1 dead and multiple injured in shooting following Chiefs Super Bowl parade

even if the NRA had never existed, there was no federal gun restrictions until the FDR administration and most states didn't try to disarm voters until the 1960s. Some would pretend that guns wouldn't exist but for the NRA. it's pure nonsense. The hatred of the NRA and blaming them for criminal misuse of guns is both silly and a facade-the real hatred is based on the NRA helping defeat hordes of leftwing politicians who would rather pass gun laws than crack down on violent criminals

 

I did more than "claim" that this was a misinterpretation. I proved it.

Heller legislation became the law of the land when Scalia and the other political justices decided to legislate from the bench as ins

 

Lawmakers also prevented you to twist the 2nd A to mean "owning guns" until Scalia and other activist judges decided the the Supreme Court was going to legislate the way the NRA instructed them to.

 

no you didn't. you uttered unsupported opinions that were partially supported by misinterpreting facts that your posts never really understood.
you also ignore the fact that the commerce clause expansion that "justified" federal gun control was legislation from the bench yet you accept that as legitimate. get rid of any supreme court ruling and leave us with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and the language of the TENTH amendment and no one who is even remotely objective, could find any federal gun control power

 

Yeah we have seen that silly claim that "keeping and bearing" excludes OWNING, possessing, buying storing etc

no one believes it

 

In the ‘Gunshine State,’ Florida lawmakers say too many kids are packing heat
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/po...-politics/article285589887.html#storylink=cpy
Pointing to a fatal Christmas Eve shooting in Pinellas County that began as an argument between teen brothers over presents, lawmakers say penalties for youth who illegally possess guns must be increased.

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said he worked with lawmakers on crafting the bill, saying the problem with kids illegally carrying guns is “out of control” not just in Pinellas, but statewide.

Sheriff’s officials say that 14-year-old Damarcus Coley pulled out a semi-automatic handgun and aimed it at his 15-year-old brother, Darcus Coley, over an argument that began over who had gotten more presents. Damarcus shot and killed their older sister, Abrielle Baldwin, when she tried to intervene. Baldwin was holding her 10-month-old baby at the time, Gualtieri said. Darcus then fired a round at his brother with his own gun, sheriff’s officials said. Both brothers are now facing criminal charges.

 

yep, sounds like kids who do that need to get some serious time

 

Maybe the 14 yr old shouldn't have had a gun either. I would place this behavior and action on the parents, like a recent case.

 

Why would they?

 

Two options:
1- Either a reference to the discussions in Congress (House or Senate) leading to the final wording and approval of the 2nd A, in which owning guns is mentioned
or
2- A plausible explanation as to how it could be possible that an amendment that, according to Scalia, was intended to protect gun ownership, but gun ownership was NEVER mentioned during those discussions.

Ah!!! Now we're getting somewhere. If you want to make an argument as strong as mine about the commerce clause, you are more than welcome to try it. But now we agree that the Supreme Court legislates from the bench. Originalism, textualism... all that B.S. is out the window. As it SHOULD be! But now we agree that the Supreme Court DOES in fact legislate. The problem is that Scalia's legislation is based on faulty linguistic arguments and a completely made-up historical background. Both of these arguments fabricated by the NRA and other groups of extreme right-wing pseudo-originalists. THAT was my point. Scalia's legislation is the law of the land, for now. But we can now stop mentioning the 2nd A as the basis for gun ownership because that is out the window.

 

Of course you can place the blame on the parents, but the article says it's not an isolated incident, but a Statewide problem.

How do you fix parenting?

 

That's worse than silly. It's ridiculous. But it's YOUR claim. Not mine.

 

your argument has no merit. Scalia merely rolled back some of the idiocy of the FDR administration. he should have struck all federal gun control laws but he knew an erratic Justice Kennedy would defect

 

so you pretend that keeping and bearing doesn't include owning, possessing, carrying, storing etc? yeah that makes sense

 

You're the one making that claim. Not me. Further evidence that you can't rebut what I DO claim.

It doesn't include or exclude owning firearms any more than it includes or excludes firearms that are ... yellow.

Owning or not owning is just as irrelevant as what color the firearms are. The 2nd A doesn't address EITHER.

Any moderately rational reader will notice your absolute lack of arguments.

 

you never have told us why the founders would have intended Keeping and bearing to not protect owning. You never have explained how you can assert that the government has the power to ban OWNING but not keeping and bearing

 

I have said no such thing. You attempt to hide your lack of arguments by making up crap!

I have said a hundred times that they didn't intend or not intend. The matter of "owning" was simply never brought up.

See, boys and girls, how a poster squirms when they are proven wrong but they can't accept it?

 

I deny your claims and I assert that when the founders penned the second amendment, keep and bear included owning from both a logical and a practical perspective

 

You have NOT denied my claims. It did. It also included NOT owning. Ownership was not in their minds when they drafted the final version, or they would have... at least mentioned it. And, of course, they would have INCLUDED it, if they believed it relevant. They didn't!

It's hilarious... You don't deny my claims and you don't even notice. Because you refuse to understand them.

I must ASSUME that you refuse, because saying that you can't would be frowned upon by mods.

 

I deny your claims as have most people who reject the silly claims that Keep and bear doesn't encompass owning. And stop with the nonsense that I don't understand your claims. I do and that is why I find them specious

 

The one thing that is their responsibility are the guns. I believe they belong to them, if not, then this is a different case.

 

If its a statewide problem, and all because parents armed their kids, then Florida has some pretty bad parents. More likely the gangs arm their members.

 

The same reason they want to limit magazine capacity in firearms, public safety.
The anti gun rhetoric could readily be altered and used.
"Nobody needs an AK-47 to go hunting" to "Nobody needs a 100 MPH car to go to the supermarket"

 

It's sad to see how you keep tying yourself in knots trying to ascribe to me statements that I have not made, just so you can disagree with them.

All this because you refuse to allow yourself to acknowledge that you CAN'T disagree with the statements that I HAVE made.

 

Nobody claims there would be no guns except for the NRA, the claim is the NRA enables unfettered access to them.

Nobody is blaming the NRA for the actions of the gun owner, again, they are blamed for the unfettered access to the guns.

The NRA is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers, no different than any other lobby in Washington.