The difficulties you envision are worst case scenarios which you have posited as the probable outcome but there's no reason for the confiscation of firearms within peoples' homes. The law could grandfather the possession of firearms but prohibit them being carried beyond the extent one's curtilage, for instance.
BillW wrote:A lot of people do not realize the harm a 5.56mm bullet does. It is not a round for hunting due to damage it does to the bone and meat!
The .223 Remington is widely used for defense against foxes and coyotes.
And it does less damage to bone and meat than the .270 Winchester does.
InfraBlue wrote:In reference to gun regulation, the keeping and bearing of arms for a well regulated Militia is written into the Constitution.
That's why your proposals are unconstitutional.
InfraBlue wrote:The US has been severely derelict in the good regulation of that Militia
Bear in mind that the term "well-regulated" merely means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
InfraBlue wrote:and the keeping and bearing of arms in that regard.
Yes, the US has indeed been severely derelict in that regard. And it is mainly because of you and other progressives.
If you guys stopped passing laws that prevent people from keeping arms, people would be able to start doing it.
InfraBlue wrote:Some of your proposals are not constitutional.
That's because he mirrored his proposals off from your proposals.
I assume that he was trying to demonstrate to you that your proposals are unconstitutional.
InfraBlue wrote:Wrong.
That is incorrect. The term "assault weapon" applies only if a gun is capable of full-auto.
InfraBlue wrote:Wrong.
That is incorrect. Your 1994 law focused on pistol grips on ordinary hunting rifles, and did not address assault weapons in any way.
InfraBlue wrote:I support the 1994 law that banned assault weapons.
Your 1994 law focused on pistol grips on ordinary hunting rifles, and did not address assault weapons in any way.
InfraBlue wrote:Your delusional assertions are risibly irrelevant.
Your risibly irrelevant delusional assertion aside,
Every one of my facts can be backed up with a reputable cite.
If you want my support for any new gun laws, my requirements for giving that support are extremely relevant.
InfraBlue wrote:you need to support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.
I will not support new gun laws until you have paid compensation for your past atrocities, and you cannot make me do otherwise.
InfraBlue wrote:You are risibly delusional.
Every one of my facts can be backed up with a reputable cite.
InfraBlue wrote:You, by your own volition, need to support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.
You seem confused what "by my own volition" means. It means that you have no say over the matter.
And you don't.
InfraBlue wrote:You are risibly delusional.
Everything you say is delusional. That is irrelevant to the fact that you need to support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.
You need to put aside your delusions and support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.
Every one of my facts can be backed up with a reputable cite.
I will not support new gun laws until you have paid compensation for your past atrocities, and you cannot make me do otherwise.
InfraBlue wrote:There is nothing Orwellian about demanding the good regulation of the keeping and bearing of arms as per the US Constitution.
True. But that's not what you were doing.
What you were doing was calling for the destruction of an organization that protects and defends our civil liberties.
Incidentally, the term "well-regulated" merely means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
InfraBlue wrote:This organization contributes to your delusions.
Every one of my facts can be backed up with a reputable cite.
InfraBlue wrote:You need to support its extinguishing and relegation to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history.
I have no intention of supporting the destruction of groups that defend and protect civil liberties, and you have no power to make me do so.
InfraBlue wrote:The NRA will be extinguished and relegated to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history.
Your desire to destroy organizations that protect our civil liberties is chilling and Orwellian.
Thankfully you are again wrong. Progressives have no power to destroy the NRA.
InfraBlue wrote:Wrong. I have a legitimate and constitutionally justifiable reasons for restricting the number of guns that someone can have.
If so, you can name the reason or reasons. Can you?
InfraBlue wrote:No it doesn't.
That is incorrect. Form 4473s function as a gun registry.
InfraBlue wrote:The nation needs to establish a national registry for the ownership and possession of firearms.
The nation already has such a registry. That's what Form 4473s are.
No they're not.
Gun regulation is part and parcel of a well regulated Militia.
No it doesn't.
The regulation of their right to keep and bear arms is part and parcel of the singly coherent unit.
No, the dereliction in regard to the good regulation of that Militia and the keeping and bearing of arms has been in the disregard for the general welfare of the nation.
His attempted mirroring is inept.
The constitution specifically calls for the good regulation of a Militia in regard to the keeping and bearing of arms.
His attempted demonstration doesn't hold water.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Every one of your delusions is merely that, a delusion.
You need to put aside your delusions and support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.
You must.
Every one of your delusions is merely that, a delusion.
I am not confused as to what "by your own volition" means. It doesn't mean I have no say over the matter.; it means "by your own will." You, by your own will, need to support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.
Every one of your delusions is merely that, a delusion.
More delusional and irrelevant nonsense.
This is an example of the delusion and confusion to which such an organization contributes to the furthering of their agenda of the dereliction of the regulation of the Militia in regard to the keeping and bearing of arms.
No it doesn't.
The regulation of their right to keep and bear arms is part and parcel of the singly coherent unit.
Every one of your delusions is merely that, a delusion.
These groups contribute to your delusions and confusions about civil liberties and good gun regulation, and as such, you need to support their extinguishing and relegation to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history.
There is nothing Orwellian about extinguishing and relegating to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history these organizations that contribute to the dereliction of the regulation of the Militia in regard to the keeping and bearing of arms and your delusions and confusions.
I am not wrong. The NRA will be extinguished.
I can; yes I can.
Restricting the number of guns that someone can have would limit the available amount of unregistered guns. Unregistered guns would be illegal and their possessors would be outlaws.
You are not addressing the argument.
No it doesn't, and no they're not.
InfraBlue wrote:No they're not.
That is incorrect. Your proposals are blatantly unconstitutional.
InfraBlue wrote:Gun regulation is part and parcel of a well regulated Militia.
That doesn't make it OK for you to violate the Constitution.
InfraBlue wrote:No it doesn't.
Alexander Hamilton says that you are wrong.
InfraBlue wrote:The regulation of their right to keep and bear arms is part and parcel of the singly coherent unit.
That still doesn't make it OK for you to violate the Constitution.
InfraBlue wrote:No, the dereliction in regard to the good regulation of that Militia and the keeping and bearing of arms has been in the disregard for the general welfare of the nation.
That does not change the fact that said dereliction it is mainly the fault of you and other progressives.
If you guys stopped passing laws that prevent people from keeping arms, people would be able to start doing it.
InfraBlue wrote:His attempted mirroring is inept.
Not at all. He mirrored your proposals to violate the Constitution quite closely.
InfraBlue wrote:The constitution specifically calls for the good regulation of a Militia in regard to the keeping and bearing of arms.
Bear in mind that the term "well-regulated" merely means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
InfraBlue wrote:His attempted demonstration doesn't hold water.
That is incorrect. He accurately mimicked your calls to violate the Constitution.
InfraBlue wrote:Wrong.
That is incorrect. The term "assault weapon" applies only if a gun is capable of full-auto.
InfraBlue wrote:Wrong.
That is incorrect. Your 1994 law focused on pistol grips on ordinary hunting rifles, and did not address assault weapons in any way.
InfraBlue wrote:Wrong.
That is incorrect. Your 1994 law focused on pistol grips on ordinary hunting rifles, and did not address assault weapons in any way.
InfraBlue wrote:Every one of your delusions is merely that, a delusion.
You are the only delusional person here.
InfraBlue wrote:You need to put aside your delusions and support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.
You are the only delusional person here.
And no. I am going to keep acting to block new gun laws.
InfraBlue wrote:You must.
Nope. I am going to keep acting to block new gun laws.
InfraBlue wrote:Every one of your delusions is merely that, a delusion.
You are the only delusional person here.
InfraBlue wrote:I am not confused as to what "by your own volition" means. It doesn't mean I have no say over the matter.; it means "by your own will." You, by your own will, need to support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.
Nope. I am going to keep acting to block new gun laws.
InfraBlue wrote:Every one of your delusions is merely that, a delusion.
You are the only delusional person here.
InfraBlue wrote:More delusional and irrelevant nonsense.
Nope. I am going to keep acting to block new gun laws.
InfraBlue wrote:This is an example of the delusion and confusion to which such an organization contributes to the furthering of their agenda of the dereliction of the regulation of the Militia in regard to the keeping and bearing of arms.
That is incorrect. That was an example of me accurately describing your behavior.
Note that it is you who has the agenda of dereliction of the well-regulated militia. You shouldn't be falsely accusing the NRA of your own misdeeds.
InfraBlue wrote:No it doesn't.
Alexander Hamilton says that you are wrong.
InfraBlue wrote:The regulation of their right to keep and bear arms is part and parcel of the singly coherent unit.
That doesn't make it OK for you to violate people's civil liberties.
InfraBlue wrote:Every one of your delusions is merely that, a delusion.
You are the only delusional person here.
InfraBlue wrote:These groups contribute to your delusions and confusions about civil liberties and good gun regulation, and as such, you need to support their extinguishing and relegation to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history.
You are the only delusional person here.
And no. I am going to keep supporting the NRA.
InfraBlue wrote:There is nothing Orwellian about extinguishing and relegating to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history these organizations that contribute to the dereliction of the regulation of the Militia in regard to the keeping and bearing of arms and your delusions and confusions.
You are the only delusional person here.
The only organizations that are contributing to the dereliction of the well-regulated militia are leftist gun control groups.
InfraBlue wrote:I am not wrong. The NRA will be extinguished.
That is incorrect. The NRA is going to continue to defend our civil liberties.
InfraBlue wrote:I can; yes I can.
Restricting the number of guns that someone can have would limit the available amount of unregistered guns. Unregistered guns would be illegal and their possessors would be outlaws.
Your logic is catastrophically bad. "Restricting the number of guns that someone can have" has zero to do with "whether any or all of their guns are registered."
InfraBlue wrote:You are not addressing the argument.
"Pointing out that we've already been registering guns for more than 50 years now" addresses your call for us to start doing this.
InfraBlue wrote:No it doesn't, and no they're not.
That is incorrect. Form 4473s already serve as a gun registry.
If a person were found to have shown up regularly in so many places where so many crimes had been committed by so many people, how could that person not be called to account for such suspicious behavior? He would clearly be investigated for being present with such persistence at crime scenes. Did he facilitate them, making them easier by his mere presence? What could induce any innocent person to be so energetically omnipresent at so many varied crime scenes? What excuse could relieve him from the charge of being an accessory? A person with such skill and dogged effort would be considered a national menace, no matter how many excuses he could concoct for such weird conduct.
But guns can do all of those things and profess an entire non-involvement. “Who, me?” says Gun, going on:
I never asked to be part of anyone’s wrongdoing. Why pick on me? You must have a gun-persecution disorder. You accusers are the ones who show up at every crime scene, trying to drag me into actions as if I’m an agent. I am totally passive. I never asked to be bought by a homicidal maniac. Go after the nutty people and leave me alone.
So also argues the attorney for the defense, the NRA.
Guns, by their protected status—especially in the hands of white men—issue an implicit press release inviting all comers to their emporium. It says, in effect:
Are you really angry? Have you been fired from your job? Do you think your wife is unfaithful, or merely uppity? Are you afraid of strangers? Do you think Jews are trying to replace you? Have you seen or heard of migrants raping your women? Do you know that Muslims are a force for evil? Do you wonder why Catholics honor a foreign power’s representatives, Vatican infiltrators wearing Roman collars?
I, the Gun, offer an easily available solution to all your problems. Just buy me anywhere. My lawyers will protect me, and get you off from any charge of committing a hate crime, or acting as a terrorist, or being part of a conspiracy. Just admit you are too nutty to be part of any larger plot, and I will exempt you from enhancement of your crime. My NRA lawyers will not only fend off these as irrelevant augmentation, they will make their congressional lackeys deny funds for any investigation of me and consequences of my many uses. Let them spend the money on other problems, from traffic jams to child abuse. I am ruled off bounds for any such opposition action at all. That would be ‘politicizing,’ and what could be so little political as your humble servant?
What other service provides such all-round easement of your feelings? I am at your disposal, no questions asked. Why point at me? Does a gun know how it is being used?
Obediently yours,
The Everywhere Gun
Again, if a human being issued such an invitation to accompany people on nefarious acts of anyone’s choosing, he would soon be in the pokey or on death row. Try it and see if you can successfully argue:
I may have been the person there when all these crimes were committed, but mere presence is not complicity. I am so passive I do not do anything, however odd it is that I am there whenever mass killings occur. I do not even know what all these others in my company are doing. Accompanying killing is not committing killing. I am just a presence, not a prerequisite for all the mayhem. I do not even know what is going on.
Because a gun may say it does not know how it is being used, it gets away with things no person would. A gun gets away with what other life-threatening things never do. Regulated drugs, tobacco, alcohol, and explosives cannot argue, as guns do: “Alcohol does not cause accidents, drunks do. Tobacco does not cause cancer, smokers do. Opioids do not kill, addicts do.” That kind of argument does not free all other life-threatening things from regulation or suppression. Only guns.
Guns’ exemption from common-sense legislation guarantees them not only rights, but also rites. Guns are sacred objects. They should not even be insulted, which is blasphemy. They are “the American way.” They are more than things, more even than persons. They are an unstoppable force, a god. They are, indeed, Our Moloch.
Nuh-uh.
Right. Gun regulation does not violate the Constitution.
Right. Gun regulation does not violate the Constitution.
No he doesn't.
No it's not.
Um, what?
Nuh-uh.
Nuh-uh.
The term "well regulated" in regard to the Militia and the keeping and baring of arms involves the regulation of the keeping and bearing of arms, as well.
Nuh-uh.
You're delusional and incorrect thereof.
Ditto.
Nuh-uh.
Nuh-uh.
Nuh-uh.
Nuh-uh.
Nuh-uh.
Nuh-uh.
Nuh-uh.
That is contrary to what you need to do.
ditto.
That is contrary to what you need to do.
That is contrary to what you need to do.
That is contrary to what you need to do.
Nuh-uh; no it's not.
No I'm not. The misdeeds are the NRA's.
No he doesn't.
Right. The regulation of their right to keep and bear arms is part and parcel of the singly coherent unit.
Not the ones I know of.
They don't
and they will be extinguished.
You're understanding of my argument, as paraphrased, is catastrophically bad.
You continue to not address the argument.
Ditto.
In 2019, there were 364 murders caused by rifles (I chose rifles as they are the perennial liberal boogieman).
InfraBlue wrote:Nuh-uh.
That is incorrect. Your proposals are blatantly unconstitutional.
InfraBlue wrote:Right. Gun regulation does not violate the Constitution.InfraBlue wrote:Right. Gun regulation does not violate the Constitution.
It depends on the details. Some gun regulation violates the Constitution and some gun regulation does not.
InfraBlue wrote:No he doesn't.
That is incorrect. Alexander Hamilton's use of the term "well-regulated" makes it very clear that "well-regulated" means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.
InfraBlue wrote:No it's not.
That is incorrect. Said dereliction is mainly the fault of you and other progressives.
InfraBlue wrote:Um, what?
If you guys stopped passing laws that prevent people from keeping arms, people would be able to start keeping arms.
InfraBlue wrote:Nuh-uh.InfraBlue wrote:Nuh-uh.
That is incorrect. McGentrix mirrored your proposals to violate the Constitution quite closely.
InfraBlue wrote:The term "well regulated" in regard to the Militia and the keeping and baring of arms involves the regulation of the keeping and bearing of arms, as well.
Alexander Hamilton says that you are wrong. His use of the term "well-regulated" makes it very clear that "well-regulated" means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.
InfraBlue wrote:Nuh-uh.
That is incorrect. The term "assault weapon" applies only if a gun is capable of full-auto.
InfraBlue wrote:You're delusional and incorrect thereof.InfraBlue wrote:Ditto.
That is incorrect. Your 1994 law focused on pistol grips on ordinary hunting rifles, and did not address assault weapons in any way.
InfraBlue wrote:Nuh-uh.
That is incorrect. You are the only delusional person here.
InfraBlue wrote:That is contrary to what you need to do.
Nope. I am going to keep acting to block new gun laws.
InfraBlue wrote:Nuh-uh; no it's not.
That is incorrect. That was an example of me accurately describing your behavior.
InfraBlue wrote:No I'm not. The misdeeds are the NRA's.
That is incorrect. Only you have an agenda of dereliction of the well-regulated militia. You shouldn't be falsely accusing the NRA of your own misdeeds.
InfraBlue wrote:No he doesn't.
That is incorrect. Alexander Hamilton's use of the term "well-regulated" makes it very clear that "well-regulated" means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.
InfraBlue wrote:Right. The regulation of their right to keep and bear arms is part and parcel of the singly coherent unit.
That still doesn't make it OK for you to violate people's civil liberties.
InfraBlue wrote:Not the ones I know of.
That is incorrect. The gun control organizations that you support are the organizations that are contributing to the dereliction of the well-regulated militia.
InfraBlue wrote:They don't
That is incorrect. The NRA continues to defend people's civil liberties.
InfraBlue wrote:and they will be extinguished.
Your desire to destroy organizations that protect our civil liberties is chilling and Orwellian.
Thankfully you are again wrong. Progressives have no power to destroy the NRA.
InfraBlue wrote:You're understanding of my argument, as paraphrased, is catastrophically bad.
I did not paraphrase your argument.
My statement that you have mislabeled as a "paraphrase of your argument" is actually an explanation as to how your logic is catastrophically bad.
InfraBlue wrote:You continue to not address the argument.InfraBlue wrote:Ditto.
That is incorrect. Pointing out that we've been registering guns for more than 50 years now directly addresses your call to "start" registering guns.
