Trump ended the rule blocking mentally ill people from getting guns.

The united states is not a democracy, however. Rather it is a constitutional republic, where the rights of the minority that will be negatively impacted are given consideration. If the united states were a straight democracy, blacks would still be slaves, and homosexuals could still be imprisoned for committing sodomy.

The response that was given on the part of yourself was an admission to simply not caring enough about the matter to actually invest any actual time or effort.

 

The reason these mass shooters were able to enter these locations while carrying a rifle is because security was lax. The illusion of security existed and was relied on by the victims inside, but there was no actual security to be had. Those that were present who ultimately became victims of these mass shootings, is ultimately because they chose to disregard their own situation awareness, or otherwise contemplate the possibility that they were not actually safe in the given locations.

Mass shootings have been successful, not because of the firearms that are used, but because the people in society are lazy. They do not wish to be alert and aware because such is simply too much work for them. Instead they wish for someone else to do the work necessary to keep them safe from the threats and hazards found in the real world that come and seek them out.

 

false.

it banned folks who had been institutionalized by a judge, from possessing guns.

 

What a total bullshit OP.

So, just because the SS guideline was removed, that means all other agencies are not required to report?

Jesus, the bulk of the MSM is killing IQ points nationally by the billions!

 

So if a guy walks up on security and opens fire how do you prevent that, unless you are standing there with your gun in your hand.

 

How's about having concealed carry be law of the land...

Oh, and hire more security guards.

Sadly, one is likely to get hit.

Price you pay, for the life you choose.

 

It wasn't challenged in Court....and is now moot because the current President removed the horrible policy of treating poor and elderly people getting treatment as criminals.

Thank goodness, the fascist policy was removed.

 

That may work, but if a cat rolls up on you firing if you don't have it in hand you're screwed.

 

And if there are multiple heaters in the area held by non criminals, fewer will likely die

 

That is if they perform under fire, when I was in the military I saw alot of gungho guys piss their pants.

 

Same with criminals.

Law abiding citizens with CC permits likely practice more than criminals.

Criminals generally shoot indiscriminately... trained users, not so much.

But yeah, better to have and not need, than need and not have though.

 

It requires the buyer to fill out a questionnaire. At least one of the questions deals with mental illness. Lying is illegal.

 

How does one go about preventing a random individual walking up on a uniformed law enforcement officer and murdering them on the spot?

 

They don't, because we have seen that happen.

 

No one who has gone through the NFA registration process to legally acquire an assault rifle is going to lose their weapon.

 

Assault weapons are already heavily regulated and are not a problem in this country. There is no justification for banning them.

Lots of ordinary weapons use detachable magazines. There is no justification for banning those either.

 

It hasn't happened so far. Military guns are pretty tightly regulated.

They might not. But since there is no justification for preventing them from having it, the Constitution protects their right to have it.

The number of rounds that can be fired depends on the magazine, not on the gun.

If you take the 100 round magazine out of the rifle and insert a 5 round magazine, that same rifle is no longer a rifle with a 100 round magazine.

Magazines are what determine the number of rounds, not the guns.

None of those massacres were carried out with full-auto weapons.

 

Unless you are a Special Occupational Taxpayer.

I'm just nitpicking a bit.

 

Weapons of mass destruction are things like thermonuclear weapons and smallpox. They kill millions of people with a single shot.

There is no justification for outlawing ordinary semi-auto rifles.

 

So what? What difference does it make if someone is "murdered with a gun" verses "murdered with some other weapon"?

 

Need is irrelevant. If there is no compelling government interest in restricting a weapon, then people have the right to have it.

That is incorrect. Semi-auto weapons are not assault rifles. Assault rifles are capable of full-auto or burst-fire.

That is incorrect. Armies use versions with full-auto or burst-fire capability.

He didn't say that armies don't use AK-47s. He said that they don't use semi-auto versions of the AK-47.

He is correct.

The only reason why the AK-47 would not be appropriate for deer hunting would be because the rounds are just a tad light for deer.

It'd be a good rifle for getting foxes and coyotes before they can raid the chicken coop though.

Yes they are.

That is incorrect. Semi-auto guns are used for hunting and self defense.

That is incorrect. Semi-auto guns are not assault weapons.

The military has the use of full-auto or burst-fire.

Soldiers get a weapon that can shoot three times as many bullets for each trigger pull.

He is right to focus on that. It undermines your claim that these guns are the same.

It is entirely deniable. Soldiers have a gun that can shoot three times faster.

People can provide a good reason for restricting full-auto weapons.

You cannot provide a good reason for banning semi-auto weapons.

Try the Second Amendment.

It is highly relevant to an erroneous claim that the guns are the same.

Restrictions on rights are only allowed when there is a very good justification for the restriction.

There isn't any justification for outlawing semi-auto weapons.

The point is incorrect. No assault weapon has been used in any of these attacks.

That is incorrect. You are only allowed to restrict a right if you can come up with a very good reason for the restriction.

And the restriction is not allowed to be so severe that it impedes the exercise of the right.

It's because such restrictions are allowed only if the restriction can be justified with a good reason.

You have no justification for the restrictions you are calling for.

It's also because the restrictions are not allowed to be so severe that they impede self defense.

You are calling for restrictions that would impede self defense.

It was not.

That is incorrect. The policy was never allowed to go into effect.

 

They don't have easy access. Weapons of war have been tightly regulated since 1934.

That is incorrect. His rebuttal was both accurate and complete.

It may be a long wait. I don't anticipate such a ruling anytime soon.

That is incorrect. Military versions of these weapons are capable of full-auto or burst-fire.

That is incorrect. Semi-auto weapons are quite different from weapons with full-auto or burst-fire capability.

Perhaps, but the conversation was not about assault weapons, but rather was about ordinary semi-auto weapons.

That is incorrect. Semi-auto weapons are not assault weapons.

Nice fantasy.

That is incorrect. Semi-auto versions are not intended for war. That is a fact, not an opinion.

That is incorrect. Soldiers use versions that are capable of full-auto or burst-fire.

That is incorrect. The semi-auto versions of these weapons were not designed for war.

Being claustrophobic does not mean that someone is unstable.

I'm not too fond of spiders, but I'm perfectly stable so long as you don't have eight legs.

Trump's action does not require excusing. He did a good thing.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to ban anything.

The NRA has the power to prevent other federal bodies from banning semi-auto weapons.

The Supreme Court is not going to define semi-auto weapons as weapons of war.

 

And if it is not possible to prevent law enforcement officers being targeted for murder, because it is simply not possible to physically prevent an act of murder from being committed by one who has made the decision to do such, there is simply no way to prevent anyone from making the decision to commit a mass shooting.

Prevention is a physically impossible and unachievable goal.

 

If the inordinate, horrific level of firearm fatalities in the US that comports with the extraordinary level of firearm availability in the US pertained to permissive and ubiquitous private ownership of nerve gas and Americans killed by the release of nerve gas, Americans would be demanding that nerve gas be regulated sensibly.

Americans would not be whining, "So what? If innocent Americans were not being slaughtered by firearms, they would be having their skulls crushed by dastards wielding frozen squirrels?"

However, since the carnage is being inflicted by guns, Americans are demanding that gun permissiveness be addressed in the interest of public safety, and not your frozen squirrels.

Most Americans believe that the democratic will should be respected by their elected representatives, rather than thwarted by special interests squeezing their cojones.

 

SCOTUS is not going accept the reasoning in #947 no matter how much the 2dA fans hope it will.