I just want to remind gun supporters of Trumps Stance on guns

why don't you tell us what state laws you think will be struck down due to Bruen

Bruen is a flawed decision and I expect it to be modified. I am glad it was issued by I see the problems it will create.

so tell us-what laws will fall due to Bruen and which ones involving the keeping and bearing of arms will survive (obviously laws against armed robbery, felonious assault, reckless discharge etc are not relevant since they are not about keeping and bearing)

 

See Bruen, anything lacking an analogous provision. Most 'sensitive places' laws, requirements for permits, background checks, etc.

Yes, we know you're a grabber, you've already covered that.

 

There's no constitutional infringements.
The 2A is quite explicit.

Second Amendment



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Believing there's reasons for infringement is just people's way of dealing with going against the 2A.

 

we know you're an extremist who only hurts the pro rights side by taking ridiculous stands.

 

what exactly are you saying? You're on record wanting to ban commonly owned semi auto rifles

 

Does not mean those infringements are not infringements.
They are just allowed to be infringed. And you're happy with some infringements.

 

Sure I am. As I own a couple of 30-06's. LOL.

I am not saying anything that's not already been said. The 2A is quite explicit.

You are perfectly fine with arms infringements.

 

None of those are silent, click bait title is click bait title.

 

They're not rights to you dude, you draw a line short of the logical extension of the rule.
You've admitted to this. That makes you a grabber IE someone who thinks what is a right is really a privilege.

 

I have always stated that any action by the federal government concerning private citizens acting within their own sovereign states in a private capacity is an unconstitutional infringement. at the state level-where the founders accepted and intended the states to have certain police powers, we enter a gray area with incorporation. restricted governmental areas-such as jails or courthouses-are such that no court will ever find that bans on private citizens bearing arms in such areas are an infringement.

you try to justify your support of clear second amendment violations by pretending that banning semi auto rifles is no different than someone stating that say the state of Ohio can prevent citizens packing firearms into courtrooms or state prisons

 

that's bullshit because admitting that no court will ever strike down a law preventing private citizens from being armed in a courthouse or jail is not gun grabbing. Those who support gun bans-such as you-pretend that your blatantly disgust of the second amendment is no different than those of us who understand the limits of incorporation

 

I oppose any ban on lawful adults being able to own any firearm

can you say the same thing?

 

No, that's bullshit because no one but you has advanced the courthouses argument, Quixote.

I do not support gun bans, quote me otherwise. See Bruen, and my numerous posts on this subject.

Your last sentence needs revising to make grammatic sense. No one can understand you when you're in a froth, use your words.
To be clear: The only person who has expressed disgust of the 2a is you by refusing its unqualified command.

 

we should compare what we have done to advance gun rights. but I have never supported gun bans. And you pretend that any restriction in any way is a violation of the fourteenth amendment. others have called you on that

 

I pretend that any restriction lacking an historic analog, the burden of proof of same of which is upon the proponent of the restriction, violates the 2nd and 14th amendments, yes.
See Bruen.

Rights? What rights? You claim its all about what a court will give you, you're doing nothing but asking daddy for a special treat.

 

what state laws do you think would survive your interpretation of Bruen?

 

I am not the one pretending.

 

Again, you have your line in the sand on infringements
I can say the same, I have a line, it may differ from yours. But I am not worried I will ever lose my right to own my semi auto 30-06's.

 

You constantly pretend you are not anti gun by claiming you own guns, yet you are on record wanting to ban things such as AR 15s

 

Yet you claim that "assault style" firearms need to be banned. You are in favor of banning firearms rarely used in crime

 

Really? You wouldn't be lying again. Would you?

 

Again? Just making up things? Is that to deal with your own issues on arms infringements?

 

No carry in jails, courthouses, and analogous places like polling places. That's a founding era restriction.
Restraining orders will have to be modified into peace bonds, those existed at the founding as well.
You've already mentioned several we don't need to discuss, assault with a weapon, reckless discharge etc.
I'm struggling to come up with anything further, though I hold its perfectly possible for there to be something I missed.

 

I think we went through this little charade before and I found your quote where you started saying things that can allow multiple killings faster need to be restricted. are you denying that now?

 

OK works for me.