Culture of Shootings , "Thoughts and Prayers" But No Solutions

I agree with that.

 

that's a stupid suggestion.

 

people who actually understand constitutional law realize the second amendment was based on the natural right of self defense. Weapons useful for self defense are weapons that citizens would normally keep and bear. An attack warplane designed to destroy areas is not useful for individual self defense, and is not something a citizen would keep and BEAR. Why do the gun banners play such silly games? If civilian police are issued a weapon for use in a civilian environment, it means the employing agency is stating those weapons are ideal for self defense by civilian employees. Those same weapons are equally suitable for self defense by other citizens

 

study my other posts. is the weapon one that normally a citizen would keep and bear? Semi auto rifles have been in common use for 100+ years and are not unusually dangerous. are cruise missiles in common use by civilians and are they not unusually dangerous? are they something that a citizen can use for self defense?

 

Military, political office, law enforcement and every immigrant. The irony is in the fact that everyone thinks they are the defenders and everyone else is the attacker.

 

You cannot , however demonstrate this is because of how many more guns we have.
Thus, you are left with.... nothing.

 

LOL Nothing in the NYT article mentions FBI. As if the FBI is going to hear of every college fight. Are you going to run away from this claim too?

 

As I said: Americans have the same freedoms you do.

You don't.
Now, maybe you address the questions I asked.

-How many mass shootings did you have before that particular shooting?
-Given your answer, above, why do you think the law prevented future shootings?
-Why can't you wake to the news of a mass shooting in some Aussie city tomorrow morning?
-Does your constitution protect the right to own and use all "bearable arms" from infringement?

 

Why, is it because your example was just trashed?

 

Avail yourself of current jurisprudence on the issue and you will not be forced to ask such silly questions.

 

You do not need a license to buy a car, own a car, keep the car on private property, or use a car on private property
In fact you only need a license if you want to use it on public property.
In FACT, you can commit 100 counts of vehicular homicide - and still buy/own as many cars as you want.
Same principle for guns? I agree.

 

"Well regulated" modifies "militia".
The right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd, is held by the people. Not the militia. Not the people in the militia.
So... the definition of "well-regulated" does not matter.

Now, to ask the question you avoided:
What does "shall not be infringed" mean?

 

It's a right or it is not a right. The phraseology has never made a difference.

We have limitations on gun ownership today, and the reason is public safety.

 

So, you would agree to "no carry of any kind" without a license?

There should be insurance, too.

 

We have limitations on every right. There is a right to free speech yet we still have limits on what can be said legally.

We have the right to freedom of religion but there are still limits to what can be done in the name of religion

 

As the court said:
The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.
That is, "public safety" is insufficient justification for limitations that do not involve harming others or placing them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

 

Nothing in what I said supports any such supposition.
And so, if that's the best you can come up with, I accept your concession of the point.

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

I stand by what I said before, especially the parts which you edited out from the response. As I said, I am for gun rights and explained it further in the post which you edited out. In short, I'm with Anthony Scalia on this issue.

 

No, the mistake I'm referring to came farily recently (in terms of our history).

We have had a highly right wing court for a long time now. And, they LIKE guns far more than they like reducing the number of people slaughtered in America.

 

Hmm.. The claim is from raw story. Take it up with them. Are you suddenly against false reporting?

 

The fact you do not like the way the court ruled does no tin any way make its ruling a mistake.

 

He was previously known to the F.B.I. because he was linked to another individual under investigation by the the FBI.

Do you think that is a good enough reason to deny someone their 2nd amendment rights?

What is it the FBI should have done and how should they have done it?

 

The anti-gun left surely does.

 

I did not take DrLuggit as a anti-gun lefty. perhaps I was mistaken.

 

Wonder if a BASIC psychological test should be taken as part of the screening process / application for gun ownership?? It certainly can't hurt.....