I gave you fair warning. Here and elsewhere.

If twenty murdered children does not lead to new firearm restrictions on the national level, fifty homosexual latinos, some of them possibly illegal immigrants, will not do any better. If anything it may drive politics in the opposite direction, just as the Newtown massacre did.

 

The FBI had this guy under review more than once, yet he continued to have his guns and gun licenses. INEPT POLITICALLY CORRECT GOVERNMENT is keeping the armament in the hands of terrorists. Same story with the Tsarnaev brothers.

 

50 unarmed victims, if one of them had been armed, perhaps there would have been fewer victims.

 

I don't agree with your interpretation of the Constitution and do not believe that the alleged right at issue actually exists.

- - - Updated - - -

Terrorists are not my primary concern or motivator.

 

No, your prime concern and motivator is moar stupid gun laws and gun bans.

 

I am sure you believe that.

 

So you don't believe the Bill of Rights purpose is to protect individual rights, you don't believe SCOTUS knows what they're doing, and you believe citizens not having the right to own firearms will have results different than the Paris terrorist attacks?

You want to ban guns, meaning we can't defend ourselves, while knowing that terrorists will get firearms anyway.

Not a great position you have there.

 

I don't need a "great position." I have no interest in convincing you of anything. You are irrelevant to the issue. What I do believe is that President Rodham Clinton will be appointing at least 2 Supreme Court Justices and you can be assured that neither of them will agree with you. Your 5-4 rulings will be going the other way soon enough.

 

Why is it that only 2nd amendment rights, in distinction to all other rights, are deemed absolute? Rights to free speech, assembly, even the right to vote are limited in many ways. I come from a gun-owning culture, but the line between a culture of gun-ownership and a culture of gun worship has been crossed.

Many 2nd amendment advocates make legitimate points about the number of gun deaths versus deaths from other causes. I would even go so far as to say the state should only go so far in protecting people from their own actions, and that, by extension, the actions of people who abuse guns rights should not be held against those who don't.

But I will say absolutely YES. If you are a radicalized person, and you have advocated armed actions against your fellow citizens, then you should be denied the right to buy or possess a firearm.

 

We'll see. If Clinton is elected, when the resulting collapse of our country happens, I'm ready.

 

The 2nd is limited.

While I'm in the theater I could yell "fire" and cause a panic resulting in mass death whenever I wanted to. For the same reason we can't pull a gun and stick it in people's faces.

Threatining someone's life with words is no more protected than threatening someone with a gun.

We all know that law abiding gun owners are not the ones causing problems, the CCW revocation rates clearly show this.

We have a crime problem in this country, which is exactly why there is a massive number of guns being purchased.

Hysteria or no, I'd say the country collectively feels like something very bad is about to happen, so they're preparing.

 

Don't forget to have an extra can opener even if your soup as a pop top. Sometimes they break off. Mine looks kind of like this for when Donald is elected:

 

I commend you for knowing your position and being able to explain it. I however am on the other side and wish to protect the innocent that can't otherwise protect themselves when matched like for like. I feel the police investigate to many crimes and not stop crimes.

 

I commend you for articulating a reason not grounded in the selfish "My rights" argument. I would be willing to move forward incrementally to reduce the number of people you speak of needing a gun to defend themselves as scarcity increasingly made it harder for criminals to get guns and ammo, and I would conceivably be okay with people in rural areas having long barrel guns for protecting their livestock and themselves under some restrictions TBD, but at the end of the day, since there is no effort on your side's part to address the issue in any way whatsoever, then if the choice were no guns or the current state of affairs, I will definitely be on the no guns side. If there were a vote on it, I would throw the people you want to protect to the lions just because I think a complete ban would save more lives than it costs in the long run.

 

LOL Cha right....the AR15 is the only semi auto capable of firing large volumes of ammo. That is just uninformed.

 

I didn't say anything about the AR-15's capabilities. Any more straw men hiding in your closet you can whip out?

 

So you said this why? " Banning AR-15's would be better." Please clarify your comment. Perhaps gun length, caliber, ease of use, mag capacity, scary looks, capabilities....please enlighten us. I don't have to whip out a thing....you said it all, LOL

 

Because it is the gun of choice these days among mass killers and wannabes....and banning one makes it easier to ban the rest and since it is the lowest hanging fruit because of my first reason, then that is why it is the better place to start. I see you added more straw men to your straw man defense, so thank you for complying with my request.

 

Great sidestepping of the question. I'm sure those are crocodile tears, since you don't care about their rights at all. As someone who is anti-state, I think the whole thing is a travesty of justice and just as totalitarian as what you'd have in place.

 

I deem free speech to be absolute. Maybe you are thinking that yelling fire in a crowded theater is a matter of free speech. It's more like holding a loaded gun and pointing at people. When people get hurt by your actions (and I don't mean that they just take offense or feel bad), then one must face the consequences. I feel the same about assembly.

As for voting, I don't recall that being in the Constitution at all. Voting is handled by states.

Maybe it's like state worship, only more individualized and far less dangerous.

What constitutes "abuse" of gun rights?

Without due process?

 

On the contrary, I understand the importance of not having planes all blow up, so, we must have the list. But, if y9ou are going to have a list, you must spend whatever it costs, to edit it for accuracy. And to keep it updated. Chances are good, that terrorists will not seek to prove they are not bad guys. So, it shouldn't be that hard.

 

OHHHH so your strawman is that it is the choice of mass killers. However you quite succinctly add the true intentions of the banoids...."and banning one makes it easier to ban the rest " Where do you stop the banning......no guns? Your fallacy is drinking the Kool aide. I'll give you a non strawman.....it's not the inanimate object and you'll never ban all weapons or even your favorite gun banner choice.
Your problem is you want to DDoS and not face the real issue. That's your strawman fallacy to deal with....the reality is you will never achieve your Nirvana and life will go on. Good luck.

 

nor will they ever be on your list....think about it, eh!

 

I am impressed by your ability to throw so much pat rhetoric together and still not say a thing. I would suggest you look up the word fallacy though. I am not sure you really know what it means the way you think you do.

 

I agree, but wasn't this basically proposed a while back and shot down by the republicans? The issue as I see it is that doing the above basically constitutes a breach of innocent until proven guilty and would likely face a constitutional challange.

If I thought for a moment that banning the AR-15 would mitigate the violence I would wholeheartedly support such a ban... but all it would do is make the Mini-14 Ranch Rifle the next preferred weapon of mass shooters. Even if we banned all long guns capable of accepting large capacity clips then shooters would just buy several hand guns to do their dastardly deed... remember the Virginia Tech shooter? If we outlaw all guns then they will set off pressure cooker bombs... then what, outlaw pressure cookers?

A problem with banning a style or type of firearm is that demand for said weapons will remain the same thus fueling a black market thus leaving us right where we are, with bad guys having guns to use against innocent civilians.

I am a left leaning independent who hates the NRA, but I objectively see no real benefit of banning assault style long rifles... if I did I would support said ban in an instant.