[W:606]Do you support Rep. Eric Salwell's gun control idea?

[Individual]

Absolutely NOT.
It would appear rape incidents per 100,000 population far exceed gun murder incidents per 100,000 population, perhaps some bold Congress person might advance a bill mandating penectomy of all males to eliminate rapes? Noting also that would greatly reduce abortions as well as pregnancies would then only occur with intent.
Perhaps a test case, carried out in the District of Columbia to test the effectiveness should be done first?

 

[Media_Truth]

uh its unconstitutional. a big difference with Australia.

No it's not. Show me the text in Amendment 2.

 

[TurtleDude]

No it's not. Show me the text in Amendment 2.

go to the gun forum. we have dissected the second amendment many times there. and guess what-the current SCOTUSA ruling is this

firearms in common use and that are not UNUSUALLY dangerous cannot be banned.

 

[Media_Truth]

Well, that's how you start a civil war. His smug comment about using "nukes" didn't exactly take the guano out of "bat-guano."

Link to reference please???

 

[Media_Truth]

go to the gun forum. we have dissected the second amendment many times there. and guess what-the current SCOTUSA ruling is this

firearms in common use and that are not UNUSUALLY dangerous cannot be banned.

BS... You way overthought it. It is one sentence.

 

[Media_Truth]

you whine about unnamed "gun nuts" yet you seem OK with a politician who talks about using nuclear weapons on US soil against US citizens. That's a pretty pathetic testament to your level of hate towards lawful gun owners.

Reference quote from OP's article please???

 

[TurtleDude]

BS... You way overthought it. It is one sentence.

I cannot help it if you are ignorant of our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. The federal government does not have the power to do what that asshole wants.

 

[Media_Truth]

He is taking a brave approach...Standing up to the NRA and the angry white men that worship guns....Way to go Eric

You got that right!

 

[Media_Truth]

I cannot help it if you are ignorant of our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. The federal government does not have the power to do what that asshole wants.

Then you won't have any problem providing the Amendment 2 reference, will you?

 

[TurtleDude]

Then you won't have any problem providing the Amendment 2 reference, will you?

are you trolling me? you know damn well what the second amendment says. the operative words is the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Forcing people to give up guns they KEEP INFRINGES on their right. and guess what-the federal government-even using the tortured expansion of the commerce clause-doesn't have the power to retroactively ban guns people have bought and then force them to sell them back and pretend that is commercial activity.

 

[TurtleDude]

You got that right!
View attachment 67244420

this sort of insane hatred of our gun rights is why this poster apparently supports the government using nuclear weapons against gun owners who won't bow to assholes like the congress turd in question

 

[Media_Truth]

I do not believe his "idea" would ever survive the current SCOTUS.....but I still find it ironic that the individuals that fear firearms and do not have them are trying to remove them from the law abiding citizens that are already armed.

Because you're not the militia. And Amendment 2 states "Militia". Keep your hunting rifles. Get rid of your weapons that only good for killing large numbers of living creatures in a short time.

 

[Xelor]

...congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution

• Military-style --> I don't care one way or the other about the styling of firearms. This term wouldn't appear in any legislation I'd propose.
• Semi-automatic weapons --> I see no functional merit for such weapons extancy in civilian non-LEO populations/hands. I'm not opposed to the notion of outlawing them, and I'm willing to acquiesce to their being outlawed, but doing so isn't the first tack I'd take to attenuate the incidence of unlawful and involuntary gun-related deaths and injuries.
• Assault weapons --> Assault or non-assault is, in the context of civilian use, a difference without a distinction AFAIC. This term wouldn't appear in any legislation I'd propose.
• Forcing existing owners to sell their weapons --> I'd make a provision for collectors to be able to retain the semi-automatic firearm, provided the weapon has been permanently prevented from functioning, if it's possible to do so. If that's not possible to achieve, I can live with this aspect of the proposal. I would prefer, instead of confiscation/buy-back, that existing semi-automatic arms be managed as are fully automatic firearms.
• Outlaw --> I'm more an advocate for accountability and for proscriptions and prohibitions. It doesn't, abstractly or pragmatically, bother me that folks have guns (even semi-automatic ones); it bothers me that some people/organizations who have them are irresponsible in their use and maintenance of them.

What US legislators have done thus far to attenuate the incidence of unlawful and involuntary gun-related deaths and injuries is essentially nothing but talk. That's clearly not enough. That said, I don't favor going to the other extreme and flat-out banning an entire class(s) of firearms. That is why I cotton to increasing the nature and extent of accountability gun owners must bear and increasing the consequences attendant to one's firearms being unlawfully used.


So to answer the thread question regarding Rep. Swallwell's proposal, given no alternatives that align more nearly with my own ideas as expressed above, I probably would vote begrudgingly for it, but I wouldn't be among the folks actively "stumping" to engender support for his proposal. I'm more "not opposed to it" than I am "supportive of it."

 

[Media_Truth]

are you trolling me? you know damn well what the second amendment says. the operative words is the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Forcing people to give up guns they KEEP INFRINGES on their right. and guess what-the federal government-even using the tortured expansion of the commerce clause-doesn't have the power to retroactively ban guns people have bought and then force them to sell them back and pretend that is commercial activity.

Why don't you just post the d***ed Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

M-I-L-I-T-I-A!!! Got it. GOOD! The people were the militia. This is no longer the case. It's not Rocket Science.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why don't you just post the d***ed Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

M-I-L-I-T-I-A!!! Got it. GOOD! The people were the militia. This is no longer the case. It's not Rocket Science.

so what do you claim the second amendment now means? we know what the supreme court has held every time they have visited this subject. we know that the founders intended to guarantee a right THEY held existed before the existence of government or a "militia"

so what exactly do you claim?

 

[Media_Truth]

this sort of insane hatred of our gun rights is why this poster apparently supports the government using nuclear weapons against gun owners who won't bow to assholes like the congress turd in question

Nuclear Weapons reference quote from OP's article please???

 

[TurtleDude]

Nuclear Weapons reference quote from OP's article please???

did I state it came from the article? no-so stop the stupid nonsense. he made that comment though

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rep-eric-swalwell-give-me-your-guns-or-else-i-nuke-you

he stated this

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

 

[Media_Truth]

did I state it came from the article? no-so stop the stupid nonsense. he made that comment though

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rep-eric-swalwell-give-me-your-guns-or-else-i-nuke-you

he stated this

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

Not in the OPs article. However, in context:

Joe Biggs
✔
@Rambobiggs
· 9h
So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your ****ing mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

Rep. Eric Swalwell
✔
@RepSwalwell
And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

He's simply making a point that it's ridiculous for Gun-Owners to think they can battle some type of gone-rogue Government.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not in the OPs article. However, in context:

Joe Biggs
✔
@Rambobiggs
· 9h
So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your ****ing mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

Rep. Eric Swalwell
✔
@RepSwalwell
And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

He's simply making a point that it's ridiculous for Gun-Owners to think they can battle some type of gone-rogue Government.

more ridiculous is thinking he could do his gun ban scheme and it would take place

 

[Media_Truth]

so what do you claim the second amendment now means? we know what the supreme court has held every time they have visited this subject. we know that the founders intended to guarantee a right THEY held existed before the existence of government or a "militia"

so what exactly do you claim?

Warren Burger was a Conservative supreme court justice, appointed by Richard Nixon.


The Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public," former chief justice Warren E. Burger said in a 1991 interview

...
The widespread legal and judicial view is that the Second Amendment guarantees a state's right to be armed – for example, in today's National Guard.

 

[TurtleDude]

Warren Burger was a Conservative supreme court justice, appointed by Richard Nixon.

View attachment 67244421
The Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public," former chief justice Warren E. Burger said in a 1991 interview

...
The widespread legal and judicial view is that the Second Amendment guarantees a state's right to be armed – for example, in today's National Guard.

yeah he like nixon was a statist who didn't like gun ownership. and he was widely seen as one of the least intellectually talented justices in modern history. His academic resume was a joke compared to any of the current justices and his arguments have been rejected by conservative, Libertarian and liberal scholars completely.

I don't think anyone asked him what he thought about use of the commerce clause as a gun control empowerment tool, though

 

[pinqy]

so what do you claim the second amendment now means? we know what the supreme court has held every time they have visited this subject. we know that the founders intended to guarantee a right THEY held existed before the existence of government or a "militia"

so what exactly do you claim?

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment didn’t apply to the states in U.S. v Cruikshank (1875), upheld Cruikshank in Presser v Illinois (1886), repeated again that the 2nd amendment didn’t apply to the states in Miller v Texas (1894), and ruled that it only applied in the context of maintains a militia in U.S. v Miller (1939).

It wasn’t until District of Columbia v Heller in 2008 that the SCOTUS ruled the 2A was an individual right and not until McDonald v Chicago in 2010 that they ruled the 2A was incorporated by the 14th amendment to apply to the states.

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment didn’t apply to the states in U.S. v Cruikshank (1875), upheld Cruikshank in Presser v Illinois (1886), repeated again that the 2nd amendment didn’t apply to the states in Miller v Texas (1894), and ruled that it only applied in the context of maintains a militia in U.S. v Miller (1939).

It wasn’t until District of Columbia v Heller in 2008 that the SCOTUS ruled the 2A was an individual right and not until McDonald v Chicago in 2010 that they ruled the 2A was incorporated by the 14th amendment to apply to the states.

you aren't contradicting anything I have said. the post you quoted had nothing to do with federal vs the far more expansive state powers. the only issue is why did it take the court so long to incorporate the second amendment when most of the other important rights were much earlier.

 

[pinqy]

Why don't you just post the d***ed Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

M-I-L-I-T-I-A!!! Got it. GOOD! The people were the militia. This is no longer the case. It's not Rocket Science.

If you are correct than no weapons of any kind are protected by the constitution, and no weapons except those used by the military could ever have been protected.

And if the 2A only applies to the militia, then why are military style weapons the only ones targeted? Hunting rifles and other sporting guns shouldn’t ever have been protected if your reading is correct.

 

[PleasantValley]

I voted NO without even reading the idea.
If it has the word "gun control" in it, I am against it.
Double NO if it comes from a politician.

I have no desire to listen to any of their foolishness.