NRA torches Biden admin for plan to change rules for gun buyers, sellers

you constantly confuse my telling it like it is with pretending I support such stuff. For example we both know that no supreme court will ever hold that owning surface to air missiles is protected by the second amendment. You claim that if I point that FACT OUT that makes me a gun grabber. It does not. the tenth amendment is the one at issue in that case. You ignore reality in order to pretend some sort of "intellectual" consistency and then call anyone who doesn't support your ludicrous positions as being a "gun grabber".

 

Again: These cases take time and there are several working their way through the bowels of the system already.

 

There's telling it like it is, then there is saying that the rule doesn't provide for something because the supremes won't give that to you.

One is saying "yes that's the rule and its logical extension, but the supremes won't give that to you" and the other is saying "the supremes not giving it to you, makes it not the clear logical extension of the rule".
You're doing the latter, and its hilariously hypocritical.

Its not that you're pointing it out, its that you fail to acknowledge what the logical extension of the rule actually is even if in your opinion you think the supremes lack the testicular fortitude to say it. You have done this in numerous threads every time this horseshit hypocrisy of yours come up. You pretend the logic of the rule changes based on the condescension of the supremes, and that's not how logic works.

You acting like it does? THAT'S backstabbing, if you want to get dramatic about it. Its one thing to say "this is the rule, but the supremes will only likely let it get to X but not Y", that upholds the logical basis of the rule itself. That doesn't undermine the rule itself by denying its essential logic.
Its quite another to talk as much **** as you have about me for simply stating the essential logic of the rule, and pretend the compromise outcome is somehow the logical extension of the rule when it plainly is non-sensical, then complain that my not going along your knuckling under is somehow a gross betrayal of principles.

 

Yawn. go ahead, file a suit-tell the supremes that you can own a mortar and shells or a TOW missile. WE both know that there are serious problems with the application of the bruen ruling and that will cause all sorts of issues

 

You can already own a mortar and shells o wise and learned fed boi. And there still isn't a historic analog for registration, and there still were private cannon and ships of the line during the founding era and continuing past the civil war used as privateers to great effect. Privateers: Who need only PERMISSION TO SHOOT FIRST, not to arm.
Not only is there NOT a historic tradition of regulation of cannon, there is the OPPOSITE in historic tradition.

We all know that the logical extension of the rule says what it says, and means what it means. We all know it doesn't stop where you're saying it does. That would be fine if you said "it should go to X here, but they'll only let it get to Y there", but that's not what you say.

 

O GOD!!! SOMEONE CALL THE BATFE!!!! ITS A MORTAR!!! AT A RANGE DAY!!!! THAT FIRED SHELLS!!!!!

O wait...... that's legal.

 

yeah you can subject to the massive restrictions of the 1934 NFA which you claim is unconstitutional based on the second

 

at 200 dollars tax stamp per shell?

 

Which IS unconstitutional, and is literally being litigated in about 8 different cases right now.
Now you want to pretend you don't know how long it takes a case to work its way through? Don't you claim to have been a DOJ wunderkund?
Growing forgetful now?

Next you'll say "Yeah you can carry in new york, subject to the massive restrictions [of may issue]" because they made another may issue law after Bruen that hasn't gotten through and been struck yet.
Do we need to go back to day one in Con Law buddy? Turn that mind back to yesteryear and recall that something being allowed doesn't make it constitutional.

 

so how do you think those cases are going to work out. I don't believe area weapons are the ones that meet the test of "arms" in the second.

 

The point I think you're missing is that your fellow travelers often oppose reasonable measures with cries about possible gun grabbing. They're the ones who object to restricting guns in public places, bars, restaurants, schools when I bring up the very situations you mention.

 

Why is it a "reasonable measure" to ban guns from restaurants?

And we've seen the result of banning guns from schools. Hasn't helped an ounce has it? Why not secure our schools like we do banks? Or like our politicians secure themselves? Time to try something else imo.

As far as bars go, with a few exceptions most areas already ban guns in bars.

 

This goes to "...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct..."
The court has defined "arms" in such a way that it excludes weapons not in common use for legal purposes.
One can argue the exact point where this applies, but certain weapons are unarguably on the opposite side of that point.
Thus, the historical tradition test does not apply to the ownership and use of these weapons, because the plain text does not cover that conduct.
.

 

your definition of REASONABLE restrictions are probably not reasonable to gun owners or those who actually respect the constitution

we all support punishing the malum per se crimes involving firearms-but gun owners tend to be more avid about that than gun banners, who seem to try to avoid punishing real criminals -instead they push for crap that only harasses lawful gun owners, why should guns be banned in restaurants or bars when it's already illegal to be intoxicated and packing?

 

There's nothing "reasonable" about "measures" that violate the constitution; they should be vigorously opposed at every opportunity.

 

I don't know what they'll do--the laws are screwed up with compromises that end up with silly regs.

What I don't understand is why we can't agree on getting after the predatory use of firearms in robbery, assault, etc. Why don't we make it illegal for gang members to possess firearms? We could at least get serious about putting criminals who use firearms to commit crimes in jail.

 

Are you going to tell me it shouldn't be against the law to take a firearm into a public school? How about a hospital? That's the kind of place I was talking about limiting firearms.

How about taking firearms away from senile old folks?

 

I said:
There's nothing "reasonable" about "measures" that violate the constitution; they should be vigorously opposed at every opportunity.
Why do you disagree?

 

if someone hasn't been convicted of a felony, it is tough to argue guilt by association. if they are CRIMINALS it already is a felony under federal laws to possess firearms.

 

You mean Biden should not possess firearms? it already is illegal for someone ADJUDICATED (ie they had a due process right to be heard and present evidence) mentally incompetent

 

Bold: Are you talking about "guilt by association"? In other words if someone is a part of a gang and someone in that gang has been convicted of some crime and banned from owning a gun, then that person is also banned from owning a gun even though they have not "yet" committed any crimes? I put "yet" in quotations because it is an assumption that they will commit a crime, much less a crime with a gun. If so then that is going against our very foundations of justice. There is no way in hell I'd support such. I can't even count how many ways such a system would be abused.

As far as gang members who've already been convicted of crimes being banned from owning a gun, that is already the case.

And no one is against putting criminals who use firearms to commit crimes in jail. AFAICT the only ones being soft on criminals are leftists. Usually using the excuse of "equity" and "restorative justice" and claims of "systemic racism" blah blah blah.

 

If it is a bar/restaurant? Some communities might want to do that.

Can't say whether it has or hasn't.

Costs too much money.

How about public facilities? Other reasonable moves include removing guns from the hands of senile or mentally ill people.

 

People who have been adjudicated mentally ill are already prohibited from owning guns.

What public facilities do you speak of? Surely you don't mean government offices

 

I said:
There's nothing "reasonable" about "measures" that violate the constitution; they should be vigorously opposed at every opportunity.
Why do you disagree?

 

No, it's taking guns out of the hands of gang members.

Gang members? Really? You think it's okay for gang members to have weapons?

Thanks for making my point about some gun owners opposing sensible gun restrictions.

A felony? Yes. Misdemeanor? No.

But your unwillingness to implement sensible gun restrictions makes you, along with them, part of the problem. IMO.