Zone1 There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s (2)

[Curried Goats]

Take it up with SCOTUS. They disagree and they hold more sway than you do. Next.

They also agree on some infringment. You need an very cost prohibitive license for automatic weapons, background checks...

I was simply giving history and context to the 2nd Amendment. I agree the Court is going to do what the Court is going to do and that differently constituted Courts might, in the future, come to different conclusions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They also agree on some infringment. You need an very cost prohibitive license for automatic weapons, background checks...

The USSC has not upheld either of these restrictions.

 

[Curried Goats]

It's not my fault you are whining about the 2nd amendment. Let me know when you come to the realization that "what you think about the second amendment is irrelevant."

I'm a gun owner myself. I argued with logic and reason. Any hurt feelings you're detecting are your own.

 

[Curried Goats]

The USSC has not upheld either of these restrictions.

They haven't struck them down either.

 

[Curried Goats]

The right of the people.
Not the right of the state.
Not the right of the state militia .
Not the right of the people in the state militia.
The right of the people.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the constitutional protection for same, is not dependent on the well-regulated militia

The USSC discarded your argument 2 decades ago.
Get over it.

You people get so emotional...

 

[M14 Shooter]

You people get so emotional...

Just pointing out the irrelevancy of your claims.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They haven't struck them down either.

You claimed the court agrees on infringements.
You listed two infringements as support for that claim.
You examples, no thaving been upheld by the USSC, do not support your claim.

In the post-Heller world, what "infringements" HAS the USSC upheld?

 

[Concerned American]

You need an very cost prohibitive license for automatic weapons, background checks...

I know numerous people who can legally own automatic weapons. It takes an FFL. People who have FFL's usually make their living in the firearms industry and they earn enough to justify the fees, so the cost is not prohibitive. As for background checks. If you purchase a weapon legally, you are required to submit to a background check. There have been 300 million of them performed by the NICS since 1998 and they have resulted in 3 million denials. Next.

Firearm background checks: Explained | USAFacts

The checks are designed to stop people who aren't legally allowed to buy a gun, but gaps in the laws remain.

usafacts.org

 

[Curried Goats]

Just pointing out the irrelevancy of your claims.

Except you're not. The right of people to bear arms was infringed by the same people who wrote the law. Slaves were people too. The precedent for selective notions on who these rights apply to is already baked into the history of all these laws.

 

[Curried Goats]

You claimed the court agrees on infringements.
You listed two infringements as support for that claim.
You examples, no thaving been upheld by the USSC, do not support your claim.

In the post-Heller world, what "infringements" HAS the USSC upheld?

Until they are struck down by the Court they are not recognized as infringments.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Until they are struck down by the Court they are not recognized as infringments.

Irrelevant to your claim.

You claimed the court agrees on infringements.
You listed two infringements as support for that claim.
You examples, not having been upheld by the USSC, do not support your claim.

Support your claim:
In the post-Heller world, what "infringements" has the USSC upheld?

 

[Concerned American]

Except you're not. The right of people to bear arms was infringed by the same people who wrote the law. Slaves were people too. The precedent for selective notions on who these rights apply to is already baked into the history of all these laws.

Certainly glad that you shithouse lawyers don't run the legal system in this country. The total amount of what you do not know about this subject would fill the ocean.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except you're not. The right of people to bear arms was infringed by the same people who wrote the law. Slaves were people too. The precedent for selective notions on who these rights apply to is already baked into the history of all these laws.

Nothing here changes the fact 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,

Thus: "Well regulated militia" -- the term you intoduced as a response to "shall no tbe infringed" -- is irrelevant, as are your historical claims.

 

[Curried Goats]

Irrelevant to your claim.

You claimed the court agrees on infringements.
You listed two infringements as support for that claim.
You examples, not having been upheld by the USSC, do not support your claim.

Support your claim:
In the post-Heller world, what "infringements" has the USSC upheld?

I don't have to argue according to your premise. I can argue on my own. I see background checks as a literal infringment as do others and its still legally going on. Until the Court strikes it down they defacto agree with it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't have to argue according to your premise.

YOU made a claim
YOU introduced a premise:
"They also agree on some infringment."
For the court to 'agree" the court must have issued a ruling to that effect

Support your claim:
In the post-Heller world, what "infringements" has the USSC upheld?

 

[Curried Goats]

Nothing here changes the fact 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,

Thus: "Well regulated militia" -- the term you intoduced as a response to "shall no tbe infringed" -- is irrelevant, as are your historical claims.

My point is that it isn't some sacred right, it has meant different things at different points in American history including as a tool for tyranny. The difference is the culture and the make up of the Court. We can and will make gun ownership extremely restrictive if not eliminated all together in another couple of generations because people under 30 don't have the sand affinity for firearms.

 

[Curried Goats]

YOU made a claim
YOU introduced a premise:
"They also agree on some infringment."
For the court to 'agree" the court must have issued a ruling to that effect

Support your claim:
In the post-Heller world, what "infringements" has the USSC upheld?

And I did qualify it. Im okay if you don't think so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My point is that it isn't some sacred right....

It is as "sacred" as any other right in the bill of rights.

We can and will make gun ownership extremely restrictive if not eliminated all together in another couple of generations because people under 30 don't have the sand affinity for firearms.

Not going to happen.
Not enough votes, and not enough people willing to die to confiscate guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And I did qualify it. Im okay if you don't think so.

Concession accepted.

The answer to my question, BTW, is: None.

 

[Curried Goats]

It is as "sacred" as any other right in the bill of rights.

So not at all.

Not going to happen.
Not enough votes, and not enough people willing to die to confiscate guns.

Not enough votes yet. Gun ownership and second amendment support falls off with the under 30 demographic.

Harvard IOP youth poll finds stricter gun laws, ban on assault weapons favored by two-thirds of likely midterm voters under age 30

Concession accepted.

I concede that you seem triggered.

The answer to my question, BTW, is: None.

Are background checks required by law for licensed dealers? Yes or No?