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

It's pretty hard to know what was prevented but we should at least try.

But, you are trying to say they should do nothing.

That is not want the public wants, they want gov to do something, not nothing.

 

The second amendment refers to the right, nothing more. There is no right to own a bazooka, atomic bombs, fully auto weapons or even an assault weapon.

Regulation of guns, as long as you are allowed to own guns for reasonable self defense, hunting, parameters set by Heller, your 'right' has not been infringed.

 

Ah, Turtledude, you're talking about red herrings? Man, you've got enough bait to stock a fishing store! Let's break it down, shall we?

Okay, you're saying gun banners push gun bans because they don't like pro-gun voters' views on other issues. Well, let me tell you, that's like saying people only eat at McDonald's because they hate Burger King. People have all sorts of reasons for their views on gun control, and it ain't just some vendetta against folks who disagree with them on other issues. You're mixing apples and hand grenades here, my friend!

Now, about this Hunter Biden business. You find it hilarious that people are talking about Hunter given the four-year campaign against Trump? Oh, the irony! Let's not forget, the Trump circus had its own ringmasters, and they were more than happy to dish out as much as they took. You can't play the victim card when you're also the dealer, Turtledude.

And let's not sidestep the issue. We were talking about due process and the 14th Amendment, remember? What's Hunter Biden got to do with that? You're throwing in everything but the kitchen sink to distract from the main point. If we're talking red herrings, you're the one hosting the seafood buffet!

So, before you go claiming that my post is turning the Mediterranean into another Red Sea, maybe take a look at your own tackle box. You might find it's full of the same fishy arguments you're accusing others of using.

 

have you ever bothered to look at all the organizations who support gun bans or gun restrictions? I don't have to lie about why I oppose leftwing gun bans. I don't have to pretend what my motivations are. Can you say the same thing? and who exactly are the gun banners who are not left-wingers?

 

Their constitutionality can only be decided by SCOTUS, noting that a conservative court is more likely to take your view, and a liberal court is more likely to take our view.

@Golem stated the fake arguments the right typically take against each. Why don't you pick one and we will debate it.

 

Who supports the policy is irrelevant. What is relevant is the benefit of the regulation.

That is the only argument worth debating.

 

The issue are guns, not your other points, which are off topic

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=q12

Gun control advocates have favored Democrats almost exclusively with their contributions over the years: since 1990, 99% of contributions have gone to Democratic candidates.
gun banning is a democrat party proclivity

 

and to people like you-what is worthwhile are laws that harass people who don't support the leftwing agenda. Nothing you all propose even meets a basic smell test in being useful to prevent crime

 

mass shootings are about guns, what the hell do you think I'm talking about?

 

we are still waiting for him to cite the language that actually authorizes federal gun control. and if you want to cut through the BS-we are far better armed than those who want to ban guns so you all have no way of actually imposing your will upon us

 

Republicans want to do nothing. At least we're trying.

 

mass shootings are about people who are not incarcerated. we have had a well armed society for over 200 years and yet mass shootings appear to be a recent issue. guns are not the cause

 

bullshit-you are trying to ban gun ownership and pretending that is the same as reducing crime. I have reduced crime. I used guns to cause the incarceration of criminals. We gun owners stop thousands of violent crimes each year. We gun owners support harsher sentences on violent criminals. We gun owners want to remove the prosecutors who are supported by turds like Soros, who won't prosecute looters and other thugs. We gun owners don't pretend that gun control is crime control

 

Ah, the ol' "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, huh? Well, let me tell you something, folks: that's like saying forks don't make people fat! Sure, a fork by itself isn't gonna raid your fridge, but give it to someone with a love for cheesecake, and you've got a one-way ticket to Chubtown.
Now, you're saying owning guns isn't "contributing to the murder of children," but it's all the fault of prosecutors and lawmakers, eh? Oh, please! That's like blaming your hangover on the bartender. "Hey, I didn't pour the drinks, he did!" Come on, man, take some responsibility!

Look, nobody's saying that every gun owner is out there contributing to the murder of children. But let's not pretend that having a society flooded with firearms doesn't make it a helluva lot easier for the wrong people to get their hands on 'em. It's like leaving a loaded gun on a playground and then blaming the kids for finding it.

And about these prosecutors and lawmakers you're so keen on blaming. Sure, they've got their faults—believe me, I could go on for days about that. But they're not the ones pulling the trigger, are they? If you've got a system where it's easier to get a gun than it is to get a driver's license, maybe, just maybe, the system's a little screwed up, don't ya think?

So, before you go pointing fingers at everyone but the gun owners, remember: it takes two to tango. Or in this case, it takes a whole messed-up system to create a messed-up situation. But don't kid yourself into thinking that guns are just innocent bystanders in all this. They're the tools that make the tragedy possible, and it's high time we took a good, hard look at that.

 

What a bunch of totally inaccurate information followed by a whole bunch of..... but look over here.

What other rights do you want to strip everyone of because of the actions of a tiny few?

 

why keep pretending it's about "saving children". Nothing you all want to do will help save children. You have yet to explain how someone who is willing to deal with the consequences of murdering children is going to worry about a stupid gun law or how a gun ban will be any more effective in keeping guns away from those people as drug bans have been in keeping crack and fentanyl from being easily available.

the only thing that makes sense about your proposals is that they are well designed to harass lawful gun ownership. Combine that with your politics and your comments about gun owners and the NRA-it is clear what your real intentions are

 

The party that fights tooth and nail for the "right" to kill innocent children before they even draw their first breath..... Has no business lecturing anyone on the safety of children.

 

what sort of weapon do you pretend is covered by the right then?

 

I don't need eating utensils to get fat. I can eat burgers, fries and tacos with my hands and get fat AF.

Talk about bad comparisons...lol

 

You're trying to ban guns, which is the most impidant response there is. But, you already know that.

 

Actually there is, but using a bazooka, or a nuke for home defense is counter-productive.

 

Bans on those implicate tenth amendment issues more than second amendment issues. weapons designed to attack an area are harder to justify as second amendment issue arms

 

You know, it's funny how you think that just because a policy is supported by the left, it's automatically some kind of evil plot to harass people who don't agree with them. Let me tell you something, Laws aren't like Facebook friends; they don't care who likes them. They're supposed to work for everyone, not just the people who clicked the "like" button on your political ideology.

You say nothing we propose meets a "basic smell test" for preventing crime? Well, let me ask you this: What's your olfactory standard for public safety, huh? Eau de Gunpowder? The sweet scent of Second Amendment absolutism? Come on!

Look, the point isn't to "harass" people; it's to make society safer. You know, that thing we all pretend to care about until it comes time to actually do something? And let's not pretend that every law on the books right now is some universally accepted gem of legislative wisdom. Speed limits, zoning laws, taxes—someone's always griping, but we accept them because they make society function better. Or at least, they're supposed to.

So, instead of getting all tangled up in who supports what, let's focus on what the law is supposed to do: protect people. If a regulation can keep guns out of the hands of someone who shouldn't have them—like, oh, I don't know, a violent criminal or a mentally unstable individual—then who cares if it's a left-wing idea or a right-wing idea? A good idea is a good idea, no matter where it comes from.

And if you're so concerned about laws that "harass" people, maybe take a look at some of the laws that disproportionately affect minorities or low-income communities. But oh, wait, those laws probably pass your "smell test," don't they?

So, let's cut the crap and talk about what really matters: making laws that actually do something good. And if that bothers you, well, maybe it's your "smell test" that needs adjusting.