Biden on Gun Control

[BULLDOG]

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.

Only one with mental issues here is you.

You said it yourself, you don't care about rights, to you Constitution is meaningless.

Link?

 

[2aguy]

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.

What about guns need to be regulated that already isn't?

If they're proposing new regulations, they need to demonstrate that they will be effective. For instance, would their proposed regulation have prevented any act of violence in the past? What's use of banning semi auto rifles, they they call "assault weapons", if most of the shooting is done by handguns? There is no use of course, so they're not really aiming to prevent crime, but to confiscate guns. All guns.

No matter how many times they try to write laws legislating morality, people still kill each other. They find new ways. If they ban semi auto rifles, criminals would use handguns. You ban handguns, they'll use knives. You ban knives, they'll turn to baseball clubs, or acid, or... take that fiend that murdered all the people in Las Vegas could have done a much better job with a truck. Get his speed up on HWY 91 there and plow into the back of the crowd all the way up to the stage. Then, because it’s a huge open space he could maneuver around running over others. You get the picture. To think that this person wouldn’t have killed so many others because he didn’t have a semi auto rifle is ludicrous.

Laws and regulations don't stop criminals. And, if you are worried about children dying take their cell phones away. You can actually ban them without conflict with individual rights protected by the Constitution.

I will discuss banning guns some other time. I don't care to discuss that now. It is unrelated to what i have been saying.

Time to pony up....

Name your "regulations" that you don't think we have but need.....

In your list, explain how they would reduce crime, how they would work, and how they don't violate the Constitution...

We can start there...

 

[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.

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.

No law prevents criminals from breaking those laws.

And you want to have more laws?

 

[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?

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.

The supreme court ruled that regulation is not taking your rights away a long time ago, and they are not about to change that.

What SCOTUS ruling are you talking about, exactly?

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

they are only a good idea in your mind,,,

The vast majority of the country wants universal background checks.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

they are only a good idea in your mind,,,

The vast majority of the country wants universal background checks.
View attachment 310673

whats that got to do with my question???

wheres the authority to do so???

 

[Ame®icano]

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,,,

Are you trying to say regulations don't exist, or that they are all unconstitutional? Regulations do exist, and they are constitutional.

Nope, nobody's saying that. Government can regulate, as long they're not infringing individual rights.

What you're saying, because they can regulate one thing, like dealer licensing, or serial numbers, they can regulate everything.

They can't regulate individual rights. The Constitution is explicitly forbidding them that.

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[2aguy]

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?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

they are only a good idea in your mind,,,

The vast majority of the country wants universal background checks.
View attachment 310673

1) the vast majority of uninformed Americans don't realize we already have federally mandated background checks for all gun sales at gun stores..

So spare us the "majority of Americans, " line.

They don't know what is in place now so their comments are meaningless and are created by the lying pollster who doesn't inform them of current laws..


2) uninformed Americans don't understand that criminals use straw buyers who can already pass current background checks and will pass any Universal Background check, or they steal their guns...

So, again, spare us "the majority of Americans," lie in these polls....

3) Uninformed Americans don't understand that Universal Background Checks are only demanded because they are the precursor to the demand for mandatory gun registration...which is the precursor to gun confiscation...we know this from the history of gun banning across the world...

So, again, spare us the "Majority of Americans," lie.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

At least you aren't still trying to say regulation and infringement are the same thing any more. Obviously we have many regulations, and they are all perfectly constitutional. The phrase "Shall not be infringed" is unrelated to a discussion about whether the act of regulation is constitutional, because regulation is not infringement.

Again, dunce...

Regulation and infringement cannot be the same thing, check the meaning. I never said they are.

Yes, we have many regulations, most not in conflict with constitution. You think that if we can regulate gun serial number or license gun dealers, than we can regulate every other things about guns.

You can't regulate anything that is against our constitutional rights.

There are lots of things that could constitutionally be regulated about guns. Your inferrence that nothing more is legally possible is childish.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

You just earned your Conspiracy Theory Nut merit badge.

Coming from someone that said that constitutional rights are meaningless, I am spot on what your intentions are.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

So what regulation did you have in mind that would reduce gun crime or anything you perceive as a gun-related problem? Any? Can you even describe one?

Universal background checks would be a good start.

 

[M14 Shooter]

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

At least you aren't still trying to say regulation and infringement are the same thing any more. Obviously we have many regulations, and they are all perfectly constitutional. The phrase "Shall not be infringed" is unrelated to a discussion about whether the act of regulation is constitutional, because regulation is not infringement.

Again, dunce...

Regulation and infringement cannot be the same thing, check the meaning. I never said they are.

Yes, we have many regulations, most not in conflict with constitution. You think that if we can regulate gun serial number or license gun dealers, than we can regulate every other things about guns.

You can't regulate anything that is against our constitutional rights.

There are lots of things that could constitutionally be regulated about guns. Your inferrence that nothing more is legally possible is childish.

and once again you make a claim without proof to back it up,,,

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

What about guns need to be regulated that already isn't?

If they're proposing new regulations, they need to demonstrate that they will be effective. For instance, would their proposed regulation have prevented any act of violence in the past? What's use of banning semi auto rifles, they they call "assault weapons", if most of the shooting is done by handguns? There is no use of course, so they're not really aiming to prevent crime, but to confiscate guns. All guns.

No matter how many times they try to write laws legislating morality, people still kill each other. They find new ways. If they ban semi auto rifles, criminals would use handguns. You ban handguns, they'll use knives. You ban knives, they'll turn to baseball clubs, or acid, or... take that fiend that murdered all the people in Las Vegas could have done a much better job with a truck. Get his speed up on HWY 91 there and plow into the back of the crowd all the way up to the stage. Then, because it’s a huge open space he could maneuver around running over others. You get the picture. To think that this person wouldn’t have killed so many others because he didn’t have a semi auto rifle is ludicrous.

Laws and regulations don't stop criminals. And, if you are worried about children dying take their cell phones away. You can actually ban them without conflict with individual rights protected by the Constitution.

I will discuss banning guns some other time. I don't care to discuss that now. It is unrelated to what i have been saying.

That is not what I am asking.

You're talking about regulations, and my question was why do you think regulations are needed.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

So what regulation did you have in mind that would reduce gun crime or anything you perceive as a gun-related problem? Any? Can you even describe one?

Universal background checks would be a good start.

how would they stop criminals that dont follow the law???

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Only one with mental issues here is you.

You said it yourself, you don't care about rights, to you Constitution is meaningless.

Link?

You forgot what you said yeaterday?

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?

 

[2aguy]

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?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

So what regulation did you have in mind that would reduce gun crime or anything you perceive as a gun-related problem? Any? Can you even describe one?

Universal background checks would be a good start.

How is that? Criminals get around them with straw buyers or just steal their guns...

So.....you have nothing there.

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

My God ---- It finally sunk through your thick skull. As soon as you quit trying to equate regulation and bannig, and admit all the bullshit you have been spouting was unrelated to what I have actually been saying, we can have a discussion as to why some additional regulations are a good idea.

they are only a good idea in your mind,,,

The vast majority of the country wants universal background checks.
View attachment 310673

Wast majority of the country wants to be millionaires too.

Ever heard of NICS?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

At least you aren't still trying to say regulation and infringement are the same thing any more. Obviously we have many regulations, and they are all perfectly constitutional. The phrase "Shall not be infringed" is unrelated to a discussion about whether the act of regulation is constitutional, because regulation is not infringement.

Again, dunce...

Regulation and infringement cannot be the same thing, check the meaning. I never said they are.

Yes, we have many regulations, most not in conflict with constitution. You think that if we can regulate gun serial number or license gun dealers, than we can regulate every other things about guns.

You can't regulate anything that is against our constitutional rights.

There are lots of things that could constitutionally be regulated about guns. Your inferrence that nothing more is legally possible is childish.

Name them.

 

[Cosmos]

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.

At least you aren't still trying to say regulation and infringement are the same thing any more. Obviously we have many regulations, and they are all perfectly constitutional. The phrase "Shall not be infringed" is unrelated to a discussion about whether the act of regulation is constitutional, because regulation is not infringement.

Again, dunce...

Regulation and infringement cannot be the same thing, check the meaning. I never said they are.

Yes, we have many regulations, most not in conflict with constitution. You think that if we can regulate gun serial number or license gun dealers, than we can regulate every other things about guns.

You can't regulate anything that is against our constitutional rights.

There are lots of things that could constitutionally be regulated about guns. Your inferrence that nothing more is legally possible is childish.

Name the ones that will reduce gun crime or any gun-related problem.