A law-abiding responsible gun owner strikes again.

Post Reply New Topic

ZenDen,

I'm not worried about everyone being Rambo.

And no there is no violation of the constitution. The government puts restrictions on speech, they can put regulations on guns as well.

Then were does it say individual then? Also you're arguing the SCOTUS is more important than the actual Constitution which should be heresy from the right. Also, the SCOTUS is just a court, it's fallible just like every other institution as evidenced by it's numerous overturns of precedent.

Sorry I didn't read your hand-picked sources but...

..an assault rifle is a military invention. It is used to kill other human beings. This is why it is manufactured to fire in a full automatic mode.......firing at the enemy and trying to duck at the same time makes this an important feature. Every country with a standing army manufactures this type of weapon...THEY DO NOT SEND THEIR TROOPS OUT WITH SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES.

An AR-15 is a civilian model of a similar rifle....it does not fire in automatic mode. Many hunters (etc.) prefer this over other rifles because it's easy to use. There have been MANY semi-automatic rifles that feed from a magazine, used by hunters through the years (ABOUT 100 OR SO), without anyone deciding they were too deadly..

The AR-15 is no different.

Doesn't sound much like a law-abiding responsible gun owner to me.

You sound like you've not heard SCOTUS already ruled on this...in I believe "Heller." It's already decided and is now law. Where have you been? If you know this and continue to argue I'll have to ignore your posts.

Do you know some?

Yes, currently. But you seem to think the SCOTUS rulings are written in stone, they're not, they're changeable. The Constitution on the other hand has stipulated the right to bear arms is contingent on militia for 228 years. If you don't like the wording, then start a petition to amend it out, until then that's still the argument, opinion of non-elected presidential appointments aside.

edit: number, had 218 instead of 228.

Last edited by Aristophanes on 29 Jun 2016, 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But SCOTUS has ruled restrictions are reasonable, and the states have this power, not the Federal government. This is why the Federal government, from time to time, will try to force them into submission...unconstitutionally. States like Mississippi don't feel the need to regulate the private ownership of guns the way places like New York feel they have to.

But SCOTUS has also maintained gun ownership is an individual right and NOT subject to Federal or State tampering.

I would imagine people who own firearms and don't use them to commit murder or other crimes and practice responsible gun handling/storage.

Oh but I get it now, silly me, this thread is meant to imply all gun owners are criminals or irresponsible with their firearms. blanket generalizations like this don't help anything.

If YOU don't like the decision by the Supreme Court why don't you write a letter to your congressman/congresswoman?

Why don't you post a nice long list of other rulings of this type that have been changed for us???? I'm waiting on the edge of my chair; waiting....waiting...

You say: "If you don't like the wording...."

That's silly; the court has already done a legal interpretation of "the wording"....do you understand? No reason to change anything. Your interpretation means nothing.

But YOU could always try for that amendment you suggest. I'll be happy to keep things the way they are...thanks to SCOTUS.

Proper police work is needed. With all their investigative power the police seem to struggle with keeping weapons from criminals. Why this is true I don't know except to say the ineptness of the responsible officials is astounding.

And because of this ineptness some people think restricting the rights of hundreds of millions of American citizens is the answer. But frankly, with all the police corruption we hear about I imagine this would not work either.

And international "gun runners" would have a ball supplying gangs (with money).

It's a mess.

Lol, obviously I will continue to fight because you're correct the supreme court is CURRENTLY in your favor, but again it's a changeable ruling, and it may come sooner rather than later since very soon the court looks like it's ideological bent is going to change (already has slightly). But me being silent, sorry ain't gonna happen, there are only a few situations where one can make change through silence and this is not one them.

And lol, write my congressman, please...that's such a waste of time. I have more to gain arguing here and changing people's mind's to go vote out my congressman than I do writing to him. (TBH, we probably have common ground on this point, politicians being politicians and all).

Anyways, all that said I am going to leave THIS thread on the topic on that note, so as not to devolve it into something personal since it's getting heated-- which in all honesty is good for neither of us. If you have a reply I'll read it, but I'm letting this one go for now, I'm sure we'll get into this issue again on another thread.

Hey ZenDen,

You know why the police have such a hard time getting guns from criminals? Because there are over three hundred million of them in this country.

And those gun runners you're talking about. They don't seem to be having much of an effect in Britain, Japan, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany or pretty much every other developed country on this planet.

And the Supreme Court changes its rulings all the time. Can you say "Dread Scott"

One last thing though, as for the changing nature of court law the previous precedent was: United States v. Miller.

From Cornell Law:

The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

Again, it's not to argue, it's just an example of the SCOTUS really not being much more than a temporary band-aid. I mean, lets say the court does change and my side gets it's way, that's not to say it won't change in the future based on the whim of a few elites-- as we can see it's happened before.

If you like to make claims why not attempt to also quote "facts" to back your claims? Like: number of guns stolen each year (unless you feel average gun owners will sell to criminals?). or show how criminal organizations FAIL to sell their products to monied purchasers and the reasons why.

Dread Scott? Tell us how many decisions you've found that have been overturned.

Without these small things we're reduced to: "Yes he did!" "Oh no he didn't" "Oh no he did"..........

If I forget YOU remind ME, ok?

ZenDen,

You didn't even bother to read the last few sources I cited so why should I bother? Also where are your citations? You've made plenty of claims without backing them up.