How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, May 25, 2022.

  1. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    33,207
    Likes Received:
    13,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any way they want to define them is fine. Cosmetics is good enough for me. So long as we err on the side of saving lives.

    Read above: we err on the side of saving lives.

    Sure! Do you know how much having almost 400 cops standing around doing nothing while a shooter is killing children costs?

    This is not about you.

    Most mass shooters were not criminals before they went on their shooting spree. So this is nonsense.

    Still the thread is not about you, but I'm counting on it making the people who this thread IS about happy in the same way.

    See Irrelevant Argument 6 further down on the OP

    Whatever lawmakers and gun experts agree determine is "high-capacity".

    See Irrelevant Argument 1

    The Uvalde shooter shot over 1600 rounds (probably had more than that which he didn't use). He got them delivered to his house. Sounds much easier than MAKING 1600 rounds. Anything to make it more difficult to kill people is good.

    Also, there is this
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-easy-is-it-to-build-an-assault-rifle.600117/

    It wouldn't pass THIS partisan Supreme Court. But the jokers won't be in a majority forever.

    Already responded.

    Which very few mass shooters are likely to have. Again: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-easy-is-it-to-build-an-assault-rifle.600117/

    Your "constitutional" arguments have already been responded to above.

    I would say 19 children and 2 teachers dead.... plus more than one mass shooting per day in this country is a pretty good reason.

    My proposal is not to be implemented all today. We can go little by little as the circumstances merit This one requires a SCOTUS that is not just the judicial branch of the NRA. We'll have one, eventually.

    The POINT is that these proposals would reduce the number of mass shootings, as well as the number of dead in shootings that cannot be avoided. i.e. make mass shootings more difficult. Which I stated at the very top of the post.

    And since the only argument you are left with is, not that it won't work, but that SCOTUS won't allow it, looks like that means I'm on the right track.
     
  2. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,535
    Likes Received:
    2,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My Constitutional (with a capital "C") arguments have already been responded to by the Supreme Court. And those "jokers" will be in office for at least the next 3-4 decades. How old will you be then? Enough for it to matter to you?

    Hell, even the losing lawyers have accepted their loss and moved on. As you should, too. At least for the next 30 years. Maybe, if you're lucky, and the right Justices die or retire with a D POTUS and Senate at the time, then maybe you'll find some yahoos who think the Court is a super-Legislature with no checks or balances. I hope not, but by then, I'll be a crotchety old man who it will probably be a good idea not
    to mess with.
     
  3. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    33,207
    Likes Received:
    13,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess you realized that's the only argument you have left. But it relies on the assumption that we will never again have a non-partisan SCOTUS. I don't think you have lived long enough to realize how things tend to change. Some of us have lived through many periods of crazyness. But, in the end, facts and logic ALWAYS manage to prevail.
     
  4. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,535
    Likes Received:
    2,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it is not. But it is the only argument that is necessary, because it really is end of conversation, despite the fact that myself and others humor you.

    No, we don't. What we have, for possibly the first time in my life, is a Court full of textualists, or if you prefer, originalists. To me, it's just two different ways of saying the same thing. That has been evident in their recent rulings, except I'm not sure they went far enough in the EPA case. They ruled that the EPA didn't have the authority to make "major decisions" (or words to that effect) without Congressional action. This makes sense, as it's Congress' job to make the rules, not these alphabet agencies. It's also good news for some of the stupid decisions the ATF has made regarding silencers, bump stocks, and other firearm related issues.

    But they didn't go far enough for me.

    See, I question where in the Constitution you can find Congressional authority to create an EPA in the first place.

    Son, I'm in my 50s. Early 50s, but 50s nonetheless. I've seen just about all there is to see, hell, I even died, saw the other side, and came back to tell about it.

    I know you are praying for some Justices that hate guns and think the Court is actually the Congress, but at best, at best that's going to be 2-3 decades from now, and even that assumes a far-left President, a far-left Senate, and some available candidates that meet your requirements. Were I you, I would not hold my breath about it even happening when our current Justices retire or die.

    And here is a cold, hard fact for you to ponder for the next 30 years as you anonymously start thread after thread after thread on internet forums crying about partisan Justices.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - United States Constitution, as reaffirmed by it's Supreme Court multiple times in the history of our Republic.
     
    Buri likes this.
  5. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    33,207
    Likes Received:
    13,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is the end of the conversation. But it will go away when we have a non-partisan Supreme Court again. So I appreciate the fact that you agree that what I proposed will solve the problem.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2022
  6. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,535
    Likes Received:
    2,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's actually the complete opposite kind of Court you'll need. Come back to this thread in, say, 25 years. We'll see if maybe the planets all aligned, the groundhog didn't see his shadow, and if there even still is a dem party, we'll see. But unless more would-be assassins try to take out some Justices and succeed, it won't be before then.

    I really hope the kids in law school today who might be candidates at the right time have learned to read plain English by then.
     
  7. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    33,207
    Likes Received:
    13,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BTW, looking back at my proposal, I very much doubt even THIS Supreme Court would find anything objectionable. At least as far as precedent CURRENTLY in place. Of curse, they could create NEW legislation. Like Scalia did. But none of my proposals is objectionable even by Scalia's legislation.

    Anyway... after seeing that no right wingers, which includes you, but also includes more serious posters, could rebut any of my proposals, I am more confident that this is a pretty comprehensive list of what needs to be done.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2022
  8. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,535
    Likes Received:
    2,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And I'm not just confident, but absolutely certain that the right of the American People to keep, which means own, and now after Bruen, to bear arms (that would be guns) is, as the founders intended, absolutely secure for at least the next 3 decades, and to change it even then will require a confluence of events that comes along only once or twice in a lifetime.

    Funny, though, that you label me a "right winger", considering that I'm pro-choice, pro-same-sex-marriage, pro-drug legalization, anti-religion and more. Yes, I'm pro-gun, and I'm in favor of reducing taxes and the size of government, I want allodial land titles and no income taxation, and I'm a Constitutional Originalist, so I guess there's no wing for me. I stand on my own principals, sense of right and wrong, and I take no talking points from anyone. If I happen to have an idea that sounds similar to someone else on a particular issue, I came to that position all by myself, without the assistance of any group.

    BTW, I was researching earlier today trying to purchase some Teflon coated bullets, aka "cop killers", but they aren't made any more. So, you insisting that they do exist just doesn't make it so. Even if they did, testing showed that the teflon did nothing to help them penetrate a soft vest. Rifles, OTOH, can easily do so, but you need metal plates to protect against those and since the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, that is what the police prepare to handle.

    Now you can return to tilting at windmills.
     
    Buri likes this.

Share This Page