CDZ gun magazine bullet limits...they only effect law abiding gun owners so why do we need them.

[alang1216]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

I'm sorry -- you'll have to demonstrate how simple possession of a gun harms anyone or places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Your question indicates you know you cannot do this.

If I perceive a danger it is real to me. Can you guarantee that I'll never see someone with a gun that places me in real danger?

 

[M14 Shooter]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

I'm sorry -- you'll have to demonstrate how simple possession of a gun harms anyone or places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Your question indicates you know you cannot do this.

If I perceive a danger it is real to me

As noted - you fully understand you cannot demonstrate how simple possession of a gun harms anyone or places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Thank you.

And so, while you are correct in that all rights, when they harm someone or place someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, can be and are restricted, you cannot show how this standard applies to the simple ownership and possession of a firearm.

 

[alang1216]

I gave an example of a "right" which requires a prior test (safety) before it can exercised.

No, you tried to create a false equivalence, probably because you know you have nothing else.
Time/place/manner permits are in no way competency tests, especially the oral/written tests you referred to.
And, I see you quickly gave up the court cases you cited. Smart of you.

I'll stand behind my analogy, you have the right to reject it.

No. You have to demonstrate your analogy sound.

Please compare and contrast the particulars of time/place/manner permits with written/oral exams to demonstrate competency as a condition for the plenary exercise of a right, and show that they are similar enough so that the constitutional permissibly of the former necessary extends to the latter.

I eagerly await your response that shall demonstrate your inability to do so.

No thanks. Why don't you demonstrate that one "right" which requires a prior test is different from any other right.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry.....you can't have a test of any kind for a basic Right......that isn't how Rights work....do you propose that all journalists register with the government and have their sources and stories vetted by federal agents? Basic Rights do not have to be applied for ....they exist wether you like them or not.

Actually you can and should have a test in some cases. The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is usually restricted for reasons of public safety. In order to hold a large rally you must first prove you can provide for sanitation and security of the assemblage.

The 2nd as you interpret it is something new to the US, pretty much invented in 2008.

• In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."[86]

• In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[87]

• In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "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" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".[88]

Yes....others have tried to use the Right to assemble...the problem....is when you are assembling...you are doing so in a communal spot...where more than one set of citizens can lay a claim for use.....so you have to schedule it...they do not require a test to use it.....there is no relation to assembling in a public space and the Right to bear arms.

 

[alang1216]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

I'm sorry -- you'll have to demonstrate how simple possession of a gun harms anyone or places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Your question indicates you know you cannot do this.

If I perceive a danger it is real to me

As noted - you fully understand you cannot demonstrate how simple possession of a gun harms anyone or places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Thank you.

If someone comes up to me and pulls a gun out of his pocket I'm going to perceive danger every time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I gave an example of a "right" which requires a prior test (safety) before it can exercised.

No, you tried to create a false equivalence, probably because you know you have nothing else.
Time/place/manner permits are in no way competency tests, especially the oral/written tests you referred to.
And, I see you quickly gave up the court cases you cited. Smart of you.

I'll stand behind my analogy, you have the right to reject it.

No. You have to demonstrate your analogy sound.

Please compare and contrast the particulars of time/place/manner permits with written/oral exams to demonstrate competency as a condition for the plenary exercise of a right, and show that they are similar enough so that the constitutional permissibly of the former necessary extends to the latter.

I eagerly await your response that shall demonstrate your inability to do so.

No thanks.

I happily accept your concession of the point, that your 'analogy' is indeed a false equivalence.
Thank you .

 

[2aguy]

Sorry.....you can't have a test of any kind for a basic Right......that isn't how Rights work....do you propose that all journalists register with the government and have their sources and stories vetted by federal agents? Basic Rights do not have to be applied for ....they exist wether you like them or not.

Actually you can and should have a test in some cases. The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is usually restricted for reasons of public safety. In order to hold a large rally you must first prove you can provide for sanitation and security of the assemblage.

The 2nd as you interpret it is something new to the US, pretty much invented in 2008.

• In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."[86]

• In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[87]

• In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "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" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".[88]

The Right to bear arms exists......it is not granted by the Constitution...it preceded the Constitution..........

According to your tiny piece of Miller......so called Assault weapons bans are UnConstitutional....


So you are wrong on all counts....the Constitution has no power over the natural Right to Self defense as your quote shows....

And it now applies to the states as well to the Federal government.....

 

[2aguy]

I gave an example of a "right" which requires a prior test (safety) before it can exercised.

No, you tried to create a false equivalence, probably because you know you have nothing else.
Time/place/manner permits are in no way competency tests, especially the oral/written tests you referred to.
And, I see you quickly gave up the court cases you cited. Smart of you.

I'll stand behind my analogy, you have the right to reject it.

No. You have to demonstrate your analogy sound.

Please compare and contrast the particulars of time/place/manner permits with written/oral exams to demonstrate competency as a condition for the plenary exercise of a right, and show that they are similar enough so that the constitutional permissibly of the former necessary extends to the latter.

I eagerly await your response that shall demonstrate your inability to do so.

No thanks. Why don't you demonstrate that one "right" which requires a prior test is different from any other right.

What Right requires a prior test? The democrats tried to do that with blacks and voting and were told to stop.........

 

[alang1216]

Sorry.....you can't have a test of any kind for a basic Right......that isn't how Rights work....do you propose that all journalists register with the government and have their sources and stories vetted by federal agents? Basic Rights do not have to be applied for ....they exist wether you like them or not.

Actually you can and should have a test in some cases. The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is usually restricted for reasons of public safety. In order to hold a large rally you must first prove you can provide for sanitation and security of the assemblage.

The 2nd as you interpret it is something new to the US, pretty much invented in 2008.

• In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."[86]

• In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[87]

• In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "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" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".[88]

Yes....others have tried to use the Right to assemble...the problem....is when you are assembling...you are doing so in a communal spot...where more than one set of citizens can lay a claim for use.....so you have to schedule it...they do not require a test to use it.....there is no relation to assembling in a public space and the Right to bear arms.

You failed to address the public safety component.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

I'm sorry -- you'll have to demonstrate how simple possession of a gun harms anyone or places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Your question indicates you know you cannot do this.

If I perceive a danger it is real to me

As noted - you fully understand you cannot demonstrate how simple possession of a gun harms anyone or places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Thank you.

If someone comes up to me and pulls a gun out of his pocket I'm going to perceive danger every time.

As brandishing a firearm is not simple ownership/possession of a firearm, your comment is irrelevant to the point.

And so, while you are correct in that all rights, when they harm someone or place someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, can be and are restricted, you cannot show how this standard applies to the simple ownership and possession of a firearm.

 

[alang1216]

The Right to bear arms exists......it is not granted by the Constitution...it preceded the Constitution........

Are you going back to English common law or to God?

 

[2aguy]

And yet drugs are are used and people speed.........357,000,000 guns in private hands less than 8,124 of them are so see to commit mirder...our gun laws already work.....

So 8,124 lives is an acceptable number?

8124 murders with a firearm... 357,000,000 guns.
99.99773% of guns in the use are -not- used to commit murder
Your reaction: "If we get rid of all guns...."
Certainly, you see how your idea is utter nonsense.

You keep repeating that stat as if it helps you.

It unquestionably illustrates the lunacy of your position.

LMAO, it unquestionably illustrates that you'd trade thousands of lives for your hobby.

Oh, and 8,124 homicides? Yeah, you're roughly 50% shy of the total:

15 Statistics That Tell the Story of Gun Violence This Year

Do you think no one notices that you're massaging the stats by using the term "murder" as well? You HAVE to deceive with your arguments because the facts aren't on your side.

30,000+ deaths. As many as vehicles. Yet cars serve a purpose. Guns do not.

Wrong....you are including suicide into the total...the only way you get to 30,000........and again, half of suicides in this country are done without a gun...and societies like Japan, South Korea and China who only allow cops and criminals to have guns have suicide rates higher than ours.....as well as France and many countries in extreme gun controlled Europe....

you are the one tying illegal use of a gun to commit murder, with the intentional act of killing yourself...which is just as often done without a gun.....

Accidental gun deaths in 2014......586 with close to 357,000,000 guns in private hands.......

Accidental car deaths ....33,000

That is comparing apples to apples.......

 

[2aguy]

LMAO, it unquestionably illustrates that you'd trade thousands of lives for your hobby.

Your statement here indicates you have no understanding whatsoever of the issue.

Oh, and 8,124 homicides? Yeah, you're roughly 50% shy of the total:

8124 gun-related homicides, 2014. Do try to keep up.

Do you think no one notices that you're massaging the stats by using the term "murder" as well?

We're talking about deaths due to gun-related crime, right?

Yet cars serve a purpose. Guns do not.

Mindless nonsense.

2015 was over 12,000 homicides and unintentional shootings. I don't know why you omit unintentional shootings. If anything, those shootings even MORE illustrate why guns are dangerous, and more training and background research is needed before just any yahoo gets a gun.

The count for 2015 isn't final yet...the FBI hasn't listed it.......I list fatal gun accidents all the time.....and I list the total non fatal gun accidents as well.......

 

[alang1216]

And so, while you are correct in that all rights, when they harm someone or place someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, can be and are restricted, you cannot show how this standard applies to the simple ownership and possession of a firearm.

I think that someone with a firearm that doesn't know how to properly use it presents a clear, present and immediate danger.

 

[2aguy]

The Right to bear arms exists......it is not granted by the Constitution...it preceded the Constitution........

Are you going back to English common law or to God?

Both........

 

[2aguy]

And so, while you are correct in that all rights, when they harm someone or place someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, can be and are restricted, you cannot show how this standard applies to the simple ownership and possession of a firearm.

I think that someone with a firearm that doesn't know how to properly use it presents a clear, present and immediate danger.

and when they actually misuse it they can be arrested. You want Pre-crime.......like the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report....we don't arrest journalists on the off chance they will libel or slander someone...we have to wait until they actually do it.

 

[2aguy]

[QUOTE="alang1216, post: 15049143, member: 49658
Actually you can and should have a test in some cases. The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is usually restricted for reasons of public safety. In order to hold a large rally you must first prove you can provide for sanitation and security of the assemblage.

Non-sequtur. Competency tests and time/place/manner permits are not related.

I gave an example of a "right" which requires a prior test (safety) before it can exercised.[/QUOTE]


There is not safety test to a rally.........you have to schedule it and the government provides the police.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

And so, while you are correct in that all rights, when they harm someone or place someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, can be and are restricted, you cannot show how this standard applies to the simple ownership and possession of a firearm.

I think that someone with a firearm that doesn't know how to properly use it presents a clear, present and immediate danger.

Your "thought" on the matter is meaningless - - you have to demonstrate this, especially the "clear present and immediate danger".
Given how few firearms are involved in accidental shootings, you have no rational basis for doing so.

 

[2aguy]

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

And if someone perceives a danger from a stranger carrying a gun?

It doesn't matter....as long as I am not actually violating your rights I have done nothing wrong. I can percieve a lot of things about the left...that doesn't remove their right to exist....

 

[2aguy]

Stop focusing on law abiding gun Owners and focus on the actual problem.....criminals who use guns for crime......

There are repeat offenders for sure and I agree with you that they require tough measures. Unfortunately it's hard to tell the good guys from the future bad guys until it is too late.

What percentage of people who pass every background check to get a CCW permit will all of a sudden turn to a life of crime murder and mayhem?

I'm saying it's such a small percentage as to be statistically irrelevant.

What percentage of people with criminal records will continue to live lives of crime?

A hell of a lot more so focus your efforts there

Red herring fallacy.

WHat's the red herring?

The criminals or the law abiding people?

This "life of crime" bullshit. You're trying to make it about thugs in Chicago, and detract from the thousands of other gun deaths across all races across all geographic areas. I know what this is "code" for.

There were 8,124 gun murders in 2014......90% are committed by criminals who are already barred from owning and carrying guns....

586 accidental gun deaths...in a country with over 357,000,000 guns in private hands.......

Yes...it is a code for democrats...most of the shootings occur in democrat controlled voting districts....I am fine with disarming democrats...but you try to push that through congress....