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

[Wry Catcher]

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.

View attachment 261023

You dumb shit. Did you ever finish high school and/or complete a course in logic? Doubtful. Your specialty is to post other peoples cartoons since you cannot post a rebuttal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Postscript to post 661, above

Police: 8-year-old accidentally shoots his mother at college baseball game

Odd dude must have a cartoon in response to this gun event too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You still on that tired old Assault Rifle kick?

You're the one who wants to ban rifles based on their appearance, and have no sound argument for the necessity of doing so...

The AR-15 just isn't cosmetics. It looks like it does because of function.

Really. Explain the 1994 AWB:

 

[M14 Shooter]

You dumb shit. Did you ever finish high school and/or complete a course in logic?

Says he who wants to lay innumerable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, but cannot put forward a sound argument for doing so.

 

[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.

.

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.

and the function that the AR system has is the same function that every other system has.

Pulling the trigger of an AR15 produces the same number of shots of any other semi automatic weapon produces with one pull of the trigger.

The only real advantage of the AR system is its customizability. That should not be a bad thing. An AR platform customized and design for a small body woman to use is ideal and more safe. The AR is not a one size fits all. It can be adjusted. Somehow you believe that a bad thing?

It is just a cosmetic issue for you. It looks scary.

I don't know why. You never explained why.

You once said in another thread that banning the AR system ends the gun cult (whatever the fuck that means). That is not the fucking job of government. That is, in fact, a first amendment issue.

We are not going to agree to ban the AR system. If anything, we are going to expand rights like we have been doing with concealed carry.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You dumb shit. Did you ever finish high school and/or complete a course in logic?

Says he who wants to lay innumerable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, but cannot put forward a sound argument for doing so.

Once again a Damn lie by ^^^ an obsessed and callous fool.

I've posted common sense arguments on sound, sensible gun control ad nausea, and the single rebuttal by you and others like you - obsessed with guns - is the single phrase, "shall not be infringed".

In short, licensing, registration, safe storage, insurance on each gun, fully vetting on all sales, donations, thefts, and on loans, loses and destruction of.

 

[M14 Shooter]

and the function that the AR system has is the same function that every other system has.

Indeed. There is no function difference between these rifles

Or these.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Postscript to post 661, above

Police: 8-year-old accidentally shoots his mother at college baseball game

Odd dude must have a cartoon in response to this gun event too.

So many questions.

Did the owner accidentally leave it in the bathroom?

The owner of that weapon should be held responsible. Gun ownership and carry is a huge, serious responsibility.

This is what happens when children are not taught about guns, rather they are shielded from learning about them. This is what lack of exposure gets you.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Says he who wants to lay innumerable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, but cannot put forward a sound argument for doing so.

Once again a Damn lie by ^^^

We are both fully aware of the fact you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity or efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the right to keep and bear arms, as proven by the fact you have yet to do so, after innumerable requests to that end.
The difference is I am honest enough to admit it.

Disagree?
Post #511 still awaits you response.

I've posted common sense arguments on sound, sensible gun control ad nausea,

This is a lie.

In short, licensing, registration, safe storage, insurance on each gun, fully vetting on all sales, donations, thefts, and on loans, loses and destruction of.

You are well aware of the fact you cannot provide a sound argument for the necessity or efficacy any of these restrictions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In short, licensing, registration, safe storage, insurance on each gun, fully vetting on all sales, donations, thefts, and on loans, loses and destruction of.

What do we get in return, if you get those items in place?

It seems to me that if you have vetted all gun ownership, that those who are qualified are not a danger, and can have state-of-the-art, full-auto weapons, correct?

If you were able to get such measures, I would require that lawmakers justify it and renew it every four years, so you can't pull the bait and switch, and ask for more "common sense" measures without proving this shit above has been effective.

What is in it for us?
.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In short, licensing, registration, safe storage, insurance on each gun, fully vetting on all sales, donations, thefts, and on loans, loses and destruction of.

What do we get in return, if you get those items and place?
What is in it for us?
.

Nothing. In another 6 months or so, they will demand further restrictions.
And again.
And again.
And again.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

and the function that the AR system has is the same function that every other system has.

Indeed. There is no function difference between these rifles

Or these.

The M14 is actually the MUCH more deadly weapon. It is chambered in 7.62x51 (.308), which does a FUCKLOAD more damage than the 5.56/.223.

This is why we argue that it is PURELY a cosmetic issue, but I have a lingering suspicion that gun grabbers KNOW it will make no difference, which will give them reason to come BACK after an AR ban, and ban anything else that is as capable or better than the AR. It's a bait and switch.

We are not giving an inch on this.

If these grabbers want some sort of licensing and deeper background checks, we demand something in return.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The M14 is actually the MUCH more deadly weapon. It is chambered in 7.62x51 (.308), which does a FUCKLOAD more damage than the 5.56/.223.

That's an AR10.
And yes, it is purely a cosmetic issue, as defined in every piece of legislation, proposed and enacted, that bans 'assault weapons'.

The Idea that the AR15 - or any other rifle - looks like it does because it has to in order to achieve its function is the pinnacle of ignorance

 

[Blues Man]

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

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Don't like it?
Too bad.

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

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

From the LINK:

The main argument about the amendment has always been a semantic one: What is meant? What is the intention? I use the present tense, because grammatical deconstruction is done in the here and now. We are not trying to divine intentions from our personal beliefs of what the Founders “stood for” or what they “believed.” The Founders are dead, but their words remain alive in the present, and their words, as well as their meticulous grammatical construction, leave no doubt as to their intentions.

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 of the people 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.

How many other Supreme Court decisions passed by the same margin?

I suppose all those that did are bullshit too right?

And what about this

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

 

[Blues Man]

Postscript to post 661, above

Police: 8-year-old accidentally shoots his mother at college baseball game

Odd dude must have a cartoon in response to this gun event too.

Wherever there are people, there will be accidents and some of those accidents will be fatal.

 

[Blues Man]

Postscript to post 661, above

Police: 8-year-old accidentally shoots his mother at college baseball game

Odd dude must have a cartoon in response to this gun event too.

So many questions.

Did the owner accidentally leave it in the bathroom?

The owner of that weapon should be held responsible. Gun ownership and carry is a huge, serious responsibility.

This is what happens when children are not taught about guns, rather they are shielded from learning about them. This is what lack of exposure gets you.

.

From what i read the old guy left the gun in a Jeep and an unattended 8 year old kid got hold of it.

Seems to me both the owner of the gun and the mother contributed to the causal circumstances that resulted in this accident

 

[Hiryuu]

And what about this

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

That right there is a load of bullshit.

With experience concerning both Federal and International regulatory compliance, when the need to identify intent is necessary, it is a rule (not a desire) that ...

"If in determining the intent of a statute, regulation, or governing document, you cannot arrive at an intent that doesn't violate one or more provisions stated therein, then you haven't properly identified the intent."

In regards to and respect of what is actually written in the Constitution the entire attempt to violate the last provision of the Second Amendment, especially in the retarded exercise of using two other provision mentioned, and then convoluting the garbage you get doing so by pretending it is smart, is a load of bullshit.

Example:
A State (because the Tenth Amendment allows States to govern what the Federal government has not been granted the power to do) could pass a law where every citizen 18 years old or older is required to own an AR-15, ammunition and be prepared to answer the call in defense of the Free State in order to Regulate a Militia.

None of that violates any provision of the Second Amendment, or the Constitution as a whole, and provides for every provision listed in the Second Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Idea that the AR15 - or any other rifle - looks like it does because it has to in order to achieve its function is the pinnacle of ignorance

Correct.

The only....ONLY reason the ARs looks are relevant to practical application is CARRY WEIGHT!!! The military was looking for a way to make troops more mobile. The m14 is a heavy SOB.

The change from the 7.62 to the 5.56 was ALSO a weight consideration.

The carry weight difference is absolutely irrelevant in mass shootings. Weight makes a difference to soldiers on long hikes and hours of patrol.

.

 

[Blues Man]

And what about this

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

That right there is a load of bullshit.

With experience concerning both Federal and International regulatory compliance, when the need to identify intent is necessary, it is a rule (not a desire) that ...

"If in determining the intent of a statute, regulation, or governing document, you cannot arrive at an intent that doesn't violate one or more provisions stated therein, then you haven't properly identified the intent."

In regards to and respect of what is actually written in the Constitution the entire attempt to violate the last provision of the Second Amendment, especially in the retarded exercise of using two other provision mentioned, and then convoluting the garbage you get doing so by pretending it is smart, is humorous.

Example:
A State (because the Tenth Amendment allows States to govern what the Federal government has not been granted the power to do) could pass a law where every citizen 18 years old or older is require to own an AR-15, ammunition and be prepared to answer the call in defense of the Free State in order to Regulate a Militia.

None of that violates any provision of the Second Amendment, or the Constitution as a whole, and provides for every provision listed in the Second Amendment.

You do know that every male has to register for the draft at 18 don't you?

If that is not being a member of the militia what is?

 

[M14 Shooter]

A State (because the Tenth Amendment allows States to govern what the Federal government has not been granted the power to do) could pass a law where every citizen 18 years old or older is required to own an AR-15, ammunition and be prepared to answer the call in defense of the Free State in order to Regulate a Militia.
None of that violates any provision of the Second Amendment, or the Constitution as a whole, and provides for every provision listed in the Second Amendment.

In this case, the 2nd is not involved at all, as the states has the power to regulate their militia; the compulsion to own a serviceable firearm isn't associated with the exercise of a right to same, as the exercise of a right is always voluntary.

Also, the federal government could make the same requirement.