Gun control debate (merged)

[0nelilreb]

No one is trying to limit, undermine, or encroach on your right to keep and bear arms.
They are just trying to reasonably and rationally limit, undermine, and encroach on your ability to purchase as many guns as you wish of any and every type of gun imaginable.
Big difference.

Now you are just being disingenuous. When someone has a right granted to them by an amendment and you restrict , limit or take away what they have in any form or fashion you are INFRINGING on their right by literal definition . I just showed you what the word means.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Yeesh! How do you know this? Have you actually sat down with Luther at a real dinner table or simply played this out in your mind? Do you have any examples of the government keeping anyone's salt and pepper shakers? Ever heard of an analogy?

I've read his post for years have asked him multiple questions and his answers are plenty to know how his communistic beliefs are.

You never did answer my question from before.

Are you ok with local law enforcement not enforcing laws passed at the state or federal level?

 

[luthervol]

Nothing should stop citizens from buying any kind of product.
The only thing that should stop you is your budget.

That's preposterous. We even restrict countries from buying any kind of product they can afford.

 

[VolStrom]

View attachment 255049

Seems like the northern Virginia liberals have taken over the state. The only way to beat them is to out vote them by population which means that 70-80% of the voters in rural areas need to vote.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Personally, and I've stated this before, my goals would be:
Fewer guns produced, purchased, and owned.
Limits on types of guns that can be purchased.
Limits on number that can be purchased in given time periods.
None of which infringe on any 2a rights.

But none of those goals are realistic, have any practical effect and none are constitutional so why do you have them as goals?

 

[Rickyvol77]

No one is trying to limit, undermine, or encroach on your right to keep and bear arms.
They are just trying to reasonably and rationally limit, undermine, and encroach on your ability to purchase as many guns as you wish of any and every type of gun imaginable.
Big difference.

“Reasonably and rationally”. In whose mind? Yours? Why should buying a legal product be restricted in terms of how many?

 

[Rickyvol77]

That's preposterous. We even restrict countries from buying any kind of product they can afford.

So you would be in favor of saying you can only text or post no more than 25 times a day? Same “rational” logic

 

[Purple Tiger]

I've read his post for years have asked him multiple questions and his answers are plenty to know how his communistic beliefs are.

You never did answer my question from before.

Are you ok with local law enforcement not enforcing laws passed at the state or federal level?

My local law enforcement entities are overworked and understaffed. I don't know what laws they enforce. Whatever ones they are enforcing keeps them busy AF.

 

[luthervol]

Now you are just being disingenuous. When someone has a right granted to them by an amendment and you restrict , limit or take away what they have in any form or fashion you are INFRINGING on their right by literal definition . I just showed you what the word means.

Not being disingenuous, I just wholeheartedly disagree with your perspective.
But this has certainly reinforced what I already knew.
I'll just leave it with my earlier post and let that speak for itself.

It was easy for me. I don't agree that kids have the right to bring knives and guns to school. I don't agree that Billy Bob has the right to walk into McDonald's with a fully automatic assault weapon (I assume this must be redundant or something based on the giggles from some of the resident gun nuts) slung over each shoulder. I don't agree that Junior has the right to have anti aircraft guns mounted on his back porch. I don't agree that Slim has the right to make unlimited gun purchases and then sell them out of his trunk at the local playground.

I consider these restrictions to be rational and reasonable and in no way infringements of 2a.

 

[0nelilreb]

Not being disingenuous, I just wholeheartedly disagree with your perspective.
But this has certainly reinforced what I already knew.
I'll just leave it with my earlier post and let that speak for itself.


I consider these restrictions to be rational and reasonable and in no way infringements of 2a.

Yes but the most important thing is that the SCOTUS and your opinions differ greatly .

 

[InVOLuntary]

My local law enforcement entities are overworked and understaffed. I don't know what laws they enforce. Whatever ones they are enforcing keeps them busy AF.

Still not an answer. It's not that hard.

 

[DynaLo]

No, i laugh at hysterical local and state governments who waste time on laws that do or mean nothing.

Meh. They mean the exact same thing the Dems are so damn proud of with their illegal immigrants sanctuary cities.

The biggest difference is that when enough counties in TN pass 2A sanctuary status the state legislature has to take notice of how their constituents feel and it may help take us one step closer to becoming a Constitutional carry state. I don’t see that added benefit possibility existing at most state levels with illegal immigrants sanctuary proclamations.

 

[McDad]

Personally, and I've stated this before, my goals would be:
Fewer guns produced, purchased, and owned.
Limits on types of guns that can be purchased.
Limits on number that can be purchased in given time periods.
None of which infringe on any 2a rights.

Fewer produced increases prices which is De facto limitation.
Limits on types is by definition a limit.
Limits on purchases is same.

Infringe = act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

 

[McDad]

No. You will still have the right to keep and bear arms. Wasn't that the right granted?

Do you favor limiting the number and the types of attorneys I can hire to defend myself in court? How about the number and types of press which report to the public on politicians? Perhaps there is also a limit on the number and types of churches i can attend in one year?

 

[luthervol]

Yes but the most important thing is that the SCOTUS and your opinions differ greatly .

I don't think the SCOTUS views any of those as infringements on 2a.
Either way, this thread remains the 7th layer of Hell.
I would leave a leper colony happier and more optimistic and a prison riot with more faith in the goodness and decency of humanity.

 

[luthervol]

Do you favor limiting the number and the types of attorneys I can hire to defend myself in court? How about the number and types of press which report to the public on politicians? Perhaps there is also a limit on the number and types of churches i can attend in one year?

No to all of those.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I don't think the SCOTUS views any of those as infringements on 2a.
Either way, this thread remains the 7th layer of Hell.
I would leave a leper colony happier and more optimistic and a prison riot with more faith in the goodness and decency of humanity.

Folks get testy when talking about their ability to defend themselves. Imagine that....

 

[McDad]

No to all of those.

And this is why you are mocked and derided.

 

[luthervol]

Fewer produced increases prices which is De facto limitation.
Limits on types is by definition a limit.
Limits on purchases is same.

Infringe = act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Safety regulations increase prices, De facto limitation.
Types have already been limited. Infringement? Justified?
Limits on purchases in no way limits your ability to keep and bear arms.

 

[luthervol]

And this is why you are mocked and derided.

Because I do not fall into the two dimensional trappings of shallow thought?
Some good people have been mocked and derided.
I'm more than okay with it.

 

[McDad]

Folks get testy when talking about their ability to defend themselves. Imagine that....

I also get testy when someone thinks their opinion which is shared by some in power or seeking power supercedes my constitutional rights. Luther has a right to his opinion. He does not have any right to my liberty.

 

[McDad]

Safety regulations increase prices, De facto limitation.
Types have already been limited. Infringement? Justified?
Limits on purchases in no way limits your ability to keep and bear arms.

Regulation is limiting.
Prior limits dont count because they're prior???
A limit doesnt limit????

 

[luthervol]

Folks get testy when talking about their ability to defend themselves. Imagine that....

The ol' "ability to defend themselves" angle, lovely.
It's like a bad 1950's sci-fi/horror.

 

[McDad]

Because I do not fall into the two dimensional trappings of shallow thought?
Some good people have been mocked and derided.
I'm more than okay with it.

Because you believe yourself to be reasonable. But your reasoning isnt applied to all rights equally. Truth is youre emotional about this issue.

 

[Rickyvol77]

I don't think the SCOTUS views any of those as infringements on 2a.
Either way, this thread remains the 7th layer of Hell.
I would leave a leper colony happier and more optimistic and a prison riot with more faith in the goodness and decency of humanity.

You really believe that people who support the Constitution or even own several firearms are against “goodness and decency of humanity” simply because they disagree with your archaic emotional beliefs about guns?