Second Amendment advocates would this change your mind?

[bripat9643]

It has nothing to do with ‘fearing’ guns – that’s a lie.

However misguided and ineffective, those who support high-capacity magazine bans do not ‘fear’ guns nor do they advocate ‘banning’ guns.

They almost always support banning guns.

 

[Resnic]

In an opinion piece found in the news and observer, this nut believes his words could bring us to a compromise.
As for me I might pay him a visit and show him how wrong he is.

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article259852460.html

As always I point to Switzerland.

The country has gun ownership rivaling America's, but is always at or near the top for lack of gun related crime in all of Europe.

So what makes them different than us?

Well they have a less diverse society where people who want to become citizens have to fluently speak the language, conform to their society and customs. So their people are more familiar with eachother and more comfortable. They have fantastic educations health care and employment rates. And they have a criminal and justice system that punishes criminals.

America is lacking all of those things.

Guns are inanimate objects. Our society is the problem, not the guns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Such bans do violate the Constitution.

20 round handgun magazines and 30 round rifle magazines are clearly appropriate for self defense, and we have the right to have weapons that are appropriate for self defense.

To oppose perfectly Constitutional firearm regulatory measures is not to ‘advocate’ for the Second Amendment – which is why the term is idiocy.

To advocate for the Second Amendment is to support Second Amendment jurisprudence, to acknowledge the fact that the Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ and to acknowledge the fact that government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right consistent with that jurisprudence.

Indeed, conservatives’ hostility toward Second Amendment jurisprudence renders them opponents of the Second Amendment, not ‘advocates.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong. Banning so-called "high-capacity magazines" ios a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

You gun control wackos post idiocies like this and then expect people to take you seriously.


They sure as hell do violate the Constitution. The court has let slide numerous violations of the Constitution, so that proves nothing.



There are no regulatory measures consistent with the Second Amendment

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions – absent such a ruling, magazine capacity restrictions are perfectly Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment, consistent with the doctrine of presumed Constitutionality (see US v. Morrison (2000)).

That a law might be flawed and ineffective – such as high-capacity magazine bans – doesn’t make the law un-Constitutional.

Because magazine capacity restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment case law, and don’t violate the Second Amendment, to advocate for magazine capacity restrictions is to likewise advocate for the Second Amendment.

What you and others on the right might ‘think’ or ‘feel’ about magazine capacity restrictions is legally irrelevant; that you don’t like magazine capacity restrictions doesn’t make them ‘unlawful,’ and places you at odd with Second Amendment caselaw and the Amendment itself – that’s not ‘advocacy.’

 

[2aguy]

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions – absent such a ruling, magazine capacity restrictions are perfectly Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment, consistent with the doctrine of presumed Constitutionality (see US v. Morrison (2000)).

That a law might be flawed and ineffective – such as high-capacity magazine bans – doesn’t make the law un-Constitutional.

Because magazine capacity restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment case law, and don’t violate the Second Amendment, to advocate for magazine capacity restrictions is to likewise advocate for the Second Amendment.

What you and others on the right might ‘think’ or ‘feel’ about magazine capacity restrictions is legally irrelevant; that you don’t like magazine capacity restrictions doesn’t make them ‘unlawful,’ and places you at odd with Second Amendment caselaw and the Amendment itself – that’s not ‘advocacy.’

Wrong, the did so in Heller and Caetano.....and Scalia in his opinion in Friedman also went into more detail after his ruling in Heller....

30 round magazines are not dangerous or unusual, and they are a common item...these features, according to Heller, make them beyond the reach of petty fascists like you...

 

[2aguy]

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions – absent such a ruling, magazine capacity restrictions are perfectly Constitutional and do not violate the Second Amendment, consistent with the doctrine of presumed Constitutionality (see US v. Morrison (2000)).

That a law might be flawed and ineffective – such as high-capacity magazine bans – doesn’t make the law un-Constitutional.

Because magazine capacity restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment case law, and don’t violate the Second Amendment, to advocate for magazine capacity restrictions is to likewise advocate for the Second Amendment.

What you and others on the right might ‘think’ or ‘feel’ about magazine capacity restrictions is legally irrelevant; that you don’t like magazine capacity restrictions doesn’t make them ‘unlawful,’ and places you at odd with Second Amendment caselaw and the Amendment itself – that’s not ‘advocacy.’

Because magazine capacity restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment case law, and don’t violate the Second Amendment, to advocate for magazine capacity restrictions is to likewise advocate for the Second Amendment.

Allow me to demonstrate how stupid this is....

Word and page limits for books, columns, magazine articles and internet posts do not violate the First Amendment...to advocate for word and page limit restrictions in publications, in particular political publications is likewise to advocate for the first amendment....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As always I point to Switzerland.

And as always you exhibit your ignorance.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

 

[bripat9643]

As always I point to Switzerland.

The country has gun ownership rivaling America's, but is always at or near the top for lack of gun related crime in all of Europe.

So what makes them different than us?

Well they have a less diverse society where people who want to become citizens have to fluently speak the language, conform to their society and customs. So their people are more familiar with eachother and more comfortable. They have fantastic educations health care and employment rates. And they have a criminal and justice system that punishes criminals.

America is lacking all of those things.

Guns are inanimate objects. Our society is the problem, not the guns.

More proof that no benefits from "diversity."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong, the did so in Heller and Caetano.....and Scalia in his opinion in Friedman also went into more detail after his ruling in Heller....

30 round magazines are not dangerous or unusual, and they are a common item...these features, according to Heller, make them beyond the reach of petty fascists like you...

What part of “the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions” do you not understand.

 

[bripat9643]

And as always you exhibit your ignorance.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

How is it false?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because magazine capacity restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment case law, and don’t violate the Second Amendment, to advocate for magazine capacity restrictions is to likewise advocate for the Second Amendment.

Allow me to demonstrate how stupid this is....

Word and page limits for books, columns, magazine articles and internet posts do not violate the First Amendment...to advocate for word and page limit restrictions in publications, in particular political publications is likewise to advocate for the first amendment....

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

What part of “the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions” do you not understand.

Earlier you claimed that "magazine capacity restrictions" are perfectly Constitutional. How can that be of the SC has never ruled on them?

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

That's leftwing horseshit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

Wrong you keep showing your ignorance about the job of the judicial branch. Only the legislative branch has a say of the existence of the constitution. The judicial branch only has a say over voted in laws.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Earlier you claimed that "magazine capacity restrictions" are perfectly Constitutional. How can that be of the SC has never ruled on them?

CJ pulls shit from his ass like a monkey and flings it to see if it will stick.

 

[Resnic]

And as always you exhibit your ignorance.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Estimated there are 41 people who own atleast 1 gun for every 100. And that's only what they know of or guess are owned. It's a guarantee the number in reality is higher.

Guns in Switzerland — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in Switzerland, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

Gun related deaths per 1000 people is 3.

Gun Deaths by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Switzerland crime rates are always below 1% per 1000 people. Granted this chart stops at 2018 but it's always below 1%. Later when I have more time I'll find a current one.

Switzerland Crime Rate & Statistics 1960-2024

Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does...

www.macrotrends.net

Swiss diversity is 69% Swiss and next runner up is Germans who still are not that different from them, and all the other groups make up 3% or less.

Switzerland Demographics Profile

www.indexmundi.com

Swiss population of the population averages 80% employment rates, it doesn't factor out children, handicapped either.

Switzerland Employment Rate

Employment Rate in Switzerland increased to 81.20 percent in the fourth quarter of 2023 from 80.40 percent in the third quarter of 2023. This page provides - Switzerland Employment Rate- actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

tradingeconomics.com

I'd go on but I pretty much have proven all my statements are correct.

 

[daveman]

I think I've made myself clear before but for the sake of the slow learners like you.
I don't care what you say. My opinion is good enough for me and if you don't like it, get a ticket, get inline and kiss my arse.

See how that fits in with you.

So...you're still going to whine like a little bitch.

Must be a day ending in Y.

 

[daveman]

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. Except arseholes like you.
Ignorance is ignorance and nothing of value can be derived from it.
Have another go.

Wow, are YOU insanely wrong.

 

[2aguy]

What part of “the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions” do you not understand.

Heller ruled on it..... 30 round magazines are in common use.......they are not dangerous or unusual....Heller and Caetano make your post stupid.

 

[daveman]

Why?

Never mind.