Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Feb 19, 2018.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    You still cannot actually answer the question or articulate how it would infringe on your Constitutional rights. It is a very simple question regarding the rights you demand you have. Instead, you keep changing the subject and going off on bizarre tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you in particular.

    If you are unable to articulate why it would infringe on your constitutional rights given the legal precedents in your country, then just say so. Although, it would behoove you to not make arguments regarding your rights, when you are utterly incapable of explaining your position when it pertains to those rights. Because at present, your argument is falling into the realm of "because I say so!".
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Where is the misinterpretation? You do in fact oppose magazine restrictions, magazine restrictions in general, and fire rate restrictions in general, no matter what they are or how they are written, for example.
    It is opposition to creations of your imagination, things that do not exist, that you have assigned properties you don't like.
    I am supposed to tell fortunes now? I make no predictions of good law expeditiously written, and favor good policy regardless of its likelihood.
    You oppose good policy, on the grounds that it is unlikely - but the intransigent opposition of people like you is a major part of what makes it unlikely. That is not reasonable.

    Personally, between you guys and the authoritarians on the other "side", I expect unreasonable and bad gun control efforts and opposition to continue to do damage to my favored political agendas and candidates. But I still favor reasonable and good gun control efforts - they would be of modest benefit at almost no cost, and are long overdue.
    So you seem to believe. I do listen to that, just as I listen to you tell me about needing large magazines to fend off grizzly bears. You are describing your world as you see it.
    I did clearly define it, exactly what I meant, above - a functional definition: In any transfer of ownership of a firearm, the new owner has passed a background check at the time of transfer. You opposed that - you stated opposition to that. You don't support universal background checks.
    That is not logical. You are making the same muddled comparison and confusion of militia with military that the "other side" keeps making, with the same bizarre consequences to sound governance of firearms.
    Walk. Chew gum. At the same time. It can be done.
    This thread is specifically dedicated to one small aspect of American gun violence - control of the guns themselves. Obviously that tail is not going to wag the whole dog, at least not without injury to the dog, but it is a topic reasonable people can discuss.

    And in that discussion, it seems that illumination of the OP question has occurred - if anybody was unfamiliar with the situation.
    Last edited: May 5, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Considering you believe that the Justice writing the opinion for the majority of the Court is just one judge.. Ya, you are one to lecture on what "legal" actually means.

    Which is essentially what I asked you.. And what I already said..

    I mean, I get that you are dodging the question as well, but this is getting ridiculous.

    Yes. And? This differs from what I said, how exactly?

    Or to limit how many times you can conceivably press the trigger in a minute. So if someone has a fast trigger finger. In other words, say, one bullet for every 2 seconds, would still not be infringing on your Second Amendment rights. You can still own the firearm, you would simply have to wait a period of say, two seconds or even 1.5 seconds between each round. This would fall well within the realms of of the 2nd Amendment, would still allow people to defend themselves with their firearms and would allow some protection in situations like mass shootings.

    So I will ask once again.. Why do you think restricting the fire rate and magazine capacity is an infringement of your Second Amendment rights and can you please explain why that would be so within the current legal framework, particularly given the ruling from Heller?

    Which post in that thread?

    In Heller, as Scalia noted in the majority opinion, there was never an expectation or requirement, nor was it ever conceived that members of the militia would be as well armed as the military.

    Do you understand the importance of that, and what you thought would be a better idea?

    Well for one thing, you appear to be discussing a completely different thread than the one we are currently participating in. And you are the one who argued that citizens should be as well armed as the military, with the same weapons.

    Secondly, you linked the 26 page thread, without actually linking the particular posts in question. You made many arguments in the other thread. Which one are you now referring to? Can you link those particular posts?

    Thirdly, what does this have to do with the one question I have been asking repeatedly now, with no one actually able to articulate an answer in regards to the Second Amendment and the legal precedents regarding your right to bear arms in your country?


    *Raise eyebrows*

    Do you think that because he died, the legal precedent from his decisions also died with him?

    Heller was a landmark case in regards to your Second Amendment rights to "bear arms". His majority opinion, is exceptionally well known. As a Second Amendment fan, I'd have assumed you would have known about it, read it or at the very least, understood what he and the majority stated in his opinion.

    You're right. In a way. A future court could rule that handguns, high powered semi-automatics, etc, are illegal and they can very well use your court's precedents to do so. To the one, for handguns, it would be tricky, given the decision in Heller. But the reason I brought up Scalia's majority opinion in that famous and landmark case, is because the conservative Court noted and recognised, as it has always done, that the Second Amendment was never, ever designed or intended to be unlimited and that some forms of control have to exist in regards to the use, ownership and sale of firearms. In other words, the Court has ruled that yes, you can own handguns, but just because you have a right to bear arms, does not mean that that right is completely without limits.

    So within your legal framework, your legal precedents, your current laws as interpreted by the Supreme Court of your country, why do you think that limiting magazine capacity and rate of fire for weapons, is an infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

    This is a pathetically easy question to answer and given that you, Dr Toad, Sculptor have been prattling on and on about your Second Amendment rights, I would at the very least expect you to be able to articulate why any laws that would limit fire rate and magazine capacity would be an infringement of your rights, particularly after Dr Toad went on his little spiel about how it would be "wrong" to have such limits.

    If you cannot answer it, then say so. And please stop trying to change the subject. Thanks.
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    no. I oppose generally stated irrational statements that you think are logical and reasonable, such as limiting rate of fire or magazine restrictions (without any clear reasonable definition for the limitation)
    as demonstrated by lawyers everywhere: when you're vague enough to define capacity by irrational statements as you tried to assume of me (like the time it takes to shoot a charging bear) then you get laws that can be interpreted differently every time you go to court.

    I stand in opposition to you and what you believe is rational on this simply because it is so vague that it can't be made rational - it's completely subjective. An anti-gun fanatic will make your claim of 2-3 rounds, whereas a highly trained shooter can empty a revolver or 10-12 rnd magazine in under two seconds.
    and you are describing your world as you want to see it.

    your primary argument to restrict magazines comes from your belief that criminals will obey the law and that restricting magazines for non-criminals will inhibit criminal acts by limiting their availability. do you think existing magazines will magically disappear? How will you get rid of legally purchased high capacity magazines under your new law? taxpayers already hate forking out cash to protect their children, one argument used recently to limit capatict, yet you think this new law will somehow help considering you'll have to fund the buyback of legally owned property?
    where, exactly, did I state opposition to background checks, as in "transfer of ownership of a firearm, the new owner has passed a background check at the time of transfer"?
    Quote or link, please.
    you're the one who asked for a logical reason for a restriction on magazine capacity. I gave my choice and it based upon the known law, Selective Service and the fact that every able bodied citizen is part of the Militia.
    how is that not logical?
    clarity is often best represented by example: you want control based upon arbitrary subjective definitions, I prefer to start by actually enforcing the law and working from there.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nowhere do I presume criminals will obey the law.
    We've all seen many examples of limiting availability of dangerous things inhibiting their misuse - if done rightly.
    That was your idea, not mine. I didn't assume that, I read it in your post.
    What you did first was make a case that you needed large magazines to handle attacking predators - your example was a charging grizzly, and then puma, bobcats, feral dogs, poachers, etc. Later, you argued that a militia needed military weapons. At no time did the Selective Service show up in your "logic", nor would it seem to have any place in this discussion - getting drafted into an active militia is not a factor here.
    I'd leave that up to their owners, according to the details of the new law as passed (suppose restriction to gun ranges, say). But since the new law will apparently be written by the least informed and least interested, I anticipate some otherwise avoidable inconveniences.
    It can be made rational. It would probably be better for owners if it were, rather than seeing such things legislated by the uninformed - as with the modified shotgun ban in Minnesota, likely overlooking some details.

    Your choice.
    Last edited: May 5, 2018
  9. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    1- you don't know what I "believe"
    2- you apparently don't comprehend that the law is malleable and can change almost overnight, regardless of precedent. A perfect example being Kansas V Cheever
    3- I am lecturing on the definition of "legal" due to past experience regarding your beliefs (clearly stated)

    I did not dodge anything - you're just not capable of comprehending the explanation

    you specifically asked: "Then perhaps you could explain why was legal to modify a semi-automatic?" [sic]
    it was not illegal
    it was supported by evidence and links demonstrating it was not illegal
    How much more clear do I have to state it, especially considering that I specifically linked the definition of legal?

    How about if I explain it thus:
    Any modification that is legal to own or use on your weapon is legal to own or use. You can legally modify your weapon with legally purchased items that are shown to be legal by BATFE regulations by simply purchasing and using them, because they're legal

    considering the links in the previous post, is that clear enough for ya?
    or should I simplify it more?
    there are still restrictions -hence my link and reference
    you brought up a point and I referred you to existing data that saved typing.

    no, I didn't
    I said they should be able to carry the same number of rounds - if you want to place a magazine restriction, it should be based on the fact that all able-bodied citizens are militia members should they be called upon.

    start with Vociferous here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-gun-control-solution-perhaps.160629/page-20#post-3515386
    I continue it here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-gun-control-solution-perhaps.160629/page-22#post-3515746

    a summation is essentially this: you can't limit the rate of fire without limiting the person or individual firing the weapon. Even an untrained idiot can pull the trigger fast (leaving out accurate shooting - when you're "spraying lead" you're not going to be as accurate as calm, deliberate fire)
    So how do you limit the rate of fire?
    Mechanically, via the weapon?
    A single action (cock first, then fire) can be used just as quickly as a semi-automatic in an average person's hand so long as they have sufficient physical ability.
    you've completely ignored that point made

    which one?
    link to it, because I answered the question that I quoted from you - multiple times now
    asked and answered above: a precedent is only legal until it's superceded by a new ruling and precedent
    that is one strength, and failing, of the legal system

    I know what it meant. And I am not arguing that there should not be limits
    I will argue that those limits should be within reason - and that they should be enforced and not ignored like some current laws (which is something I've always stated) - Lack of enforcement doesn't mean something is legal.
    and again, first, you must define how you would limit the rate of fire without limiting the individual. Limiting the individual is a direct infringement of inalienable rights of the person, so your answer is relevant, hence my argument against the rate of fire.

    the magazine restriction, should it be written, should be based upon the public's potential call to duty, therefore the public should be able to carry the same as the LEO's or Military.

    you're asking for limitations and restrictions of weapons based upon the epic failure of the system to enforce laws - and it can't be determined if something is constitutional or not until you clarify what you mean

    so -
    it can be demonstrated that laws work when enforced, and that the weapon of choice of most homicides is the handgun, and the weapon of choice for mass shooters is the handgun, and that only recently is the "assault weapon" being favoured in the media chosen shootings (Media bias - where are the school shootings from poverty stricken areas?)...

    So the question should be: is it Constitutional to interpret the failure of the legal system as justification to limit any Constitutionally protected right?

    This "pathetically easy question to answer" would be more easily answerable if you were writing a pathetically easy question with specifics
    Given that you can't be specific enough to make a clear concise argument that can be applied to the 2A, as I noted above, then it's not a "pathetically easy question to answer" because you're not actually providing the information required to give an answer

    If you cannot privide the details required to answer, then say so. And please stop trying to ignore the relevant answers to your quoted subject. Thanks.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    But you can classify weapons according to how rapidly they can be fired by the average owner. You can also restrict their ease of modification for higher rates of fire. And you can put more severe restrictions on purchase and possession accordingly.
  11. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    which means enforcement of the law.
    I can support enforcement of the law - but you're talking about making a new law based upon the current lack of enforcement.
    as I said to bells: is it Constitutional to interpret the failure of the legal system as justification to limit any Constitutionally protected right?
    that is not logical
    you made the assumption as clearly proven in the link - while ignoring explicitly stated comments
    that was all your idea based upon your bias
    if it didn't show up in the logic it wouldn't be in the thread and explicitly stated as a reason to justify the 30 round magazine - and it is
    the introduction of explicit logic was your request
    you say you deductively reasoned - refuted by me in the next post, explained the example further in said post, then explicitly stated said Militia logic in said same post, all the while also explicitly stating advocacy for background checks while also noting that State compliance should be enforced.

    so again, you're making a false claim
    not entirely true - though admittedly likely for certain states
    which is a reason for the debate in the House and Senate over the laws

    I don't know about you but I am extremely active with my REP/SEN.
    so it is my choice - and I am fighting

    where are the tests and average rates of fire for a weapon system that is semi-automatic?
    more to the point - those tests have to be based on the attempt to fire as fast as possible by all people

    the first part is debatable. The latter is absolutely true as it's already illegal to make illegal modifications to a weapon system of any kind.
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  12. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    having thought about this a minute: how?
    you would have to build an overly complicated mechanism to restrict the ease of modification for higher rates of fire
    the AR-15 is "easily" modifiable simple because it was a manufacturing decision to make a semi-auto out of the existing automatic weapon.

    and you can't control education and engineering - so long as there is a firearm of any kind there will be those who modify it
    Ease doesn't even have anything to do with it (See: Hawken)
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nonsense. I'm talking about making a couple of new laws - such as universal background checks - to fill a couple of obvious needs. Nothing I favor would work at all without enforcement.
    And so we circle back - you are muddling militia and military, just like the bozoids on the anti-gun side. That is not reasonable. That "logic" makes no sense.
    Excellent question. They would be necessary of course. They should be designed by people who know what they are doing.
    After denying your political support for anything or anyone, yes.
    But you are not cooperating and helping write the new laws. You are instead opposing the entire effort. So they will be written without you.
    The charging grizzly bear/general predator defense via high capacity magazine was entirely your idea. Entirely. I had nothing to do with any such idiocy.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Don't care. Sound governance will restrict such weapons however they came to exist.
    Ease has a lot to do with it. (See: AR-15)
    And we can control engineering. We can forbid sawing off a gun barrel by hand, even. Those who modify in certain ways will be risking criminal prosecution.
  15. Bells Staff Member

    I had provided specifics, repeatedly. The question is very easy and any supporter of the Second Amendment would be able to answer it, with very clear examples.

    I even provided the very legal specifics. You can find it here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...fficult-in-the-us.160567/page-50#post-3517389

    Hence why it is such a simple question to answer.

    And you 3 keep dodging it, changing the subject (I have discussed how many rounds Dr Toad's weapon holds (because apparently I'm meant to care and apparently it answered the question) to your waxing the lyrical about bump stocks and how it is legal to modify a semi-automatic when done so legally, otherwise it would be illegal and your bizarre interpretation of legal precedents and how they actually work in the context of the law, interpreting new laws and even outside of that, the creation of new laws, which would then cycle back to legal precedents in interpreting said new law, for example.. Sculptor tried to run a diversion with something something about self defense.

    But none of which actually addressed my question.

    I mean, I just want the question answered. It's not that hard.
  16. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    but that is already illegal (see BATFE) so technically it's already "controlled"

    and ignoring the fact that we have functional laws that, if enforced properly, will work
    why not start there ?
    making a new law will confuse the issue and make loopholes you can drive a deathstar through
    and again, No, I am not. You asked for a logical reason for [x] magazine restriction
    it is by far more logical than your suggested limitations

    at least that is a start
    it would have to be a collaborative effort

    what does that have to do with being active in your community, state and government?
    Just because I dispise the current parties doesn't mean I can't participate with government - that is the power of our system: I don't have to accept an irrational label that doesn't apply to me just to placate anyone.
    wrong again: as I stated, I am very vocal and active where it counts. and not just in the voting booth, but also in helping present functional logical changes
    I may not be a congressperson, but I can offer feedback with backing

    already explained. and linked with demonstrations that you leapt to cling to your cherrypicked "deduction" while ignoring explicitly stated points
    sound governance already does, when enforced
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  17. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Part one of your question: limiting rate of fire

    nowhere in your linked post does it make any statements whatsoever about limiting the physical properties of a human in order to restrict any weapon

    No one is arguing that there aren't restrictions, nor are they arguing that there shouldn't be restrictions (something that already exists)

    so when you state
    then you absolutely must state what those limitations specifically are and why the limitations should be imposed

    that there are already laws restricting rate of fire (already linked BATFE regs to you)
    and given that there is no clear, concise rate of fire restriction you've specified (you've used a general statement)

    then your answer is already provided by BATFE regulations: rate of fire restrictions are limited to semi-automatic firearms which is not illegal as it requires direct input from the user to fire a weapon based solely upon the capabilities of said person. Further restrictions on modifications are also dealt with in BATFE

    if you want to further limit rate of fire you will have to either ban all weapons (which is also ruled against by SCOTUS) or ban physically adept humans capable of rapid fire because Nowhere do you qualify in any statement that said limitation should be constrained to accurate fire, nor do you specify a limitation based upon mechanical or engineered means.

    therefore, Until you actually specify then you're talking a generalized statement that is nonsensical in light of the existing laws limiting rate of fire as well as your abject refusal to clarify your point.

    Part two: Magazine restrictions
    now, as to the second part of limiting magazine capacity:

    there are no current federal laws restricting capacity.
    So the question should be: is it Constitutional to interpret the failure of the legal system as justification to limit any Constitutionally protected right?

    the question has been answered. it has been demonstrated that the question isn't clear. It has been demonstrated that more information is required before you can determine that a "restriction" is in violation of a (any) right protected under the Constitution. repeatedly.

    so you cannot make a definitive statement that restrictions are or aren't in violation of the 2A until you clarify what those restrictions are.
    This is painfully obvious as there are already "restrictions" to the 2A as we can't own fully auto weapons - and restrictions that are general and vague will be challenged in court
    therefore clarification is needed

    you've chosed to ignore this repeatedly, and you're blaming us for not answering
    if you don't understand US law, feel free to just say so
    that was a specific answer to your quoted question
    it doesn't matter that you don't like the answer - and I quoted your post (and link) so that it was clear why it was legal

    None of that has anything to do with the above refusal to actually answer my request for specifics on restrictions which are required to understand and apply to 2a discourse
    if you were reading the above, your question was answered multiple times
    I mean, I just want you to actually provide specifics so that I can apply the data to it's applicibility to the 2A (or other contsitutionally protected rights). It's not that hard.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And you provided - after trying a couple of absurdities - a confusion of militia with military weaponry, explicitly offering as "logical" the notion that high capacity magazines were justified in civilian/militia hands by their military employment.
    We don't have universal background checks, or magazine restrictions, for starters.
    That's why I used it as an example of controlling "engineering", yes. Are you trying to say something?
    Somebody said something about Parties?
    Not according to your posts here. You haven't presented a single such change of gun control.
    Uh, no. It's not that easy to "explain".
    Except for some loopholes, oversights, etc. We have AR-15s floating around without such restriction, for example.
    Last edited: May 5, 2018
  19. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    that is your biased opinion
    1- the military doesn't use high capacity magazines. They use 30 round mags typical, and also employ 20 or 10 round mags when the situation calls for it (I've used the latter on a range, but that's it).

    2- the argument is the justification of magazine limitations. That boils down to the number of rounds per magazine. it perfectly follows that if you're already part of a potential militia force you should be able to meet the same requirements of existing forces. Law Enforcement isn't military, yet they typically use the same magazines.

    3- not all militia or members of the public will be called for military duty as a last ditch effort, or othewise, but you can be called upon for other duties for augmentation of local LEO's or for similar purpose. Acting in the capacity of augmented local LEO's means you should be able to carry the same magazine as the LEO's.

    4- I don't know about your area but it's not uncommon around here for LEO's to augment their staff with locals, especially for search or flight responses.

    we do have effective background checks that have been proven to work when enforced

    If you don't like the current law then you can petition your local congresspeople for state compliance
    once it works and you see it function, perhaps you won't need to add the "universal" descriptor
    first of all, the term "high capacity" is completely arbitrary and made up. for you it means (probably, based on your comments) more than 15 rounds.
    for me, maybe 100+ rounds.

    you still haven't made a clear, concise argument as to why it should be any less than 30

    said it already

    it was a statement based upon your quote "After denying your political support for anything or anyone"

    unless you ignore the fact that we should be enforcing laws - that would be a big change
    you know, like making states comply with background checks?
    that is gun control, per your own arguments of "I'm talking about making a couple of new laws - such as universal background checks - to fill a couple of obvious needs" coupled with "Sound governance"

    the problem I have with your "new" laws is that you're either unaware that existing laws aren't being enforced, or you don't seem to care
    if an existing law is proven to be effective when enforced, why advocate for creation of a new law jsut because you believe it will fill a need you think is creating the problem?
    the problem is that existing laws aren't enforced, so making a new law to be not enforced becuase you won't advocate for "sound governance" is nonsensical
    and if you advocate for "sound governance" then there may not be a need for a new law - and you could potentially fill any problem areas that are shown to be issues with additions or riders to a bill fixing said existing law rather than creating a new one.

    if they're legal, and they were purchased legally... see BATFE

    what if the same argument were applied to land?
    if you make the law retroactive - which is what it seems you're implying - then you're technically a squatter on Native Tribal land.
    sculptor and Dr_Toad like this.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Informed opinion. That's different from bias.
    Those are high capacity in civilian/militia use. They can be restricted.
    And armed by them, trained by them, etc - no longer in the militia.
    Not for anything that needs a 30 round magazine.
    No, it doesn't. And law enforcement has no business with high capacity magazines either.
    They aren't universal. So even if enforced they aren't universal. So additional law is needed.
    The current law is inadequate, regardless of compliance or enforcement.
    Yes, I did. It's extra risk, and for no serious benefit (as was demonstrated by you, in your various attempts to come up with something).
    Notice the complete absence of the word "Party" in my post. Nothing about "Parties" is based on that posting.
    Because I think it fills a need and would prevent some problems. Something wrong with that?
    Sure. Sounds good. Additions and riders and stuff, for universal background checks and magazine restrictions and a few other matters - you have my support.
    If people can do stupid things then we can't have good laws? Seems an odd argument.
  21. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    you can claim you're "informed" as you think you need to be, it doesn't change the fact that it's still biased

    no, they'er not "high capacity in civilian/militia use" because it's also standard for LEO's
    H*ll, it's standard for Civilian Security or other contractors overseas as well
    it's standard about everywhere and for a sh*tload of different weapons systems, especially those who use the STANAG magazine
    it's mass produced and available all over the world

    the only person who think's it's not standard is you
    so... let me get this straight: it's an emergency and you need immediate manpower, and your idea is to take them aside to be trained and armed to spec?

    in your opinion
    that's like saying you don't need a diesel engine just for towing heavy weight since we have horses that can do the same job

    where is the "informed" factual bases for this claim?

    sorry, but all that smacks of one of the biggest problems of the US right now: No one wants to actually pay for Emergency services of any kind, be it LEO's, Firefighters, EMS or otherwise

    it's the reason most places don't have well trained firefighters, let alone the cops capable of dealing with a shooter, and ambulance EMT's get minimum wage most places

    the refusal to do anything because your "informed" opinion is superior to everyone else's informed opinion
    no, additions to the law can be needed, depending on the circumstances and "informed" examination of the history, data etc, but you don't need a new law
    that is your opinion

    according to you


    the fact that you "think" it fills a need and would prevent some problems
    as stated, your "informed" opinion is not superior to everyone else just because you say so

    Good. I'll let my congressperson know you're on board for 30 round magazines, etc

    wasn't the point - you implied retroactive laws with your comment

    so you are implying that because of the stupidity and criminal acts of a severe minority of the population (who prefers handguns to "assault weapons" per the crime stats) and the current existence of legally obtained weapons, then we should close those "loopholes, oversights, etc." to secure weapons purchased legally, as you followed your loophole argument with "We have AR-15s floating around without such restriction, for example"

    you can't make laws retroactive - it's one of those niggling Constitutional things

    your argument is either :
    1- to make retroactive laws
    2- make laws that regulate weapons that are already known to be regulated (as already demonstrated and linked in this thread)

    neither make sense
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You can make speed limit laws, licensing laws, and registration laws, that apply to cars people already own.
    No, I'm just saying it. No implication - we need to get some restrictions on rapid fire weapons with large magazines, including purchase and sale of them. And universal background checks.
    Except no one can name the job.
    I didn't say it wasn't standard anywhere, I said it was high capacity and could be restricted by law.
    Nor is it inferior. But it is widely held - a majority of the population of the US agrees with me in these matters.
    No - it's your idea that they be armed to spec without the training. They're militia, remember. My idea is that militia should be properly armed to be militia.
    Not a fact. Your opinion, and very poorly based in a visible and continual failure to read with comprehension.
    Look at how much of my posting - including this one - involves correcting you about my posts. inability to paraphrase without altering, changing vocabulary and meaning, etc.
  23. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    And? It was defense against enemies, both foreign and domestic.
    Wait, lemme guess, were there no foreign standing armies either? Hahaha!
    Nowhere does it mention any specific weapon at all. Saying what it doesn't exhaustively protect is just a ploy to say it doesn't protect owning any weapon at all.
    Cute how you try to repeat me without any comprehension though.
    Who said otherwise?
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.

Share This Page