If Gun Confiscation Was Legally Passed and Upheld by the Court...

So you don’t understand constitutional law or case precedent. That explains why you are so confused.

 

That they also upheld the ability to ban military style weapons like the M-16. That's what.

But you just went with the headline, right?

 

and lawful gun owners don't let the paranoid hand wringers interfere with our constitutional rights.

 

Nothing in what I said requires a constitutional amendment.

 

All of it does, as I have repeatedly shown you. It’s right there in the heller ruling. It’s in the part you intentionally left out of your quote above from the ruling.

 

Except they didn’t uphold that, as M16’s are not and can not be banned.

[

 

Not only has it already passed strict scrutiny, but it has even passed biased pro-gun Supreme Court scrutiny.

 

Not only does it not pass strict scrutiny, but it’s been struck down every time it’s been brought before the court. The government must demonstrate a compelling interest served by the denial or restriction of a right. A citizen NEVER has to demonstrate the need or justification to exercise a right. The court had pointed that out, consistently, since the inception of the 14th amendment. It’s why interracial marriage bans, sodomy laws, same sex marriage bans, hand gun bans etc have all been struck down.

 

Every word. It says that the so-called "right" to "bear arms" is not unlimited.

Don't worry too much though. I already know that your debate style is to simply deny facts once they are presented to you. So this time I'm not going to waste my time expecting serious arguments from you the way I did last time.

You still have to respond to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

 

And you stopped reading after that. The court told you what you can’t limit.

Lol, I directly quoted the portion of the ruling you intentionally left out which shows you to be completely wrong. All of your proposed gun restrictions are unconstitutional, as the court specifically pointed out. You need an amendment to implement them.

 

If such draconian, tyrannical measures were ever put in place as I said it would set in motion mass civil disobedience in the least and a domestic conflict that the government would be unable to deal with at the worst. The military and law enforcement would side with gun owners, what then? You see there are some who are of the opinion that they and only they know what's best for all and constantly try to foist their perverse philosophy on everyone. Then there are those who will not be cowed by a loud, narcissistic, sociopathic, weaker minority.

 

I keep hearing left-wingers make this argument, as if the military is going to nuke or carpet bomb cities where their own families and friends live. And as though the government wouldn't be killing their own supporters (if any remain) en masse in the process (making it a completely illegitimate government BTW). And Vietnam and Afghanistan proved that a determined local population can fight the US military pretty much indefinitely. And those were countries that we could have actually used the heavier weaponry on.

 

I will not need to blow anyone away, they don't know how many guns I have or where they are kept.

 

What good is responding to you when at the end, when the facts are in front of you, you will simply answer "No it's not"?

For the last time, the Heller decision states that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. What I left out simply gives examples of this and quotes other rulings that confirm it.

But you don't quote, and just refuse to read my quotes and references, so... can't help you...

 

Because you say so?

Read the part that starts with:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But..."
​

Waddaya know.... he even mentions the M-16 specifically as one of the weapons that "may be banned"

Anyway, you can then read what is after the "But..." which can be summarized as "I don't give a damn what you object, you're not changing my mind...". Which is basically how Scalia "reasoned" (if we are allowed to call this nonsense "reasoning") this whole piece of junk that some call "decision".

If you don't want to read it, don't worry. The reasoning Scalia used to justify why M-16 and similar "military style" weapons can be banned, is as absurd as just about everything else he wrote here.

 

I quoted the ruling word for word, lol. Those are the facts.

What you left out, and I quoted, was what you aren’t allowed to limit. All of you’re proposals fall under what you aren’t allowed to limit, per the heller ruling. You know this, which is why you keep leaving it out when you quote heller.

I directly quoted, verbatim, the heller ruling which directly refutes your position. Lol

 

No, because reality does. M16’s are not banned.

M16’s aren’t banned. That you think they are, further demonstrates you have no idea what you’re talking about regarding firearms and firearm related laws, and it appears intentional as you’ve been schooled on both numerous times by numerous people.

Here’s an M16 and several other full autos for sale that you can purchase, as they are not banned.

https://dealernfa.com/shop/colt-m16-rifle-excellent-9052993/

 

"Every time"... sure...

It's so easy to prove you wrong every time.

https://www.apnews.com/7c9e590374004f1ba956e167e569b3a7
https://cookcountyrecord.com/storie...court-upholds-cook-county-assault-weapons-ban
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/f...ault-weapons-ban-ttag-weekly-gun-law-roundup/

Or even the Supreme Court
https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-upholds-assault-weapon-gun-ban-723464
https://fortune.com/2016/06/20/supreme-court-weapons-ban/

But is it worth the time to show how wrong you are? Allow me to write your next post "No you didn't". That's how it ends....

 

The court refusing to hear a case is not the court upholding a lower court ruling, lol. Jesus you are horrible at this.

Start with the basics. Google what strict scrutiny means. Then see if you can figure out why you were wrong about a person having to justify why they “need” to exercise a right, instead of the government having to demonstrate a compelling interest in order to restrict a right.

 

Of course I intentionally left it out. Because it's irrelevant to my point. Easy to just cut-n-paste more and claim that "that" contradicts me without saying how.

What I quoted is clear and doesn't need anything further. Unless you are saying that Scalia contradicts himself. Which might be true, because the whole decision is so poorly written and reasoned. But then you have to state how it contradicts it.

Here is the only relevant part. If you believe that if we keep reading, Scalia then contradicts himself.... show it!

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."​

 

It directly refutes your point. The restrictions you want to impose, are strictly prohibited by the constitution. The quoted portion of heller you keep pretending doesn’t exist, shows you exactly what restrictions you can’t implement. You need an amendment to have the restrictions you want.

 

Sure. But quoting the ruling and showing how that contradicts what I quoted are two different thing!

You are hereby challenged to quote it. Show where it says that an M-16 (and similar "military-style" weapons) cannot be banned!

 

I don''t think we should allow Nazis free speech. No right is absolute and the right to free speech breaks down when you are advocating that society should kill certain people for no other reason that they were born of a certain race/ethnicity. You are then telling people of that particular race/ethnicity that they must support and defend their own demise and that simply makes no sense

 

Which is why I showed how and why it refutes your position, as you are fully aware.

You’re welcome, again. An M16 is not dangerous or unusual, and is lawful to use and common. If you had any ****ing idea what you were talking about when it comes to firearms, you would know this.

 

This is what you quote!

Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
​

Where the hell does that say that you can't ban M-16s?????

Look. This is ridiculous. i already quoted where Scalia noted that M-16s can be banned. He even mentions M-16s explicitly.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ld-by-the-court.561559/page-8#post-1070975031

I'm not wasting my time in you anymore. You either read the quote or, as you did with the overturned SCOTUS decisions, you don't read it. And just finish with "No you didn't"