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

If they're that dangerous, don't let them out of prison. If you do: They're citizens again with all the rights that entails.
You want the restrictions? Cite the analogous provision from the founding era.
Fugitives are fugitives and don't get their rights back.
Show the analogous law from the founding era restricting arms and carry based on voting age.
Actively intoxicated is fair, and as I recall has analogs.

 

You realize they start with the NFA, move to the GCA (which expands what gets registered) then made it to where you cannot make new examples with the Hughes Amendment to FOPA?
You realize that means usable examples have been aging out, wearing out, or getting turned in by ungrateful heirs at buy backs? Meaning at some point soon they'll be ready for a new law which says "nah just turn in all the extant examples".

Registration leads to ****ery, and is unconstitutional.

 

Its not tinkerbell. Belief doesn't enter into the equation. Armed personnel can respond, and have a CHANCE. Unarmed personnel can do........... what exactly?

Because the republican party is run by hypocrites, and POTUS protection 'national security' args tend to supercede other considerations and have historic analogs present during the founding era.

 

Way too many oppose taking guns away from senile seniors, persons deemed mentally ill, children, gang members, etc. for it to be a straw man. Like I said, expansive gun rights may be incompatible with a largely urban society.

 

Registration is not at this point unconstitutional. I'm not sure SCOTUS wants to chance gun rights as the hill they die on, so they may leave some anti-gun legislation intact.

 

No one holds the position you claimed.
-That- makes it a straw man.

 

They'll do the same thing as those who are armed: flee.

How many armed security guards have managed to stop a school shooter in the last 25 years?

Zero.

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/08/guns-armed-guards-school-shootings/

Republicans are hypocrites, but making their convention a gun free-zone makes perfect sense.

The attacker always has a huge advantage.

The Secret Service knows all too well that Trump or any other conservative elected official could be shot dozens of times before any guard has time to react.

 

Why do you believe registration will pass the Bruen test?

 

Okay. We're talking about the law.

26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.​

You quoted someone else.

 

First: Thank you for being so polite. It shows you actually want to have an exchange of ideas, not just push talking points, and I appreciate that!
Second: good post and information. And it is a really good explanation of the intent of the language/amendment and was an interesting read.
And I think that at least we can agree that there are limitations and adjustments to all the amendments necessary, as things change over time. I agree that the answer lies in how we (as a country) need to at least occasionally run "tests" of how things are working out and make adjustments as needed. That's why I don't buy the "It's constitutional" argument, as that is obviously not constant but can change over time and court cases. Where and how those adjustments are made is where the rubber meets the road, as the saying goes.
I don't pretend to know exactly what to do about gun violence. Logic and common sense (and statistics) tell me that fewer guns would result in fewer gun violence.
But that isn't the only way. Other ways attempt to keep guns out of the hands of those who would abuse/misuse them. That's the trick. How to achieve that without screwing up the ability of responsible gun owners. Some of the methods may make it more inconvenient for responsible gun owners, but sometimes tradeoffs are worth it if it leads to a benefit for the greater good. I think many of the pro-gun arguments are very self-centered.
The most important thing is to keep trying, having conversations and looking for ways to make it safe for everyone in America, without harming the ability of those responsible types to have guns if they so desire. I think it can be done.
And I thank you for furthering that and keeping rational discussion going.
As to the need of the people to have arms to defend against the federal government, I do think that is a dated and antiquated concept. Needed 230+ years ago, but not now, as I don't think there is really a danger of that, partially because our military is made up of common citizens. I reject that the second amendment is necessary for that purpose anymore.

On an additional note, I am very proud of my daughter who graduates from Army basic training today and becomes one of those who serving to protect all that we love about this country! She will be a 68 Whiskey (combat medic) and plans to go Special Forces at Fort Liberty! Hooah!

 

That something might change at some indeterminate date does not invalidate the fact something is unconstitutional now.
Under your line of reasoning, you will not accept -any- claim of unconstitutionality, and you, yourself, cannot honestly make any such claim yourself.

The right to keep and bear arms is not subject to means-end tests.

No more than pro-choice arguments.

 

Where have you been? I've had people on this forum refuse to go along with legislation outlining a process to take away firearms from senile old folks because it would lead to gun grabbing. How about abortion rights for women in return for no gun grabbing? We can then move on to end the insane "war on drugs."

 

Cite / copy / paste.
When doing so, keep in mind your actual straw claim.

 

catholics, tories, American Indians, Asians couldn't own guns

Like it or not, the Bruen decision is not going to do all the things you want

 

as opposed to those who only pretend they are doing something about crime by passing laws that do nothing to decrease crime but harass honest Citizens?

 

well you prove a point I have made hundreds of times=lots of those who push for gun bans are mainly motivated by their belief that pro gun advocates and politicians are the people who vote against abortion rights

 

Not really, it was a stand alone statement. Those who pretend they are doing are a different conversation. I don't think anyone acts to simply harass honest citizens, even if it perceived that way. I'll use the proposed ban on assault weapons. Are they trying to do something? yes. Would it make a big difference? I doubt it.
Here's another thought, most changes occur through trial and error. Sometimes something sounds like a good idea on paper, but when implemented doesn't work so great or has unintended consequences. Such was the assault rifle ban in the 90's. It had a little effect, but not a great impact. I can give credit for someone trying, but that's why the process doesn't stop there.
And there are some legislators who propose "solutions" just to look like they are doing something. Mostly useless.....

 

Au contraire, Pierre. I can make any claim I want, just as you can. Or all we subject to only your thoughts and beliefs? Lol! Good luck with that!
One of the most stifling of human traits is arrogance.
One more thing, you need to keep your assessment of honesty to your own actions. You don't know me and you damn sure have no clue as to my honesty. I'd express my true reaction to your continued mis-aligned assessments, but then the mods would delete my post.
Oh wait, I know what to do.........

 

You can.
But to be consistent with the argument you presented, and honest with yourself, you cannot claim anything is unconstitutional - because that is obviously not constant but can change over time and court cases.

 

really-what was the purpose of the hughes amendment then? WE know damn well that there are lots of leaders of the anti gun movement who push crap that they know doesn't impact criminals

 

well there are two choices we have when someone pushes crap that obviously won't reduce crime

1) we can challenge their motivations
2) we can challenge their intelligence

 

And both should be done.
I'm a troubleshooter......I believe in a process to acheive results.

 

well some of the crap gun banners push has no rational or logical chance of reducing crime

so when they claim that is their motivation, they are either dishonest or stupid

 

Marbury vs. Madison (1803).

The point remains we won't stop the fentanyl addiction problem by stemming the flow of illegals, something we'll have to do, sooner or later.

Trans isn't new, nor is it the cause or product of the "mental health crisis."

Justice Jackson was correct in refusing to define "woman" because the Court will hear cases arguing for a definition of woman based on DNA and not genitals. That was a BS attack for the benefit of low-information voters.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was handed down June 24, 2023 after Democrats lost control of the House.

They didn't because they couldn't. Would they have given the chance? We'll never know. Will they in 2025 if the opportunity presents itself? Yes. Will it be codifying Roe v. Wade? I think women's perception of the threat to their basic rights has changed.

Women will be incredibly angry if mifepristone and misoprostol are removed from the market. SCOTUS may rules by summer.

How is having legal abortion working out in Canada?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada-abortion-law-1.6503899

It's a starting point for a short investigation.

 

wrong-and in many cases, if the person is stopped before they kill anyone, you wont' know

the secret service is the reason why political conventions are gun free-and armed security is all over the place