Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Teallaura]

...

It's not quite like that. The Constitution limiting the Federal government from something doesn't mean it limits the States from doing it; heck, the 10th Amendment explicitly says states can do anything the Federal government doesn't have power to do and also isn't prohibited for states to do under the constitution. That's why, until the 14th Amendment, states could curtail freedom of speech however they wanted, because the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government (though I know some states had a First Amendment-esque clause in their own constitutions to forbid them from doing so, not sure if all of them did though). However, there's no such clause in the constitution in regards to cities versus states, so I believe the rule is pretty simply that if a state is banned from doing something due to the Constitution, the cities within that state can't do it either. After all, one wouldn't claim "the Constitution only bans states from making treaties with other countries" as rationale for cities having the ability to.

State law is superior to city/county law. Which is the answer to his question. Since the Second has been incorporated, the rest of this is largely moot, albeit technically correct.

[Jedidiah]

There goes that argument.

Does not alter anything I have said.

[Sea of red]

Does not alter anything I have said.

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

[Mountain Man]

I have a number of gun owning friends. I've talked to lots of gun owners over the years. BUT where it counts - out in the woods where they are actually shooting, I have NEVER seen a 'responsible gun owner'. I would believe in unicorns first.

Fire arms are weapons. They are designed to kill. They are NEVER 'perfectly safe' and can never be handled in 'perfect safety' because only humans handle them - and humans are anything but 'perfectly safe'. They make stupid mistakes. They get careless. They do things that they know better than do for no readily apparent reason. Basically, they act like what they are - human.

People have rights - and value. So no, regulating human behavior isn't going to keep their innocent neighbors safe. Regulating inanimate weapons is a way to try to save some of them, however.

"If handled responsibly' - hmph, how the heck do you plan to enforce that?

Now you're being pedantic. "Perfectly safe" is a figure of speech. I don't mean it literally.

How do you enforce responsible handling of a firearm? The same way you enforce responsible handling of a motor vehicle. I mean, last I checked, there are penalties for recklessly discharging a firearm or accidentally shooting someone.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, you seem to have missed the point entirely. You never, ever, seem to take responsibility for your own actions - you always point to the other guy.

slugfest

[lilpixieofterror]

I have a number of gun owning friends. I've talked to lots of gun owners over the years. BUT where it counts - out in the woods where they are actually shooting, I have NEVER seen a 'responsible gun owner'. I would believe in unicorns first.

Fire arms are weapons. They are designed to kill. They are NEVER 'perfectly safe' and can never be handled in 'perfect safety' because only humans handle them - and humans are anything but 'perfectly safe'. They make stupid mistakes. They get careless. They do things that they know better than do for no readily apparent reason. Basically, they act like what they are - human.

People have rights - and value. So no, regulating human behavior isn't going to keep their innocent neighbors safe. Regulating inanimate weapons is a way to try to save some of them, however.

"If handled responsibly' - hmph, how the heck do you plan to enforce that?

[Sea of red]

slugfest

OBP and I are 'fellows' now?

[lilpixieofterror]

[lilpixieofterror]

OBP and I are 'fellows' now?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post480757

[Sea of red]

Roy, you know I respect you, and sympathize with your issues with LpoT, but you shouldn't give her crap for her spelling mistakes.

She has dyslexia which causes her to sometimes mix-up words, and she's probably sensitive to people picking on her for it. Maybe she never told you but since you now know, I think you should stop -- it only provokes her.

[Roy]

False. These are not facts. You are using different criteria for the two countries. This is dishonest. Desist.

[Tassman]

False. These are not facts. You are using different criteria for the two countries.

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

This is dishonest. Desist.

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

[Mountain Man]

blah blah blah

Do you really think that simply repeating your already refused arguments will magically make them valid again?

[Roy]

That's not the different criterion.

You are using a different definition of "mass shooting" for Australia (four or more killed) than you are for the US (four or more injured). Your comparison is worthless. Continuing to use it is dishonest, and counter-productive.

[Mountain Man]

Do you really think that simply repeating your already refused refuted arguments will magically make them valid again?

Autocorrect strikes again... :p