Anti Gun rights activists proven wrong... again.

[offshoredrilling]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

They should ban mental illness. That seems to be the true cause of all the mass shootings in America these days, errrr, this month, errr, this week…

no can do as....

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

you are conflating banning assault rifles and disarmarment. why is it that civilians can't buy an Abrams? because an Abrams isn't designed for civilian use. it's a weapon of war. the same applies to assault rifles.

will that end all mass shootings? probably not. will it reduce gun deaths? as demonstrated in Australia, yes.

Originally Posted by texassapper

Again... you can't define what it is that you want to ban. THAT's why it is essentially a disarming of the citizens.

You claim that an object whose attributes you cannot define is a "weapon of war" and thus we should not allow civilians to own. "Keep and bear ARMS".... not artillery, ARMS. A tank is essentially a mobile artillery platform. In the same way the Founders were not advocating personal ownership of artillery, an Abrams is not covered by the 2nd Amendment. And nobody is advocating for your reductio ad absurdum.


[SNIP]

Ahem...

people can own tanks and fighter aircrafts as long as they are demilitarized. (they can't own F-14s tho.)

oh, one can also own artillery pieces, cannons.

[DNinja69]

We gain zero by trying to disarm the public. As for the more exotic or so called assault weapons there are legal pathways to own those it really just takes federal licensing and fee participation. Unlike cigarettes or liquor firearms are not addictive, mind altering, or physically impairing. Why would anyone want to allow a lawsuit because some jackass shoots people with a gun that was made and sold legally?

The answers are not having less guns it is addressing the root causes of violence in the US and I agree mental illness is a factor but other nations suffer from those issues without the violence so for me until we have some answers on why as a group we are so unhinged the introduction of regulations and restrictions do very little to reduce the problem

[ICU 812]

And . . .unlike Cigarettes or liquore, ownership of firearms is a pre-existing right recognized and expictly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

And . . .unlike Cigarettes or liquore, ownership of firearms is a pre-existing right recognized and expictly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

A right that is NOT absolute.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

A right that is NOT absolute.

If it's not absolute then it's not a "Right". The Government can't move the Goal Posts on a specific right of the Constitution for their convenience it doesn't work that way.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

If it's not absolute then it's not a "Right". The Government can't move the Goal Posts on a specific right of the Constitution for their convenience it doesn't work that way.

If the "Government" is We the People, then yes, they sure as hell can.

It's call amending the Constitution.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

If the "Government" is We the People, then yes, they sure as hell can.

It's call amending the Constitution.

It's we the people not they the people. They can't amend the Constitution to where it's contrary to it's original composition. The Constitution is for Government to abide by. So if they want to do away with AR-15 type Firearms they have to stop manufacture or sales. Toying with the Constitution to ban lawful ownership is in violation of the Constitution.

[ICU 812]

In all this, please note that , no anti-gun group has ever seriously suggested that The Second Amendment be directly addresed through either of the mechanisms established in ?The Constitution for changing anything in the Constitution.

That alone would tell anyone that "We the People" don't want that changed.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

In all this, please note that , no anti-gun group has ever seriously suggested that The Second Amendment be directly addresed through either of the mechanisms established in ?The Constitution for changing anything in the Constitution.

That alone would tell anyone that "We the People" don't want that changed.

Don't harsh their narrative that there is overwhelming support to disarm the populace.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

It's we the people not they the people. They can't amend the Constitution to where it's contrary to it's original composition. The Constitution is for Government to abide by. So if they want to do away with AR-15 type Firearms they have to stop manufacture or sales. Toying with the Constitution to ban lawful ownership is in violation of the Constitution.

Do you understand how a constitutional amendment is adopted.

Obviously not.

[ICU 812]

The amendment processes are complex and multi-layered by design.

The repeal of prohibition went swiftly because everyone wanted it.

Making a change to the Second Amendment would follow the same set of processes. If everyone wanted to alter the Second Amendment, it would sail through just as smoothly as the repeal of prohibition.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Do you understand how a constitutional amendment is adopted.

Obviously not.

Do you?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Do you?

I asked you first.


Let's keep it on track now, OK?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I asked you first.


Let's keep it on track now, OK?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!

Yeah, I do but the Second Amendment doesn't need to be adopted it already exists within the Constitution.