference is that most of the AR type weapons are black.
At casual first glance the distinction wouldn't seem to make much difference, but it does.

It's in the questionable mindset of the person who chooses a black AR type weapon instead of some other much better choice for his preferred shooting sport.

One only needs observe a person with an AR type weapon blazing away at a human silouetter target to set off alarm bells.

On whom does he intend on turning his weapon?

Again...we know you are insane, you don't have to keep posting in order to show us you are insane.....

 

[Hollie]

A simple acceptance of the fact that AR type weapons shouldn't be permitted on account of the attraction to mentally deficient characters who dress up in pseudo military costumes, would go a long way on settling the gun debate.

Rational people could easily accept hunters and gun enthusiastics being permitted to have semi-auto weapons such as the M1 Garand, Wild Bill's Garland rifle, or even semi-auto shotguns.

Apparently you don't understand that semi-automatic "AR-type" weapons (whatever that means), are semi-automtic just as the Garand and semi-automatic shotguns are. Lots of rational people accept Armalite rifles as perfectly "rational" to own.

BTW, many states (my own included), don't allow hunting with the .223 caliber cartridge.

 

[M14 Shooter]

BTW, many states (my own included), don't allow hunting with the .223 caliber cartridge.

Deer, maaybe. I bet they allow it for coyote and hogs.