Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Another lever is to reduce access to ammunitions, in particular high-velocity ones who make so much more damage than regular ones.

Unconstitutional. People have the right to have effective ammunition.



Unconstitutional. People have the right to have rifles.

And since when are rifles not a regular gun?

You're all talk. You can't show any examples of it having been pointed out. Nor can you point out any such case directly.

Whether W was the one to say it or not, the statement fits you: All hat and no cattle.



The fact that I'm smarter than you lets me see more things, not fewer.

No they aren't.



"Preventing progressives from violating people's civil liberties for fun" does not harm anyone at all.

Unless you count the "harm" of progressives not getting to have fun violating people's civil liberties.

I knew you wouldn't understand.

Balderdash. It's well within the scope of the 2nd Amendment's "well regulated militia" phrase.

The 2nd amendment isn't in the constitution, it's an amendment, the constitution can be amended, and it can be amended back.

In other words, progressives are out to abolish civil liberties.

America says "no" to the progressives.

So what is the compelling government interest then?

And what does the requirement for the government to maintain a militia have to do with privately-owned civilian arms?

You cannot point out a single case of me ever failing to understand something.

Like the saying goes, you're all hat and no cattle. You can't back up any of your accusations against me.

That would be for those who are against that law to argue.


Privately-owned civilian arms fall under the scope of the Second Amendment's phrase "well regulated militia."

In other words you become more civilised, and the spineless NRA creeps get adult diapers, which is what they wanted all along.

It's no coincidence that the NRA are tied to right wing extremists. The NRA neo Nazis of today emulate their 1930s heroes by forming armed groups like the SA.

Many right wing extremists even post pictures of the SA, claiming, (falsely,) that the second amendment stops things like the Holocaust. The only thing that stops groups like the SA, and like those who marched in Charlottesville, is taking the guns off the child murdering, Nazi scumbags.

No. Serfdom is hardly equal to civilization.

Again with the limited vocabulary, churning out words you don't understand because it's what you've been told to say.

We've not had serfs since the Black Death.

You talk about freedom like a virgin talks about sex, you don't know what it is, or how it feels. You can't even think for yourself, you're a mindless drone endlessly repeating the same hackneyed phrases again and again.

Daisy Daisy....

I understand everything completely.



That is incorrect. You all became serfs when you lost the right to carry guns.



Wrong again. Unlike you, I actually live freedom.



Wrong again. I think for myself quite well. That's why you aren't able to point out anything that I am wrong about.

That is incorrect. Justifying a law's existence is the job of people who support that law.



That is incorrect. The militia aspect of the Second Amendment deals with militiamen, not with private citizens who are not members of any militia.

Daisy Daisy..

Nope. That comes up when someone is opposing a law.

What's more, according to Cornell Law School, "the Supreme Court has refused to endorse the application of strict scrutiny to gun regulations, leaving open the question of which precise standard of review is to be employed when addressing the Second Amendment."



Nuh-uh. That's merely your interpretation.

Trump reverses again on gun background checks, says he backs them and never told NRA otherwise

Nicholas Wu, Michael Collins and John Fritze, USA TODAY Published 7:13 a.m. ET Aug. 21, 2019 | Updated 2:52 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2019

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump reversed himself on firearms restrictions Wednesday, saying he supports background checks one day after saying he didn't want to go down the "slippery slope" of eroding gun owners' rights.

Trump confirmed that he discussed background checks with Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Association, but he disputed news reports that he told LaPierre that background checks were off the table.

“I have an appetite for background checks,” Trump said from the White House South Lawn as he departed for an event in Louisville, Kentucky. “We’re going to do be doing background checks. ... We’re going to be filling in some of the loopholes.”

Trump said he wants to get guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and said he considers mass shootings a public emergency.

“I want guns to be in the hands of people who are mentally stable,” he said.

Tuesday, Trump backed away from supporting stricter gun measures, saying laws were already "very strong."

"We have very strong background checks right now," he said.

Trump emphasized his staunch support for the Second Amendment.

Tuesday, Trump spoke on the phone with the NRA's LaPierre.

The Atlantic first reported the details of the phone call, followed by The Washington Post and The New York Times.

According to the outlets, Trump told LaPierre that comprehensive background checks for firearm purchases were no longer under consideration and that the White House would advocate for other measures concerning mental health or the prosecution of federal gun crimes.

The NRA confirmed that a call took place, posting a message on Twitter Tuesday from LaPierre that he spoke to the president.

"We discussed the best ways to prevent these types of tragedies. @realDonaldTrump is a strong #2A President and supports our Right to Keep and Bear Arms," LaPierre wrote through the official NRA account.

NRA
✔
@NRA
I spoke to the president today. We discussed the best ways to prevent these types of tragedies. @realDonaldTrump is a strong #2A President and supports our Right to Keep and Bear Arms! – Wayne LaPierre
5:41 PM - Aug 20, 2019

The NRA has vehemently opposed the imposition of stricter background checks for firearm purchases, but strife at the organization gave gun control advocates hope that stricter measures could be passed.

Well, if you want to put the burden of justifying your proposal on me, I decline to justify your proposal.

Therefore no compelling government interest has been demonstrated and your proposal is unconstitutional.




Wishful thinking there. Strict scrutiny is the standard for fundamental rights.

And "refused to endorse" is misleading. The Supreme Court has already cast four votes for strict scrutiny, with Thomas not being the fifth vote for strict scrutiny only because he was taking an even-more-hard-line position.




Not exactly. It is the Supreme Court's interpretation. I was just working within the limitations laid down in Heller. I'd actually be glad to extend full militia rights to all citizens.

Militiamen have the right to have M-16s (and I don't mean neutered semi-auto-only versions), 40mm grenade launchers, grenades (both hand-thrown and 40mm), and 84mm anti-tank bazookas. Militiamen also have the right to keep their weapons at home.

Just imagine if a criminal came at you in full body armor and you fired an 84mm bazooka into their chest. No amount of body armor could withstand something like that.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4

So, if you want to argue for extending militia rights to everyone, I'm with you.

I know which closet I'll keep my bazookas in if you ever get the courts to agree with you.

But note: Extending militia rights to everyone still wouldn't provide any compelling government interest in restricting the number of guns that someone can own. In fact, militiamen would have an even stronger right to have a large arsenal.