They Said Biden Wouldn’t Come for Our Guns. The Plan Says Otherwise.

[alang1216]

That's an emotional response. Given your logic, autos, booze and sex should be registered.

The sale of all of those ARE registered.

The reality is society does not - and should not - legislate every single risk. One should be reasonable in their approach as opposed to being emotional in their approach.

I agree but achieving that balance is where we differ.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess we no longer need SCOTUS since we have you to tell us our Constitutional rights.

Avoided the point, did you?
Tried to change the subject, did you?
Concession accepted.

 

[ding]

I guess we no longer need SCOTUS since we have you to tell us our Constitutional rights.

Hard pass. Growth filled communities and individuals explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is easy for criminals to get unregistered guns.

It is easy for criminals to get registered guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The sale of all of those ARE registered.

This is a lie - bottle of booze and blowjobs do not have serial #s and are not reported to the state.
Why do you need to lie?

I agree but achieving that balance is where we differ.

The 2nd does not allow for "balance"

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

 

[ding]

It is easy for criminals to get unregistered guns. Virginia is notorious for being the source of illegal guns found in NYC.

And how does writing a law that requires registration for private sales prevent gun violence and gun accidents? Because I can see a couple of flaws in your logic. For starters you are assuming all gun violence and gun accidents are done by convicted criminals or known mentally unstable people. Secondly, you are assuming sellers comply with the law.

So if these laws are written and gun violence and gun accidents keep occurring, what then?

 

[ding]

The sale of all of those ARE registered.

No. They aren't.

 

[ding]

I agree but achieving that balance is where we differ.

Yes, you believe 99,997 people out of every 100,000 people should be punished for what 3 people out of every 100,000 people have done.

 

[alang1216]

Hard pass. Growth filled communities and individuals explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.

Or confuse their values or opinions for objective truth.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Or confuse their values or opinions for objective truth.

Yes. That's what you do.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, you believe 99,997 people out of every 100,000 people should be punished for what 3 people out of every 100,000 people have done.

Sort of depends on the punishment of those 100,000 and the evil that the 3 did.

 

[alang1216]

And how does writing a law that requires registration for private sales prevent gun violence and gun accidents? Because I can see a couple of flaws in your logic. For starters you are assuming all gun violence and gun accidents are done by convicted criminals or known mentally unstable people. Secondly, you are assuming sellers comply with the law.

So if these laws are written and gun violence and gun accidents keep occurring, what then?

If they work great, if they don't, chuck them and try something else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If they work great, if they don't, chuck them and try something else.

Avoided the point, did you?
Tried to change the subject, did you?
Concession accepted.

Why should the law abiding allow restrictions which violate the constitution -- especially if they cannot be demonstrated to work prior to enactment?

 

[ding]

Or confuse their values or opinions for objective truth.

That's why both sides are explored. Something I have yet to see you do in any conversation we have had. If I behaved as you do I would be arguing for full auto. But I'm objective which is why I am arguing for a minimum standard instead. You aren't objective so you see nothing wrong with penalizing the overwhelmingly vast majority of peaceful citizens for the bad acts of a very very tiny minority.

 

[ding]

Sort of depends on the punishment of those 100,000 and the evil that the 3 did.

Actually it doesn't. Or is the concept of individual rights foreign to you.

 

[ding]

If they work great, if they don't, chuck them and try something else.

Like banning and confiscation? Wouldn't that accomplish your goal of eliminating gun violence and gun accidents?

 

[alang1216]

That's why both sides are explored. Something I have yet to see you do in any conversation we have had. If I behaved as you do I would be arguing for full auto. But I'm objective which is why I am arguing for a minimum standard instead. You aren't objective so you see nothing wrong with penalizing the overwhelmingly vast majority of peaceful citizens for the bad acts of a very very tiny minority.

I'm objective which is why I am arguing for a minimum standard instead gun confiscation. You aren't objective so you see nothing wrong with ignoring the desires of an overwhelmingly vast majority of US citizens.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm objective which is why I am arguing for a minimum standard instead gun confiscation.

If you were objective , you would accept the fact the constitution precludes your minimum standard.

You aren't objective so you see nothing wrong with ignoring the desires of an overwhelmingly vast majority of US citizens.

You aren't objective, so you refuse to understand the 2nd amendment, necessarily and intentionally, takes a great number of policy choices off the table, irrespective of how many people approve.

 

[ding]

I'm objective which is why I am arguing for a minimum standard instead gun confiscation. You aren't objective so you see nothing wrong with ignoring the desires of an overwhelmingly vast majority of US citizens.

First of all I don't accept it is the desire of an overwhelmingly vast majority of US citizens. Secondly, even if it were you don't punish the overwhelmingly vast majority of PEACEFUL US citizens for the bad act of a tiny tiny minority. And lastly, it won't have an effect on gun violence or gun accidents. For that you are going to have to round up all firearms.

 

[alang1216]

Actually it doesn't. Or is the concept of individual rights foreign to you.

I'm an individual, don't I have rights?