There is an actual guide for gun control advocates to follow when debating.

[DMC]

While in another thread, this discussion originated from your suggestion that a Bill introducing a 50% tax increase on ammunition was uncons utional. Why would we limit our discussion to the original text and not what has happened since the second amendment? If the bill were to pass and be challenged in court, wouldn’t established case law be used to determine if the law was uncons utional?

Show me where I said it was uncons utional.

[DMC]

'An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same State, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. "

https://www.atf.gov/questions-and-an...gun-unlicensed

Lol low information poster

You moved the goalposts again. You said a 21 year old can buy a firearm and give it to a person who cannot legally purchase it. The question you asked though in your link is can the 18-year-old legally acquire the firearm from the 21 year old. This is about intent. The law that affects the 18-year-old isn't the same law that affects the 21 year old. An 18-year-old cannot be prosecuted for straw purchase. The 21 year old can. You spoke about the 21 year old and now you're speaking about the 18-year-old.

Not only are you a low information poster, you don't know how to use critical thinking. Do you think all of these concepts are the same?

[koriwhat]

You moved the goalposts again. You said a 21 year old can buy a firearm and give it to a person who cannot legally purchase it. The question you asked though in your link is can the 18-year-old legally acquire the firearm from the 21 year old. This is about intent. The law that affects the 18-year-old isn't the same law that affects the 21 year old. An 18-year-old cannot be prosecuted for straw purchase. The 21 year old can. You spoke about the 21 year old and now you're speaking about the 18-year-old.

Not only are you a low information poster, you don't know how to use critical thinking. Do you think all of these concepts are the same?

lmao

tear that paper thin knowitall apart DMC

[DMC]

Touched a nerve, would seem.

You're not very astute. I don't believe that's a revelation to anyone on the forum.

[DMC]

The fact that the Cons ution provided the ability to change itself inherently means that was was written then wouldn't be the the last word on the matter.

That's a feature, not a bug.

However the wording still says shall not be infringed to this very day. Until that changes it still says that.

I think most of the discussion is about how to to interpret the Bill of Rights not necessarily with Bill of Rights per se. If you change the verbiage of the Bill of Rights then obviously the interpretation can change because the meaning changes. Since we are sticking with the exact same verbiage then it's only about interpretation and the Supreme Court has made their position relatively clear. Hundreds of years later we still have the right to keep and bear arms.

[Blake]

lmao


tear that paper thin knowitall apart DMC

[Blake]

You moved the goalposts again. You said a 21 year old can buy a firearm and give it to a person who cannot legally purchase it. The question you asked though in your link is can the 18-year-old legally acquire the firearm from the 21 year old. This is about intent. The law that affects the 18-year-old isn't the same law that affects the 21 year old. An 18-year-old cannot be prosecuted for straw purchase. The 21 year old can. You spoke about the 21 year old and now you're speaking about the 18-year-old.

Not only are you a low information poster, you don't know how to use critical thinking. Do you think all of these concepts are the same?

I didn't move anything. A 21 year old can buy a handgun and give it to an 18 year old. Verified and link posted. That's it.

But hey who could have guessed you'd go with the ad hominem wall of gibberish? No way didn't see that coming

[Th'Pusher]

Show me where I said it was uncons utional.

You seemed to imply a 50% increase in taxes on ammunition would infringe on a persons right to bear arms. Is that not your position? Are you reverting to your pedantic parsing?

[boutons_deux]

Study: Half Of Licensed U.S. Gun Dealers Depend On Weapons Trafficking To Mexico

https://thinkprogress.org/study-half...-c2760694db96/

... but ATF gun walking was a huge scandal for Repugs and righwingnutjob gun fellators.

[Spurtacular]

Says a derp that grudge bumped a 5 year old thread for some derpy reason

Cucksults

[Spurtacular]

You're not very astute. I don't believe that's a revelation to anyone on the forum.

He names himself for that fact.

Whine Hole

[DMC]

You seemed to imply a 50% increase in taxes on ammunition would infringe on a persons right to bear arms. Is that not your position? Are you reverting to your pedantic parsing?

Me: It's 82 degrees outside

Someone else: DMC says its hot outside

You: DMC thinks 82 degrees is hot

Me: where did I say that?

You: You said 82 degrees is hot.

Me: where?


You: You seemed to imply that it was hot, are you reverting to you're pedantic parsing?


You just browse posts and fling out a response without actually reading the post in context. When I said that I was giving an example of someone else's approach of considering 0.1% tax to be the same as 50% tax. However if it does infringe at 0.1% then then it absolutely does at 50%. I don't believe either infinges on the second amendment because ammunition is not covered under the second amendment. However that particular Bill would indeed disenfranchise low income vs higher income earners so it would not necessarily be a fair lever for gun control.

Right now it's legal to make your own ammunition whereas is completely illegal to build your own firearm unless you have a class 2 licence.

[DMC]

I didn't move anything. A 21 year old can buy a handgun and give it to an 18 year old. Verified and link posted. That's it.

But hey who could have guessed you'd go with the ad hominem wall of gibberish? No way didn't see that coming

No you just made this a mistake again. Maybe ask someone here who has a legal background. An 18 year old can legally acquire a firearm from a 21 year old but the 21 year old cannot buy a firearm with the intent of giving it to the 18-year-old. So what you're really saying is that you don't think 18-year-old should be able to own firearms. Do you also believe that an 18-year-old should not be able to join the military? What about voting?

Because you're using emotive language to suggest kids are giving other kids guns but in reality a 50 year old can give a gun to the 18 year old son, it's no different than a 21 year old doing it if it's done under legal means. If you want to raise the age for firearm ownership you have to completely do away with the concept that 18 year olds are adults.

[Th'Pusher]

Me: It's 82 degrees outside

Someone else: DMC says its hot outside

You: DMC thinks 82 degrees is hot

Me: where did I say that?

You: You said 82 degrees is hot.

Me: where?


You: You seemed to imply that it was hot, are you reverting to you're pedantic parsing?


You just browse posts and fling out a response without actually reading the post in context. When I said that I was giving an example of someone else's approach of considering 0.1% tax to be the same as 50% tax. However if it does infringe at 0.1% then then it absolutely does at 50%. I don't believe either infinges on the second amendment because ammunition is not covered under the second amendment. However that particular Bill would indeed disenfranchise low income vs higher income earners so it would not necessarily be a fair lever for gun control.

Right now it's legal to make your own ammunition whereas is completely illegal to build your own firearm unless you have a class 2 licence.

So why was your first post in that thread a reference to “shall not be infringed” in the BoR?

Never mind. I honestly don’t care.

Your positions evolve to whatever argument suits you at the time.

scalp collector.

[Pavlov]

[Th'Pusher]

Me: It's 82 degrees outside

Someone else: DMC says its hot outside

You: DMC thinks 82 degrees is hot

Me: where did I say that?

You: You said 82 degrees is hot.

Me: where?


You: You seemed to imply that it was hot, are you reverting to you're pedantic parsing?


You just browse posts and fling out a response without actually reading the post in context. When I said that I was giving an example of someone else's approach of considering 0.1% tax to be the same as 50% tax. However if it does infringe at 0.1% then then it absolutely does at 50%. I don't believe either infinges on the second amendment because ammunition is not covered under the second amendment. However that particular Bill would indeed disenfranchise low income vs higher income earners so it would not necessarily be a fair lever for gun control.

Right now it's legal to make your own ammunition whereas is completely illegal to build your own firearm unless you have a class 2 licence.

You can probably get chucho to suck on your though tbh.

[ElNono]

the Cons ution is not amendable in practice, which is a feature, not a bug. Should be trashed totally for a new Cons ution.

There's 27 amendments to the Cons ution ratified and in place. That's very much in practice and not in theory. That the political climate du jour isn't amenable to amendments, isn't an indictment to the Cons ution, but of politicos.

[ElNono]

However the wording still says shall not be infringed to this very day. Until that changes it still says that.

I think most of the discussion is about how to to interpret the Bill of Rights not necessarily with Bill of Rights per se. If you change the verbiage of the Bill of Rights then obviously the interpretation can change because the meaning changes. Since we are sticking with the exact same verbiage then it's only about interpretation and the Supreme Court has made their position relatively clear. Hundreds of years later we still have the right to keep and bear arms.

You're touching on a topic that's certainly not new (which doesn't make it any less important or relevant) and that has to do with interpretation of the Cons ution in spirit or as written. This is something that has justices split for a long time, and it's unlikely to disappear.

I mean, if there's *one* thing about the 2nd amendment that doesn't really translate well to modern days is indeed the wording. While the part you highlight (shall not be infringed) is very clear, other parts like the whole militia part is much less clear. Not to mention that what "arms" should be construed as is also very unclear (does lack of specificity means all, or something that should be left to Congress or the States to define?). Does the right also protects access to guns (that is, shields government from taxing them in such a way that it becomes a per-se ban?).

None of that is really defined in the 2nd amendment, and so it opens itself up to interpretation.

It should also be noted that while the SCOTUS affirmed the right, it also conceded it's not outside the scope of the Government to regulate it (from DC vs er):

In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "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."[50]

The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 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."[51]

[Blake]

Maybe ask someone here who has a legal background. An 18 year old can legally acquire a firearm from a 21 year old but.....

The rest of your post is irrelevant after this. Thanks for concurring.

[DMC]

So why was your first post in that thread a reference to “shall not be infringed” in the BoR?

Never mind. I honestly don’t care.

Your positions evolve to whatever argument suits you at the time.

scalp collector.

It never ends with you.

just like smoking it's not like there aren't substantial social costs associated with using guns as they're designed. tens of thousands thousands of trauma injuries yearly

why would it unreasonable to require gun users to pay a portion for the socialized costs?

Where is the bill that says "the right to smoke shall not be infringed"?

Some of you act like you're from another country (some are) and don't understand we have a Bill of Rights.

Here you can see Winehole was comparing gun owners to smokers. Smoking isn't protected under the BoR. Gun ownership is.

You honestly do care, but you're too ing intellectually lazy to mount a decent rebuttal. You're a low information poster. In fact you're a low information poster poster child.

[DMC]

You're touching on a topic that's certainly not new (which doesn't make it any less important or relevant) and that has to do with interpretation of the Cons ution in spirit or as written. This is something that has justices split for a long time, and it's unlikely to disappear.

I mean, if there's *one* thing about the 2nd amendment that doesn't really translate well to modern days is indeed the wording. While the part you highlight (shall not be infringed) is very clear, other parts like the whole militia part is much less clear. Not to mention that what "arms" should be construed as is also very unclear (does lack of specificity means all, or something that should be left to Congress or the States to define?). Does the right also protects access to guns (that is, shields government from taxing them in such a way that it becomes a per-se ban?).

None of that is really defined in the 2nd amendment, and so it opens itself up to interpretation.

It should also be noted that while the SCOTUS affirmed the right, it also conceded it's not outside the scope of the Government to regulate it (from DC vs er):

In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "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."[50]

The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 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."[51]

That's a pointless argument because it's not outside the scope of the government to completely change any aspect of the cons ution. Sure, mountains would have to be moved, blood in the streets etc... but the government holds the power. No one else does. This is why the 2nd Amendment exists.

[DMC]

The rest of your post is irrelevant after this. Thanks for concurring.

Because you lack capacity for abstract thought.

Here's what you actually said:

"A 21 year old can buy a handgun and give it to an 18 year old."

straw purchase

a criminal act in which something, especially a firearm, is bought by one person on behalf of another who is legally unable to make the purchase themselves.

[DMC]

the Cons ution is not amendable in practice, which is a feature, not a bug. Should be trashed totally for a new Cons ution.

You could just move to a country more to your liking.

[DMC]

Chumpy crying out for company again.

[DMC]

You can probably get chucho to suck on your though tbh.

Doesn't care, responds to same post twice
owned again