Charlie Kirk's death should not go to waste!

[RF667799]

Banning ar 15s would have prevented this.
And banning mausers.

And banning those new fangled telescopic sniper sight things.

 

[braindrain]

I understand other people have other perspectives. I have a different interpretation of the second amendment and do believe it would be useful.

I think it’s pretty clear you don’t actually know what the word interpretation means.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think it’s pretty clear you don’t actually know what the word interpretation means.

Ahh, the meta level of attack.

 

[braindrain]

Ahh, the meta level of attack.

That you think interpretation means just make up what ever you want and think that has any bearing on reality is hilarious.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

We don't regulate cars at all not the slightest.

We require them to be registered. We require the drivers to be certified/licensed in their operation. We require their owners to be indemnified in case of causing accidental and bad acts.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That you think interpretation means just make up what ever you want and think that has any bearing on reality is hilarious.

The only thing you are asserting here is that you have a different interpretation and you believe in yours so much that you consider other points of view fascicle. This says more about your lack of open mindedness or objectivity, which is not a me thing.

 

[braindrain]

The only thing you are asserting here is that you have a different interpretation and you believe in yours so much that you consider other points of view fascicle. This says more about your lack of open mindedness or objectivity, which is not a me thing.

No, I am simply following the long standing interpretation of the SCOTUS and the actual words written in the constitution.

You are pretending the rather clear statement doesn’t actually mean what the words say. Ie lying.

But please explain you interpretation and provide any evidence you have to back that claim up.

 

[Dans La Lune]

How would any of these changes have prevented Kirk's murder?

 

[Slartibartfast]

No, I am simply following the long standing interpretation of the SCOTUS and the actual words written in the constitution.

Yes, you are following your interpretation.

You are pretending the rather clear statement doesn’t actually mean what the words say. Ie lying.

I am offering my own interepretation.

But please explain you interpretation and provide any evidence you have to back that claim up.

I am sure you are already aware of the collective rights approach to this amendment.

If needed, here is a good overview for both sides of the debate for you to review: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sec...he,without implicating a constitutional right.

 

[braindrain]

Yes, you are following your interpretation.

I am offering my own interepretation.

I am sure you are already aware of the collective rights approach to this amendment.

If needed, here is a good overview for both sides of the debate for you to review: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment#:~:text=The Second Amendment of the,without implicating a constitutional right.

No it’s the SCOTUS interpretation as well as the actual meaning of the words written down. As well as the writings of the people who actually wrote the amendment.

No you are just telling lies any what it means.

Yes I am well aware of the dishonest collective rights argument. And is complete garbage supported by nothing other then its believers imagination. Or their lies. Which ever the case may be.


So tell me why you think the writers of the Constitution used the term the people to mean one thing in certain parts of the Constitution and something else in another. And back that up with anything written by the people who wrote the amendment. Because any one with the least bit of knowledge on the subject would be well aware of the numerous comments we have from the founders proving that claim to be the garbage that it is.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No it’s the SCOTUS interpretation as well as the actual meaning of the words written down. As well as the writings of the people who actually wrote the amendment.

No you are just telling lies any what it means.

Yes I am well aware of the dishonest collective rights argument. And is complete garbage supported by nothing other then its believers imagination. Or their lies. Which ever the case may be.

The current SCOTUS interpretation is just a matter of who's politics has won out on that venue. It has no real baring on truth. In fact neither side of this debate has baring on truth, its just a matter of preferred social convention.

So tell me why you think the writers of the Constitution used the term the people to mean one thing in certain parts of the Constitution and something else in another. And back that up with anything written by the people who wrote the amendment. Because any one with the least bit of knowledge on the subject would be well aware of the numerous comments we have from the founders proving that claim to be the garbage that it is.

Review US vs Miller.

 

[CLAX1911]

We require them to be registered.

No we do not. I know a feeling that owns 254 cars not a single one is registered and he isn't breaking any laws.

You only have to register them if you plan to use them on the roadway.

We require the drivers to be certified/licensed in their operation.

Only on the roadway

We require their owners to be indemnified in case of causing accidental and bad acts.

All of this strictly pertains to the roadway which is an environment where just by being there you put everyone's life at risk

 

[RF667799]

No we do not. I know a feeling that owns 254 cars not a single one is registered and he isn't breaking any laws.

You only have to register them if you plan to use them on the roadway.



Only on the roadway

All of this strictly pertains to the roadway which is an environment where just by being there you put everyone's life at risk

Amazing that someone who claims to have been law enforcement for all those years doesn't know this stuff.

 

[CLAX1911]

Amazing that someone who claims to have been law enforcement for all those years doesn't know this stuff.

Well the claims are probably false unsuspected that from the beginning.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

No we do not. I know a feeling that owns 254 cars not a single one is registered and he isn't breaking any laws.

You only have to register them if you plan to use them on the roadway.

Ok, I wasn’t specific enough, but few folks own cars who don’t use them to move themselves about on the public roads. The point is still the point. If you own one and use it for other than making donuts on your own property you have to register them

Only on the roadway

And again. Same point.

All of this strictly pertains to the roadway which is an environment where just by being there you put everyone's life at risk

And the point..

 

[RF667799]

Ok, I wasn’t specific enough, but few -spoke own cars who don’t use them to move themselves about on the public roads. The point is still the point. If you own one and use it for other than making donuts on your own property you gave to register them

Or on other people's private property. I believe many many guns are used on nothing but private property. Perhaps the majority of them. Whether of guns or motor vehicles one is used on private property more is irrelevant. That rules are the same for each. Until we come to buying the gun as compared to buying a motor vehicle. Then the gun purchase is more regulated.

And again. Same point.


And the point..

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Or on other people's private property. I believe many many guns are used on nothing but private property. Perhaps the majority of them. Whether of guns or motor vehicles one is used on private property more is irrelevant. That rules are the same for each. Until we come to buying the gun as compared to buying a motor vehicle. Then the gun purchase is more regulated.

Depends. Ask a car dealer. The sale from their end of it is quite regulated.

 

[RF667799]

Depends. Ask a car dealer. The sale from their end of it is quite regulated.

Ask a gun dealer. The sales from their end of it are quite regulated. They have to do a background check too, which is something car dealers don't have to worry about.

The buyer of a gun has to pass that background check. Something motor vehicle buyers don't have to worry about. A convicted wife beater can buy a car so as to more efficiently stalk his ex that moved out of town to escape him. No questions asked.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Ask a gun dealer. The sales from their end of it are quite regulated. They have to do a background check too, which is something car dealers don't have to worry about.

The buyer of a gun has to pass that background check. Something motor vehicle buyers don't have to worry about. A convicted wife beater can buy a car so as to more efficiently stalk his ex that moved out of town to escape him. No questions asked.

Those are valid points.

It doesn’t mean though that my point: that car ownership, operation and need for insurance against liability don’t exist and aren’t an example of how other impactful tools that can cause damage if misused ought to be treated.

 

[rahl]

We require them to be registered.

Nope. There is no requirement to register a car in order to own one.

We require the drivers to be certified/licensed in their operation.

Nope. There is no requirement that a driver be licensed to operate a motor vehicle on private property.

We require their owners to be indemnified in case of causing accidental and bad acts.

Nope. There is no requirement to carry insurance to own a motor vehicle or to drive one on private property.

 

[RF667799]

Those are valid points.

It doesn’t mean though that my point: that car ownership, operation and need for insurance against liability don’t exist and aren’t an example of how other impactful tools that can cause damage if misused ought to be treated.

We've started to examine the possession and purchase of guns vs motor vehicles, and your complaints were weak. I suppose you should answer now if you want guns regulated like motor vehicles, or motor vehicles regulated like guns.

 

[rahl]

I am sure you are already aware of the collective rights approach to this amendment.

There is no such thing. The Supreme Court had told you that every single time the question has come up, starting in 1858.

 

[rahl]

The current SCOTUS interpretation is just a matter of whose politics has won out on that venue. It has no real baring on truth. In fact neither side of this debate has baring on truth, it’s just a matter of preferred social convention.

It’s not the current scotus. It’s every single scotus going back to 1858.

Review US vs Miller.

You really need to read the miller ruling lol

 

[ModernDiogenes]

We've started to examine the possession and purchase of guns vs motor vehicles, and your complaints were weak. I suppose you should answer now if you want guns regulated like motor vehicles, or motor vehicles regulated like guns.

All I want is for dumb, irresponsible and the mentally and emotionally challenged to have limited access to implements that can cause major damage, and for there to be remedies for those injured to be made whole when they cause damage with them.

Cars, guns, heavy equipment, explosives, etc.

 

[RF667799]

All I want is for dumb, irresponsible and the mentally and emotionally challenged to have limited access to implements that can cause major damage, and for there to be remedies for those injured to be made whole when they cause damage with them.

Cars, guns, heavy equipment, explosives, etc.

All you want to do is drag the goalposts into a different field. Because you didn't like the way the comparison between gun regulation and motor vehicle regulation was going. It ain't nothing new.