How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

You have it backwards. It is not our access to guns that preserves our freedom. It is our freedom that preserves our access to guns.

 

It depends on the anti-gunner. I've had some of them say they also want to disarm the police. It's not the most common position, but it happens now and again.

The anti-gunners who want to disarm the police tend to think that everyone will get along in peace and harmony if only there were no weapons.

The anti-gunners who want to have a heavily armed police force tend to have fantasies about people who disagree with them being massacred by the government.

 

Ok, I’ll reply to you once more because this one is soooooooooo RIPE!

1st statement: "the right to keep and bear arms is a keystone component without which freedom is not possible.”

The phrase “without which freedom is not possible” sets up a cause-effect relationship. It says the freedom is the effect and the cause is "the right to keep and bear arms”. It says it is that right which makes freedoms possible. Cause-effect.

Now you spin it around by claiming “it is our freedom that preserves our access to guns”, which is another cause-effect relationship, only this time you have freedom (cause) producing an effect of “preserving our access to guns”.

It is precisely this kind of random bullshit spinning and flip-flopping,... which apparently is only for the purpose of creating a fight with a hope of winning, …. which caused me to tell you I was done with you. Do you get it now?

 

Lol- hippie drug induced pipe dream- it's like they think they can close Pandora's Box. Can't.

 

We are miscommunicating. I did not intend to state any such cause and effect. And I renounce all claims that any such cause and effect exists.

This is correct. This is a cause and effect that I do claim.

 

Nope. I never said what you claimed.

Wrong again. The only error here was you claiming that I said something that I didn't.

No I didn't.

Nah. I was just politely pointing out that I didn't say what you claim.

The only person here who is using dishonorable tactics is you.

Falsely claiming that I said something that I didn't is very poor form.

You lying about what I said hardly means that I don't know what I think or say.

 

Americans bow to the police, or get shot, meanwhile in the UK -

https://youtube.com/shorts/5mWRLSfwYJ0?feature=share

 

Some posters are more interested in word twisting just to get their magical internet wins.
Your stated post made your intention clear

And I believe its very accurate as well.

 

If these are proposed US gov't laws, then there's really no legitimate constitutional authority for any of them.

Oh, and supreme court decisions can't be "repealed", they can only be "overturned". Accuracy matters.

 

he assumes that if that blatantly unconstitutional crap was enacted, people would just comply like shorn sheep and not resist such nonsense. IMHO if the government did that, it is no longer legitimate

 

The states would certainly be within their rights to annul the treaty, were such an aggregious violation of the terms enacted.

 

It's amazing that their lists of ways to deal with gun crime never includes "Ban Criminals who use guns".
Wonder how they missed that.

 

They are not interested in crime. They are interested in disarming their subjects.

 

Last “I” checked The People of The United States run this country; that’s EVERY American. There are no “subjects”.

Americans that favor gun control are “interested” in having their wives come home from shopping and their kids home from school … SAFELY”.

Most “active shooters” are first time criminals. Every known Criminal could be “Banned”, whatever that means, no matter how smug and cleaver it sounds, and it wouldn’t save one life.

Just as banning a class of firearms wouldn’t save “a” life either.

What WILL stop the carnage is income equality, more investment in better mental health care, a better social safety net for ALL Americans, health care for ALL Americans, more equitable investment in education and job training and, more compassion for each other.

And, before you start carping about how expensive all that would be; IMHO it would be net zero or actually cheaper. There would be more Americans qualified for better jobs, fewer homeless and healthier people.

 

So is the proposal to disarm people?

 

“So is the proposal to disarm people?” What?

 

That's too much work. Easier to just ban **** and virtue signal about a manufactured moral high ground.

Eventually we'll just ban everything, and once we no longer have any say (or any rights, property, influence...), then we can actually blame the govt for all our problems. We won't be any better off (most likely way worse off), but at least it won't be 'our fault' anymore. And that's all that matters to some people.

 

Yes- and any wise person would ask why they want those subjects defenseless......

 

Don't expect any of these guys to explain to you why something like, for example, a buy back program, or funding the CDC to investigate the relation between certain mental health issues and gun violence is unconstitutional. Just to mention a couple. Because the talking point is to just SAY that any proposal seeking common ground is "unconstitutional". Unequivocal evidence that they have NO arguments and we shouldn't even bother looking for common ground with them.

 

The reason they are unconstitutional is because they aren't authorized by the constitution.

 

So.... there you have it, folks. Anybody who thought we should address gun violence and mass shootings as a "mental health" issue, you're outta luck. "Not authorized by the constitution", according to this poster

 

As you know very well, it will always easier for criminals and maniacs to obtain guns, regardless of any law, than it is for them to buy a pizza.

 

Correct. Unless someone can point to the language in the document. Any takers?

And of course, the constitution has been and can be amended. So there's that route open to the gun grabbers as well.

 

they know they cannot do that-so we see all these weaseling words that pretend the second amendment exists to give the federal government the power to "well regulate" etc.

 

That's not only a "better" argument. It's your ONLY argument. Problem for you is that I EXPLICITLY state, multiple times that, not only would that not be a good idea, but it wouldn't be necesssary.

AGAIN: the fact that you can only argue against what I DIDN'T say, is yet more proof that you can't argue against what I DO say.

My case is made!