Give up my guns?

[murray t turtle]

No one believes that folks like Beto, or Corey Booker will stop at one type of gun. What they are going to do is establish precedence and then come for all guns. It is because you have people pushing for extreme positions that the other side of the argument reacts with extreme positions.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

%%
Besides like TX Ted Cruz, answered the actress on a Bible verse giVng a right to a gun . Exodus 22:2.Beto + Booker are so goofy; i wouldn't want them ruling any more of me than i have to LOL,,

 

[futurecurrents]

No one believes that folks like Beto, or Corey Booker will stop at one type of gun. What they are going to do is establish precedence and then come for all guns. It is because you have people pushing for extreme positions that the other side of the argument reacts with extreme positions.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Yes, because speed limits have resulted in no speed at all. Or how one can't drive with any alchohol level at all. Or......... There are countless of examples of regulations that strike a middle ground.

Get a grip. You gun nuts are so irrational and paranoid.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Addendum to my response to Tsing Tao re 1. whether a banning of all guns is being called for in any serious legislative proposal. And 2. What may reasonably be done re regulation of firearms under the Second Amendment, according to Heller.

from the Heller opinion: [quotes below are taken directly from D.C. et al. v. Heller. Please note the page numbers here are the page numbers in the opinion itself and will not necessarily agree with PDF page numbering.]

pg 53

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25​

pg 54

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.​

pgs 54-5

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.​

pg 55

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769);
​

pg 55-6

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
​

What is your point in all of this?

 

[piezoe]

What is your point in all of this?

apparently it's that your incapable of figuring it out. I did not say you were. But you have just implied that! Others won't have nearly the difficulty you're having. Ask Tony what the point is. He can explain it to you.

 

[Tsing Tao]

It is hard for a reasonable person to understand your view because it supposes, lawlessness among some politicians -- not in itself hard to accept, but it also supposes, at the same time, one of the pillars of the Bill of Rights would simply be ignored by right-minded fellow politicians, by the Courts, and by the people.

Many reasonable people agree with and support my argument. The fact that you do not consider them reasonable doesn't, in fact, mean that they are unreasonable. You are not the sole discretionary decider on who is and is not reasonable. What a horrific world it would be if you were.

What you suppose is not going to happen, unless people like yourself steadfastly refuse to give an inch on regulation. A large majority of citizens, including you and I, even after all the crazy mass shootings using military style weapons, are standing firm on the right of individual citizens to "bear arms, " -- just not any arms for any purpose. Most of us Democrats, Republicans and Independents believe in reasonable and uniform gun regulation; regulation that in no way violates our Second Amendment Rights.

First, just because you say it won't happen doesn't mean anything to me. You are, again, under the impression that you are bound by "reasonable" behavior and thought. I wholeheartedly disagree with that assertion. There have been many examples of where your thought is unreasonable, in my opinion.

Second, while the majority of people believe in "reasonable gun regulation", the term "reasonable" varies greatly. Stating that the "majority believe in reasonable gun regulation" is a broad stroke that has nothing to do with this particular argument. For example, I believe in reasonable gun regulation. I do not believe in banning guns. You believe you support "reasonable" gun regulation that includes banning what you call "military style weapons". So we both agree, just not about the what.

Now lets talk about "military style weapons" - a term which very obviously states how unfamiliar and uneducated you are on the subject. "Military style"...does that mean if a gun has the aesthetic appearance of a weapon used in the military, it is a "military style"? What constitutes "military style"? Do you even know? I'm betting you don't. Because "military style" weapons to me are fully automatic. And those are banned and illegal for sale except under highly regulated and restricted methods.

A person who persists in the nutty idea that all guns will be banned is doing themselves no favor. There is likely to be a backlash to unreasonableness. The result could be greater restriction than necessary. As a matter of fact you are witnessing a backlash forming right now. Public opinion is 90% in favor of uniform background checks for gun purchasers, and ~70% are in favor of banning military style weapons. Don't let your unreasonable views cause you to have to put up with more regulation than you should. Instead why not get on the bandwagon for reasonable, not overly intrusive regulation.

If you wish to show "reasonableness" in your side of the discussion, I'm sure you'll see the other side become a bit more reasonable. Apart from that, the removal of guns from circulation will never happen. Period. Feel free to refute any of my points if you are able.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Yes, because speed limits have resulted in no speed at all. Or how one can't drive with any alchohol level at all. Or......... There are countless of examples of regulations that strike a middle ground.

Get a grip. You gun nuts are so irrational and paranoid.

And banning drugs has resulted in no drug use, right dopey?

 

[Tsing Tao]

apparently it's that your incapable of figuring it out. I did not say you were. But you have just implied that! Others won't have nearly the difficulty you're having. Ask Tony what the point is. He can explain it to you.

Ah, the insults. Well here is one back for you - I'm supposed to think you're so enlightened and intellectual on this and other subjects and you've proven again and again you don't even know how to distinguish "your" from "you're".

You learn this in the third grade, for Christ's sake.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Probably has been discussed already, but I see that Walmart is hard at work again today to get the word out to mass shooters that Walmart is open for business for them to do their thing, and that they are in the process of making sure that there are no armed persons in the store when they arrive.

Message to mass shooters: You can thank them later. They are putting down the welcome mat for you.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Probably has been discussed already, but I see that Walmart is hard at work again to today to get the word out to mass shooters that Walmart is open for business for them to do their thing, and that they are in the process of making sure that there are no armed persons in the store when they arrive.

Message to mass shooters: You can thank them later. They are putting down the welcome mat for you.

Think Walmart asked only for people to not open carry. You can still conceal carry. I might be wrong.

This is actually something I agree with.

 

[Wallet]

Probably has been discussed already, but I see that Walmart is hard at work again to today to get the word out to mass shooters that Walmart is open for business for them to do their thing, and that they are in the process of making sure that there are no armed persons in the store when they arrive.

Message to mass shooters: You can thank them later. They are putting down the welcome mat for you.

To be fair, if I understood correctly, they’re referring to open carry. Concealed is still fine, and if done properly no one would know.

However stopping the sale of handgun and 556/762 rounds is just virtue signaling.

Edit, didnt see Tsing’s post