Second Amendment advocates would this change your mind?

[daveman]

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.’

Wow, what a bootlicker.

 

[daveman]

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.’

What you and others on the left might ‘think’ or ‘feel’ about firearms in general is legally irrelevant.

If someone wants you disarmed, it's only because he wants to harm you.

 

[Open Bolt]

To oppose perfectly Constitutional firearm regulatory measures is not to ‘advocate’ for the Second Amendment

True, but no one is doing that.

What we oppose are unconstitutional regulations that violate our civil liberties (and worse, that violate our civil liberties for no reason).

To advocate for the Second Amendment is to support Second Amendment jurisprudence,

Only in such cases where the jurisprudence is legitimate. If some court rules that it is OK to to disregard the Constitution, it is OK to oppose that ruling.

to acknowledge the fact that the Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

That is not a fact. If a law conflicts with the Second Amendment, that law is unconstitutional.

and to acknowledge the fact that government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right consistent with that jurisprudence.

Limits and restrictions consistent with the Second Amendment itself.

Again, if some court rules that it is OK to disregard the Constitution, it is likewise OK to oppose that ruling.

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

No such hostility on the part of conservatives. It is progressives who are always complaining about the Heller ruling.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions

Yet.

But now that they are starting to enforce the Second Amendment, that moment is coming sooner than you might think.

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 is incorrect. Unconstitutional laws are still unconstitutional even if the courts aren't striking them down.

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

What makes the law unconstitutional is the fact that it violates our civil liberties.

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.

Magazine capacity restrictions do violate the Second Amendment unless they are loose enough to allow 20 round handgun magazines and 30 round rifle magazines.

Advocating to violate the Second Amendment is not advocating for the Second Amendment.

What you and others on the right might ‘think’ or ‘feel’ about magazine capacity restrictions is legally irrelevant;

That is incorrect. Violating our civil liberties is against the law.

that you don’t like magazine capacity restrictions doesn’t make them ‘unlawful,’

What makes them unlawful is the fact that they violate our civil liberties.

and places you at odd with Second Amendment caselaw and the Amendment itself – that’s not ‘advocacy.’

That is incorrect. Opposing violations of the Second Amendment does not place me at odds with the Second Amendment.

 

[Open Bolt]

And as always you exhibit your ignorance.
This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Nonsense. How is a comparison with Switzerland fallacious??

 

[daveman]

True, but no one is doing that.

What we oppose are unconstitutional regulations that violate our civil liberties (and worse, that violate our civil liberties for no reason).



Only in such cases where the jurisprudence is legitimate. If some court rules that it is OK to to disregard the Constitution, it is OK to oppose that ruling.



That is not a fact. If a law conflicts with the Second Amendment, that law is unconstitutional.



Limits and restrictions consistent with the Second Amendment itself.

Again, if some court rules that it is OK to disregard the Constitution, it is likewise OK to oppose that ruling.



No such hostility on the part of conservatives. It is progressives who are always complaining about the Heller ruling.



Yet.

But now that they are starting to enforce the Second Amendment, that moment is coming sooner than you might think.



That is incorrect. Unconstitutional laws are still unconstitutional even if the courts aren't striking them down.



What makes the law unconstitutional is the fact that it violates our civil liberties.



Magazine capacity restrictions do violate the Second Amendment unless they are loose enough to allow 20 round handgun magazines and 30 round rifle magazines.

Advocating to violate the Second Amendment is not advocating for the Second Amendment.



That is incorrect. Violating our civil liberties is against the law.



What makes them unlawful is the fact that they violate our civil liberties.



That is incorrect. Opposing violations of the Second Amendment does not place me at odds with the Second Amendment.

Jones wants you to shut up and get on the boxcar.

 

[Cecilie1200]

View attachment 625221

What the hell kind of penises is Shaun King seeing?! Have penises changed radically since I got married?!

 

[daveman]

What the hell kind of penises is Shaun King seeing?! Have penises changed radically since I got married?!

Not to speak of, no. I think Shaun (or as I like to call him, Talcum-X) has an obsession. Many gun-grabbers do.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It will NEVER be enough to satisfy those who fear guns as well as those who FEAR legally owned guns in American hands. THAT is the last line. Cross it and the party gets started.

As if they haven't already crossed hundreds of "do not cross" lines.....

But hey...I'm sure the gun grabbers are shaking in their boots over this one.
One thing about the entire Right wing.......

Sorry....no party. That's a fantasy. The Right Wing's version of saying something that makes them "Feel Good"
The Tuff guy "Gun Card" has been overplayed just like the Race card.
A little secret about the Right Wing.....they are only brave until the thing they shoot at........can shoot back.

No one is intimidated.

Easy now...I side with Conservatives, I vote with Conservatives BUT they are the most nutless, spinless, big mouth pieces of shit that ever were. Come on man...they didn’t have the balls to keep heterosexual white Christians cool in a nation founded, built, run and funded by heterosexual white Christians. The Left has owned their sackless asses for decades....Sad but true.

 

[Open Bolt]

Jones wants you to shut up and get on the boxcar.

Reminds me of one of Oleg Volk's classic memes.

https://www.a-human-right.com/takesome.JPG

 

[Open Bolt]

As if they haven't already crossed hundreds of "do not cross" lines.....

Fake news. No such lines have been crossed.

What always happens is:
a) The Freedom Haters demand to violate the Second Amendment in some way.
b) The NRA says no.
c) Congress sides with the NRA.
d) The Freedom Haters go away and whine to themselves without achieving anything.

A, B, C, D. Regular as clockwork.

 

[Batcat]

With just a little practice a shooter can swap magazines very quickly.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

A shooter with 10 round magazines will just have to change magazines more often. It won't make a damn bit of difference. But, another failed law is the objective, because it takes us one step closer to an all out ban.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Look ma, no magazine period!

The guy is a legend.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

With just a little practice a shooter can swap magazines very quickly.

I never use the slide release lever to drop the slide forward like she does. I was taught to always rack the slide, even on a new magazine when the slide is locked back.

 

[Batcat]

I never use the slide release lever to drop the slide forward like she does. I was taught to always rack the slide, even on a new magazine when the slide is locked back.

A retired police armorer told me to always rack the slide rather than use the release lever.

 

[daveman]

A shooter with 10 round magazines will just have to change magazines more often. It won't make a damn bit of difference. But, another failed law is the objective, because it takes us one step closer to an all out ban.

NO NO GUISE JUST ONE MORE LAW AND THE CRIMINALS WILL START OBEYING THEM PINKIE SWEAR

Too bad the gun-grabbers aren't interested in disarming only criminals. No, they want the law-abiding disarmed.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

NO NO GUISE JUST ONE MORE LAW AND THE CRIMINALS WILL START OBEYING THEM PINKIE SWEAR

Too bad the gun-grabbers aren't interested in disarming only criminals. No, they want the law-abiding disarmed.

They want to disarm the law abiding citizens disarmed more than they do the criminals.

 

[daveman]

They want to disarm the law abiding citizens disarmed more than they do the criminals.

The criminals will reliably vote Democrat. Law-abiding gun owners will not roll over for Democrat tyranny.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.’

The only people that you are blowing smoke up their ass is you. No form of gun control is Constitutional

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Lie number 5567