Biden on Gun Control

[2aguy]

The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".

To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.

The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.

Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.

As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.

Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.

And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.

The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.

As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.

The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.

They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?

Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.

Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.

If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.

I'm sure you suspect lots of crazy stuff. Where does Heller say guns can't be regulated? Whether they are in common use doesn't matter for the purposes of regulation. All guns are already regulated in many aspects of their manufacture, sale, and use. Heller doesn't throw all that out, and it doesn't prevent changes in the existing regulations or the addition of new regulations. You've become accustom to pointing at Heller to justify anything you might want to spout, but it doesn't work that way. I would tell you to read it for yourself, but you've already made it clear that you are incapable of understanding it. Instead, you should ask a sane person to explain that part to you. Taking the word of another gun nut won't help you understand it.

You are the one who is ignoring Heller.......

Heller limits special locations and felons.....and the dangerously mentally ill...

Show us where it says they can regulate weapons in Heller......

What Heller actually says, and Scalia then clarifies in Friedman v Highland Park..

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

What do we have......

Felons
Mentally ill
sensitive places
Conditions and qualifications for commercial sale....as in product liability for defective or fraudulent sales..

No where does it say you can put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[Ame®icano]

As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.

The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.

They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?

Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.

Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.

If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

LOL, you're real dunce. And your reaction said it all. Triggered by own stupidity.

I told you two times already, all arms “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns. If you're law abiding citizen, you have right to keep and bear arms, that is all regulation that should exists. If you're a felon, you lose that right. The regulations in force today are not infringing constitutional rights, because they're mostly related to interstate commerce that is actual enumerated power of Congress.

My question is related to this conversation, and I asked few times already. Without making case of "why regulation", you don't get to discuss infringing constitutional rights. You said there are lots of reasons, like you know what you're talking about, and still cant make a case, just like Congress, that would pass the constitutionality test.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sure they were. At one time The NRA was all about gun safety.

You are confused once again Moon Bat. The NRA has leadership problems today but it ain't what the lying gun grabbers are telling you useful idiots.

Then why don't they say how many members they have? Trying to hide where their money comes from?

Yes....because asshats like you have begun to target donors to conservative groups.....they lose their jobs, and get harrassed by your brown shirts.

Just like you asshats sent the klan around to hang supporters of Freed blacks....

Sure, donors like Russia. The NRA spent 30 million to elect Trump, much of which came from Russia.
View attachment 310446

And hilary got 145 million from Russia......and she lost....

No.

 

[2aguy]

You are confused once again Moon Bat. The NRA has leadership problems today but it ain't what the lying gun grabbers are telling you useful idiots.

Then why don't they say how many members they have? Trying to hide where their money comes from?

Yes....because asshats like you have begun to target donors to conservative groups.....they lose their jobs, and get harrassed by your brown shirts.

Just like you asshats sent the klan around to hang supporters of Freed blacks....

Sure, donors like Russia. The NRA spent 30 million to elect Trump, much of which came from Russia.
View attachment 310446

And hilary got 145 million from Russia......and she lost....

No.

Yes.....and even more from countries around the world.....all contributing to her money laundering operation, the clinton foundation

 

[BULLDOG]

The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.

As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.

The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.

They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?

Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.

Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.

If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.

I'm sure you suspect lots of crazy stuff. Where does Heller say guns can't be regulated? Whether they are in common use doesn't matter for the purposes of regulation. All guns are already regulated in many aspects of their manufacture, sale, and use. Heller doesn't throw all that out, and it doesn't prevent changes in the existing regulations or the addition of new regulations. You've become accustom to pointing at Heller to justify anything you might want to spout, but it doesn't work that way. I would tell you to read it for yourself, but you've already made it clear that you are incapable of understanding it. Instead, you should ask a sane person to explain that part to you. Taking the word of another gun nut won't help you understand it.

So you didn't read it, or you're clueless what Heller is about, and repeating already known leftist hysteria.

One more time, WHY do you think semi-auto guns should be banned or regulated?

I never advocated banning anything but bump stocks. Why and what to regulate is the next conversation. Finish this one first.

 

[BULLDOG]

The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.

As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.

The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.

They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?

Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.

Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.

If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.

I'm sure you suspect lots of crazy stuff. Where does Heller say guns can't be regulated? Whether they are in common use doesn't matter for the purposes of regulation. All guns are already regulated in many aspects of their manufacture, sale, and use. Heller doesn't throw all that out, and it doesn't prevent changes in the existing regulations or the addition of new regulations. You've become accustom to pointing at Heller to justify anything you might want to spout, but it doesn't work that way. I would tell you to read it for yourself, but you've already made it clear that you are incapable of understanding it. Instead, you should ask a sane person to explain that part to you. Taking the word of another gun nut won't help you understand it.

You are the one who is ignoring Heller.......

Heller limits special locations and felons.....and the dangerously mentally ill...

Show us where it says they can regulate weapons in Heller......

What Heller actually says, and Scalia then clarifies in Friedman v Highland Park..

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

What do we have......

Felons
Mentally ill
sensitive places
Conditions and qualifications for commercial sale....as in product liability for defective or fraudulent sales..

No where does it say you can put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

No where does it say you can not put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

 

[BULLDOG]

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

LOL, you're real dunce. And your reaction said it all. Triggered by own stupidity.

I told you two times already, all arms “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns. If you're law abiding citizen, you have right to keep and bear arms, that is all regulation that should exists. If you're a felon, you lose that right. The regulations in force today are not infringing constitutional rights, because they're mostly related to interstate commerce that is actual enumerated power of Congress.

My question is related to this conversation, and I asked few times already. Without making case of "why regulation", you don't get to discuss infringing constitutional rights. You said there are lots of reasons, like you know what you're talking about, and still cant make a case, just like Congress, that would pass the constitutionality test.

Please quote Heller where it says regulation is not permissable.

 

[BULLDOG]

Then why don't they say how many members they have? Trying to hide where their money comes from?

Yes....because asshats like you have begun to target donors to conservative groups.....they lose their jobs, and get harrassed by your brown shirts.

Just like you asshats sent the klan around to hang supporters of Freed blacks....

Sure, donors like Russia. The NRA spent 30 million to elect Trump, much of which came from Russia.
View attachment 310446

And hilary got 145 million from Russia......and she lost....

No.

Yes.....and even more from countries around the world.....all contributing to her money laundering operation, the clinton foundation

You're a conspiracy theory nut.

 

[Crixus]

Biden is going to take your guns!

Better start stockpiling

I KNOW! Thanks to Obama, I sold one subpar AR 15 that I got for $350 for $850. That was an Olympic arms gun I grabbed in a pawn shop and cleaned up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
I KNOW! Thanks to Obama, I sold one subpar AR 15 that I got for $350 for $850. That was an Olympic arms gun I grabbed in a pawn shop and cleaned up.

ARs have never been cheaper -- buy a bunch now and douple-triple your money later.

 

[Ame®icano]

As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.

The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.

They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?

Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.

Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.

If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.

I'm sure you suspect lots of crazy stuff. Where does Heller say guns can't be regulated? Whether they are in common use doesn't matter for the purposes of regulation. All guns are already regulated in many aspects of their manufacture, sale, and use. Heller doesn't throw all that out, and it doesn't prevent changes in the existing regulations or the addition of new regulations. You've become accustom to pointing at Heller to justify anything you might want to spout, but it doesn't work that way. I would tell you to read it for yourself, but you've already made it clear that you are incapable of understanding it. Instead, you should ask a sane person to explain that part to you. Taking the word of another gun nut won't help you understand it.

So you didn't read it, or you're clueless what Heller is about, and repeating already known leftist hysteria.

One more time, WHY do you think semi-auto guns should be banned or regulated?

I never advocated banning anything but bump stocks. Why and what to regulate is the next conversation. Finish this one first.

Is your switch stuck on stupid, or there is simply no switch, just plain "stupid"?

You can't have conversation about banning or regulating guns without reason why to ban or regulate them at first place.

If there is no reason to regulate, why should you regulate?

You're acting like a child with an idea... "hey, how about we regulate sun rays", and when faced with the the question "why would you want to do that"?, you say, "that's another conversation". Fucking hilarious.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is your switch stuck on stupid, or there is simply no switch, just plain "stupid"?
You can't have conversation about banning or regulating guns without reason why to ban or regulate them at first place.
If there is no reason to regulate, why should you regulate?
You're acting like a child with an idea... "hey, how about we regulate sun rays", and when faced with the the question "why would you want to do that"?, you say, "that's another conversation". Fucking hilarious.

This is what you get when you feed a troll.

 

[Ame®icano]

As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.

The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.

They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?

Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.

Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.

If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.

I'm sure you suspect lots of crazy stuff. Where does Heller say guns can't be regulated? Whether they are in common use doesn't matter for the purposes of regulation. All guns are already regulated in many aspects of their manufacture, sale, and use. Heller doesn't throw all that out, and it doesn't prevent changes in the existing regulations or the addition of new regulations. You've become accustom to pointing at Heller to justify anything you might want to spout, but it doesn't work that way. I would tell you to read it for yourself, but you've already made it clear that you are incapable of understanding it. Instead, you should ask a sane person to explain that part to you. Taking the word of another gun nut won't help you understand it.

You are the one who is ignoring Heller.......

Heller limits special locations and felons.....and the dangerously mentally ill...

Show us where it says they can regulate weapons in Heller......

What Heller actually says, and Scalia then clarifies in Friedman v Highland Park..

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

What do we have......

Felons
Mentally ill
sensitive places
Conditions and qualifications for commercial sale....as in product liability for defective or fraudulent sales..

No where does it say you can put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

No where does it say you can not put regulations on models or types of guns...please...show us in Heller where they do that....

Because Heller is not about regulation of models or types of guns. Show where does it say you can put regulation on it.

Ooooh, it doesn't. That's where you go back to the Constitution, dunce.

 

[Ame®icano]

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

There is "shall not be infringed" reason.

And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.

Lots of reasons why, but that is a different conversation, and we can address that in the next conversation if you care to. For now, regulation is a viable option, and there is nothing in Heller, or anywhere else to prevent it. If you can show differently, then now is your chance. Point out in Heller or anywhere else that regulation is not allowable, no matter how much a gun might be in use. Otherwise, STFU you don'tknow what you are talking about.

LOL, you're real dunce. And your reaction said it all. Triggered by own stupidity.

I told you two times already, all arms “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns. If you're law abiding citizen, you have right to keep and bear arms, that is all regulation that should exists. If you're a felon, you lose that right. The regulations in force today are not infringing constitutional rights, because they're mostly related to interstate commerce that is actual enumerated power of Congress.

My question is related to this conversation, and I asked few times already. Without making case of "why regulation", you don't get to discuss infringing constitutional rights. You said there are lots of reasons, like you know what you're talking about, and still cant make a case, just like Congress, that would pass the constitutionality test.

Please quote Heller where it says regulation is not permissable.

You can't show something that doesn't exist. OK, let's try this way...

Please quote Heller where it says gay marriage is constitutional right.

 

[Crixus]

[
I KNOW! Thanks to Obama, I sold one subpar AR 15 that I got for $350 for $850. That was an Olympic arms gun I grabbed in a pawn shop and cleaned up.

ARs have never been cheaper -- buy a bunch now and douple-triple your money later.

Shit, just grab a thousand rounds of lake city and grab all the gen2 magpull hicaps and you will be in cigarette money for months! A dude I know does this thing where they dress up like Cowboys and shoot old fashioned guns. It's a whoot! Anyway, at the height of gun grabber panic during the Obama administration brass in .45 colt became harder to find then hens teeth for awhile. It got bad enough that he had to use his rugers shooting .38 special and wheel weight bullets. He sold that crappy ammo for quite a profit. Was able to stock on on 45 colt brass for the next time.

 

[Cosmos]

The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".

To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.

The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.

Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.

As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.

Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.

And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.

The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.

As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.

The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.

They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?

Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.

Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.

If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.

Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.

OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.

It all depends on what you mean by "regulation". Regulations that remove their functionality or make them unavailable or impose taxes that make them prohibitively expensive would not be acceptable or allowable under the 2nd Amendment/Heller. I don't see a problem with keeping them out of the hands of felons or mentally ill. These red flag laws are on very shaky ground if they don't allow due process.

 

[Flash]

I would much rather have the NRA talking money from the gun manufactures to protect our Constitutional rights than to have that asshole Crooked Hillary as Secretary of State or (Heaven forbid) President taking influence money from foreign countries and running it through her sham money laundering foundation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
I KNOW! Thanks to Obama, I sold one subpar AR 15 that I got for $350 for $850. That was an Olympic arms gun I grabbed in a pawn shop and cleaned up.

ARs have never been cheaper -- buy a bunch now and douple-triple your money later.

Shit, just grab a thousand rounds of lake city and grab all the gen2 magpull hicaps and you will be in cigarette money for months!

Should they ever be banned again, I can retire on my M14 magazines.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

 

[Flash]