What "well regulated" means in the 2nd Amendment

[ataraxia]

No...most of the criminals in Chicago are having friends and relatives and 'gun brokers' making straw purchases WITH background checks and providing those weapons to criminals. We've seen this...the numbers are over 60%. The flaw is not in the sales, its in the refusal of law enforcement t hammer the people illegally purchasing weapons for people they know are criminals.
Preventive Medicine University of Chicago gun study August 2015 | Bureau Of Alcohol | Survey Methodology

The simple fact of the matter is that it is NOT Indiana that has the gun crime problem...it is Chicago and that has NOTHING to do with the guns and everything to do with the **** communities they live in. And you and I both know you dont give a **** about them or their communities so why you thought this was going to be a winner of an argument, I'll never know.

Accessibility is a big factor. It’s the same reason you don’t open up a brothel next to the local high school.

 

[apdst]

Sure it is. You already compromised when they infringed on your right to own personal nuclear arms. That was the first step in the slippery slope. It says nothing in the Constitution about what KIND of arms can be infringed. So it won't be long now before Barack Obama personally comes to your house and confiscates your nail clippers! :lamo

You all's arguments are rediculous to the max...lol. Nuclear weapons aren't man-portable.

 

[ataraxia]

But the drunk is already breaking the law by driving, so the answer is no.

The argument is that you should wait until people hurt others before you arrest them. So shouldn’t have to worry about people with a mental health history buying military grade weapons, or drunk drivers driving as much as they want. You just wait until they hurt people before you arrest them.

Does that sound like a good argument to you?

 

[apdst]

So what weapon(s) do you want ?

Bearing in mind that if you can legally get one, then a criminal can get one too - legally or otherwise.

Man portable firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment says.

 

[VanceMack]

Accessibility is a big factor. It’s the same reason you don’t open up a brothel next to the local high school.

Its hilarious watching your tap dance. So neighboring states (plural) all have more lax gun laws but still follow the federal guidelienes for licensed dealer sales and THOSE states dont have the crime problems Chicago does...but its THE neighboring states fault.

Hey...heres a question...

Why doesnt Printers Row have a violent crime problem? Wilmette? Greek Town? All towns in Cook County...right next door to Chicago.

What about Inverness? Barrington? Riverside?

 

[vegas giants]

Man portable firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment says.

What???? It never says man portable.

 

[notquiteright]

There is no flipped script. I simply asked you the same antigun question that you defaulted to. Semiautomatic handguns are used to kill thousands every year. How many MORE people need to die by semiautomatic handgun fire before banning semiautomatic weapons makes sense? Why dont you CARE? As to Trumps action, I cited my exact response when the ban came out. There was nothing vague about it. But you are consumed by your blind hatred so you cant 'see' answers unless they are what you want to see. That...actually...makes you like Trump...in several ways...including your constant childish comments about him. As bad as he is...you are worse. Hell..the biggest difference I see between the two of you is he actually has made something of his life and you are just some rando anon leftist roiling 24/7 in your online rump hatred whereas he couldnt give the first **** about your very existence. eace

LOL, well you are attempting to flip the script. I can see tighter regulations on handguns and their owners, but the CONSTITUTION prevents an outright ban on all handguns. (still odd I have to explain the Constitution to a ardent supporter of the 2nd A... :roll: )

Yes you cited your weak tea, almost sleepy response to a 'gun' grabber... very impressive... :roll:

I don't have blind hatred- like tRump you try and paint a picture instead of the facts. Fact is tRump wrapped himself in the American flag and declared himself the strongest President on the 2nd A....

But like so many other lies he quickly ditched that stance. Hate him??? Oh no I LOVE him, the more he tweets the more moderate Americans will turn their backs on him and the cowardly GOP.

But like I said i'd support a lot of increases in regulations and a few new laws... not a grabber but not a rubber either. I have a night out planned so enjoy your evening.... :2wave:

 

[ataraxia]

Man portable firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment says.

Huh? Where in the 2nd amendment does it say "man portable firearms"?

 

[ataraxia]

By its very nature drunk driving is a crime. Are you REALLY committed to kicking your own ass in this discussion?

Why should it be a crime? Just wait until someone gets hurt- an actual crime- and THEN you can arrest them. Doesn't that make sense?

 

[ataraxia]

You all's arguments are rediculous to the max...lol. Nuclear weapons aren't man-portable.

Technology has always been the game changer since the days of the founding fathers. And it will continue to be the game changer.

 

[Nickyjo]

Yep, and that certainly does not mean allowing the government to place restrictions on magazine capacity.

Can they place restrictions on magazine capacity for militias?

As I have noted, the 2nd is a terribly written sentence. If they had written something like “in addition...” after “...free state,” their intent would be clear. As it is, we are condemned to endless arguments and lots of gun deaths. The Supremes only muddied the waters.

 

[VanceMack]

Why should it be a crime? Just wait until someone gets hurt- an actual crime- and THEN you can arrest them. Doesn't that make sense?

Is Drunk driving a crime?

You specialize in goofy arguments. My personal favorite of yours that completely ****s on your credibility is the "but what about NOOKS" argument you invariably trot out.

Driving is not a crime. Drinking is not a crime. Drunk driving is a crime. Hitting cars or causing accidents while drunk aggravates those charges.

 

[Casper]

The argument is that you should wait until people hurt others before you arrest them. So shouldn’t have to worry about people with a mental health history buying military grade weapons, or drunk drivers driving as much as they want. You just wait until they hurt people before you arrest them.

Does that sound like a good argument to you?

Nope, the argument is that a drunk driver can and often are arrested before they harm anyone, because drunk driving is illegal. Hence it has no correlation to owning a firearm.

 

[Casper]

Can they place restrictions on magazine capacity for militias?

As I have noted, the 2nd is a terribly written sentence. If they had written something like “in addition...” after “...free state,” their intent would be clear. As it is, we are condemned to endless arguments and lots of gun deaths. The Supremes only muddied the waters.

Magazines can be made in today's world, not to mention that after the last ban people stocked up, that horse left the barn and is long gone now.

 

[Rich2018]

Huh? Where in the 2nd amendment does it say "man portable firearms"?

In the 18th century, what firearms did they have that weren't man portable ?

Cannon were called "cannon" and not referred to as a "firearm".

 

[ataraxia]

Driving is not a crime. Drinking is not a crime. Drunk driving is a crime. Hitting cars or causing accidents while drunk aggravates those charges.

Owning a high powered rifle is not a crime. Having psychological issues is not a crime. But it oughta be a crime to sell a high powered rifle to someone with a history of psychological issues. Why is that so goofy? Sounds like common sense.

So Wayne LaPierre arguing against universal background checks for this is like someone arguing against police sobriety checks. Just wait until they hurt someone, then arrest them, right?

 

[ataraxia]

In the 18th century, what firearms did they have that weren't man portable ?

Cannon were called "cannon" and not referred to as a "firearm".

The 2nd amendment doesn't talk about firearms. Only arms. Some people had their own private cannons. What's your point?

 

[ataraxia]

Magazines can be made in today's world, not to mention that after the last ban people stocked up, that horse left the barn and is long gone now.

You can also cook up your own crack cocaine. And trick a car to make it not-so-street-legal. So why bother having laws at all? Criminals will break them anyway, right? It will only hurt law abiding people.

 

[ataraxia]

Nope, the argument is that a drunk driver can and often are arrested before they harm anyone, because drunk driving is illegal. Hence it has no correlation to owning a firearm.

Someone made it illegal. The argument they used was that it is too high risk.

Not sure why that doesn't apply here as well.

 

[ataraxia]

Is Drunk driving a crime?

You specialize in goofy arguments. My personal favorite of yours that completely ****s on your credibility is the "but what about NOOKS" argument you invariably trot out.

It's goofy because you don't have an answer for it.

 

[VanceMack]

Owning a high powered rifle is not a crime. Having psychological issues is not a crime. But it oughta be a crime to sell a high powered rifle to someone with a history of psychological issues. Why is that so goofy? Sounds like common sense.

So Wayne LaPierre arguing against universal background checks for this is like someone arguing against police sobriety checks. Just wait until they hurt someone, then arrest them, right?

Thats pretty vague. Define psychological issues. And what level of concern do you have? Do you mean ALL people that are being treated for psychological issues? and is that your justification for denying them their Constitutional rights? And lets not play now...lets have this conversation for real...if you would deny them access to a firearm would you also take away their cars? Knives? I HAVE to assume you believe they are a threat to themselves or others...right? So...you would also remove children from the home indefinitely as well...correct?

Or is it just guns? Because if it just guns...you seriously **** the bed on that argument.

 

[VanceMack]

It's goofy because you don't have an answer for it.

I answered your ridiculous goofy 'but da nooks' argument the first few times...you know that...but its such a stupid argument I dont bother with it anymore.

 

[ataraxia]

Thats pretty vague. Define psychological issues. And what level of concern do you have? Do you mean ALL people that are being treated for psychological issues? and is that your justification for denying them their Constitutional rights? And lets not play now...lets have this conversation for real...if you would deny them access to a firearm would you also take away their cars? Knives? I HAVE to assume you believe they are a threat to themselves or others...right? So...you would also remove children from the home indefinitely as well...correct?

Or is it just guns? Because if it just guns...you seriously **** the bed on that argument.

When operating any potentially dangerous equipment, people have to demonstrate at least some basic level of physical or mental competence.

For example, working with eye doctors, most states have very well-defined standards of what kind of vision is necessary to be able to drive: visual acuity, visual fields, color vision, etc... Even if someone passes the vision test initially, those deemed at high risk or having progressive vision loss, such as those with cataract, glaucoma, macular degeneration, etc... are asked to get more frequent screenings.

And it's not just with vision. Working with other healthcare professionals, guidelines exist for all sorts of other mental/physical conditions: for example those with a history of Alzheimer's, orseizures, narcolepsy, or heart trouble who may just pass out while driving, are also monitored and restricted accordingly.

And this is not even to mention other potentially dangerous tools and equipment, like flying helicopters and airplanes.

So I am not sure why it would be so difficult to work with mental health professionals on such guidelines for guns.

So is it that guns are safer than those things? Or we as a society just have to learn to sacrifice our safety for the freedom to own just this particular potentially dangerous piece of equipment?

 

[ataraxia]

I answered your ridiculous goofy 'but da nooks' argument the first few times...you know that...but its such a stupid argument I dont bother with it anymore.

You answered them. But your answers are equally goofy.

Taking away people's rights to nuclear arms is the first slippery slope step to Barack Obama eventually personally coming to your house and taking away your kitchen knife. Just watch.

 

[VanceMack]

When operating any potentially dangerous equipment, people have to demonstrate at least some basic level of physical or mental competence.

For example, working with eye doctors, most states have very well-defined standards of what kind of vision is necessary to be able to drive: visual acuity, visual fields, color vision, etc... Even if someone passes the vision test initially, those deemed at high risk or having progressive vision loss, such as those with cataract, glaucoma, macular degeneration, etc... are asked to get more frequent screenings.

And it's not just with vision. Others with high risk physical conditions are also flagged and screened more carefully: those with a history of seizures, narcolepsy, or heart trouble who may just pass out while driving, are also monitored and restricted accordingly.

And this is not even to mention other potentially dangerous tools and equipment, like flying helicopters and airplanes.

So is it that guns are safer than those things? Or we as a society just have to learn to sacrifice our safety for their freedom?

You literally avoided every question. YOU brought up the "psychological issues". So...answer the question. Define psychological issues. And what level of concern do you have? Do you mean ALL people that are being treated for psychological issues? and is that your justification for denying them their Constitutional rights? And lets not play now...lets have this conversation for real...if you would deny them access to a firearm would you also take away their cars? Knives? I HAVE to assume you believe they are a threat to themselves or others...right? So...you would also remove children from the home indefinitely as well...correct?

Or is it just guns?