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

[2aguy]

Not true. Most mass shooters either give up because the run out of ammo or they shoot themselves.

And you, the moron, lying again…..

The mass public shooters stop shooting unarmed people when someone with a gun shows up….they then commit suicide, surrender or run away…the only exception is the Muslim Christmas party shooters……they actually shot at the police since it was a terrorist attack rather than a mass public shooting.

 

[JoeB131]

What exactly does the 2nd Amendment "do" that is "about" militias?

Has the 2nd ever been claimed as protection by a state to repel federal powers being exercised over the state's militia interests?

Why are all the Supreme Court's "2nd Amendment cases", instances of private citizens being granted standing to argue a rights injury?

Well, let's look at that. Miller v. US clearly stated that the Second Amendment didn't give a right to own a gun and that the government had an ability to regulate them.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, at the time, Mobsters were mowing people down in the street with Tommy Guns. The per-capita murder rate was twice what is is now.

The Ironic thing is up until the 1970's, the NRA supported gun control laws. When the Black Panthers started walking around with guns, the NRA supported laws against open carry and Ronald Reagan signed off on them.

The a couple of things happened.

First, murdering small animals for "sport" stopped being considered a recreational activity and started being seen as animal cruelty.

Yes, Warner Brothers, I blame you.

The gun industry had a problem. Gun sales were down. The end of the Vietnam War meant the government didn't need as many of them, either. That's when the crazies took over the NRA and started making cheap, easy to buy guns for the crooks so everyone else would want them, too.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Works for me.

You're a thug.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Uh, guy, gun nuts aren't normal. The best argument for gun control is listening to you gun nuts rant about all the people you want to shoot.

The reality- Rest of the world limits gun ownership, and they don't have nearly the levels of murder, crime or other problems we have.

Libtards like you are not normal.

 

[JoeB131]

And you, the moron, lying again…..

The mass public shooters stop shooting unarmed people when someone with a gun shows up….they then commit suicide, surrender or run away…the only exception is the Muslim Christmas party shooters……they actually shot at the police since it was a terrorist attack rather than a mass public shooting.

By your own admission, then, they stop themselves.

Let's review, shall we.

Adam Lanza- Killed himself.
Harris and Kliebold - Killed themselves.
Joker Holmes - Sat down on a sidewalk and gave up.
Nikolas Cruz - gave up
Jaren Loughner - Subdued by unarmed civilians as he reloaded
Steven Paddock - killed himself.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Well, let's look at that. Miller v. US clearly stated that the Second Amendment didn't give a right to own a gun and that the government had an ability to regulate them.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, at the time, Mobsters were mowing people down in the street with Tommy Guns. The per-capita murder rate was twice what is is now.

The Ironic thing is up until the 1970's, the NRA supported gun control laws. When the Black Panthers started walking around with guns, the NRA supported laws against open carry and Ronald Reagan signed off on them.

View attachment 549496

The a couple of things happened.

First, murdering small animals for "sport" stopped being considered a recreational activity and started being seen as animal cruelty.

View attachment 549498
Yes, Warner Brothers, I blame you.

The gun industry had a problem. Gun sales were down. The end of the Vietnam War meant the government didn't need as many of them, either. That's when the crazies took over the NRA and started making cheap, easy to buy guns for the crooks so everyone else would want them, too.

The second gives the right to own a gun, the court was wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

The second gives the right to own a gun, the court was wrong.

The constitution isn't a suicide pact.

I don't believe crazy people should be allowed to mow down preschoolers because 200 years ago, a bunch of slave-rapists couldn't define a militia clearly.

 

[Hollie]

The constitution isn't a suicide pact.

I don't believe crazy people should be allowed to mow down preschoolers because 200 years ago, a bunch of slave-rapists couldn't define a militia clearly.

The Constitution isn't a Microsoft Word document that lefty extremists can edit. Truly comical that someone from the party of slavery; democrat party, feels a need to lecture anyone on slavery.

 

[2aguy]

By your own admission, then, they stop themselves.

Let's review, shall we.

Adam Lanza- Killed himself.
Harris and Kliebold - Killed themselves.
Joker Holmes - Sat down on a sidewalk and gave up.
Nikolas Cruz - gave up
Jaren Loughner - Subdued by unarmed civilians as he reloaded
Steven Paddock - killed himself.

Moron…they only stopped because people with guns were on the way……….

lanza stopped shooting when he heard the police sirens

Harris and kleebold were surrounded by cops and would have committed suicide sooner had the cops known to enter the building instead of waiting outside

holmes was attempting to flee when he was stopped by a cop

loughner was hit from behind by a guy he shot in the head and thought he had killed…and two concealed carry civilians were right there about to shoot him

paddock shot himself when the police began to approach his room

you are an idiot, in each case the shooters ended the murder of unarmed people because people with guns showed up…..you idiot.

 

[2aguy]

The constitution isn't a suicide pact.

I don't believe crazy people should be allowed to mow down preschoolers because 200 years ago, a bunch of slave-rapists couldn't define a militia clearly.

Slave rapists? You vote for the political party created by those very slave rapists…….the democrat party was created by slave owners you idiot and you vote for them……you moron.

 

[2aguy]

Well, let's look at that. Miller v. US clearly stated that the Second Amendment didn't give a right to own a gun and that the government had an ability to regulate them.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, at the time, Mobsters were mowing people down in the street with Tommy Guns. The per-capita murder rate was twice what is is now.

The Ironic thing is up until the 1970's, the NRA supported gun control laws. When the Black Panthers started walking around with guns, the NRA supported laws against open carry and Ronald Reagan signed off on them.

View attachment 549496

The a couple of things happened.

First, murdering small animals for "sport" stopped being considered a recreational activity and started being seen as animal cruelty.

View attachment 549498
Yes, Warner Brothers, I blame you.

The gun industry had a problem. Gun sales were down. The end of the Vietnam War meant the government didn't need as many of them, either. That's when the crazies took over the NRA and started making cheap, easy to buy guns for the crooks so everyone else would want them, too.

Moron…Miller is the last case you want to cite since it protects military weapons above the others you fool.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Actually, most gun murders are domestic arguments that got out of hand, not theft.

Sorry you don't get that.

If all the police had to deal with is theft, we'd have a pretty easy life.

Not true.
Most of them may not be theft but most are not escelating domestic arguments either/.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Not true. Most mass shooters either give up because the run out of ammo or they shoot themselves.

They do so because they know they're outgunned.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Works for me.

Just keep in mind that those law abiding citizens will defend themselves with violence, resulting in dead BLM scumbags.

That works for me...

 

[JoeB131]

Slave rapists? You vote for the political party created by those very slave rapists…….the democrat party was created by slave owners you idiot and you vote for them……you moron.

Naw, man, the Democrats threw those people out in 1964... and Republicans welcomed them with open arms.

 

[2aguy]

Naw, man, the Democrats threw those people out in 1964... and Republicans welcomed them with open arms.

No...it didn't happen, just another democrat party lie...

What happened to all those racist Dixiecrats that, according to the progressive narrative, all picked up their tents and moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party? Actually, they exist only in the progressive imagination.

This is the world not as it is but as progressives wish it to be. Of all the Dixiecrats who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948, of all the bigots and segregationists who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I count just two—one in the Senate and one in the House—who switched from Democrat to Republican.

In the Senate, that solitary figure was Strom Thurmond. In the House, Albert Watson. The constellation of racist Dixiecrats includes Senators William Murray, Thomas P. Gore, Spessard Holland, Sam Ervin, Russell Long, Robert Byrd, Richard Russell, Olin Johnston, Lister Hill, John C. Stennis, John Sparkman, John McClellan, James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, Herbert Walters, Harry F. Byrd, George Smathers, Everett Jordan, Allen Ellender, A. Willis Robertson, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright, Herbert Walters, W. Kerr Scott, and Marion Price Daniels.

The list of Dixiecrat governors includes William H. Murray, Frank Dixon, Fielding Wright, and Benjamin Laney. I don’t have space to include the list of Dixiecrat congressmen and other officials. Suffice to say it is a long list. And from this entire list we count only two defections.

Thus the progressive conventional wisdom that the racist Dixiecrats became Republicans is exposed as a big lie.

The Dixiecrats remained in the Democratic Party for years, in some cases decades. Not once did the Democrats repudiate them or attempt to push them out.


Segregationists like Richard Russell and William Fulbright were lionized in their party throughout their lifetimes, as of course was Robert Byrd, who died in 2010 and was eulogized by leading Democrats and the progressive media.
The Switch That Never Happened: How the South Really Went GOP › American Greatness
===========

 

[Abatis]

Again, go up to a Sandy Hook or Stoneman Parent and make the argument that Lanza or Cruz had a right to own a gun because the constitution said so... It would be amusing.

The individual citizen's right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. You have to apply a little common sense. Some people just plain old shouldn't have guns just because a Slave Rapist 200 years ago couldn't define a militia clearly.

The individual citizen's right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.

No, I just point out that the assertation that every crazy person should be able to get a Gun because it's his God Given Right is kind of absurd.

Ummm, OK? Good thing then that nobody on the gun rights side asserts that crazy people should be able to get a gun.

the one thing we find out after every mass shooting is EVERYONE KNEW this person was nuts, but he had no problem getting a gun anyway.

The legal mechanism to disable a person's right to possess and use a gun is well established and is based on the principle of due process. See 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4), a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution is forbidden to receive or possess firearms or ammunition.

Just because "EVERYONE KNEW" that THAT GUY was crazy, is not the criteria to remove a fundamental right; a Doctor must commit the person, or a Judge must adjudicate the person mentally unfit.

The idea you can give James Holmes that same gun and he can shoot up a theater because he thinks he's The Joker from the comic books is just... nuts.

Ummm, OK? Good thing then that nobody on the gun rights side asserts that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is for someone to shoot up a theater because he thinks he's The Joker from the comic books.

Actually, you guys embarrass yourselves by going out there and saying, "Why of course, Adam Lanza should have been able to have a gun!!!"

The only person who is embarrassing themself is you with these ridiculous characterizations of the beliefs of gun rights supporters.

What is it with rabid anti-gunners, you come across as an emotional basket case . . . Do you really think you sound logical and rational? Do you really feel you are making compelling, convincing arguments when you sound so unhinged, demonizing and dehumanizing people?

.

 

[Abatis]

.

Well, let's look at that. Miller v. US clearly stated that the Second Amendment didn't give a right to own a gun and that the government had an ability to regulate them.

Ahhhh, Wikipedia scholarship!

Both of your assertions are problematic. No SCOTUS opinion has ever said the 2nd Amendment gave, granted, created or established any rights for anyone and Miller did not endorse regulating arms.

All Miller can be argued to say is the Court didn't have enough information to decide that the 2nd Amendment protected the civilian's possession and use of that one type of arm. Looking at Miller as a legal determination, the NFA-34 wasn't "upheld" by direct decision, it only received a stay of execution.

See, SCOTUS is not a fact finding body; it only considers the arguments presented to it by the parties. In Miller, the Court only heard the government's arguments, there was no appearance for Miller and Layton. The case ended with SCOTUS remanding the case for further proceedings, sending the case back down to have the lower court establish the relevant facts that were missing and perhaps SCOTUS could revisit the case if it was appealed again.

Having those facts -- is a sawed-off shotgun a type of arm that is any part of the ordinary military equipment or could it be used effectively in the common defense -- would allow the Supreme Court to actually decide the case. Of course Miller was dead and Layton took a plea deal so the case just evaporated, leaving a half-drawn picture, ripe for anti-gun liars to misrepresent the case.

Which they did to effect a couple years later in the lower federal court decisions I spoke of; Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right" interpretation and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right" interpretation.

SCOTUS has never endorsed any other interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but that it is an individual right possessed by the private citizen, protecting his personal arms, without any militia association conditioning.

The "militia right" / "state's right" / "collective right" interpretations are inventions of the lower federal courts that began in 1942.

.

 

[JoeB131]

No...it didn't happen, just another democrat party lie...

What happened to all those racist Dixiecrats that, according to the progressive narrative, all picked up their tents and moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party? Actually, they exist only in the progressive imagination.

This is the world not as it is but as progressives wish it to be. Of all the Dixiecrats who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948, of all the bigots and segregationists who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I count just two—one in the Senate and one in the House—who switched from Democrat to Republican.

Okay, it wasn't the politicians... it was the voters.

Yeah, a politician would have no credibility saying, "I'm a Republican now that my party decided to let Negroes ride in the front of the bus". But the white racist voters who kept returning them to office just found new racist assholes to support. As Lee Atwater put it.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n****r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N****r, n****r.”

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

The forty-two-minute recording, acquired by James Carter IV, confirms Atwater’s incendiary remarks and places them in context.

www.thenation.com

 

[JoeB131]

The individual citizen's right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.

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".

Ummm, OK? Good thing then that nobody on the gun rights side asserts that crazy people should be able to get a gun.

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

Just because "EVERYONE KNEW" that THAT GUY was crazy, is not the criteria to remove a fundamental right; a Doctor must commit the person, or a Judge must adjudicate the person mentally unfit.

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.

The only person who is embarrassing themself is you with these ridiculous characterizations of the beliefs of gun rights supporters.

What is it with rabid anti-gunners, you come across as an emotional basket case . . . Do you really think you sound logical and rational? Do you really feel you are making compelling, convincing arguments when you sound so unhinged, demonizing and dehumanizing people?

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.)

Both of your assertions are problematic. No SCOTUS opinion has ever said the 2nd Amendment gave, granted, created or established any rights for anyone and Miller did not endorse regulating arms.

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.