There Weren't any US Mass Shootings Yesterday

[TurtleDude]

Total fraud. The right to bear arms isn't the right to walk around with them, the evidence is pretty clear on that, and yet people will hurl insults and ignore reality in order to get what they want.

The right to keep arms is the right of individual to own weapons, but clearly it isn't ALL WEAPONS. As long as you can own weapons, then your right is intact, even if you can't have nukes, tanks, SAMs, and even types of guns.

That they demand that the right to self defense means that they can own anything that can be used in self defense, shows how far they'll go.

this bit of silly revisionism doesn't understand the concept of a negative restriction. The second amendment is not about what you can own-it is about what the federal government cannot prevent you from owning. As originally intended that meant the federal government could not interfere with you keeping and bearing any weapon that was something a citizen would keep and BEAR and which was useful for self defense. Thus the silly attempts to ask why you cannot own nukes or weaponized anthrax are clearly dismissed as trolling. However, with the FDR mischief and the undo worshipping of bad precedent, that has been changed to the second amendment prevents federal bans of commonly used weapons that are not unusually dangerous. Firearms that citizens keep and bear don't meet the test of being unusually dangerous-stuff you can bear -such as a bazooka or landmines don't meet the test since they are not generally useful for self defense and are unusually dangerous.

claiming certain guns (and I assume you mean firearms as opposed to say a 16 inch naval gun or a 120mm smoothbore gun on a MI Abrams) are not protected demonstrates a lack of understanding of a negative restriction. The government doesn't suddenly get the power to ban something because alternatives to it appear

 

[zsu2357]

If the slaughter of elementary school kids didn't change the gun nuts, nothing will. But of course, it doesn't effect them so they don't care, they are selfish

You use the term "slaughter of elementary school kids" saying that "gun nuts" don't care when in reality it's you that could really care less. You say "slaughter of elementary school kids" like you think it has some shock value to further your agenda what ever that may be. Fit in with your kind?

 

[TurtleDude]

You use the term "slaughter of elementary school kids" saying that "gun nuts" don't care when in reality it's you that could really care less. You say "slaughter of elementary school kids" like you think it has some shock value to further your agenda what ever that may be. Fit in with your kind?

sadly, some of the most hateful gun banners, appear to welcome massacres to help fuel their jihad against the rights of people they hate politically

 

[zsu2357]

You are right, there were no mass shootings yesterday. However, 100 people died from gun violence. Another 100 died today and another 100 will die tomorrow.
I agree, all automatic weapons such be banned.
If there isn't there should be a background check in every state.
Lastly, we should confiscate every illegal gun. It's probably an impossible task.

How many were lawful shootings?
How many were gang on gang?
How many were gang and collateral damage?
How many were suicides?
How many were wives tired of being beaten senseless?
By automatic you mean what?

 

[zsu2357]

So should you need a license to carry in public?

Absolutely not. Do you think the criminal or anyone else that may be a danger worry's about it?

 

[Media_Truth]

Total fraud. The right to bear arms isn't the right to walk around with them, the evidence is pretty clear on that, and yet people will hurl insults and ignore reality in order to get what they want.

The right to keep arms is the right of individual to own weapons, but clearly it isn't ALL WEAPONS. As long as you can own weapons, then your right is intact, even if you can't have nukes, tanks, SAMs, and even types of guns.

That they demand that the right to self defense means that they can own anything that can be used in self defense, shows how far they'll go.

Absolutely! And this is exactly what former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger stated:

The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Absolutely! And this is exactly what former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger stated:

The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

I've started numerous threads on the topic.

The replies first start off by lambasting me for saying something I didn't say. Then the use of insults once they realize I'm right.

 

[Rich2018]

The real question is, Will any of these liberal proposals stop these shootings? The answer is no. It's not even for sure they will reduce the dead, unfortunately. A single shooter with several hand guns, loaded and carrying numerous extra clips will reek mass dead. Virginia Tech, 32 victims and a Walther P22 and a Glock 9mm were the weapons.

The only sensible solution is a gun ban.

 

[Media_Truth]

The only sensible solution is a gun ban.

I would be for that, as countries who outlaw firearms, have the fewest deaths by firearms. Unfortunately, it's not practical in the US at this time. Too many Americans believe in a right to self-defense, with firearms. There needs to be a middle ground. Assault-style weapons are not necessary for defense. Licensing, gun-owner databases, red-flag laws, and other measures are also necesasary.

 

[Rich2018]

I would be for that, as countries who outlaw firearms, have the fewest deaths by firearms. Unfortunately, it's not practical in the US at this time. Too many Americans believe in a right to self-defense, with firearms. There needs to be a middle ground. Assault-style weapons are not necessary for defense. Licensing, gun-owner databases, red-flag laws, and other measures are also necesasary.

They're still half measures, the recent mass shootings would still have happened.

But as a minimum right now:

Implement a national firearms license
Implement a national firearms database
Tax gun and ammunition more
Ban semi-auto and fully auto rifles/shotguns/machine guns - retrospectively


I'd love to ban all hand guns too.

 

[Media_Truth]

They're still half measures, the recent mass shootings would still have happened.

But as a minimum right now:

Implement a national firearms license
Implement a national firearms database
Tax gun and ammunition more
Ban semi-auto and fully auto rifles/shotguns/machine guns - retrospectively

I'd love to ban all hand guns too.

I agree with your list!!!

 

[TurtleDude]

Absolutely! And this is exactly what former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger stated:

The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

except that no one who supports the proper interpretation of the second amendment as ever said this. Burger was one of the dimmest men ever put on the Supreme Court-something liberals said for years. His straw man is ridiculed by second amendment scholars. The second amendment prevents the federal government from interfering with arms that citizens normally keep and BEAR. that rules out nukes mortars, anti aircraft batteries, weaponized anthrax etc.

 

[TurtleDude]

I agree with your list!!!

ah a complete gun banner, essentially. So any intermediate steps you support, are designed to achieve complete gun bans

 

[Rich2018]

ah a complete gun banner, essentially. So any intermediate steps you support, are designed to achieve complete gun bans

You want your guns for purely psychological reasons.

 

[Media_Truth]

except that no one who supports the proper interpretation of the second amendment as ever said this. Burger was one of the dimmest men ever put on the Supreme Court-something liberals said for years. His straw man is ridiculed by second amendment scholars. The second amendment prevents the federal government from interfering with arms that citizens normally keep and BEAR. that rules out nukes mortars, anti aircraft batteries, weaponized anthrax etc.

Adding your own verbage to the 2nd Amendment? How ridiculous. Anything to continue the proliferation of assault-style weapons.:roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

Adding your own verbage to the 2nd Amendment? How ridiculous. Anything to continue the proliferation of assault-style weapons.:roll:

I guess you are not conversant with the discussion in Heller, McDonald or modern constitutional scholarship.

 

[TurtleDude]

You want your guns for purely psychological reasons.

you're lying. Most of my guns I own are for winning competitions. Most of your reasons for wanting to harass honest gun owners in our country are for purely psychological reasons.

 

[Media_Truth]

I guess you are not conversant with the discussion in Heller, McDonald or modern constitutional scholarship.

I know that New York passed the SAFE Legislation, which outlawed assault-style weapons, and it was challenged to the SCOTUS, and was dismissed. So tell me more about this "common gun" version of the 2nd Amendment that you have created.

 

[TurtleDude]

I know that New York passed the SAFE Legislation, which outlawed assault-style weapons, and it was challenged to the SCOTUS, and was dismissed. So tell me more about this "common gun" version of the 2nd Amendment that you have created.

The supreme court realizes that the McDonald incorporation is going to run right into state powers and it is most likely waiting for good case to clarify the application of the Heller decision to the idiot states that pass stupid laws.

 

[Noodlegawd]

If you want to compare Assault-Style weapons to driving a car, then you should also support licensing of assault-style weapons. In addition you should support a title transfer for every gun transaction.

I didn't compare anything other than Democrats' obstinate insistence on passing a law that cannot possibly save any lives, with their complete failure even to address laws that could save thousands without even taking away any rights from anyone.

For the record, however, you don't need a license to own a car, but I'm perfectly happy with the idea of requiring a license to drive an assault weapon on a public road.

I guess I'll have to keep on guessing what's so special about "assault-style weapons," since you seem to be dodging the question along with everyone else.

 

[Bullseye]

Any kind of gun control is too much for second amendment supporters. It should be obvious to everyone that no amount of mass killings will change their minds. Just ask turtledude, he'll tell ya'.

Not true. Just come up with something that will actually make a difference AND protect Constitutional rights

 

[Media_Truth]

Not true. Just come up with something that will actually make a difference AND protect Constitutional rights

The New York SAFE law protects constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, while using common-sense gun control, registrations, waiting periods, etc. Take this nationwide.

 

[Media_Truth]

I didn't compare anything other than Democrats' obstinate insistence on passing a law that cannot possibly save any lives, with their complete failure even to address laws that could save thousands without even taking away any rights from anyone.

For the record, however, you don't need a license to own a car, but I'm perfectly happy with the idea of requiring a license to drive an assault weapon on a public road.

I guess I'll have to keep on guessing what's so special about "assault-style weapons," since you seem to be dodging the question along with everyone else.

Backpedalling has you going the wrong direction.

 

[TurtleDude]

The New York SAFE law protects constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, while using common-sense gun control, registrations, waiting periods, etc. Take this nationwide.

you're lying several ways. Denying honest citizens normal capacity magazines is violating their rights and it does nothing to stop criminals. How does a waiting period protect our rights?

YOur constant postings have demonstrate your goal is harassing law abiding citizens who own guns as much as possible.

 

[bongsaway]

Not true. Just come up with something that will actually make a difference AND protect Constitutional rights

As I said earlier. Let the gun folks come up with some ideas. If these mass killings continue and I see no reason they won't, the changes will be forced on gun owners. How long is america supposed to sit by and watch people get slaughtered before public opinion overrides the gun owners opinions and the gun owners have no say in the matter and changes they don't like are forced upon them?

I have offered more than a few ideas, just take a guess how many of them were accepted by the gun owners?