No class 3 licensee has become a mass shooter

[TurtleDude]

The fact that you have to have a class 3 authorization to own some types of guns means that's it's already been infringed.

true, the goal is to stop dead, any more federal violations of the second amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

And it’s been litigated: there is no such thing as an unfettered right.

2A doesn’t give you an unfettered right. Never has, never will.

you continue to prove you have no understanding of the constitution. The Bill of rights prevents the federal government from interfering with rights that the federal government was never given any legitimate power to infringe upon. Statists think that you only have rights that the government gives you

 

[Aunt Antifa]

you continue to prove you have no understanding of the constitution. The Bill of rights prevents the federal government from interfering with rights that the federal government was never given any legitimate power to infringe upon. Statists think that you only have rights that the government gives you

Because that’s literally the only means to exercise those rights, withing the scope of what society has deemed allowable.

I don’t even have to argue this with you, there are prohibitions on your ability to purchase/operate certain weapons *as I type these words and you can’t do a thing about ‘em except pout over ‘em.* So your unfettered right, much like your shot at winning this argument, rests solely upside yo head.

 

[TurtleDude]

Because that’s literally the only means to exercise those rights, withing the scope of what society has deemed allowable.

I don’t even have to argue this with you, there are prohibitions on your ability to purchase/operate certain weapons *as I type these words and you can’t do a thing about ‘em except pout over ‘em.* So your unfettered right, much like your shot at winning this argument, rests solely upside yo head.

tell us why the 1934 NFA is proper, from a constitutional perspective

 

[Aunt Antifa]

tell us why the 1934 NFA is proper, from a constitutional perspective

No.

 

[Rucker61]

Because that’s literally the only means to exercise those rights, withing the scope of what society has deemed allowable.

I don’t even have to argue this with you, there are prohibitions on your ability to purchase/operate certain weapons *as I type these words and you can’t do a thing about ‘em except pout over ‘em.* So your unfettered right, much like your shot at winning this argument, rests solely upside yo head.

Why wasn't NFA 1934 overturned after Miller?

Prohibitions <> preventions. Criminals use unregistered fully automatic firearms and unregistered short barreled shotguns all the time. NFA didn't stop the Columbine shooters from manufacturing or using unregistered short barreled shotguns in their crimes.

 

[TurtleDude]

No.

I didn't think you were able to.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I didn't think you were able to.

You were unable to speak to word I said. Why are you owed an interview.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Why wasn't NFA 1934 overturned after Miller?

Prohibitions <> preventions. Criminals use unregistered fully automatic firearms and unregistered short barreled shotguns all the time. NFA didn't stop the Columbine shooters from manufacturing or using unregistered short barreled shotguns in their crimes.

So we should get rid of all immigration laws. They’re still getting in.

 

[Rucker61]

So we should get rid of all immigration laws. They’re still getting in.

Exactly what good does a law against short barreled shotguns do? It doesn't stop a single criminal from acquiring or using one.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Exactly what good does a law against short barreled shotguns do? It doesn't stop a single criminal from acquiring or using one.

The problem is we need a national standard. Patchwork gunlaws cannot work.

 

[Rucker61]

The problem is we need a national standard. Patchwork gunlaws cannot work.

Whose standards? California's? Alaska's? New Hampshire's? New Jersey's?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Whose standards? California's? Alaska's? New Hampshire's? New Jersey's?

No, it would be a federal standard. You know, as in a standard applicable to *all* states. Uniform. One. For all. Same.

 

[Rucker61]

No, it would be a federal standard. You know, as in a standard applicable to *all* states. Uniform. One. For all. Same.

California and New Jersey wouldn't accept a looser standard. Alaska and New Hampshire wouldn't accept a stricter standard. How do you get to a single standard?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

California and New Jersey wouldn't accept a looser standard. Alaska and New Hampshire wouldn't accept a stricter standard. How do you get to a single standard?

Legislation. It’s why we send representatives to congress and they work together to create bills that affect national interets.

Civics!

 

[RetiredUSN]

Remember when kids brought guns to school back in the 70's and nobody ever got shot?

America is sick and getting sicker, and the guns get the blame because it's easy.

40 million Americans on some sort of psychiatric drug

12% of the military walking around on some sort of psychiatric drug.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

What part of "well regulated Militia" do you not understand?

 

[Rucker61]

Legislation. It’s why we send representatives to congress and they work together to create bills that affect national interets.

Civics!

It's the legislators from California and New Jersey who will vote against any looser restrictions, and it's the legislators from Alaska and Hampshire that will vote against any tighter restrictions. Civics, indeed.

 

[Rucker61]

What part of "well regulated Militia" do you not understand?

The Supreme Court held:[46]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

DC v Heller, 2008.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

It's the legislators from California and New Jersey who will vote against any looser restrictions, and it's the legislators from Alaska and Hampshire that will vote against any tighter restrictions. Civics, indeed.

You have already determined the votes of sitting senators you don't know on legislation you can't predict.

 

[Rucker61]

You have already determined the votes of sitting senators you don't know on legislation you can't predict.

Red state senators vote against gun control. Blue state senators vote for gun control.

Regarding the predictability of legislation, go here https://www.congress.gov/ and search on "gun control" for every session of Congress. The bills are repeated from session to session, and sometimes within a session. If someone has thought of a gun control idea, someone has introduced a bill in Congress.

Here's what Joe already wants to do:

Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President

Joe Biden's plan to end gun violence will tackle America's gun violence head on, and treat it as the public health epidemic it is.

joebiden.com

 

[zsu2357]

="Aunt Antifa, post: 1072706174, member: 36561"]
Because that’s literally the only means to exercise those rights, withing the scope of what society has deemed allowable.

When you say "those rights" what you mean is the Second Amendment and what should be allowable by you and your kind.

I don’t even have to argue this with you, there are prohibitions on your ability to purchase/operate certain weapons *as I type these words and you can’t do a thing about ‘em except pout over ‘em.* So your unfettered right, much like your shot at winning this argument, rests solely upside yo head.

Of course you don't have to argue Auntie A because in your mind it's cut and dried. Seems you're the one pouting because we don't accept your visionary whatever it is that's got you so convinced you're right and we are wrong.

 

[zsu2357]

No.

That's it, no? From your view it didn't take all those nasty,nasty machine guns off the street so of course it was Constitutional or some such thing?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

That's it, no? From your view it didn't take all those nasty,nasty machine guns off the street so of course it was Constitutional or some such thing?

No, I’m not going to jump through these silly rhetorical hoops. Too many folks around here think that they’re hosting their own talkshow and the rest of us need to stick to their format. He didn’t respond to a single point I made, so why do I owe him an exchange? You want good faith, offer some.

 

[zsu2357]

The problem is we need a national standard. Patchwork gunlaws cannot work.

By national standard you really mean one that you and yours approve of.