Texas shooter struggled with mental health, family dysfunction, was fascinated with guns

Not, that's called "conspiracy to commit a crime".

 

True, but again it is the supreme court's role to be the formal interpreter of our constitution. That's literally what a supreme court ruling is, they aren't creating a new law, they are formally interpreting already existing laws.

 

That's incorrect. It's the courts job to apply the Constitution to actions made by the Executive and Legislative branches.

Just like where the Constitution says "shall not be infringed". The court can't make that mean something else.

When the court is allowed to interpret the Constitution however it chooses, then the Constitution becomes useless.

 

Isn’t it interesting that the firearm type you say is made for offensive use is used in less than 3% of firearm murders annually?

 

It looks like someone does not know how debate works on internet debate forum - onus. Try looking that up and see what it says...

 

How many have been mass shooters, as opposed to Republicans?

 

It makes mass murders easy for any nut.

And given the number of gun models, that is a HUGE percetage. I couldn't list all the different models in three posts. The list just scrolls and scrolls and scrolls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearms

 

You should at least have to be 21 to buy a weapon or ammo. That's an easy one. The idea that 18 is too immature for booze but it is mature enough for weapons of mass execution is ridiculous.

If you're 18 and you want to shoot assault rifles, join the army.

 

No they do not change the constitution, but they do interpret what is and is not an infringement to the US constitution. To say otherwise, you might as well be arguing that the sky is pink. It's been the basic function of the Supreme Court for the US's entire history

 

Fun fact, under federal law you can't purchase a handgun until you are 21 years old... but an assault weapon and high capacity magazines you only have to be 18 years old. It makes no sense at all

 

You are a hoot. Why are you linking a Wiki including anti tank weapons, squad automatic weapons, and flamethrowers in the context of semiautomatic rifles being used in less than 3% of firearm related murders?

Are you trying to make the point flamethrowers are used less than semiautomatic rifles to commit murder?

Did you have a point to make?

 

They don't apply the law. They don't have an army or police force. They interpret the Constitution. That is their role.

Gibberish. You need to take a introductory class on government. Your local high school should offer them.

 

So it was too complicated for you. Yes, there are many kinds of guns. But I know taking things out of context to make ridiculous arguments is what you do.

 

They apply the Constitution. That isn't executing law.

 

How many models of guns are owned in the US?

 

Thank you finally catching on.

 

No they don't. They issue rulings.

How do they apply it? Show me. What do they do? They interpret the Constitution.

This is child's play. Take a class. Learn what it means to be an American.

 

They read the law and apply the Constitution to the law. If the law conflicts with the Constitution, then they rule the law is unconstitutional, or that's what they are supposed to do, anyway.

 

You must be 21 years of age to legally purchase an assault rifle comparable to anything used in the military.

 

The question is whether or not it should be legal for a person to own a weapon capable of killing 15 to 60 people without being stopped. My opinion is no, a weapon with that kind of firepower should require a license to own. Most murders are 1 person killing another person, those murders are very hard to prevent... but a person going into a school and killing over 20 people, or killing 60 people from a hotel window... those are very preventable, we just choose not to prevent them from occurring. People have a right to own a gun for self defense, but it's not a right to own a weapon designed for the purpose of killing people in mass numbers.

 

Sure.

I also recognize that armed law abiding citizens prevent an unknowable amount (more than none, less than all) of crime, including violent crime and even gun crime. FBI (or maybe it was DOJ) studies show that a majority of incarcerated felons surveyed report having avoided committing crimes when they suspected their potential victim was likely armed. This doesn't stop them from engaging in crime in general of course (since they still became incarcerated), but it does effect whom they victimize, and demonstrates that armed citizens have some inhibitory effect on crime. Since crimes that don't happen don't get reported, its impossible to count them to compare them to crimes that do...

The question is (and unfortunately there isn't a surefire answer to it): is it a net positive or a net negative?

Medical malpractice, for example, kills far more people than guns, but because we can measure how many people hospitals save vs how many they kill, we can know its net effects, and thus no one is calling to ban hospitals.

So, now that I've answered your question, are you going to answer mine?

What law do you think we need that would prevent the mentally ill from getting guns? And be specific, lest we end up just putting everyone who 'wears makeup' or 'loses wieght' onto terrorist watch lists...

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

From their own page, they are arbiters and interpreters of the law. They don't apply the law.

 

Your post in reply to my factual statement less than 3% of murders are committed using semiautomatic riffles was irrelevant.

I’m not making an argument, I’m pointing out FACTS. And you are seldom capable of accepting facts.

These subjects are too complicated for you because you are ignorant of facts.

 

He had to fill out a form 4473. Background check was performed as per federal law.

 

Somebody with a single shot shotgun can kill that many people without being stopped.