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

[M14 Shooter]

We can disagree. And we do.

Because you refuse to accept the judgement of the USSC.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.


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.

I believe my arguments are defensible. You disagree. Let's let it go at that.

 

[Flash]

Common sense gun rules and regulation do not in my opinion infringe on our constitutional right to have and use a gun to defend and protect persons and property.

The problem with that stupid statement is that the Libtards will always define "common sense" to be oppression. One man's common sense is another man's oppression.

The Bill of Rights does not say that Americans can have the right to keep and bear arms as long as they obey some undefined set of instructions. It says simply that it cannot be infringed.

I can give you many examples of stupid Libtard common sense. However, I will give you one now. If are still confused I will give you more.

The SAFE Act in New York was passed as "common sense" gun laws. It banned 30 rd AR-15 magazines. A decorated veteran was pulled over by the police and they searched his vehicle. In the trunk of his vehicle was an empty 30 rd AR mag. No AR, no other crime, no bullets, just an empty mag. He was arrested and taken to jail.

There are probably 300 or 400 million legal AR mags in this country. I have a few hundred myself. But yet in goddamn New York, run by filthy ass stupid Libtards, a man was arrested for the mere possession of one.

That is what happens when you go down that slippery slope of letting Libtards determine what "common sense gun laws" should be.

Like I said before, the crime should never be the possession of an arm, only the crime of what is illegally done with it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because you refuse to accept the judgement of the USSC.

Not at all. But I read all of the opinions supporting the USSC ruling. You apparently did not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not at all.

On the contrary - the fact you disagree with the holdongs from the USSC supports no other conclusion

But I read all of the opinions supporting the USSC ruling. You apparently did not.

Please - demonstrate this to be true.
And then tell us why the dissenting opinions carry more weight that the holding.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe my arguments are defensible.

OK then - defend them from the criticisms, I presented.

 

[Foxfyre]

On the contrary - the fact you disagree with the holdongs from the USSC supports no other conclusion

Please - demonstrate this to be true.
And then tell us why the dissenting opinions carry more weight that the holding.

No point because your mind is made up that I'm the bad guy in this. Let's just agree to disagree okay?

 

[Foxfyre]

OK then - defend them from the criticisms, I presented.

OK then - defend them from the criticisms, I presented.

I believe I already did. But do have a great day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe I already did.

Of course you do.
I accept you concession.

"Common sense" and or "reasonable" with regards to gun control is just another way to say "I dont give a hoot in hell about the constitution".

Run along, now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No point because...

... you can't.
I know.
I knew it when I laid out the challenge.

 

[2aguy]

So you acknowledge that 100% of guns in the hands of criminals started out in the hands of "law abiding" gun owners.
And that criminals depend on the ignorance, stupidity and criminality of "law abiding" gun owners for their weapons.

And 100% of rapes are due to women being alone at the time of the attack......do you think we should make laws that say a woman can't be in public alone, and can't live alone?

 

[2aguy]

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.

We have those......you can't discharge a gun unless it is for a legitimate purpose....all we need.

 

[2aguy]

The problem with that stupid statement is that the Libtards will always define "common sense" to be oppression. One man's common sense is another man's oppression.

The Bill of Rights does not say that Americans can have the right to keep and bear arms as long as they obey some undefined set of instructions. It says simply that it cannot be infringed.

I can give you many examples of stupid Libtard common sense. However, I will give you one now. If are still confused I will give you more.

The SAFE Act in New York was passed as "common sense" gun laws. It banned 30 rd AR-15 magazines. A decorated veteran was pulled over by the police and they searched his vehicle. In the trunk of his vehicle was an empty 30 rd AR mag. No AR, no other crime, no bullets, just an empty mag. He was arrested and taken to jail.

There are probably 300 or 400 million legal AR mags in this country. I have a few hundred myself. But yet in goddamn New York, run by filthy ass stupid Libtards, a man was arrested for the mere possession of one.

That is what happens when you go down that slippery slope of letting Libtards determine what "common sense gun laws" should be.

Like I said before, the crime should never be the possession of an arm, only the crime of what is illegally done with it.

The first post in this thread points out exactly why we can't have mandatory training requirements....the democrats have already shown they will abuse any requirements and use them to keep people from owning and carrying a gun.....

This is not conjecture, this is fact, as seen in the link in the very first post.

 

[Dadoalex]

And 100% of rapes are due to women being alone at the time of the attack......do you think we should make laws that say a woman can't be in public alone, and can't live alone?

Wrong.

There's at least one man present.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Foxfyre]

We have those......you can't discharge a gun unless it is for a legitimate purpose....all we need.

Which again is a sensible rule/regulation of gun use. I will never support any government attempt to violate the Second Amendment. But I will argue to my last breath that some sensible rules/regulation re guns do not violate the Constitution in any way.

But I am definitely the bad guy here making that argument it seems. But I would rather be right than popular.

 

[2aguy]

Which again is a sensible rule/regulation of gun use. I will never support any government attempt to violate the Second Amendment. But I will argue to my last breath that some sensible rules/regulation re guns do not violate the Constitution in any way.

But I am definitely the bad guy here making that argument it seems. But I would rather be right than popular.

Name them......which do you support and explain why they do not violate our Right to keep and carry guns......

 

[Foxfyre]

Name them......which do you support and explain why they do not violate our Right to keep and carry guns......

I already did in this thread. At least most of them. And you and others have disagreed and most have attacked and accused me of having all sorts of ridiculous positions on this. But oh well. You (and the others) no doubt think you mean well and I wish you all a great day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which again is a sensible rule/regulation of gun use. I will never support any government attempt to violate the Second Amendment

Except the violations you support, of course.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I already did in this thread.

Your statement is false.
You CLAIM they do not violate the 2nd Amendment you have not in any way demonstrated this to be the case.
You, of course, know this.

 

[Failzero]

Name them......which do you support and explain why they do not violate our Right to keep and carry guns......

Prohibited persons should include ( Illegal Aliens & Visa Overstayers ) (Enemy Combatants / Chinese Overseas Commandos and their Saboteur / Spy Handlers ) ( Adjudicated Mentally Unfit persons and Escapees from mental institutions ) ( Escaped Prison inmates ) ( Felons on Parol ) ( People seeing two Shrinks & a Psychologist That have had more than1 51/50 and are prescribed SSRIs ) ...