My biggest pet peeve in gun debates

[TurtleDude]

Good vegan gravy, how twisted does one have to be to say that the Supreme Court doesn't refer to the 2A when deciding gun rights cases? Does the Supreme Court refer to the 1A when deciding freedom of speech cases? Of course. But somehow they don't refer to the 2A. The blatant partisan dishonesty is disgusting. Add in that your comments are always abrasive. "Idiotic." Do you do the windows on that glass house?

And it's not only Congress that makes gun laws.

I cannot help it if you are unable to understand constitutional law and theory. You clearly haven't been able to figure out that the first issue that has to be asked when Congress tries to harass gun owners is this: does CONGRESS have the proper authority to even pass the law. In some cases, the courts have held that it didn't. That is a tenth amendment issue In other cases, the court determines if the laws run afoul of the bill of rights other than the tenth amendment. The fifth amendment has been used to strike down gun laws as has the second.

To claim that any part of the bill of rights actually is the jurisdictional authorization for congress to enact gun control laws is so incredibly wrong that anyone who makes such a claim should never have any of his or her comments concerning gun laws given any credibility.

 

[Antiwar]

I cannot help it if you are unable to understand constitutional law and theory. You clearly haven't been able to figure out that the first issue that has to be asked when Congress tries to harass gun owners is this: does CONGRESS have the proper authority to even pass the law.

Chuckle. You claim to know constitutional law but you think that the 2A isn't the reference for the Supreme Court cases.

If Congress supposedly has to ask if a law is constitutional, then how do any unconstitutional laws get passed? When you make this stuff up you should at least try to figure out the massive logical holes you're leaving yourself open with.

In some cases, the courts have held that it didn't. That is a tenth amendment issue In other cases, the court determines if the laws run afoul of the bill of rights other than the tenth amendment. The fifth amendment has been used to strike down gun laws as has the second.

Wait, what? Now you're saying that the 2A IS a reference. It must be very difficult to keep all of those bogus notions straight.

To claim that any part of the bill of rights actually is the jurisdictional authorization for congress to enact gun control laws is so incredibly wrong that anyone who makes such a claim should never have any of his or her comments concerning gun laws given any credibility.

You keep going back to this straw man argument. I never said it gives authorization. Actually, you're claiming it prevents gun laws. Well, when you can keep things straight.

 

[TurtleDude]

Chuckle. You claim to know constitutional law but you think that the 2A isn't the reference for the Supreme Court cases.

If Congress supposedly has to ask if a law is constitutional, then how do any unconstitutional laws get passed? When you make this stuff up you should at least try to figure out the massive logical holes you're leaving yourself open with.



Wait, what? Now you're saying that the 2A IS a reference. It must be very difficult to keep all of those bogus notions straight.



You keep going back to this straw man argument. I never said it gives authorization. Actually, you're claiming it prevents gun laws. Well, when you can keep things straight.

you keep changing the goal posts either because you are making things up as you go along or because you really haven't any idea what you are talking about. We aren't talking what amendments the SUPREME COURT or other courts reference when they adjudicate a suit involving gun laws. We are talking about what part of the constitution authorizes congress to interfere with the rights of private citizens to keep, own, bear, and possess firearms. You claimed it was the second amendment. I correctly noted that the FDR administration pretended that the commerce clause in Article One, Section 8 was the jurisdictional grounds for congressional gun control. You have claimed I was wrong.

 

[TurtleDude]

Chuckle. You claim to know constitutional law but you think that the 2A isn't the reference for the Supreme Court cases.

If Congress supposedly has to ask if a law is constitutional, then how do any unconstitutional laws get passed? When you make this stuff up you should at least try to figure out the massive logical holes you're leaving yourself open with.



Wait, what? Now you're saying that the 2A IS a reference. It must be very difficult to keep all of those bogus notions straight.



You keep going back to this straw man argument. I never said it gives authorization. Actually, you're claiming it prevents gun laws. Well, when you can keep things straight.

You now claim that you never said that the second amendment gives authorization.

Lets go back two days

can you cite something in the constitution that properly empowered the federal government to make gun laws. I think the moronic argument I got last time was that by amending the constitution with the bill of rights-specifically the second amendment, that empowered the federal government to pass gun control laws. No one supported you on this-I was sort of surprised that some didn't absolutely hammer that compete bit of stupidity though

The second amendment.

You literally said there are no federal gun laws, to boot.

 

[Bucky]

I don't have to be a gun nerd to have a valid opinion on gun control.

I don't know the difference between a magazine and clip and don't care.
I don't know the difference between Skull Shredder Mark II bullets or Child Killer 6000 bullets and don't care.
I don't know the difference between a bolt-action blunderbust or an assault gun and don't care.

I just want to make it harder for psychos to go out and kill people because they're mad at the world and don't care about your "freedumb" or about the "kawnstitution".

The gun nuts are the same people that claim they have far more knowledge than everyone else yet also claim they are experts on covid 19 and infectious disease without any medical background.

Lol

 

[TurtleDude]

The gun nuts are the same people that claim they have far more knowledge than everyone else yet also claim they are experts on covid 19 and infectious disease without any medical background.

Lol

what a ridiculous bit of bullshit. Your attempt to pretend that gun experts are anti-vaxxers is stupid and has no relevance to this argument. Who on this thread who is a gun expert is anti-vaccine? Not me, I got the vaccine AFTER I contracted COVID because the vaccine was NOT available to me at the time I was infected.

the fact is, the anti gun advocates often demonstrate an extreme paucity of knowledge-and or honesty on gun issues

 

[Rucker61]

The gun nuts are the same people that claim they have far more knowledge than everyone else yet also claim they are experts on covid 19 and infectious disease without any medical background.

Lol

Why do you think these are the same people. Straw men are worthless.

 

[Bucky]

what a ridiculous bit of bullshit. Your attempt to pretend that gun experts are anti-vaxxers is stupid and has no relevance to this argument. Who on this thread who is a gun expert is anti-vaccine? Not me, I got the vaccine AFTER I contracted COVID because the vaccine was NOT available to me at the time I was infected.

the fact is, the anti gun advocates often demonstrate an extreme paucity of knowledge-and or honesty on gun issues

As the op said, it is irrelevant knowledge. You don't need to be a nutritionist for example to understand that junk food is bad for you. You don't need to be a scientist to understand meth is bad for you.

 

[TurtleDude]

As the op said, it is irrelevant knowledge. You don't need to be a nutritionist for example to understand that junk food is bad for you. You don't need to be a scientist to understand meth is bad for you.

when one screams about assault rifles and are unaware that not a single murder has ever been committed in the USA by someone using a legally owned assault rifle, then one appears to be an idiot who really doesnt care about the facts or crime control. when one screams that someone can kill 100s of people in a few minutes with an AR15-one should be dismissed as lying. And when someone pushes for laws that ONLY restrict what lawful people can do now (which obviously harms no one) then we should consider that someone as not being motivated by crime control but rather harassing gun owners

Simple advice-if someone wants to ban something, they best 1) know what they are talking about concerning the item they want to ban and 2) have a good argument why banning it will objectively and significantly increase public safety. Banning weapons-such as legally owned machine guns fails #2 since there have been statistically no murders with legally owned machine guns in over 70 years

 

[Antiwar]

you keep changing the goal posts either because you are making things up as you go along or because you really haven't any idea what you are talking about. We aren't talking what amendments the SUPREME COURT or other courts reference when they adjudicate a suit involving gun laws. We are talking about what part of the constitution authorizes congress to interfere with the rights of private citizens to keep, own, bear, and possess firearms. You claimed it was the second amendment.

I haven't changed anything; those two things are the same thing. What's your point? I'm going with you want to try floating "... shall not be infringed" absolutist misinterpretation that was never the case (the 2A had built-in limits).

 

[Dans La Lune]

Why do you think these are the same people.

Because anti-vaxxerism is a mainstream right-wing belief and gun nuts are almost exclusively right wing. When I say gun nut, I mean people who think the 2nd Amendment gives unlimited access to firearms and any restrictions whatsoever is unconstitutional.

 

[Rucker61]

I haven't changed anything; those two things are the same thing. What's your point? I'm going with you want to try floating "... shall not be infringed" absolutist misinterpretation that was never the case (the 2A had built-in limits).

What limits were built into the Second Amendment?

 

[Rucker61]

Because anti-vaxxerism is a mainstream right-wing belief and gun nuts are almost exclusively right wing. When I say gun nut, I mean people who think the 2nd Amendment gives unlimited access to firearms and any restrictions whatsoever is unconstitutional.

The latter group you describe is a tiny fraction of gun owners.

Why is the comparison necessary at all?

 

[Dans La Lune]

The latter group you describe is a tiny fraction of gun owners.

Why is the comparison necessary at all?

It represents every gun rights advocate I've ever encountered.

 

[TurtleDude]

Because anti-vaxxerism is a mainstream right-wing belief and gun nuts are almost exclusively right wing. When I say gun nut, I mean people who think the 2nd Amendment gives unlimited access to firearms and any restrictions whatsoever is unconstitutional.

would you then agree that the bannerrhoid movement is almost exclusively left wing? sort of proves everything I have said about it. I have never met anyone in person, and only a couple on the net, who claim that the second amendment "GIVES" unlimited access to firearms. Most gun advocates support prosecuting violent felons who are armed. Those of us who REALLY understand constitutional theory, would never say the SECOND AMENDMENT GIVES us anything.

 

[TurtleDude]

What limits were built into the Second Amendment?

He has yet to figure out that the second amendment is a limit on the government, while Article One Section 8 specifies its powers

 

[Rucker61]

He has yet to figure out that the second amendment is a limit on the government, while Article One Section 8 specifies its powers

He's actually discussing the issue, so I'm intrigued.

 

[calamity]

when one screams about assault rifles and are unaware that not a single murder has ever been committed in the USA by someone using a legally owned assault rifle,

Vegas, he killed 61 and wounded over 400. There have been other shootings, too many to mention.

Do you ever not lie?

 

[TurtleDude]

Vegas, he killed 61 and wounded over 400. There have been other shootings, too many to mention.

Do you ever not lie?

those weren't assault rifles. those were common semi auto rifles. If you want to argue about banning things, know what you are talking about

 

[calamity]

those weren't assault rifles. ...

lol...BS

 

[DebateChallenge]

lol...BS

Do you even know what an assault rifle is?

 

[Rucker61]

Vegas, he killed 61 and wounded over 400. There have been other shootings, too many to mention.

Do you ever not lie?

In the 57 years that civilians have owned AR-15s, which are not "assault rifles", they've been used to kill about 300 people in mass shootings according to Mother Jones. That 61 figure includes the shooter himself.

Knives are used to murder five times that many peope every single year. Falls involving beds kill about 300 people every year.

 

[TurtleDude]

Do you even know what an assault rifle is?

Yes, but his posts generally disregard the truth. None of the Democrats can ever explain why their party banned the sale of assault rifles made after May 19, 1986 even though not a single murder was ever tied to a privately owned legal assault rifle

 

[Rucker61]

Yes, but his posts generally disregard the truth. None of the Democrats can ever explain why their party banned the sale of assault rifles made after May 19, 1986 even though not a single murder was ever tied to a privately owned legal assault rifle

I can't even get one to comment on why the AR-15 was banned in 1994.

 

[TurtleDude]

In the 57 years that civilians have owned AR-15s, which are not "assault rifles", they've been used to kill about 300 people in mass shootings according to Mother Jones. That 61 figure includes the shooter himself.

Knives are used to murder five times that many peope every single year. Falls involving beds kill about 300 people every year.

The Gun control movement is about attacking a political viewpoint. National Review noted that every group that sees Christian Conservative white middle class males as the "enemy" supports gun control and has deemed the NRA as a symbol of the "enemy". The gun banners and those who play gun banners on message boards in order to troll, attack AR 15s because they see those firearms as more likely to be owned by the "enemy" than the firearms used for most murders (handguns): crimes that are overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who do not meet the description of "the enemy"/