Why 2nd Amendment supporters who support mandatory training are wrong….

[Foxfyre]

The USSC discarded "common good" means-end testing last year.
"Reasonable" cannot include violating the constitution.

Nothing I have posted argues with that in any way.

 

[Failzero]

Oh my goodness we train monthly pecker lips
We're well organized and equiped

We Rappelled down 7 Story buildings and Trained all night until first light in 24 degree weather ( And Snowshoe & Horseback FTX events ) and made sure everyone could drive a (car & Truck with Stick shift ) then (Tractor or Combine ) ( Deuce & a half 1968 Army Truck )

 

[Failzero]

A

It's generally illegal for a drunk person to carry a gun.
In all 50 states, I'd wager.

And in most states it’s illegal to have Molly & Meth & Chronic and your EDC on you

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing I have posted argues with that in any way.

But, it does.

...we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

The restrictions you support fall under the sentence in bold - a means-end test.
The restrictions you support, with the probable exception of a prohibition on carrying while drunk, cannot pass the test in red; as a result, they violate the constitution.

"Reasonable" cannot include violating the constitution.

 

[Failzero]

You have no concept of civil debate. You are simply a dumbass who cannot see that your position is unconstitutional.

As per Conversation if you were gonna purchase a new AR Pattern Weapon would you purchase a ( AR Pistol in .300 Blackout ) ( AR Carbine in .223 ) ( AR 20”Rifle in .308 Win ) ?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As per Conversation if you were gonna purchase a new AR Pattern Weapon would you purchase a ( AR Pistol in .300 Blackout ) ( AR Carbine in .223 ) ( AR 20”Rifle in .308 Win ) ?

I have those.
I also have a 20" in 5.56 and a 16" in .308
What are my other choices?

 

[Failzero]

I have those.
I also have a 20" in 5.56 and a 16" in .308
What are my other choices?

The Question is as meant for the Admiral not you but thanx

 

[Failzero]

Bu

I have those.
I also have a 20" in 5.56 and a 16" in .308
What are my other choices?

But for fun I’ll play I have a British L1A1 ( 61 BSA ) , circa 1997 ArmaLite AR10A2 , Chinese Type 56 “Spiker” AK , WW2 War Trophy “ Bringback USGI 1911A1 , ...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bu

But for fun I’ll play I have a British L1A1 ( 61 BSA ) , circa 1997 ArmaLite AR10A2 , Chinese Type 56 “Spiker” AK , WW2 War Trophy “ Bringback USGI 1911A1 , ...

Nice.
I have a 1943 Garand, M1903A3, and assorted others.
A couple friends and one of my kids have Hakims. Strange thing. Kinda want one.

 

[Failzero]

Nice.
I have a 1943 Garand, M1903A3, and assorted others.
A couple friends and one of my kids have Hakims. Strange thing. Kinda want one.

I’m so over those , it started with a burning desire for a Rashid , I learned that the best paths are USGI Military Firearms of the Second half of the 20th Century and newer and that the Lust for things like MAS 49/56 and FN 49 are fleeting

 

[Foxfyre]

But, it does.

...we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

The restrictions you support fall under the sentence in bold - a means-end test.
The restrictions you support, with the probable exception of a prohibition on carrying while drunk, cannot pass the test in red; as a result, they violate the constitution.

"Reasonable" cannot include violating the constitution.

But, it does.

...we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

The restrictions you support fall under the sentence in bold - a means-end test.
The restrictions you support, with the probable exception of a prohibition on carrying while drunk, cannot pass the test in red; as a result, they violate the constitution.

"Reasonable" cannot include violating the constitution.

I maintain that my definition of 'reasonable' in no way violates the Constitution. Those of you who want to disallow the states and/or local communities from have sensible rules and regulations re the public use of firearms are very definitely violating the Constitution both historically and practically.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I’m so over those , it started with a burning desire for a Rashid , I learned that the best paths are USGI Military Firearms of the Second half of the 20th Century and newer and that the Lust for things like MAS 49/56 and FN 49 are fleeting

They're oddities. You can only have so many ARs
Oh! Forgot the 2 M1As.

 

[Failzero]

They're oddities. You can only have so many ARs
Oh! Forgot the 2 M1As.

I have 38 ARs now ( with 3 Builds in process ) but not one AR Pistol
Lol

 

[M14 Shooter]

I maintain that my definition of 'reasonable' in no way violates the Constitution.

Absent your demonstration that the regulations you support are consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation., you have no rational or factual basis for your position.

"It's a good idea" no longer cuts it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Those of you who want to disallow the states and/or local communities from have sensible rules and regulations re the public use of firearms are very definitely violating the Constitution both historically and practically.

Nonsense.
The 2nd Amendment applies, in toto, to the actions of the states, and restricts them in exactly the same way it restrcts the federal government.

 

[miketx]

Most stolen cars are stolen because the owner left the car unlocked and the keys inside the car.
In other words, the owner of the car invited the theft. His responsibility.

When professionals are involved they steal the car because of the type of car ergo, car owner buys car for ego boost, car gets stolen for ego boost, car owner responsibility.

Show me a gun in the hands of a criminal and whether stolen, black market, found...there's a "law abiding" gun owner on the other end of the chain.

Dildolix can't stop lying.

 

[Foxfyre]

Absent your demonstration that the regulations you support are consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation., you have no rational or factual basis for your position.

"It's a good idea" no longer cuts it.

We can disagree. And we do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nonsense.
The 2nd Amendment applies, in toto, to the actions of the states, and restricts them in exactly the same way it restrcts the federal government.

I have not argued otherwise. But I refuse to participate in the anarchist group think that ANY rules or regulation of the use of firearms is unconstitutional. So we'll just have to disagree on that.

 

[Failzero]

When ALL states have reciprocity for Carry Permits ( And only half have Open Carry ) then more folks will get mandatory Training and Permits

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have not argued otherwise.

Your statement....
Those of you who want to disallow the states and/or local communities from have sensible rules and regulations re the public use of firearms are very definitely violating the Constitution both historically and practically.
...says otherwise.

The protections of the 2nd, as applied to the states, do not violate the constitution.

But I refuse to participate in the anarchist group think that ANY rules or regulation of the use of firearms is unconstitutional. So we'll just have to disagree on that.

You also refuse to understand there is an established standard for constitutionality of restrictions onthe exercise of the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, and the restrtictions you support do not meet it.