Michigan shooting suspect's parents willfully disregarded signs that their son was a threat

[NolanVoyd]

so case law has no relevance: Okie dokie

Of course case law has relevance. The case law makes it clear that such laws are constitutional and are established law. They have been in use for 100 years.

Other cases not prosecuted are not case law.

An attorney would understand that.

 

[Rich2018]

Not if there are rational people on the jury instead of mentally-unhinged leftist filth.

What about the mentally unhinged rightest filth...what about them

Even though I appreciate tat's more than a little tautological.

 

[RF667799]

What about the mentally unhinged rightest filth...what about them

Even though I appreciate tat's more than a little tautological.

He meant his that way too.

 

[TurtleDude]

Of course case law has relevance. The case law makes it clear that such laws are constitutional and are established law. They have been in use for 100 years.

Other cases not prosecuted are not case law.

An attorney would understand that.

I understand that those who support semi auto bans, magazine limits and bans on buying ammo on line are not pro gun and hate the second amendment

 

[Rich2018]

I understand that those who support semi auto bans, magazine limits and bans on buying ammo on line are not pro gun and hate the second amendment

The 2A is a blood soaked, hateful document.

And I understand that gun lovers hate freedom and want to see most people in the USA oppressed.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I understand that those who support semi auto bans, magazine limits and bans on buying ammo on line are not pro gun and hate the second amendment

Changing the subject?

You weren't an attorney.

 

[Rich2018]

Changing the subject?

You weren't an attorney.

I've doubted that before.

 

[TurtleDude]

I've doubted that before.

I laugh at the people who say such stupid things

 

[TurtleDude]

Changing the subject?

You weren't an attorney.

There is far more evidence that I am an attorney than supports your lie that you are "pro gun" when you support magazine bans, semi auto bans, bans on on-line ammo sales etc

 

[NolanVoyd]

There is far more evidence that I am an attorney than supports your lie that you are "pro gun" when you support magazine bans, semi auto bans, bans on on-line ammo sales etc

Lol.

 

[TurtleDude]

Lol.

it is no laughing matter to claim you support the second amendment while believing the government should ban semi auto rifles, or normal capacity magazines

 

[NolanVoyd]

it is no laughing matter to claim you support the second amendment while believing the government should ban semi auto rifles, or normal capacity magazines

Covered that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Covered that.

not well. You cannot say you support the second amendment while also claiming the governments have a legitimate power to ban firearms that are in common use or normal capacity magazines.

 

[NolanVoyd]

not well. You cannot say you support the second amendment while also claiming the governments have a legitimate power to ban firearms that are in common use or normal capacity magazines.

Very well.

I support the second ammendment AND reasonable gun control.

We covered that already.

 

[TurtleDude]

Very well.

I support the second ammendment AND reasonable gun control.

We covered that already.

there is nothing reasonable about supporting bans on semi autos or magazines

 

[Rucker61]

Very well.

I support the second ammendment AND reasonable gun control.

We covered that already.

What is "reasonable" about supporting unconstitutional laws?

What if someone else considers Japan's gun control laws to be "reasonable"?

For this ban on semiautomatic rifles and standard capacity magazines that you support, how would you define "ban"?

 

[NolanVoyd]

there is nothing reasonable about supporting bans on semi autos or magazines

I proved you wrong on that.

It is very reasonable and allowed under the 2nd.

We covered that already.

Why do you insist on going in circles?

 

[NolanVoyd]

What is "reasonable" about supporting unconstitutional laws?

What if someone else considers Japan's gun control laws to be "reasonable"?

For this ban on semiautomatic rifles and standard capacity magazines that you support, how would you define "ban"?

Those laws are constitutional.

 

[TurtleDude]

I proved you wrong on that.

It is very reasonable and allowed under the 2nd.

We covered that already.

Why do you insist on going in circles?

no it is not reasonable and it violates Heller. You seem unable to comprehend that if you think the government can ban 11 round magazines, you must concede it can ban 5 round magazines. And semi auto rifles have been around for over ONE HUNDRED YEARS

you are a gun banner who wants to pretend you are in favor of the 2A

 

[NolanVoyd]

no it is not reasonable and it violates Heller. You seem unable to comprehend that if you think the government can ban 11 round magazines, you must concede it can ban 5 round magazines. And semi auto rifles have been around for over ONE HUNDRED YEARS

you are a gun banner who wants to pretend you are in favor of the 2A

Going circles.

 

[TurtleDude]

Going circles.

tell us when a magazine limit becomes unreasonable and what features on a semi auto rifle makes it "Unusually dangerous" and thus REASONABLE to ban

 

[NolanVoyd]

tell us when a magazine limit becomes unreasonable and what features on a semi auto rifle makes it "Unusually dangerous" and thus REASONABLE to ban

Covered that already. In great detail.

Review.

Stop going in circles.

 

[TurtleDude]

Covered that already. In great detail.

Review.

Stop going in circles.

no you didn't. I don't recall you ever saying when a magazine limit becomes unconstitutional or unreasonable. The reason why is if you buy into the mindless bullshit that banning magazines will keep killers from getting them, you have already decided you will support more and more restrictions if the current ones don't "work". and they are only intended to pretend to work, so that gives you grounds to demand more and more "reasonable" restrictions that only impact honest people

 

[NolanVoyd]

no you didn't. I don't recall you ever saying when a magazine limit becomes unconstitutional or unreasonable. The reason why is if you buy into the mindless bullshit that banning magazines will keep killers from getting them, you have already decided you will support more and more restrictions if the current ones don't "work". and they are only intended to pretend to work, so that gives you grounds to demand more and more "reasonable" restrictions that only impact honest people

Of course I did. I explained my position on that in great detail.

 

[TurtleDude]

Of course I did. I explained my position on that in great detail.

I looked: here is what you said

1) limits need to be established and lines need to be drawn
2) there is no need for normal capacity magazines
3) some courts have allowed these limits

MISSING IS any argument why the line drawing is proper or where the line would become unreasonable or unconstitutional