Oh are we just discussing the law? I thought we were talking about what could or should be and why. If we're talking law we can just print code sections.
lain:
Here I am thinking that changing laws is something that could or should be done and why. I hate to think we're just talking past each other.
lain:
If everyone had cancer would you want it?
Everybody's got an
opinion. And yours is just the same as everybody else's since you're not talking about the authoritative opinions rendered by the SCOTUS on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, was my point; obviously a little too subtly implied by moi.
Well, at least up until that point if I trotted out any reasoning at all I'd have lapped you and the profundity of your "Disagree" so we can probably keep those to ourselves.
Disagreed.
Rather, it was one sentence in what I thought might be an evolving conversation.
Your argument is that the founders, who had already seen how advancement in weaponry had progressed over the centuries leading up to the creation of the United States, thought to themselves, "Well we're as advanced as we'll ever be." That's disappointing, for you to take such a naive and facile view of things, and of them. 'Fact is, the SCOTUS clarified for us all precisely what was meant by "arms" in "the right to keep and bear arms." It meant, what individual warriors carry during warfare. Today, that's select fire rifles at minimum, and heavy-barreled carry-able machine guns at most. Whether it applies also the RPG or other rocket-based weapons, the court has not mentioned to my knowledge, but not even the NRA is talking about those.
Not that they're talking about machine guns either ..
Anticipating at some point you'd graduate beyond the one word response for the most part.
You show very poor judgment.
The founders had reasons for the right. Many people ate the food their guns were instrumental in providing. We didn't have a permanent standing army. And I noted the relative problems that largely didn't allow for the sort of thing we saw in Vegas to be in their minds. I suspect they'd have had a different position today.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you, and that settles it. If you want to argue for repeal of the Second Amendment, then have at it, but that's a different conversation.
In any event, we can still have it.
As a sum it would be, as an illustration it isn't.
You underestimate their intelligence, imagination, optimism and creativity, as I mentioned above. How tough, do you think, would it be, for any one of them to think, "You know, it takes a long time to reload. Maybe somebody some day will figger out how to do it quicker?"
Anyway this is all beside the point that I also mentioned, that the SCOTUS has already divined what was meant by "arms." Whatever individual warriors carry during warfare, is what we have the right to own and to carry ourselves, as private, non-LEO civilians. If you disagree with that, then you need to switch sides and argue for repeal of the Second Amendment. It's not exactly an unpopular position to hold in this world, so I don't know why you insist on the charade.
Within the law, absolutely. Unless you buy one of those legal means to make and then possess one illegally. But you appear to think that's fine. God alone knows why.
I don't encourage such behavior, but I do think it's illegal to so restrict or "infringe" upon a human right, to own and to carry machine guns.
And again, take it up with the SCOTUS, or argue for repeal of the Second Amendment.
If a government and the people ever reach a point where guns are to be banned registration or its absence won't be a difference maker.
Disagreed. Registration will make confiscation easier by an order of magnitude anyway. Even if it's only half as difficult as without any registration, that ain't hay.
Ammunition will be. And to go against a real good by means of a paranoid potential that really won't matter seems capricious as reasoning goes.
To you, and to all other leftists.
As a safety issue why not? Do you know how many accidental shootings occur every year?
And do you know how many are from mouse guns, because of their size, and their toy-like appearance?
It might be the next best thing, but unless a student had to pass it to possess a firearm it would still lack teeth.
I'm thinking more like, you have to pass it to graduate. Then you're just an American with a high school education.
Well yes.
Name the last time anyone in a position to defend their life from some attacker needed a thirty round clip to do it.
I'll scour the web for the story.
That's just not how most shootings, especially robbery related shootings happen.
Not most, sure, agreed. But some. And besides, limiting magazine capacity violates the RKBA, "arms" as defined authoritatively by the SCOTUS. I have no problem with limiting those silly 100-round handgun magazines, since no military uses them and so they're clearly not protected by the Second Amendment.
A person trained in the use of a weapon can manage it with fewer rounds than you'd find in a six shooter.
Yeah, no military thinks that way. The more rounds in the gun, and the more rounds the individual warrior can carry, the better, unqualifiedly.
In most cases the brandishing of a weapon will be the difference maker.
In some cases. You made that up.
No right is without abridgement or balance among others. Especially where a compelling societal interest may overwhelm the unrestricted right.
Yes, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. But that's illegal because of its harm. When leftists talk about "reasonable restrictions (AKA infringements)," they're always ignoring the fact that shooting someone is and always has been against the law. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is like shooting someone with a gun. It's not like possessing a belt-fed machine gun and doing nothing with it. That's not a crime, it does no harm.
We have more guns than any other country.
And proudly so.
How safe are we comparably to countries with strict controls? Not very.
How safe were those thousands of people in LVNV who didn't have a rifle, when the bad guy did? Not very.
If you're going to talk about mouseguns you're legless in complaint.
Of the many thousands of gun related fatalities where mouse guns are implicated, how many lives would be saved if we didn't allow their possession? Meanwhile, this demon possessed man in LVNV probably caused half of the rifle-related gun fatalities that will occur this year, but that's only an off the cuff guess on my part. I'm sure somebody can find the FBI's actual statistics breaking down which types of guns causes the most deaths each year. And it ain't rifles.
Yeah, that's the better alternative, a bunch of people who haven't been checked out on safety, or a rifle range, firing up at a hotel presumably filled with other people than the shooter.
lain:
Meanwhile you have no option that would have stopped what happened in LVNV save for repeal of the Second Amendment, so who's pollyanna here.
Can't be done and shouldn't for any number of reasons
'Glad you picked up on my hyperbole.
, while making ourselves appreciably safer from this sort of incident can be done without destroying cities or the right to bear arms.
You've yet to name a single thing that would have prevented it.
No, Congress is bought and paid for by the gun lobby.
Congress is elected by Americans who believe in the RKBA as authoritatively defined by the SCOTUS.
When most Americans favored limiting clips after a spate of school shootings Congress followed their masters on the point.
Being good stewards, protecting us from ourselves, and following the Constitution, is how it looks to me.
Rather, your willful naivety in the service of an unreasonable position plays the false note.
I'm not naive. I receive the world for what it is. I invite you to join me.
Here's a
link to a recent LA Times article containing a summation of the influence and links to support the contention.
From the article about the powers in Congress presently:The gun rights organization spent a stupendous $54.4 million in the 2016 election cycle, almost all of it in “independent expenditures,” meaning spending for or against a candidate but not a direct contribution to a campaign. The money went almost entirely to Republicans to a degree that almost looks like a misprint (but isn’t): Of independent expenditures totaling $52.6 million, Democrats received $265.
Because virtually zero Democrats believe in the RKBA, as authoritatively defined by the SCOTUS. I'm glad it's not a misprint, because maybe some so-called liberals (liberal as in, liberty) will reexamine their views, and bring them more into line with the first civil right, the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (military-style weapons carried by individual warriors during warfare).
The NRA endowed the 54 senators who voted in 2015 against a measure prohibiting people on the government’s terrorist watch list from buying guns...
Because the government's terrorist watch list violates due process. You're the attorney here. Think.
And the madness continues.
Then let's cut it out.
