Why do anti gun extremists hate stories about self defense

how do you evaluate "saving lives" given most of those cases do not result in the criminal being shot
the reason why gun banners attack the AR 15s has nothing to do with crime control

 

The overall problem with liberals and the Constitution is they don't understand that the purpose of the Constitution was to limit/constrain government.

 

You are trying to make gun control a partisan conflict and maybe that is true. Right-wingers are against gun control and it seems the more hard right you are the less gun control, while conservatives, moderates and liberals see a need because gun control works in reducing violent crime. That is something right-wingers care little about because they’ve got their “protection”, whether it is actually needed or not, and the rest of society is on its own to deal with the gun violence.

You are aware all rights are restricted in the name of public good and protect the rights of others?

It seems you've not been on this site very long or not paying attention, but any proposed gun laws is considered "harassment" by "gun huggers" and how else would you keep guns out of criminal hands?

 

Conservatives, which include "right wingers", are against unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable gun control.

Should we allow the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS?

But there are limits on which restrictions are allowed. "In the name of public good" is many times a partisan cause.

Would society be safer if the government wasn't restricted by the 4th Amendment? Would society be safer if convicted violent felons weren't even let out of prison?

 

true, many of them think that if a proposed law is "good" it has to be constitutional. Odious Justice Stevens claimed that it was inconceivable that the founders didn't give the federal government the power to ban handguns so he assumed it had to exist in Article One Section Eight

 

gun banners on tis forum spend lots of time insulting gun rights advocates-we almost never see them showing any hatred towards violent criminals. and it is liberals who want harassing laws

conservatives, almost to a person-support hard sentences on violent criminals: those who use firearms to rape, murder rob or harm others. Lefties are more about preventing honest people from owning guns or making it burdensome to own guns and engage in the brain dead arguments that those who are not inhibited or deterred by the punishments for murder or robbery, will obey stupid gun laws like magazine bans or banning normal semi auto rifles

 

If you give respect you get respect.
40% of Republicans (can be read as conservatives) want a national database to track gun sales, ban high capacity magazines and banning AR type weapons.

 

that never seems to work out in elections and since we don't know how the questions are framed, I call bullshit. If you ask the average low wattage voter if "high capacity magazines should be banned" and they say yes, they might have meant 100 round magazines while you gun banners mean 11 round magazines

why don't you tell me how a magazine ban will stop those who already are banned from having any firearms and banned from using those firearms to harm others, from doing that?

popularity is not the litmus test for constitutional rights

 

A database can't track criminal sales, and both ban on "high capacity magazines" (whatever those are) and bans on "AR type weapons" (whatever those are; your link says 'assault style weapons, whatever those are) would be both ineffective and unconstitutional.

Have you actually read S.736 or H.R.1808?

 

Where guns are banned criminals have access to more and better guns.

 

deep down-most gun banners are supportive of violent criminals and want them to succeed.

 

K? And?
As I noted, the arms ownership is predicated on 2A.
Nothing you posted disputes that.

 

Infringement is infringement.
Everyone has their own line in the sand.

My attitude is society determines infringement. And sometimes the USSC weighs in on some of those infringements society enacts.

 

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"

 

awesome

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court[1] ruling that the U.S. Bill of Rights did not limit the power of private actors or state governments despite the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the federal criminal convictions for the civil rights violations committed in aid of anti-Reconstruction murders. Decided during the Reconstruction Era, the case represented a major blow to federal efforts to protect the civil rights of African Americans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

...
Unless one was African American.

 

Which begs the question: What is a death cult?

“Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil 'nothing') is a philosophy, or family of views within philosophy, that rejects generally accepted or fundamental aspects of human existence,[1][2] such as objective truth, knowledge, morality, values, or meaning.[3][4] The term was popularized by Ivan Turgenev, who made use of it in his novel Fathers and Sons.

There have been different nihilist positions, including that human values are baseless, that life is meaningless, that knowledge is impossible, or that some set of entities do not exist or are meaningless or pointless.[5][6]

Scholars of nihilism may regard it as merely a label that has been applied to various separate philosophies,[7] or as a distinct historical concept arising out of nominalism, skepticism, and philosophical pessimism, as well as possibly out of Christianity itself.[8] Contemporary understanding of the idea stems largely from the Nietzschean 'crisis of nihilism', from which derive the two central concepts: the destruction of higher values and the opposition to the affirmation of life.[9][5] Earlier forms of nihilism, however, may be more selective in negating specific hegemonies of social, moral, political and aesthetic thought.[10]

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence or arbitrariness of human principles and social institutions. Nihilism has also been described as conspicuous in or constitutive of certain historical periods. For example,[11] Jean Baudrillard[12][13] and others have characterized postmodernity as a nihilistic epoch[14] or mode of thought.[15] Likewise, some theologians and religious figures have stated that postmodernity[16] and many aspects of modernity[17] represent nihilism by a negation of religious principles. Nihilism has, however, been widely ascribed to both religious and irreligious viewpoints.[8]

In popular use, the term commonly refers to forms of existential nihilism, according to which life is without intrinsic value, meaning, or purpose.[18] Other prominent positions within nihilism include the rejection of all normative and ethical views (§ Moral nihilism), the rejection of all social and political institutions (§ Political nihilism), the stance that no knowledge can or does exist (§ Epistemological nihilism), and a number of metaphysical positions, which assert that non-abstract objects do not exist (§ Metaphysical nihilism), that composite objects do not exist (§ Mereological nihilism), or even that life itself does not exist.” Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

 

Both of you missed the point. I said: "Right-wingers are against gun control and it seems the more hard right you are the less gun control, while conservatives, moderates and liberals see a need because gun control works in reducing violent crime." The rigid right will not come to the table as demonstrated here and violent crime is not an issue concerning gun access, despite all the evidence otherwise.

 

why would any thinking person support schemes that clearly are designed to harass only honest gun owners.

 

I'm a moderate, and gun control that is unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable is simply not acceptable.

Have you actually read S.736 or H.R.1808?

 

Every rational, reasoned person is against the unnecessary and ineffective restriction of the exercise of any right, including the right to keep and bear arms.

You are fully aware of the fact you cannot demonstrate this to be true.

Your point, demonstrated irrelevant.

 

It seems you've not been on this site very long or not paying attention, but any proposed gun laws is considered "harassment" by "gun huggers" and how else would you keep guns out of criminal hands?[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]
Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding are, at best, harassment.
Said laws do not keep guns from criminals.

 

this appears to be a lame attempt to counter Rucker's point without actually being able to dispute it. it is an accurate statement of constitutional law and theory

 

It's not just about guns.
It's arms, that is what the 2A is about.
Keep and Bear Arms. Guns is only 1 small part of Arms.

And per the 2A, all infringements are not acceptable. The words state "shall not be infringed"

 

what infringements do you claim are not infringements?