Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Mountain Man]

Actually, it completely undermines your point, as Scalia (the man you quoted) also agrees the constitution allows for the regulation of firearms.

I don't think even the most hardcore of gun advocates has ever argued that we have "a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

Scalia went on to say, "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." However, "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

[Sparko]

Sparko never answered the question you asked him SoR. Your question to Sparko was; do you think machine guns or bazookas should be legal. He never gave you a positive answer, he merely refered to the 2nd amendment and replied; yes i think they are legal. Apparently he didn't want to go down that road where he'd have to answer the question as to where the line should be drawn when it comes to firearms, and why?

Actually I did answer him. Go back and read.

And actually his objection that a bunch of hicks with guns could not stand against an army just means that we should have access to machine guns and bazookas in order to have a well regulated militia.

[One Bad Pig]

Can’t let this drop as your fellow red suggested, eh? I don’t know about you, but I am quite looking forward to letting this drop so this lovely slugfest err... I mean ‘discussion’ can continue on for a few dozen more pages, while both sides repeat themselves, ad nauseam, while talking past each other, only for it to be repeated again in a few months time when the topic comes up again. I sure don’t want to interrupt this important ‘policy discussion’ so I can watch you miss my point while accusing me of missing yours.

There was no need to revalidate my observation.

You may have the last word.

[Sparko]

Natural right? Oh for pity's sake - no, it doesn't. Case law and the Constitution BOTH counter that silliness. Oh, and history, let's not forget the guys that wrote the thing...

Guns have been subject to regulation since the BEGINNING - all incorporation did was prevent states from banning them. The Court NEVER found anything remotely like this!

The courts are doing exactly what the second amendment says they can't do: infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Of course any government that wants to suppress the right to bear arms will say that it has the right to do so and that the people's right doesn't really say what it says.

Allowing the courts to decide how far the 2nd amendment should go is like letting the fox guard the hen house.

[Sparko]

They aren't. Never were. This is silly.

Yes they are.

Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ide-full-auto/

So are bazookas:

https://www.atf.gov/file/55446/download

[Darth Executor]

The “different criteria for the two countries” is the point.

In the US, where gun restrictions are virtually non-existent, there have been 1,516 mass shootings in 1,735.days plus a long list of other mass shootings.

By contrast, in Australia where stringent firearm restrictions apply, there hasn’t been a single mass shooting during the 21 years since the firearm buy-back and introduction of the gun restrictions...whereas there had been 13 fatal mass shootings in the preceding 18 years.

In short, tight gun restrictions in Australia and places like Japan, appear to make a significant difference.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...do-gun-control



It's not dishonest. "Desist" with your orders.

Australia and Japan are island nations. The US has a massive third world country on its border and gun control advocates are the same people demanding it be kept open. All banning guns would do in the US is start a civil war disarm people who don't want to break the law, and possibly give hispanic gangs an edge over black ones so they can accelerate their ethnic cleansing of the latter.

[Darth Executor]

Yes they are.

Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ide-full-auto/

So are bazookas:

https://www.atf.gov/file/55446/download

Tanks with functioning guns too:

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.co...ank-ownership/

And Paul Allen owns a jet fighter:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-fighter.html

[Sparko]

Tanks with functioning guns too:

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.co...ank-ownership/

And Paul Allen owns a jet fighter:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-fighter.html

Yeah and we don't have a bunch of incidents of people misusing tanks or jet fighters.

The second amendment says we are allowed to own and keep arms. Like I said before, it doesn't protect us from the consequences of using them. So breaking laws by shooting off guns or bazookas or fighter jet machine guns and murdering people is not protected. You will be arrested. But as long as you obey the law and don't misuse the weapons there is no problem.

The problem is when the democrats want to take away all guns and weapons because they say we can't be trusted with them. Apparently most of us can.

[Roy]

Yeah and we don't have a bunch of incidents of people misusing tanks or jet fighters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_..._Tank_Rampage)

[One Bad Pig]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_..._Tank_Rampage)

Sparko said "a bunch of incidents" not "any incidents."

[RumTumTugger]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_..._Tank_Rampage)

ok you found 1 incident how does that contradict Sparko saying a bunch of people.

[Sparko]

Sparko said "a bunch of incidents" not "any incidents."

Yeah, I was actually thinking of that ONE incident when I worded my sentence. There might even be others, but just because such things make the news does not make them common. The reason they ARE news is because they are uncommon. Also, he did not legally own the tank, he stole it, and he never used the gun or any weapons.

Kinda ironic we nitpicked the tweb nitpicker though.

[One Bad Pig]

Kinda ironic we nitpicked the tweb nitpicker though.

I couldn't pass up taking that opening.

[Jedidiah]

Actually, it completely undermines your point, as Scalia (the man you quoted) also agrees the constitution allows for the regulation of firearms.

I said

Even if the 2nd were repealed that does not eliminate the right.

How is that changed by the fact that someone else says something different.

It also does not change the fact that the Constitution is not a living document to be reinterpreted as seen fit by activist judges.

How does the fact that Scalia did not entirely agree with my position alter my position in any way?

[Jedidiah]

And yet over 100 million people a year manage not to use these ‘hate amplifiers‘ for all that much hate amplification. The only thing I’ve been able to amplify is bragging rights if I can get a higher score at the range than whoever we happen to go with. Are we just using them wrong for this hate amplification to take place?

Responding to ff is futile.