What law()s) would have stopped the Buffalo shooting?

Oh, it's VERY profound. As a matter of fact, "most likely" is one of the basis for all science. And Science is responsible for putting men on the Moon, spaceships on Mars, doubled life expectancy since modern science came about, provides you the possibility of writing your uninformed opinions, and me the task of having to read them and correct them. almost instantaneously.... So "most likely" has proven it's worth. The MAGA-media that you consume... not so much.

 

Indeed
It not only very profoundly illustrates you inability to demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim, but also your acute awareness of same.
You can't deliver and you know it.
As always.

 

From heller: (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose

 

From heller: (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose

 

Heller is not the 2nd Amendment.

Read the 2nd Amendment sometime.

 

I'm not interested in your intentions. I was showing you that with millions of gun owners there is relatively little problems with legal gun owners, who seem to have good intentions since there aren't daily gunfights among gun enthusiasts, most all of the problems are gang and crime related and center around a certain culture. and then there's this guy who was a total lunatic which you can't stop no matter what you do.

 

Indeed.
423,000,000 guns in the US, ~10,500 gun relayed murders per year.
This means ~99.99751% of the guns in the US are not involved in a murder each year.

 

Any examples of the SC declaring war on another country?

 

There are A LOT of problems with legal gun owners. Starting by the fact that they sometimes where ILLEGAL gun owners get their guns. Not to mention over one mass shooting EVERY DAY in this country. Here in Florida, I don't remember a day when my local news doesn't report AT LEAST one person shot and killed. Often upwards of 4. It's not just a "problem"., It's an epidemic!

 

So you didn't read the post you are responding to. Huh!

 

If you have a point to make, make it. Nothing is more tedious then a deflection.

 

When most women start carrying concealed handguns women will rarely be the targets of violent criminals. The law should make it so.

 

I had absolutely NO point to make. I was commenting on the extent of my distrust of the partisan supreme court we have now. It wasn't even difficult to understand that's what I was doing. And you took it literally.

On a completely unrelated topic, did you watch that documentary on Netflix where they compare people's ability to understand subtle comments correlating it to intelligence? This has nothing to do, of course, because my comment wasn't even subtle. It just reminded me of it, for some reason.

 

It’s not the idea, it’s the fact. The people you sourced in that article never once mention his writings. In fact they have the interpretations all wrong. One argument was that it was never designed for private ownership and that 100% flawed. There was a time where all were required to own a musket. Most kept them in a common place because how hard they were to maintain at home. But it was never said they couldn’t keep guns at their home and many (not all) but many did.

2ndly, it may not be all on him because very little was written about or even deliberated about the ability to privately own weapons. So the major factor wether you like it or not is the one guy who did write about it extensively and that is Tench Coxe. His writings are in fact very very definitive on the meaning and he was in fact a large part of the 2nd. He wrote in papers owned by founding fathers about that right, and he is considered a secondary founder

 

The SC decides what the second means, not you.

 

Because they were practically IRRELEVANT at the time. He had been a private in the Militia and wasn't particularly highly regarded at the time. Coxe was known as ""Mr. Facing Bothways" because apparently he kept changing parties and contradicting himself in his writings (so said his opponents at the time). Looks like he was good with numbers and statistics. But most definitely had NO relevance in the enactment of the 2nd A.

Let me give you a very quick history lesson on the 2nd A. You can look for the references in the Amicus Brief cited in the post I referenced.

This is what Madison proposed as the 2nd Amendment

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."​

Right there you see that the overall INTENT of the 2nd A referred to military service. But more to your point, the House received that and decided, following your hero's ideology, to add after "...a well regulated militia..."

"...composed of the body of the people"​

Signed approved by the House and sealed,... end of story right? Not quite!

When the bill got to the Senate, Washington and Hamilton argued that the well regulated militia should not be composed of "the body of the people". Great arguments probably ensued. Anti-federalists insisting to KEEP the clause, Federalists insisting it should be eliminated.

If you want to learn who won that argument on this particular issue, maybe you can find a copy of the Constitution somewhere and actually READ what it SAYS, for a change.

Again: today there IS a right to own weapons. But that's because Scalia LEGISLATED and granted this "right". NOT because it's addressed (neither granted or affirmed, nor denied) in the Bill of Rights.

 

Obviously you did have a point to make, but it had nothing to do with what I said and everything to do with the speaker - me. IOW your point is to figure out a way to attack the poster, instead of the post. The point serving only one purpose -- trolling.

 

You think TOO highly of yourself if you feel that mentioning the Supreme Court partisan majority is about YOU.

 

Enjoy your evening.

 

Where the HELL did you read the word "blame"?


Why is it that right wingers think that every discussion is about THEM!

 

Because with you they usually are.

 

Did you not say the legal gun owners were the problem? Do you need me to show you the quote function or would you prefer to seal the deal on your hypocrisy?

libertarians aren’t really right wingers, or are people who understand the 2A. But I can see why you’d hide from this.
At least have the courage to blame the person committing the crime not those who had things stolen from them.

 

You have to repeal the second amendment first

 

A false statement, willfully made.

 

Violation of Article III of the Constitution. SCOTUS does not "interpret" the Constitution. You really should read through it sometime.

The 2nd Amendment is written in English, and can be read and comprehended by anyone who is literate in English.

It says that the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. ---- "Gun control" laws would be one of many examples of infringement upon that right. State-issued licenses (e.g "concealed carry licenses") are another.