Don't tell us it's Guns

Your statement is based on a SCOTUS decision
Which if fine — for now.

The only thing that is certain is that these items will be challenged in the future and the current markup of the court will not always be hyper right wing.

It’s addressed, you just don’t like it

 

Funny how you left out the important part:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

Criminals! Ya howdy! Take them guns and get the ghetto guns too !!!!!

 

Mass killing events are frequently perpetrated by legal gun owners.

Acquiring a gun legally is NOT an excuse and there is no possibility of it being an exemption, given today's laws.

 

And so, my statements stands, unchallenged by you.
Thank you

 

Right and how many of those are under a restraining order? Now let's compare that to the over 100 million households that would have to be searched for this "confiscation"? Good luck with that.

 

Quantify this.
Of the 636 mass shootings in the US, 2022, how many were perpetrated by legal gun owners?
Prove your answer to be true.
.

 

What was your question?

 

But not mostly.

 

When Republicans gained control of the House and Senate with Trump as president, about the very first substantive act by congress and signed by Trump was to change the law in order to allow those with legal rulings of mental incompetence to be allowed to own guns.

H.J.Res.40 — 115th Congress (2017-201

This is a total refutation of Republicans being interested in the issue of lowering gun violence.

They say it isn't the guns.

They say it isn't because of mental deficits of the gun owner.

They say it isn't that the framers clearly identified well ordered militias as being their alternative for national defense - making the present interpretation of the 2nd amendment as some sort of absolute a ridiculous conclusion.

 

I don't support the notion of confiscating all guns. I never have.

But, that doesn't mean we have to accept the startlingly uncontrolled gun death that America is famous for throughout the world.

 

Absolute nonsense, as you know.

To you, again:
"The right of the people."
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia..
The people.
There is no right to be a member of the militia; as such, the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be linked to service in same.

Thus:
"Well regulated militia" can have no bearing on who holds the right protected by the 2nd, and the extent of the exercise of same.

I shall now receive your usual ineffectual reply.

 

How many social security recipients have done mass shootings?

 

Control the gun deaths through policing and leave our rights alone.

 

You DO, however, have to accept the enshrinement of constitutional rights - necessarily and intentionally - takes certain policy choices off the table.

 

We know that the slaughter of kids as they sit in school is usually not be a surreptitiously purchased firearm.

We know that cases like the bank guy who shot his workmates was fully legal.

The problem with this "legal gun owner" issue is that it doesn't open avenues for reducing gun death.

And, that's especially true when the Republican congress voted to allow those legally found to have serious mental deficiencies to buy guns. It shows that the current system of background checks does not form a line that could possibly exempt gun owners from needed gun violence improvement measures.

Background checks are a help, but it doesn't form some definition of "good guys" v "bad guys".

 

??
Pretending that those who pass a background check must be absolutely protected from all possible impacts of efforts to reduce DEATH is just plain preposterous.

It makes no more sense than me pointing out that I've killed nobody with my car, so I shouldn't have to follow any rules of driving.

 

It was not so much about them wanting the allow mentally insane to get guns, as it was about "repeal for the sake of repealing". As a result 75 000 mentally ill people would not be recognized as such in the background check process. I'll bet half the time they had no idea what they were repealing.

 

That is no more than a cheap excuse.

 

OK.

BUT, on this board we see people claiming that passing a background check DEFINES them as someone who absolutely MUST not be impacted by gun safety law.

YET, Republicans are continuing to work to ensure that those who absolutely should NOT be trusted with guns are allowed to carry them almost anywhere they want to go.

There is NO sign today that Republicans are the least bit bothered by the gun slaughter that makes the US world famous.

 

Your failure to quantify -- and thus, prove - your claim, noted.

 

Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

Let me fix that for you:
There is no sign that those who seek unnecessary, ineffective, and unconstitutional restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding give a single damn about the "slaughter" except as it might serve as a means to push their anti-gun agenda.

 

Then what was your point regarding your post below?

 

No, that doesn't explain anything at all.

If the gun crowd were interested, they would be designing solutions to present to the rest of us.

Checking action is how to detect truth.

By the way, the agenda is to reduce gun death in America.