Biden on Gun Control

[BULLDOG]

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.

And here......Justice Alito takes on the stupid idea of "dangerous and unusual."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
-------

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.

All that is related to an out right ban. It has nothing to do with regulation.

Because DC v. Heller is about ban, and not about gun regulation, just as it's not about gay marriage.

Now you are catching on.

 

[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.

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.

Due process is a wide open term. It can mean a wide range of things.

Due process is exactly what it says, one meaning.

How about you name at least two?

Due process means nothing more than following all the steps required to effectively accomplish a chosen goal. Those steps are different for each goal.

You don't know what due process is, don't ya, dunce?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

And here......Justice Alito takes on the stupid idea of "dangerous and unusual."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
-------

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.

All that is related to an out right ban. It has nothing to do with regulation.

Because DC v. Heller is about ban, and not about gun regulation, just as it's not about gay marriage.

Now you are catching on.

You were saying it's about regulation.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.

All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.

Hellooooo, anyone home?

Any regulation that doesn't infringe your rights is constitutional.

You need license for any business, not just to manufacture guns. You can't even run lemonade stand without it anymore.
Putting serial number on a gun doesn't infringe individual right to keep and bear arms.

You're getting there. Regulation is not infringement. Now just concentrate a little longer, and you might understand.

 

[BULLDOG]

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....

Yes...actually, it does...

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land....nothing is above it. The Supreme Court can decide if something is Constitutional but when they do not specifically address something, the Constitution is the law...

They said nothing in Heller about your prohibitory regulations......therefore, the 2nd Amendment stands......which states the Right to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed....

Again...this is what the Supreme Court stated...

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....

Again, it doesn't say you can't put regulations on them. I see you choose to be dumb. I can't prevent you from doing that.

we went over this already,,,
the 10th amendment says they cant,,,

And 9th Amendment, in a nutshell, says they can't invent new powers for themselves.

According to the 10th Amendment...“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The assumption should be that everything is legal unless prohibited or restricted through due process of law. Rights do not trickle down to the People from an omnificent government. Powers are accorded to the government by the People, and specified in the Constitution.

Left doesn't get it, the Constitution is protecting individual rights from a tyranny of the majority, and that is the reason we're not democracy, but a Republic. And BECAUSE individual rights are protected, process to change the Constitution is slow and deliberative, and is requiring a super majority to amend the Constitution.

And the right to regulate was granted long long ago.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.

All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.

Ok. So what regulations do you have in mind that will reduce gun crime? Don't you really think it would be more effective to regulate criminals instead of guns?

I posted this question several times: “Why should "assault weapons", whatever they might be, be illegal?”

The civilian firearms that look similar to but are not, and never have been military firearms, appear to be the targeted so called "assault weapons". They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles which are the most popular type of rifle in the US. Gun owners need not defend their legality, the naysayers need to present an overwhelming convincing argument to the People why the rights of the People should be restricted. It doesn't matter how many times they've been asked, they refuse to answer.

The question seems to be effective in causing her to disappear.

It is a question related to a different discussion. I don't care to address 2 different subjects at once.

 

[BULLDOG]

Please quote Heller where it says regulation is not permissable.

And here......Justice Alito takes on the stupid idea of "dangerous and unusual."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
-------

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.

All that is related to an out right ban. It has nothing to do with regulation.

Because DC v. Heller is about ban, and not about gun regulation, just as it's not about gay marriage.

Now you are catching on.

You were saying it's about regulation.

Our discussion is about regulation. Heller is not.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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....

Yes...actually, it does...

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land....nothing is above it. The Supreme Court can decide if something is Constitutional but when they do not specifically address something, the Constitution is the law...

They said nothing in Heller about your prohibitory regulations......therefore, the 2nd Amendment stands......which states the Right to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed....

Again...this is what the Supreme Court stated...

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....

Again, it doesn't say you can't put regulations on them. I see you choose to be dumb. I can't prevent you from doing that.

we went over this already,,,
the 10th amendment says they cant,,,

And 9th Amendment, in a nutshell, says they can't invent new powers for themselves.

According to the 10th Amendment...“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The assumption should be that everything is legal unless prohibited or restricted through due process of law. Rights do not trickle down to the People from an omnificent government. Powers are accorded to the government by the People, and specified in the Constitution.

Left doesn't get it, the Constitution is protecting individual rights from a tyranny of the majority, and that is the reason we're not democracy, but a Republic. And BECAUSE individual rights are protected, process to change the Constitution is slow and deliberative, and is requiring a super majority to amend the Constitution.

And the right to regulate was granted long long ago.

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....

Yes...actually, it does...

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land....nothing is above it. The Supreme Court can decide if something is Constitutional but when they do not specifically address something, the Constitution is the law...

They said nothing in Heller about your prohibitory regulations......therefore, the 2nd Amendment stands......which states the Right to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed....

Again...this is what the Supreme Court stated...

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....

Again, it doesn't say you can't put regulations on them. I see you choose to be dumb. I can't prevent you from doing that.

we went over this already,,,
the 10th amendment says they cant,,,

And 9th Amendment, in a nutshell, says they can't invent new powers for themselves.

According to the 10th Amendment...“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The assumption should be that everything is legal unless prohibited or restricted through due process of law. Rights do not trickle down to the People from an omnificent government. Powers are accorded to the government by the People, and specified in the Constitution.

Left doesn't get it, the Constitution is protecting individual rights from a tyranny of the majority, and that is the reason we're not democracy, but a Republic. And BECAUSE individual rights are protected, process to change the Constitution is slow and deliberative, and is requiring a super majority to amend the Constitution.

And the right to regulate was granted long long ago.

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped" Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers

All able bodied people be properly armed - well regulated militia (NOT well regulated guns)

Government did NOT grant the Right to keep and bear Arms

 

[Ame®icano]

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....

Yes...actually, it does...

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land....nothing is above it. The Supreme Court can decide if something is Constitutional but when they do not specifically address something, the Constitution is the law...

They said nothing in Heller about your prohibitory regulations......therefore, the 2nd Amendment stands......which states the Right to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed....

Again...this is what the Supreme Court stated...

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....

Again, it doesn't say you can't put regulations on them. I see you choose to be dumb. I can't prevent you from doing that.

we went over this already,,,
the 10th amendment says they cant,,,

And 9th Amendment, in a nutshell, says they can't invent new powers for themselves.

According to the 10th Amendment...“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The assumption should be that everything is legal unless prohibited or restricted through due process of law. Rights do not trickle down to the People from an omnificent government. Powers are accorded to the government by the People, and specified in the Constitution.

Left doesn't get it, the Constitution is protecting individual rights from a tyranny of the majority, and that is the reason we're not democracy, but a Republic. And BECAUSE individual rights are protected, process to change the Constitution is slow and deliberative, and is requiring a super majority to amend the Constitution.

And the right to regulate was granted long long ago.

Regulate what?
Granted to whom?

Quote the Constitution where that right is.

 

[Ame®icano]

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.

All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.

Ok. So what regulations do you have in mind that will reduce gun crime? Don't you really think it would be more effective to regulate criminals instead of guns?

I posted this question several times: “Why should "assault weapons", whatever they might be, be illegal?”

The civilian firearms that look similar to but are not, and never have been military firearms, appear to be the targeted so called "assault weapons". They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles which are the most popular type of rifle in the US. Gun owners need not defend their legality, the naysayers need to present an overwhelming convincing argument to the People why the rights of the People should be restricted. It doesn't matter how many times they've been asked, they refuse to answer.

The question seems to be effective in causing her to disappear.

It is a question related to a different discussion. I don't care to address 2 different subjects at once.

It's the same discussion. You're just refusing to answer.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.

All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.

Hellooooo, anyone home?

Any regulation that doesn't infringe your rights is constitutional.

You need license for any business, not just to manufacture guns. You can't even run lemonade stand without it anymore.
Putting serial number on a gun doesn't infringe individual right to keep and bear arms.

You're getting there. Regulation is not infringement. Now just concentrate a little longer, and you might understand.

Depending on what is regulated. Commerce? Yes. Rights? No.

Government cannot regulate individual rights protected by the Constitution. In fact, federal government have no rights, they have enumerated powers given to them by "we the people", and everything outside of those powers is unconstitutional.

 

[Ame®icano]

And here......Justice Alito takes on the stupid idea of "dangerous and unusual."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
-------

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.

All that is related to an out right ban. It has nothing to do with regulation.

Because DC v. Heller is about ban, and not about gun regulation, just as it's not about gay marriage.

Now you are catching on.

You were saying it's about regulation.

Our discussion is about regulation. Heller is not.

It's about regulation? Great, then please tell us finally, why guns need to be regulated?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Joe Biden promises to put Beto O'Rourke in charge of gun control efforts

"Joe Biden promises to put Beto O'Rourke in charge of gun control efforts"



That's sure to win him the votes of thousands of gun owners.

Right?

They aren't exactly his target audience.

Gun nuts are going to vote R regardless of what he does or says.

 

[2aguy]

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.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.

All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.

Ok. So what regulations do you have in mind that will reduce gun crime? Don't you really think it would be more effective to regulate criminals instead of guns?

I posted this question several times: “Why should "assault weapons", whatever they might be, be illegal?”

The civilian firearms that look similar to but are not, and never have been military firearms, appear to be the targeted so called "assault weapons". They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles which are the most popular type of rifle in the US. Gun owners need not defend their legality, the naysayers need to present an overwhelming convincing argument to the People why the rights of the People should be restricted. It doesn't matter how many times they've been asked, they refuse to answer.

This is the key to your question....

They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles which are the most popular type of rifle in the US.

If the anti-gun extremists like bulldog can get the "Assault weapons," banned, leading with the AR-15......then what case does anyone have to say that all other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns shouldn't also be banned....as your quote points out........

They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles.......

The anti-gun extremists.....once they get the AR-15 banned, will be back, and they will state....those other rifles are just as deadly as the AR-15...they function the same...and if the AR-15 is too deadly for people...all those other rifles are too.....

Then, they will go after semi-auto pistols...you can see that in the posts of the anti-gunners here.....and among the democrat party politicians....and then shotguns and bolt action rifles.....since those are actual military weapons...

The even yelled it at the CNN anti-gun town hall, they cheered when one of the anti-gunners said we needed to ban all semi-automatic weapons....

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.

All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.

Ok. So what regulations do you have in mind that will reduce gun crime? Don't you really think it would be more effective to regulate criminals instead of guns?

I posted this question several times: “Why should "assault weapons", whatever they might be, be illegal?”

The civilian firearms that look similar to but are not, and never have been military firearms, appear to be the targeted so called "assault weapons". They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles which are the most popular type of rifle in the US. Gun owners need not defend their legality, the naysayers need to present an overwhelming convincing argument to the People why the rights of the People should be restricted. It doesn't matter how many times they've been asked, they refuse to answer.

This is the key to your question....

They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles which are the most popular type of rifle in the US.

If the anti-gun extremists like bulldog can get the "Assault weapons," banned, leading with the AR-15......then what case does anyone have to say that all other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns shouldn't also be banned....as your quote points out........

They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles.......

The anti-gun extremists.....once they get the AR-15 banned, will be back, and they will state....those other rifles are just as deadly as the AR-15...they function the same...and if the AR-15 is too deadly for people...all those other rifles are too.....

Then, they will go after semi-auto pistols...you can see that in the posts of the anti-gunners here.....and among the democrat party politicians....and then shotguns and bolt action rifles.....since those are actual military weapons...

The even yelled it at the CNN anti-gun town hall, they cheered when one of the anti-gunners said we needed to ban all semi-automatic weapons....

Let me start with this, for left... ACA was never "government takeover of healthcare", but once passed they all said ACA isn't going far enough, and they push for "medicare for all". "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan". Correct?

Despite the crystal clear words and meaning of the Second Amendment, guns are already some of the most highly regulated objects in America. Guns laws are found in a number of different Federal statutes that regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record-keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories, and are enforced by state agencies and the ATF.

So, we already have all gun laws and regulations we need, why new ones? Because with left, none of the regulation isn't going far enough to ban perhaps one type, that will open doors to ban of all types.

It's always slippery slope with the left. When they're calling for gun regulation, they're talking about outright ban and confiscation, they're just not telling you that. Their ultimate goal is complete ban, and that is the only "regulation" they'll be satisfied with. In other words, they're lying.

For instance, every single time they're talking about "gun control" they mention background checks, despite of NICS already exists, they're just not funding it. Why not? Because functioning NICS could make improvements in our safety, and possibly eliminate their "argument" for more gun control. Had they funded it, and enforce it, perhaps they could've prevented Parkland shooting.

If we have gun laws that cover every angle of gun ownership, why are they proposing new laws? What's the point of having new laws if were not enforcing existing ones? The answer is, none of the laws give them what they want, complete ban, and they're gonna keep insisting for new laws until they get enough footing in the door that can pave the way for complete ban.

 

[Cosmos]

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.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.

All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.

Ok. So what regulations do you have in mind that will reduce gun crime? Don't you really think it would be more effective to regulate criminals instead of guns?

Are you finally ready to admit that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is just a meaningless remark in relation to gun regulation, and is certainly nothing to prevent common sense gun control?

Of course it's not meaningless. That's what fundamentally protects our rights. It means that the default position of the Government is that you have the right to keep and bear arms. The burden of proof is on the Government to show cause why any of those rights should ever be taken away. Good grief.

 

[Cosmos]

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.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.

All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.

Hellooooo, anyone home?

Any regulation that doesn't infringe your rights is constitutional.

You need license for any business, not just to manufacture guns. You can't even run lemonade stand without it anymore.
Putting serial number on a gun doesn't infringe individual right to keep and bear arms.

You're getting there. Regulation is not infringement. Now just concentrate a little longer, and you might understand.

I think we've been over this ground before. It all depends on what the "regulation" is, doesn't it. In the last few years we've seen all kinds of onerous proposals for regulations. All the way from trigger locks to excessive taxation to registration to outright confiscation. And the one common thread among all of them is that NONE of them are useful in preventing CRIMINALS from committing CRIMES with guns.

 

[progressive hunter]

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....

Yes...actually, it does...

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land....nothing is above it. The Supreme Court can decide if something is Constitutional but when they do not specifically address something, the Constitution is the law...

They said nothing in Heller about your prohibitory regulations......therefore, the 2nd Amendment stands......which states the Right to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed....

Again...this is what the Supreme Court stated...

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....

Again, it doesn't say you can't put regulations on them. I see you choose to be dumb. I can't prevent you from doing that.

we went over this already,,,
the 10th amendment says they cant,,,

And 9th Amendment, in a nutshell, says they can't invent new powers for themselves.

According to the 10th Amendment...“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The assumption should be that everything is legal unless prohibited or restricted through due process of law. Rights do not trickle down to the People from an omnificent government. Powers are accorded to the government by the People, and specified in the Constitution.

Left doesn't get it, the Constitution is protecting individual rights from a tyranny of the majority, and that is the reason we're not democracy, but a Republic. And BECAUSE individual rights are protected, process to change the Constitution is slow and deliberative, and is requiring a super majority to amend the Constitution.

And the right to regulate was granted long long ago.

if that were true you would have provided the proof of it like we did showing they dont,,,

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.

All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.

Ok. So what regulations do you have in mind that will reduce gun crime? Don't you really think it would be more effective to regulate criminals instead of guns?

Are you finally ready to admit that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is just a meaningless remark in relation to gun regulation, and is certainly nothing to prevent common sense gun control?

Of course it's not meaningless. That's what fundamentally protects our rights. It means that the default position of the Government is that you have the right to keep and bear arms. The burden of proof is on the Government to show cause why any of those rights should ever be taken away. Good grief.

It is meaningless.

TO THEM.

You'd think they care about individual rights, your rights, mine? They don't.

If you’ve watched those on the side of gun control deny the duly elected president due process during the “impeachment inquiry”... if they’re willing to do that to the president to regain power, how far do you think they’ll go to retain it, and what do you think they’d do to a threat from unarmed commoners to remain in power?

To us, it's not meaningless. Because we, the law abiding citizens of the US, don’t like the prospect of being loaded into box cars for “re-education” by power hungry despots.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

You're looking at this from the totally backwards and wrong perspective. US Citizens have a Constitutional Right to these firearms. Before any rights are infringed in any way, the government has to show a cause for that, such as a felony conviction or commitment for mental health. If neither of those exist, the government has no right to infringe on the rights of citizens to have these firearms and that includes freedom from burdensome regulations. You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", right? That's basically what we're talking about here.

Nope. We're talking about regulation. To legally manufacture and sell a gun, you must first get a license to do so. You have to limit the design to certain length barrel length, affix a serial number, and a long list of other requirements before you can even begin to build or assemble any firearms. The steps are quite extensive, complicated, and provide work for lots of lawyers to make sure the prospective manufacturer can legally build or even assemble guns. Those are all forms of regulation. You didn't know that? Existing regulations are not written in stone,and there is no constitutional reason why they can't be modified or added to.

All your information is about an out right ban on specfic guns. As I have repeatedly said, that is a different subject.

Ok. So what regulations do you have in mind that will reduce gun crime? Don't you really think it would be more effective to regulate criminals instead of guns?

I posted this question several times: “Why should "assault weapons", whatever they might be, be illegal?”

The civilian firearms that look similar to but are not, and never have been military firearms, appear to be the targeted so called "assault weapons". They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles which are the most popular type of rifle in the US. Gun owners need not defend their legality, the naysayers need to present an overwhelming convincing argument to the People why the rights of the People should be restricted. It doesn't matter how many times they've been asked, they refuse to answer.

This is the key to your question....

They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles which are the most popular type of rifle in the US.

If the anti-gun extremists like bulldog can get the "Assault weapons," banned, leading with the AR-15......then what case does anyone have to say that all other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns shouldn't also be banned....as your quote points out........

They function the same as other semi-automatic rifles.......

The anti-gun extremists.....once they get the AR-15 banned, will be back, and they will state....those other rifles are just as deadly as the AR-15...they function the same...and if the AR-15 is too deadly for people...all those other rifles are too.....

Then, they will go after semi-auto pistols...you can see that in the posts of the anti-gunners here.....and among the democrat party politicians....and then shotguns and bolt action rifles.....since those are actual military weapons...

The even yelled it at the CNN anti-gun town hall, they cheered when one of the anti-gunners said we needed to ban all semi-automatic weapons....

You must have some sort of mental block. I keep talking about regulation, and you keep talking about banning. I guess that straw man is all you have to argue about.