Question of the Day: What Do Gun Control Advocates Mean by “Common Sense”?

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty @driftdiver @txradioguy @INVAR

I tried to tell y’all.  JH thinks this is just so much fun...the governmental usurpation of our God given rights.  And I spose it is, right up until they force us to choose between pulling the trigger or giving those rights up.

It's just a toy to him.  A cat toy in fact, to be batted about until he swats it under the couch.  He admitted to it when he informed us he's a lawyer, and just as mindless.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't advocate banning guns.   I am an advocate of efficacious and reasonable gun regulation.

You advocate nothing then. There is no efficacious and reasonable regulation. What might be considered reasonable (violent criminals, drug addicts, and the insane in possession of arms) is not efficacious, or the rate of arrest for such would be far less among those groups, who have a demonstrated disregard for the law.

 It is not reasonable to impose restrictions on those who are not using, nor are likely to use their arms in a criminal manner.

[Smokin Joe]

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


The power to regulate guns and to allow people to own them is clearly in the wheelhouse of the "United States" i.e. Federal Government no matter how you try to interpret or misinterpret the Amendments.


The right allowing people to keep and bear arms is a right granted by and protected by the Federal Government.  They didn't delegate that authority down to the states.

Your interpretation of the 10th on this issue is flawed.

Actually, granted by God, and (supposedly) protected from the Federal Government.

[INVAR]

@Cyber Liberty @driftdiver @txradioguy @INVAR

I tried to tell y’all.  JH thinks this is just so much fun...the governmental usurpation of our God given rights.  And I spose it is, right up until they force us to choose between pulling the trigger or giving those rights up.

People like him are licking their chops for that day and think they are going to sip tea while watching government soldiers on CNN and Youtube go in by force to lay waste anyone refusing to surrender our weapons that they will eventually advocate must be registered and turned in 'for the good of society', because they deemed confiscation 'reasonable regulation'.

Once advocates for tyranny manage to empower government to that kind of act - they would be mistaken to assume that only the agents of the state are at risk for what will become a war that will feature massive unintended consequences.

Our Right to keep and bear arms is INALIENABLE - and does not come by grant of the State, or subject to any legal 'reasonable regulation' they seek to impose on it, regardless of what advocates for government tyranny or their courts have to say or think. That they have gotten away with it thusfar is only because this people are willing to surrender their rights to clever argumentation of tyrant-advocates that claim the Courts are the Ultimate Authority of all things in America.  All that has done is set the precedent that grants them authority to go even further and go beyond just putting the Second Amendment on the practicality chopping block.  All it takes is tyrants asserting that 'Rights' only apply to government - and that all 'Rights' are Grants of Government that they can 'reasonably regulate' as they see fit to achieve the cordial despotism Jefferson penned regarding the evils that mankind grow accustomed.

[txradioguy]

Actually, granted by God, and (supposedly) protected from the Federal Government.

Good point.