Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone

[M14 Shooter]

I look forward to another demonstration of your inability to present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and show they are they are neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Broken record says what?

I understand you are embarrassed of your inability to present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and show they are they are neither arbitrary nor capricious - but there's nothing I can do about it.

Except keep repeating the same old warn out line? Yes, I won't be your puppet or play your circular argument games.

You mean you won't present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and show they are they are neither arbitrary nor capricious.
I know. It's because you know you can't.

There are tough questions that must be answered about the shooter, including why many red flags that were raised about him previously did not prevent his ability to acquire an AR-15 and a high volume of ammunition. But we don’t have to wait for answers to these questions for Congress to pass legislation already supported by a majority of Americans, like universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and reinstating a federal ban on military-style assault weapons. The stakes are too high to allow partisan politics to get in the way of common sense change.” -Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

I accept your concession, that you are unable to present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and show they are they are neither arbitrary nor capricious.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Never trust a Democrat when it comes to guns. None of them under any circumstances. They are lying to you. Don't give them an inch.

Without fail.
They want to make it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their right to keep ans bear arms, and hope to eventually eliminate that right in its entirety.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2018 midterm elections is evidence that the NRA’s clout may be waning.

The GOP loses 40 seats during Trumps 1st mid-term -- considerably fewer lost seats than either Clinton in 1994 or Obama in 2010 - and the NRA's clout may be waiting?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

Never trust a Democrat when it comes to guns. None of them under any circumstances. They are lying to you. Don't give them an inch.

Hard to discuss honestly with someone who believes this way.

Says he who knows he cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and show they are they are neither arbitrary nor capricious.

 

[bripat9643]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an eveil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Of course they are. That's what lefties mean by "common sense gun regulations." It's code for abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

Have you got one example baby boy?
Of course not
Still enjoying your leftie VA SS Medicare benefits?

"One example" of what, abolishing the 2nd Amendment?

Are you daft?

There have been many attempts, like California's attempts to put restrictions on the purchase of ammunition.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They do not work!

Then repeal the 2nd Amendment. That's pretty much all you have left.

BULLSHIT

The 2nd is one of the most ambiguous statements within COTUS.

Herein is a rebuttal to BLF's Bullshit:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

From the link:


Read these sentences:

“Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”

“Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”

In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.

Your interpretation of the second amendment is irrational at best, and dishonest at it's worst. No national government needs a constitutional provision allowing it to arm, train, or discipline, a militia. Consequently, that is not the purpose of the second amendment.

However, at the time the amendment was written and adopted, every national government did their best to keep their citizens disarmed. The second amendment to our Constitution was designed to ensure that our national government could not disarm our citizens.

It is not my interpretation, and there is an error, possibly on purpose in the author's statement, which you missed.

To Wit: Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right [of the people] to bear arms shall not be infringed,”

Now, consider this, the right of the people in individual cases are infringed. Examples include:

• Felons
• Misdemeanors convicted of domestic violence, stalking and making criminal threats
• Addicts: Alcoholics and other drugs
• Dishonorable discharged vets
• Those detained civilly as a danger to themselves and others.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What is often overlooked are common sense actions that many advocates on both sides of this issue agree on. There are practical steps that both the public and gun owners recognize as necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not own or use them. Tulsi is working to increase school security, shore up and reform our mental healthcare system, close the gun show and online loopholes, ban military-style assault weapons and bump stocks, and require background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun. She has cosponsored legislation like the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Act, the Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, the Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act, the Domestic Violence Loophole Closure Act, the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act, the Gun Violence Research Act, and more.

There is at least a 50/50 split on this issue, mainly because there is no way to define a "military-style assault weapon" without banning 75% of all firearms. This is a cosmetic issue at the absolute best.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It is not my interpretation, and there is an error, possibly on purpose in the author's statement, which you missed.

To Wit: Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right [of the people] to bear arms shall not be infringed,”

Now, consider this, the right of the people in individual cases are infringed. Examples include:

• Felons
• Misdemeanors convicted of domestic violence, stalking and making criminal threats
• Addicts: Alcoholics and other drugs
• Dishonorable discharged vets
• Those detained civilly as a danger to themselves and others.

But, people's rights can be deprived with due process.

The 2nd is a ban on federal power, but clearly establishes the pre-existence of an individual inalienable right to arms. Nothing has changed. There should not have ever been federal gun laws...at all.

.

 

[Rustic]

They do not work!

Then repeal the 2nd Amendment. That's pretty much all you have left.

BULLSHIT

The 2nd is one of the most ambiguous statements within COTUS.

Herein is a rebuttal to BLF's Bullshit:

A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights

From the link:


Read these sentences:

“Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”

“Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”

In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.

Your interpretation of the second amendment is irrational at best, and dishonest at it's worst. No national government needs a constitutional provision allowing it to arm, train, or discipline, a militia. Consequently, that is not the purpose of the second amendment.

However, at the time the amendment was written and adopted, every national government did their best to keep their citizens disarmed. The second amendment to our Constitution was designed to ensure that our national government could not disarm our citizens.

It is not my interpretation, and there is an error, possibly on purpose in the author's statement, which you missed.

To Wit: Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right [of the people] to bear arms shall not be infringed,”

Now, consider this, the right of the people in individual cases are infringed. Examples include:

• Felons
• Misdemeanors convicted of domestic violence, stalking and making criminal threats
• Addicts: Alcoholics and other drugs
• Dishonorable discharged vets
• Those detained civilly as a danger to themselves and others.

Lol
More frivolous gun control laws will not save a single soul... fact

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is not my interpretation, and there is an error, possibly on purpose in the author's statement, which you missed.
Now, consider this, the right of the people in individual cases are infringed. Examples include:

• Felons
• Misdemeanors convicted of domestic violence, stalking and making criminal threats
• Addicts: Alcoholics and other drugs
• Dishonorable discharged vets
• Those detained civilly as a danger to themselves and others.
  

Look at you, completely unaware of their fact these peoples' right to keep and bear arms has been takes away thu due process.
As such their rights have not been infringed.
[/][/]

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is often overlooked are common sense actions that many advocates on both sides of this issue agree on. There are practical steps that both the public and gun owners recognize as necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not own or use them. Tulsi is working to increase school security, shore up and reform our mental healthcare system, close the gun show and online loopholes, ban military-style assault weapons and bump stocks, and require background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun. She has cosponsored legislation like the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Act, the Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, the Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act, the Domestic Violence Loophole Closure Act, the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act, the Gun Violence Research Act, and more.

There is at least a 50/50 split on this issue, mainly because there is no way to define a "military-style assault weapon" without banning 75% of all firearms. This is a cosmetic issue at the absolute best.

Indeed.

 

[daveman]

Lots of supposition and wishful thinking.

Zero facts.

Dismissed.

I’m just telling you what needs to be done.

And I'm telling you your fragile emotions have no impact on reality.

Sure they do. I bought a 450 bushmaster. My hunting buddies said it’s the shit. When I got it I was surprised to learn the magazine only takes 3 bullets and one in the chamber.

They didn’t infringe on my right by not making the gun so that it holds 20 rounds.

You people want guns so that you can mass murder if you want. You want the right and freedom to be able to do so.

One day our society will evolve. Progressively. Liberally.

Sure gun nuts will cry but your numbers are probably a lot smaller than you think.

And if goober in Texas wants a flamethrower I guess that’s between him and Texas.

I know there’s no good answers that everyone likes. My way you keep your 8 or ten clip guns but we no longer make 20 round magazines. You’ll get over it

If "gun nuts" were as dangerous as irrational gun-haters insist, there wouldn't BE an irrational gun-haters.

Run along, you Commie bastard.

I don’t hate all guns.

You hate the ones people can resist leftist tyranny with.

 

[daveman]

Lots of supposition and wishful thinking.

Zero facts.

Dismissed.

I’m just telling you what needs to be done.

And I'm telling you your fragile emotions have no impact on reality.

Sure they do. I bought a 450 bushmaster. My hunting buddies said it’s the shit. When I got it I was surprised to learn the magazine only takes 3 bullets and one in the chamber.

They didn’t infringe on my right by not making the gun so that it holds 20 rounds.

You people want guns so that you can mass murder if you want. You want the right and freedom to be able to do so.

One day our society will evolve. Progressively. Liberally.

Sure gun nuts will cry but your numbers are probably a lot smaller than you think.

And if goober in Texas wants a flamethrower I guess that’s between him and Texas.

I know there’s no good answers that everyone likes. My way you keep your 8 or ten clip guns but we no longer make 20 round magazines. You’ll get over it

Lol
Your way off the mark, Talk about putting the cart before the horse...
We have no criminal control in this country, the vast majority of violence is in progressive controlled urban areas by repeat offenders, With extremely strict gun control laws… you silly little fucker.

I know. You farmers want to be able to arm your farms in case of the apocalypse but consider this. Only us liberals will be left.

You liberals will starve to death in the cold and dark, surrounded by mountains of garbage and shit.

 

[daveman]

If "gun nuts" were as dangerous as irrational gun-haters insist, there wouldn't BE an irrational gun-haters.

Run along, you Commie bastard.

I don’t hate all guns.

You guys need to know I’m just thinking out loud. I don’t actually believe we should do anything I’m suggesting.

Like I said if in 100 years the only thing people can buy are revolvers, 4 shot long range rifles and shotguns, those people won’t cry that their constitutional rights were taken away. They still get to bare arms.

And when they learn back in our day school shootings were a weekly occurrence, they’ll understand.

Your grandkids will show their friends grandpas rusty uzi that you can legally own but they no longer make parts for it. Your wmds will be like civil war relics

Lol
You have no understanding of firearms, and obviously are in favor of the elimination the second amendment.

Not me. Just stop making wmds

 

[daveman]

Us Democrats need to feel safe

Your irrational fears are not a sound argument for the restriction of my rights.

Your obsession with guns and gun control are bordering on an irrational fear that someone will come and take away your guns.

The fact that you don't see your concern for your Right to own a gun or guns without any infringement is selfish, and disregards the grief of the parents whose children went to school one day, and never came home. The terror children felt when they heard gun fire in the halls of learning and saw the carnage left behind.

But you don't care, it's all about you, a spoiled child.

WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN

Emotional manipulation. Transparent and unconvincing.

You don't want Americans safe. You want Americans defenseless.

 

[daveman]

BULLSHIT: Heller was an opinion which was decided 5-4.

Heller is the law.
Don't like it?
Too bad.

C'mon, give up your rights. Fly Catcher's feelings are hurt.

 

[Oddball]

Us Democrats need to feel safe

Your irrational fears are not a sound argument for the restriction of my rights.

Your obsession with guns and gun control are bordering on an irrational fear that someone will come and take away your guns.

The fact that you don't see your concern for your Right to own a gun or guns without any infringement is selfish, and disregards the grief of the parents whose children went to school one day, and never came home. The terror children felt when they heard gun fire in the halls of learning and saw the carnage left behind.

But you don't care, it's all about you, a spoiled child.

Appeal to emotion isn't an argument.

 

[daveman]

When you can present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and show they are they are neither arbitrary nor capricious, let us know.
I shan't hold my breath.

No please hold your breath until I reply back. I'm writing something up right now. Hold it! Don't cheat.

I look forward to another demonstration of your inability to present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and show they are they are neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Broken record says what?

I understand you are embarrassed of your inability to present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and show they are they are neither arbitrary nor capricious - but there's nothing I can do about it.

Except keep repeating the same old warn out line? Yes, I won't be your puppet or play your circular argument games.

How many times do you think you have said this? "When you can present a sound argument for the necessity of the restrictions you seek, and show they are they are neither arbitrary nor capricious"

The necessity is the fact that nuts get their hands on high powered weapons.

You want to show that they work? When is the last time a person was shot by cop killer ammo? And I'm sorry but the bump stock law just kicked in a couple months ago.

Plus we need to put several more regulations on you for our way to be effective. We don't want to start with grabbing your guns so we will first start by banning bump stocks. People will be able to swallow that. Eventually you will be the next WACO you wacko.

The media -- and the morons who swallow the media's bullshit without question.

By the way, the answer is "the little one on the right".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What is often overlooked are common sense actions that many advocates on both sides of this issue agree on. There are practical steps that both the public and gun owners recognize as necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not own or use them. Tulsi is working to increase school security, shore up and reform our mental healthcare system, close the gun show and online loopholes, ban military-style assault weapons and bump stocks, and require background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun. She has cosponsored legislation like the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Act, the Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, the Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act, the Domestic Violence Loophole Closure Act, the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act, the Gun Violence Research Act, and more.

There is at least a 50/50 split on this issue, mainly because there is no way to define a "military-style assault weapon" without banning 75% of all firearms. This is a cosmetic issue at the absolute best.

.

You still on that tired old Assault Rifle kick? There is a way and some states and cities have found a way and made it stick. You are right, assault rifle by broad description catches a large percentage of modern rifles including the venerable Savage Model 60 that most of us learned to shoot on. The Model 60 is the most numerous rifle in the United States (sorry, AR fans). More people own the Savage as well. But the Assault description catches it. So they came up with new wording. "Ar-15 and it's various Clones" does the job. It's very specific and only catches one rifle and it's various copies. And it stuck in the Courts as legal. Oregon just passed an assault ban and it's going to last about 10 minutes in court until they change it to read like the successful states.

The AR-15 just isn't cosmetics. It looks like it does because of function. There has been no attempt at adding anything cosmetic to it. It's downright homely because anything built with strict function in mind will be ugly. It was designed as a battle rifle so that a scare shitless kid of 18 or 19 can operate it, shoot hundreds of bullets quickly while pumped up on heavy adrenaline. There is no weapon that does it better as cheaply as the AR style rifle. No cosmetics, just function.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an eveil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.

Of course they are. That's what lefties mean by "common sense gun regulations." It's code for abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

Well you are the in favour of mentally ill and irresponsible people having high powered guns...

You are part of let the MENTALS HAVE GUNS...

I am in favor of American citizens having the right to keep and bear arms. You know, just like our Founding Fathers.

Sheep Boi Ted is Pom. He thinks he has the right to stick his nose in in an attempt to fuck our country up as badly as he has fucked his own country up.

The daft queers have now declared Islam is a "race." The loony fuckers think that a belief system is genetically determined.