Gun control advocates nervous as Supreme Court takes up first 2nd Amendment case in a decade

Mar 2019
944
1,542
TN
The court is probably going to sidestep on the ruling. NYC has already repealed the law in question so any ruling is moot at this point. The only one anxious to take it up was Kavanaugh and he was silent during the hearing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Friday13
Dec 2018
5,978
2,451
Florida
This must have caught the left off guard. There has been little or no uproar about this and the spin machine has not been out in force deriding the court for accepting the case. This has apparently set them back on their heels and they seem completely flummoxed.
This is the best time to take this stuff to court. When it isn’t in the news cycle being lied about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gooseberrymesa
Dec 2018
5,978
2,451
Florida
The court is probably going to sidestep on the ruling. NYC has already repealed the law in question so any ruling is moot at this point. The only one anxious to take it up was Kavanaugh and he was silent during the hearing.
The law Was certainly questionable at best. It would be an easy ruling to strike down. A law that prevents transport? Specifically to and from one’s home? Plus the possible issues with the commerce clause as it relates to transport. That could be a bigger issue of course.
 
Dec 2018
5,978
2,451
Florida
I think SCOTUS should hear them Florida law on 21 and up only gun purchases. That to me is a flagrant violation. If we are to argue that an 18 year old is not responsible enough to purchase something for a right, they are not responsible enough to make the decision to die for their country.
 
Dec 2018
5,978
2,451
Florida
You're demeaning imaginary people for participating in an "uproar" and a "spin machine" - people that don't actually exist - while you're eagerly, enthusiastically spending your free time deliberately participating in a spin machine and causing an uproar.

There's only one Borg collective hive mind here in this thread doing it... and they're all chanting about accusing other people of doing it ... while faithfully following the identical choir book.
Sorry. We are just used to a bunch of flagrant lies and information from the news media regarding the topic of guns and gun control. I remember when stand your ground became law in Florida. The anti stand your ground crowd (who mostly consisted of gun control proponents) insisted the law would create the Wild West and meant you could just shoot someone on sight no matter what. It did literally one thing...removed the duty to retreat in a public place. But SYG isn’t the topic. It just reminds me of how out of control the media likes to get.

I’m left wondering, from your post, if you believe that SCOTUS would be wrong in striking this nonsense down as unconstitutional?
 
Nov 2018
8,569
2,873
Maryland
I remain cautious over this one as John Roberts doesn't always go with the conservative view.
 
Jun 2013
18,934
17,032
Here
Most gun owners I know dont' feel the following.




It's the one's that shouldn't have firearms that are like the one depicted above. They're dangerouse because they're looking for all kinds of excuses to hate, then shoot them one for.
 
Dec 2018
5,978
2,451
Florida
Most gun owners I know dont' feel the following.




It's the one's that shouldn't have firearms that are like the one depicted above. They're dangerouse because they're looking for all kinds of excuses to hate, then shoot them one for.
That is intensely dishonest and totally ignores the reality of what happens of course. Do you realize we have like a MINIMUM of 45 million gun owners? The number is probably closer to 75 million. We have 393 Million guns in private hands. Hell. I have an uncle who owns about 40 guns. Most of them are old lever actions and cowboy guns. Guns are like tools and fishing rods and knives and other shit like that. You probably don’t NEED half the shit you own. But I’m sure you wanted it when you bought it. And that isn’t a problem. It is your right.

TL;DR

Your assessment is a sweeping generalization that ignores one simple reality: less than 0.02% of ALL lawful gun owners commit murder.
 
Jun 2013
18,934
17,032
Here
That is intensely dishonest and totally ignores the reality of what happens of course. Do you realize we have like a MINIMUM of 45 million gun owners? The number is probably closer to 75 million. We have 393 Million guns in private hands. Hell. I have an uncle who owns about 40 guns. Most of them are old lever actions and cowboy guns. Guns are like tools and fishing rods and knives and other shit like that. You probably don’t NEED half the shit you own. But I’m sure you wanted it when you bought it. And that isn’t a problem. It is your right.

TL;DR

Your assessment is a sweeping generalization that ignores one simple reality: less than 0.02% of ALL lawful gun owners commit murder.

That was a nice sweeping generalization....and total BS....
All gun owners who commit murder were "lawful" before they commited a crime with their firearms.

You also forget all the "lawful gun owners" that shoot themselves or someone by mistake or are shot by someone in their family by mistake or in the heat of the moment.

Read Amendment II again and tell us what it says is "necessary to the security of a free state"......

No one says people can't have firearms.......What they ARE saying is what firearms anyone who is NOT a citizen soldier and in service to the common defense of their individual state or their nation is NOT covered by Amendment II. Self defense is an inalienable right, but there is NOTHING that says self defense and firearms ownership are synonymous.

Its the paranoia some gun owners express which suggests they are the one's the should not have firearms because they are powder kegs and LOOKING for an excuse to shoot someone.

Why would ANYONE fear studies about firearms, health and safety unless they felt they would reveal the OBVIOUS extra risk that firearms in one's home, add?

Guns ARE tools, but UNLIKE MOST TOOLS they were developed specifically to wound and kill. Why the hell do you think so many people choose them over a knife or a baseball bat when they want to kill or wound something? It's not rocket science, it's plain common sense and thinking. I have no problems with Amendment II because it is needed to ensure those in service to the common defense of our nation can always have access to the arms they would keep and bear against common enemies to their states or the nation. No one else NEEDS a right to own firearms. As in other nations, those aside from the well-regulated militia can still own firearms, or keep and bear them in the case of standing armies and law enforcement, but they need to be identified as a group and the purpose recognize as a common defense others can get a permit and register their firearms. What the hell is so hard about that considering they are DEADLY weapons (as if that is not ovbious) and designed as such.

No one can even stop and question a shooter with 15 guns and hundreds of rounds on his way to shoot a lot of people (Las Vegas) if everyone is allowed to walk around with multiple arms.

Again, it is NOT ROCKET science and other nations have done it. The U.S. is only one of three nations in the world that mention anything about arms in their Constitutions and you can look up the other two nations, check out their gun death rates and their gun control laws.

Like I said, MOST of the gun owners I know think those that resist practical gun laws are the ones that should NOT have fireams in their possession, because they have no practical reason to oppose them, ESPECIALLY if they claim to be "law abiding" citizens. Gun control laws do NOT mean all deaths or injuries are going to suddenly end, Nor does it mean criminals will never obtain any firearms. IT DOES mean it will be harder for those intending to do bad things with firearms to obtain them (where there are no gun control laws, what's even hindering them?) It means Americans care about America and their fellow Americans.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2018
5,978
2,451
Florida
That was a nice sweeping generalization....and total BS....
All gun owners who commit murder were "lawful" before they commited a crime with their firearms.

You also forget all the "lawful gun owners" that shoot themselves or someone by mistake or are shot by someone in their family by mistake or in the heat of the moment.

Read Amendment II again and tell us what it says is "necessary to the security of a free state"......

No one says people can't have firearms.......What they ARE saying is what firearms anyone who is NOT a citizen soldier and in service to the common defense of their individual state or their nation is NOT covered by Amendment II. Self defense is an inalienable right, but there is NOTHING that says self defense and firearms ownership are synonymous.

Its the paranoia some gun owners express which suggests they are the one's the should not have firearms because they are powder kegs and LOOKING for an excuse to shoot someone.

Why would ANYONE fear studies about firearms, health and safety unless they felt they would reveal the OBVIOUS extra risk that firearms in one's home, add?

Guns ARE tools, but UNLIKE MOST TOOLS they were developed specifically to wound and kill. Why the hell do you think so many people choose them over a knife or a baseball bat when they want to kill or wound something? It's not rocket science, it's plain common sense and thinking. I have no problems with Amendment II because it is needed to ensure those in service to the common defense of our nation can always have access to the arms they would keep and bear against common enemies to their states or the nation. No one else NEEDS a right to own firearms. As in other nations, those aside from the well-regulated militia can still own firearms, or keep and bear them in the case of standing armies and law enforcement, but they need to be identified as a group and the purpose recognize as a common defense others can get a permit and register their firearms. What the hell is so hard about that considering they are DEADLY weapons (as if that is not ovbious) and designed as such.

No one can even stop and question a shooter with 15 guns and hundreds of rounds on his way to shoot a lot of people (Las Vegas) if everyone is allowed to walk around with multiple arms.

Again, it is NOT ROCKET science and other nations have done it. The U.S. is only one of three nations in the world that mention anything about arms in their Constitutions and you can look up the other two nations, check out their gun death rates and their gun control laws.

Like I said, MOST of the gun owners I know think those that resist practical gun laws are the ones that should NOT have fireams in their possession, because they have no practical reason to oppose them, ESPECIALLY if they claim to be "law abiding" citizens. Gun control laws do NOT mean all deaths or injuries are going to suddenly end, Nor does it mean criminals will never obtain any firearms. IT DOES mean it will be harder for those intending to do bad things with firearms to obtain them (where there are no gun control laws, what's even hindering them?) It means Americans care about America and their fellow Americans.
Let’s break this silliness down. All “gun owners” are lawful? No. They aren’t. Most murders are committed by those who are already not allowed to own a firearm. A criminal can have possession of a firearm. But Not legally. There is a distinction between a guy like me with a gun and someone who is a convicted felon or convicted of certain violent misdemeanors.