Why not mandate trigger locks and locked gun cases?

post deleted

 

OK, maybe you stated them before but I either missed or didn't understand them. What are you suggesting we do?

 

So. You wouldn't want my vote. Stupid.

 

Sorry, heart over head for a minute there . Your votes fine. And you can be in the Party too. I'm a big tent Republican, though right now I vote Democrat

 

No such statement was made anywhere on the part of myself. The points raised by yourself were refuted as being factually incorrect, none of which comes anywhere close to saying what is now being claimed by yourself.

Blatantly erroneous claims were made on the part of yourself regarding a wide range of topics, ranging from a supposed "right to kill" existing in the united states which does not, to the notion that other nations around the world have possessed the same number of firearms as the united states, and have successfully reduced those numbers to what they are presently. And not a single one of these claims can actually be backed up by yourself. There is nothing but hyperbole and aggression to be presented by yourself.

 

I never said there was a right to kill already existing in the US, but that the gun advocates WANT one.

This idea that everything one says must be backed by exact numbers is silly. I don't need to know exactly how many gallons of water are in the Ocean to realize that it is vast. And most European countries did indeed have many, many more firearms in circulation just after fighting WWII than they do now, and they did successfully disarm. I don't know just how many, I don't know if anyone does and it's not important anyway. I said that countries routinely disarm after wars and that is historical fact. Mind, most do still have SOME firearms but it is much, much less than they used to, so please don't let your litealist mind seize on this to further avoid my question which was: So your argument now is that the problem is insoluble, that we must simply give up and accept a constantly increasing number of random and senseless massacres of our children and indeed, all segments of our society?

 

I don't know of anyone who wants a right to kill. However, I do want to be able to defend myself in my own home without fear of prosecution.

 

In your own home, yes. Do you want the ability to leave your motor vehicle while off your property against the advice of professionals, to then go in pursuit of a "suspicious" person, to chase them down and then kill them on the basis of the most ****-and-bull story imaginable?

 

So it only applies to males over 17 and under 45.

Oh...

 

All previous rulings on the 2A ruled as to their tie to the militia. Heller decoupled that

 

The current laws suffice.

 

Crime happens, in every society. It cannot be prevented, only punished. We already have that capacity.

 

-Enforce current laws to the fullest extent.
-Make it eaiser for the law abiding to defend themselves

 

You cannot prove this to be true.

 

What that? You admit there indeed is a militia, contrary to your statement that there is not?
Good of you.
Now, was your statement to that effect made from ignorance or dishonesty?

 

As you now know there is indeed a militia, was your statement made from ignorance or dishonesty?

 

Ah - you know you cannot cite any SCotUS case overturned by Heller. No surprise. I accept your concession.
Now, as to your new claim:
Cite one case from the SCotUS that "coupled" the right to keep and bear arms to service in the militia, and the text to that effect.

 

They don't come right out and SAY that's what they want but it seems apparent to me from their actions that is what they would like. Why else are they so against common sense laws to regulate firearms that are accepted elsewhere in the free world almost without exception? They want to force everyone to have to carry firearms for protection and from there it's a short step to granting everyone the right to kill almost anyone else and call it necessary for their own defense.

 

I agree fully on the first one
How do you propose to accomplish the second?

 

What are these "common sense laws"?

Why do you insist on making stupid statements like that? I don't know of anyone who wants that?

 

So we are at the mercy of madmen. The 2nd amendment means that we cannot protect ourselves and our loved ones from random and senseless killings. Government cannot do what government is instituted to do and the USA is an impossible nation.

Or we admit that the Constitution is not a suicide pact and accept common sense gun regulation that is accepted in almost every civilized nation on Earth.

 

I would still like to hear about this "common sense gun regulation".

 

About equivalent to the laws in Great Britain or Australia

If we must accept that armed and murderous madmen are going to be probable in nearly everywhere we go and at any time how else do you propose we protect ourselves? The watchword of nearly every gun advocate I know is "If somebody there had a gun this wouldn't have happened" so what else are they proposing than that everyone be armed?

 

So, your common sense gun laws are to essentially ban guns in America.

 

If that's what the laws there mandate. It seems those nations still exist like they did before. They haven't become lawless hellholes or fell from the rebellion of citizens deprived of firearms