How to not be taken seriously in gun control discussions

[pinqy]

1. Claim that the other side actually wants gun deaths.
2. Use the terms “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” as synonyms.
3. Talk as though the term “assault weapon” had any real meaning.
4. Use the word “clip” when referring to a magazine.
5. Claim that there should be no regulation of any kind of weapon for anyone.
6. Talk as though anything at all could eliminate gun deaths (other than the complete or near complete destruction of all guns on the planet)

Do any of these and it’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about and are on par with those who wanted to ban Silenceco’s integrally suppressed .50 cal muzzleloader as being a dangerous weapon.

 

[KevinKohler]

Honestly, these should be sub forum rules for the gun control forum...,


But then no one would post, lol.

 

[Mycroft]

Claim that there should be no regulation of any kind of weapon for anyone

Amendment II
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.

 

[Exquisitor]

Amendment II
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.

what is the difference between regulate and infringe?

The militia is referred to as "well regulated."

We could require gun owners to report for militia training.

My idea is gun safety certification in High School with a mark on the driver's license and buy and five level no buy list ruled by the courts.

Any gun out of a case out of the home, range or woods is a confiscate-able offense except for actions of the militia which you would prove in Court.

Guns

How have I infringed?

I have only made you take responsibility for your right and regulated the militia.

This is exactly why the Founders spoke, "Well regulated."

 

[Harshaw]

what is the difference between regulate and infringe?

The militia is referred to as "well regulated."

We could require gun owners to report for militia training.

My idea is gun safety certification in High School with a mark on the driver's license and buy and five level no buy list ruled by the courts.

Any gun out of a case out of the home, range or woods is a confiscate-able offense except for actions of the militia which you would prove in Court.

Guns

How have I infringed?

I have only made you take responsibility for your right and regulated the militia.

This is exactly why the Founders spoke, "Well regulated."

If you had studied the scholarship on the issue, or even read and understood Heller, you'd know that these questions don't even apply to the subject.

If you want to have any competent discussions on this topic, do the most basic research before you post. You can not even begin to until you have, at an absolute minimum, read Glenn Harland Reynolds's Critical Guide to the Second Amendment. If you're even asking these questions, you haven't done that.

 

[pinqy]

Amendment II
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.

And the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed by forbidding firearms in special cases such as in the hands of those proven dangerous, or in court houses or in prisons, etc

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

 

[jimbo]

what is the difference between regulate and infringe?

The militia is referred to as "well regulated."

We could require gun owners to report for militia training.

My idea is gun safety certification in High School with a mark on the driver's license and buy and five level no buy list ruled by the courts.

Any gun out of a case out of the home, range or woods is a confiscate-able offense except for actions of the militia which you would prove in Court.

Guns

How have I infringed?

I have only made you take responsibility for your right and regulated the militia.

This is exactly why the Founders spoke, "Well regulated."

If you don't know the difference between regulated and infringed, you might want to do some research before posting. Willard and Terry clocks were referred to as "regulators". Meaning they were in good working order and kept good time. There were no Terry/Willard laws in place. Not one. Anyone could own, possess, use, the clocks. Even set the time incorrectly if they so chose. So no infringement.

Regulated, especially if the adverb well is included, means in good working order.

 

[Exquisitor]

If you had studied the scholarship on the issue, or even read and understood Heller, you'd know that these questions don't even apply to the subject.

If you want to have any competent discussions on this topic, do the most basic research before you post. You can not even begin to until you have, at an absolute minimum, read Glenn Harland Reynolds's Critical Guide to the Second Amendment. If you're even asking these questions, you haven't done that.

Is it like asking, "How can I tell someone in another country not to step across my boarder?"

Immigration

Stop please, I need intelligent feedback, or I'll just go on believing this nonsense because no-one can debate with me.

Can you please give me a synopsis of your reference, I'm not well read.

It seems plain to me.

I'll put some books on my shopping list.

I didn't really mean to ask the question, I meant it as an answer.

Do you like my plan?

 

[Harshaw]

Is it like asking, "How can I tell someone in another country not to step across my boarder?"

Immigration

Stop please, I need intelligent feedback, or I'll just go on believing this nonsense because no-one can debate with me.

Can you please give me a synopsis of your reference, I'm not well read.

It seems plain to me.

I'll put some books on my shopping list.

I didn't really mean to ask the question, I meant it as an answer.

Do you like my plan?

Here's the article I referenced.

https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf

It comes from the Spring 1995 issue of the Tennessee Law Review, which itself is a primer on the topic.

If you genuinely want to learn, go to a law library and find a copy of it. It is the foundation you will need if you want to know.

 

[Harshaw]

1. Claim that the other side actually wants gun deaths.
2. Use the terms “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” as synonyms.
3. Talk as though the term “assault weapon” had any real meaning.
4. Use the word “clip” when referring to a magazine.
5. Claim that there should be no regulation of any kind of weapon for anyone.
6. Talk as though anything at all could eliminate gun deaths (other than the complete or near complete destruction of all guns on the planet)

Do any of these and it’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about and are on par with those who wanted to ban Silenceco’s integrally suppressed .50 cal muzzleloader as being a dangerous weapon.

If anyone says something along the lines of how there's "unfettered access to guns" or "it's easier to buy a gun than to buy a book," then you know they shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Exquisitor]

Here's the article I referenced.

https://www.azcdl.org/Reynolds_ACriticalGuidetotheSecondAmendment.pdf

It comes from the Spring 1995 issue of the Tennessee Law Review, which itself is a primer on the topic.

If you genuinely want to learn, go to a law library and find a copy of it. It is the foundation you will need if you want to know.

I don't approach the Second Amendment from the standpoint of rights, that is reading it backwards.

 

[TurtleDude]

what is the difference between regulate and infringe?

The militia is referred to as "well regulated."

We could require gun owners to report for militia training.

My idea is gun safety certification in High School with a mark on the driver's license and buy and five level no buy list ruled by the courts.

Any gun out of a case out of the home, range or woods is a confiscate-able offense except for actions of the militia which you would prove in Court.

Guns

How have I infringed?

I have only made you take responsibility for your right and regulated the militia.

This is exactly why the Founders spoke, "Well regulated."

you apparently are unaware what the term well regulated meant. and it certainly had no relevance to delegating any power to the federal government

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't approach the Second Amendment from the standpoint of rights, that is reading it backwards.

gun restrictionists start off with the premise that the federal government must have been intended to have gun control powers and then they reinterpret the second amendment to allow that

 

[vegas giants]

1. Claim that the other side actually wants gun deaths.
2. Use the terms “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” as synonyms.
3. Talk as though the term “assault weapon” had any real meaning.
4. Use the word “clip” when referring to a magazine.
5. Claim that there should be no regulation of any kind of weapon for anyone.
6. Talk as though anything at all could eliminate gun deaths (other than the complete or near complete destruction of all guns on the planet)

Do any of these and it’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about and are on par with those who wanted to ban Silenceco’s integrally suppressed .50 cal muzzleloader as being a dangerous weapon.

Here are some more


Claim gun control laws are only designed to get Democrats elected

Claim any gun control law will lead to a total ban

Claim gun control laws are only about harassing good people

 

[Exquisitor]

you apparently are unaware what the term well regulated meant. and it certainly had no relevance to delegating any power to the federal government

Regular, means everyone is careful with their gun, they stand at attention on the fact that it can kill, that they want it in their hands not yours.

 

[Exquisitor]

gun restrictionists start off with the premise that the federal government must have been intended to have gun control powers and then they reinterpret the second amendment to allow that

I believe there is preference as well as intention.

The militia can be regulated by the States; as in education and mark on drivers license; or by the Federal Government as in a buy and five tir no-buy list.

 

[beerftw]

Regular, means everyone is careful with their gun, they stand at attention on the fact that it can kill, that they want it in their hands not yours.

Then regulated meant to make regular, which literally meant to make available, so for the time of writing keeping a militia well regulated meant an unrestricted flow of arms to keep the militia available. The militia currently lists all able bodies males, and has been listed as such for quite a long time, the federal govt even listed militias based of regular and non regular status, meaning the national guard was regular and all citizens not in military reserves or guard were irregular militia.

 

[Harshaw]

I don't approach the Second Amendment from the standpoint of rights, that is reading it backwards.

Then you are affirmatively choosing ignorance and untruth. There is no reason to take you seriously.

 

[Exquisitor]

Then regulated meant to make regular, which literally meant to make available, so for the time of writing keeping a militia well regulated meant an unrestricted flow of arms to keep the militia available. The militia currently lists all able bodies males, and has been listed as such for quite a long time, the federal govt even listed militias based of regular and non regular status, meaning the national guard was regular and all citizens not in military reserves or guard were irregular militia.

So you're saying my plan should require everyone to be certified to get the mark on their License and be on the buy list?

 

[beerftw]

So you're saying my plan should require everyone to be certified to get the mark on their License and be on the buy list?

Not even close to what I said, have you ever googled the term strawman, because if not you may want to to prevent yourself from looking a fool in the future.

 

[justabubba]

you apparently are unaware what the term well regulated meant. and it certainly had no relevance to delegating any power to the federal government

you failed to share with us what you find to be the correct application of the term "well regulated"

 

[justabubba]

gun restrictionists start off with the premise that the federal government must have been intended to have gun control powers and then they reinterpret the second amendment to allow that

how about instead act on the premise that we are all subjected to the same provisions found within the second amendment and go from there

 

[justabubba]

Then regulated meant to make regular, which literally meant to make available, so for the time of writing keeping a militia well regulated meant an unrestricted flow of arms to keep the militia available. The militia currently lists all able bodies males, and has been listed as such for quite a long time, the federal govt even listed militias based of regular and non regular status, meaning the national guard was regular and all citizens not in military reserves or guard were irregular militia.

do you have a cite for this particular understanding of the intent of "well regulated"?

 

[Exquisitor]

Then you are affirmatively choosing ignorance and untruth. There is no reason to take you seriously.

Take me seriously if I make a clever comment, surely some liberal would write a thesis on the point of view.

Just a viewpoint, not saying it's a good one. I'm playing the liberal professor, how am I doing (for a schizophrenic dope head)?

 

[pinqy]

Here are some more


Claim gun control laws are only designed to get Democrats elected

Claim any gun control law will lead to a total ban

Claim gun control laws are only about harassing good people

Since you included the words “any,” and “only,” then I agree with you.