Do you support the second amendment?

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

There is no way for law enforcement to stop a man with no felonies from purchasing a cheap $500 assault-style weapon and shooting up whatever he pleases in a moment of rage or zealotry.

First, you can’t buy a selectable or fully automatic rifle for $500, at least legally.

You can buy an assault-style semi-auto for that. New!
And trust me fella, this ain’t the only one. I picked up a S&W Sport 2 for $499 plus tax when Buds had them on sale this year.

Buds Gun Shop - DPMS RFA3-OC $493 cash discount price

Second, there are lots of things we cannot stop, but we don’t believe (well, at least constitutional conservatives don’t believe) that confiscating inherent rights is the answer.

Neither do I.

Unfortunately for your argument, the courts have not defended your “right” to an assault style weapon. Quite the opposite, actually.

 

[starshiptrooper]

The courts also defended the right to own slaves and murder infants so your point is what exactly?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Vonsalza:

or invent a magical device that lets us know someone is going to kill a bunch of folks before they do it.

It is called law enforcement. Enforce the laws on the books.

It is not as magically effective as you seem think. If it were easy to “target crime” with more law enforcement we would have done more of it long ago.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Vonsalza:

or invent a magical device that lets us know someone is going to kill a bunch of folks before they do it.

It is called law enforcement. Enforce the laws on the books.

It is not as magically effective as you seem think. If it were easy to “target crime” we would have done more of it long ago.

I don’t expect it to be , but intentionally targeting thelaw abiding doesn’t it either.

 

[JonNC]

Neither do I.

Unfortunately for your argument, the courts have not defended your “right” to an assault style weapon. Quite the opposite, actually.

Of course you do. Well not everyone, just the poor.

You’re right, and the1934 law and 1986 laws regarding assault weapons are still on the books.
Semi-automatics are legal, and should remain so.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

Vonsalza:

or invent a magical device that lets us know someone is going to kill a bunch of folks before they do it.

It is called law enforcement. Enforce the laws on the books.

It is not as magically effective as you seem think. If it were easy to “target crime” we would have done more of it long ago.

I don’t expect it to be , but intentionally targeting thelaw abiding doesn’t it either.

The affect on the law-abiding is not intentional. It is an unavoidable side-effect of restricting guns.

 

[JonNC]

The affect on the law-abiding is not intentional. It is an unavoidable side-effect of restricting guns.

Depends on who you’re talking about. Von is clearly targeting all members of a class of people.

I don’t think there is a doubt that Bloomberg is targeting all private citizens (except the elitist ruling class , of course). Pelosi basically admitted it recently with her slippery slope comment.
House progressives insisted on it last year with their demand for “no fly, no buy”, due process be darned.

Maybe not you, leaf, but lots do.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The affect on the law-abiding is not intentional. It is an unavoidable side-effect of restricting guns.

Depends on who you’re talking about. Von is clearly targeting all members of a class of people.

I don’t think there is a doubt that Bloomberg is targeting all private citizens (except the elitist ruling class , of course). Pelosi basically admitted it recently with her slippery slope comment.
House progressives insisted on it last year with their demand for “no fly, no buy”, due process be darned.

Maybe not you, leaf, but lots do.

To prove any of those statements you would have to prove the motivation behind restrictions on guns is something other than the obvious one - to safeguard the public. You can hypothesize that these named people do not care for public safety, but you would have to offer more than your dislike of them as politicians or whatever. It is very hard to prove malicious intent when there is an obvious non-malicious justification right there.

 

[LilyM]

The courts also defended the right to own slaves and murder infants so your point is what exactly?

Yes, and people have acted as if the world was/is going to end and the sky was/is going to fall in if those rights were limited just as gun rights supporters do now.

Funnily enough slavery was abolished and society was better off for it, not worse. Funnily enough the right to abortion continues to be upheld abd society is, if anything, worse off for it, not better.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Yes, and people have acted as if the world was/is going to end and the sky was/is going to fall in if those rights were limited just as gun rights supporters do now.

As opposed to the panic that anti-gunners routinely engage in?

Funnily enough slavery was abolished and society was better off for it, not worse. Funnily enough the right to abortion continues to be upheld abd society is, if anything, worse off for it, not better.

Good so you have conceded that the courts get it wrong sometimes.

 

[JonNC]

To prove any of those statements you would have to prove the motivation behind restrictions on guns is something other than the obvious one - to safeguard the public. You can hypothesize that these named people do not care for public safety, but you would have to offer more than your dislike of them as politicians or whatever. It is very hard to prove malicious intent when there is an obvious non-malicious justification right there.

The law abiding, with very few exceptions, are not a threat to public safety. To focus attention on them makes their efforts not so obvious.
Feinstein has said it unequivocally. "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Neither do I.

Unfortunately for your argument, the courts have not defended your “right” to an assault style weapon. Quite the opposite, actually.

Of course you do. Well not everyone, just the poor.

You’re right, and the1934 law and 1986 laws regarding assault weapons are still on the books.
Semi-automatics are legal, and should remain so.

The assault weapons ban of the 90s and 00s applied to assault style semi-autos (which is what we’re talking about).

The challenges to that failed too. It only ended due to the sunset provision in the law, not because it was ruled a violation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[JonNC]

The assault weapons ban of the 90s and 00s applied to assault style semi-autos (which is what we’re talking about).

That ban was not against assault weapons, no matter how much the anti2nd crowd tried to change the meaning to fit their agenda. Assault weapons are, by definition, selectable or fully automatic.

The challenges to that failed too. It only ended due to the sunset provision in the law, not because it was ruled a violation of the 2nd amendment.

It was sunset because, predictably, it was in no way effective because it targeted the law abiding.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Terrorist attack in New York, it was a truck attack, 8 dead, 16 injured, pray!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

To prove any of those statements you would have to prove the motivation behind restrictions on guns is something other than the obvious one - to safeguard the public. You can hypothesize that these named people do not care for public safety, but you would have to offer more than your dislike of them as politicians or whatever. It is very hard to prove malicious intent when there is an obvious non-malicious justification right there.

The law abiding, with very few exceptions, are not a threat to public safety. To focus attention on them makes their efforts not so obvious.
Feinstein has said it unequivocally. "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”

This does not prove her motivation is not public safety.

 

[upant]

Theo520:

Vonsalza:

No, no they don’t.

They think it will diminish. And judging by the results yielded by other nations, they’re quite right.

ROFL, nope
Zero evidence that overall crime rates drop with making guns illegal.

The target isn’t “overall crime”, it’s gun crime.

And there is evidence in spades for that.

the australia propaganda, they haven’t had a mass shooting in 20 years

…but they have had the same number of mass killings in the 20 years since as the 20 years prior. …but a gun wasn’t used so it is all good.

 

[JonNC]

the australia propaganda, they haven’t had a mass shooting in 20 years

…but they have had the same number of mass killings in the 20 years since as the 20 years prior. …but a gun wasn’t used so it is all good.

What else do we need to ban?

 

[Theo520]

There is no way for law enforcement to stop a man with no felonies from purchasing a cheap $500 assault-style weapon and shooting up whatever he pleases in a moment of rage or zealotry.

You also can’t stop him buying $10 of gas and making a very destructive bomb, or renting a U-Haul and mowing down a couple dozen people. Even the guy with felonies can take this route.

 

[upant]

Healthcare is a right, protected by the 9th amendment

what is a right?

define healthcare and what part of it is protected by the 9th amendment.

healthcare isn’t guaranteed today. if you can’t pay for it you don’t get it? millions still don’t have it. how can this be if it is a right

can services be rights? can services be guaranteed? what happens when no one can perform the service? what level of service is acceptable?

is marriage a right? the fed declared it one but what if a person can’t find someone to marry them, can the state force someone to marry them because it is that persons right to be married? is it really a right or just a law

can a right be dependent on something being given to you.

what is a right?

 

[upant]

The courts have obviously found the right to vote to be more fundamental than the right to bear arms,

why can you be allowed to charge to restrict one right and not the other.

a right is guaranteed and can not be taken away from you.

charging to keep guns from the poor is the same as charging so the poor can’t vote. a class of people is denied a right.