Are these 'infringements'?

It seems like the only reason anybody can come up with, is sometimes people commit crimes.

That's not a good enough reason

 

and crimes are just a facade

 

Gun nuts will be gun nuts, they don't want any "restrictions" to prevent illegal use of firearms or to protect the public because that would be "harassment" and they, being self centered, feel no responsibility to participate in the public good.

So restrictions are not subjugation. We finally got there.

And now for your entertainment....

A copy of a military weapon used on the battle field that comes with a standard 20 or 30 round magazine is not an assault weapon? Arbitrary?
No background checks? That makes life convenient for all the violent felons, they must have rights too, they don't need harassed.
Gun nuts will be gun nuts.

 

hoplophobss are hoplophobes. they will lie about guns and disguise their true motivations. Their goal is to harass lawful gun owners for cultural and political reasons. Background checks were studied by Duke University and found wanting in decreasing crime

what firearms do you think the Second was suppose to protect from gun banning politicians ? Let's start with the first step-do you believe some firearms are protected from bans by the second, and if so why those firearms?

 

Yeah there's people that commit crimes of all sorts of things that nobody even cares about.

 

I never said sensible restrictions were subjugation I said loss of Rights was subjugation.

Every revolver every muzzleloader every break action every bolt action it's a copy of a battlefield weapon help a bow and arrow is a copy of a battlefield weapon weapons are useful on the battlefield it doesn't matter what they are.

If you're going to try and pretend to removal of Rights is about felons you're being dishonest.

 

A lot of people consider abortion to be murder of infants. And they vote for abortion laws to protect infants from being murdered. You can disagree with their assessment, but that doesn't negate their vote, and since our laws are legislated democratically, then it doesn't actually matter whether a law makes sense to you personally or not (unless you're able to convince the majority of your view, of course). Laws should have a purpose, but that purpose can be very subjective in a democracy. Which is why we also have a constitution that limits what laws can be made democratically.

 

Hoplophiles or better, gun nuts, are as I said, paranoid and conspiracy seeking, as you have proved time and again, along with your first and second sentences. They bear no responsibility for public safety, it is all about themselves.

Restrictions on rights are a loss of rights and not subjugation, no matter how you want to spin it.

You said the definition of assault weapons was "arbitrary" and I demonstrated it is not, then you bring up weapons that are no longer battlefield weapons. Pointless.

How am I being dishonest?

Thank you for dodging my question. Your assertion was that if there was a constitutional right to abortion would these restrictions be infringements. I asked you if you thought any on your list were infringements or justified under the purpose of the law and I get this.

I think most all of your restrictions would be struck down by the courts as infringements, except maybe the database, because they do not fit the intent of the law to protect the safety and health of the public. Other restrictions, like who can prescribe, who can perform the abortion, safety standards and even a right to get an abortion if one cannot afford one would stand, because they are protecting public health and safety. Protecting the rights of others (fetus) would be a moot point because they have no rights under the amendment.

 

why is it that EVERY gun banner is a leftist?

much of the ranting about assault weapons involve firearms that have NEVER EVER BEEN ISSUED BY ANY MILITARY UNIT

 

depends on the restrictions. If they're Draconian and aimed at simply controlling people without really any reason then yes they are subjugation.

you can't demonstrate that because it's arbitrary it's impossible for you to demonstrate that.

that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard all weapons ever conceived our battlefield weapons.

you're being intellectually dishonest. It's because you have emotional connection to the issue.

 

I'm not asking what would be struck down by the courts. The courts are a function of the ruling political establishment, ultimately. I'm trying to determine how people differentiate between accepting restrictions on the right to bear arms but rejecting the very same restrictions on abortion, claiming 'right to choose.' The 'public safety' argument has two problems- the first is one of perception (such as the safety of the unborn) and the second is the fact that there has been very little research done into how much crime is prevented by civilian firearm ownership. We know civilian firearm ownership prevents some crime. We have no idea whether or not it prevents more than it promotes. Until we do, claiming gun control that aims to reduce civilian firearm ownership necessarily reduces crime is an unsupported claim. Its a feeling and a desire, not a fact.

 

crime control has almost no relevance in what motivates the leaders of the anti gun movement

 

Good question and the answer could be long, but I will cut to the chase. The left prioritizes fairness. That is why they lead the way in protecting the public's health and safety. They agitated for worker safety, worker rights, equal rights, child labor laws, pollution laws, antismoking, against police abuse....the list goes on. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is an extension of that, which gun nuts are against because it is "harassment" and leads to "subjugation".

Why is it that EVERY gun nut is a right-winger? I think I already answered that and they don't have a list of service to the public.

"Draconian restrictions aimed at simply controlling people without really any reason" would be called infringements and would be overturned.

Assault weapons are high capacity weapons modeled after the M4....that's not arbitrary, you are in denial because of an emotional connection with the issue.

How am I intellectually dishonest?

You are asking what would be struck down by the courts, because those restrictions would be challenged and they would be found to be infringements on the right to an abortion. They serve no purpose in protecting the health and safety of the public, but only serve to obstruct an abortion.

Your argument about gun restrictions is specious. There has been a lot studies on crime prevention and guns. We also have more guns than people, lead the world in mass shooting, its the number one cause of death for cildren and we lead the developed world in gun homicides. So restrictions on gun ownership sounds to me like a matter of public health and safety, that is logic not a "feeling"..

 

There's no such thing as a high capacity weapon the capacity is the standard magazine that's standard it's not high capacity. And you're just moaning about the way the rifle looks it doesn't function any differently than any other semi-automatic magazine fed rifle.

So yes it's arbitrary.

Maybe you're not intellectually dishonest perhaps you're just ignorant.

 

FAIRNESS-so the rich elite can have armed guards and poor people are defenseless. OMG that is a gut buster. You claim my argument is specious when your posts ooze ignorance of both constitutional law and the proper uses of firearms. And again-passing gun bans because you are upset that some gun owners don't worship the faux constitutional right of abortion is a pathetic reason

there are lots of leftists that are pro gun. Look up Ron Kuby for example. I know he is pro gun, he helped me get a NYS CCW License.

almost every mass genocide in human history was perpetrated by big government authoritarians who disarmed the victims first.

 

I will take both for 2000 Alex

 

I AM NOT asking what would be struck down by the courts. The courts will not rule against overwhelming popular opinion. They understand the need to maintain order and a perception of consent of the governed. This is why you see conflicting judicial results on gun control and abortion from one state to the next- judges don't want to issue rulings that result in a revolt. I want to know how YOU (gun controllers) justify restricting the right to bear arms while claiming that abortion cannot be similarly restricted because right to choose. I'm not asking judges. I'm asking YOU to explain how that is not either hypocritical or cognitive dissonance or both.

Yes, we have a great many studies on 'gun crime.' Can you cite ANY studies on the crime prevention benefits of civilian gun ownership? THATS the statistic we're missing. In the 1980's a DOJ survey showed that a majority of incarcerated felons reported that prior to their incarceration, they would avoid victims that were likely armed, and instead victimize people who were not likely to shoot an attacker. Thats the last study I know of that even attempted to determine how much crime doesn't occur because criminals fear getting shot. Can you cite anything more recent? If not, then we're missing critical information on the subject of whether we need to reduce civilian firearm ownership rates, or whether that could actually cause crime to INCREASE.

 

He's talking about looks and fire arms capacity the way a virgin tries to describe the way sex feels.

It's dishonest to try from a place of no knowledge.

 

the real gut buster is when a gun banner says they aren't banners and all they want to ban are "military guns".

 

They don't understand it's like saying I don't want to ban animals just living animals.

 

Or we should ban only knives that can cut things

 

If you can cut with it you can rob with it. The most common cause of death in children 30-45 years old is knife wounds

 

My all three of y'all seem to be descending into emotional partisan gibberish.

You brought up assault weapons, I didn't, and said the definition of the term "assault weapon" is "arbitrary". I proved it isn't. Denial is intellectual dishonesty or is it ignorance?

Wow, you have gone off the rails, I didn't claim your post was specious, I answered your question. To which you have no counterargument. You do bring up legal gun use but that's not the subject which is the illegal possession of handguns, but then the right is bankrupt on that issue.

Just how am I ignorant of constitutional law and firearm use? Is that an appeal to authority fallacy?

Gun control and the right to an abortion are two separate issues and there are plenty on the right who agree abortion should be the individual woman's decision, not the government's.

I don't think Kuby is against gun restrictions, despite your wishful thinking.

And you end with paranoid, conspiracy seeking thinking that I have pointed out is typical of gun nuts.

I think "feelings" have taken over. If you reread what I wrote I made it clear what are infringements and what are restrictions. Do the laws have a purpose or not and you did not disagree with my definition.
Are background checks a restriction or an infringement? I would say the public's right to safety trumps the protection of your right to own a gun if you fail a background check. It is a subjective cost/benefit analysis (what judges do) that gun nuts ignore because they don't care about public safety.

Statistics on crime prevention by gun owners is always suspect because the evidence is subjective and anecdotal. Also they are subject to the bias of the researcher's interpretation. But one thing easy to judge is homicides. Given that there would be much more non-lethal "crime prevention" than lethal interventions, just as there would be many times more illegal gun use than homicides. With all that in mind in 2021 there were 537 legal gun death "interventions" and 20,958 illegal gun homicides.

 

I think your hostility to gun owners and gun ownership rights has nothing to do with increasing public safety. that is why my signature exists.

 

this is why you're intellectually dishonest you're pretend not to understand English when it's being used to dismantle your position.

okay what qualifies a weapon as an assault weapon according to law?
There's the classification for pistol rifle and shotgun tell me what they are.