MSNBC Contributor: Shooters Kill ‘Thousands’ With ‘Automatic’ Weapons, ‘High-Capacity Ammunition’

[verga]

We have LIV's living in an echo chamber. The DNC writes the news for the MSM and they dutifully regurgitate it.

[XenaLee]

What will happen to political discourse in this nation when fully half of the electorate content themselves with ONLY lies and fantasy to support their opinions?

Lies and fantasy from the lamestream leftist media.... and they all use Google, so they can't even legitimately search for and discover the truth, since Google has censored all other viewpoints but the radical left's.   The RL knows exactly what they are doing here.   They are attempting to fundamentally transform us into Venezuela, Cuba, and any other commie banana republic s-hole that they have destroyed.

[txradioguy]

Then it will become fashionable to ban butter knives.  Eventually they'll have to start amputating hands because they can be made into fists.

England is already in the middle of trying to regulate knives in the same manner Progressives here are trying to regulate guns.

China has zero private gun ownership and a deranged man managed to kill as many innocent people as the Odessa shooter did...except he did it with a knife.

[Jazzhead]

What I bolded...is what Justice Scalia in the majority opinion was referring to as "reasonable regulation".  Not the open ended ability to abuse the Second Amendment you lead people to believe.

What Scalia cited were historic examples of reasonable regulation,  not limitations on the reach of such regulation.  That, as you must know, is how the Court works - it only rules on the cases and issues before it.   Even Scalia's examples would suggest the constitutionality of red flag laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.   As for licensure and registration,  such regulation is inherently reasonable in that it does not implicate the ability of a law-abiding citizen to own a firearm,  just the procedures to be followed in so doing.   As for registration leading to confiscation,  that's just your slippery-slope paranoia and I dismiss it as ridiculous. 

[Sanguine]

What will happen to political discourse in this nation when fully half of the electorate content themselves with ONLY lies and fantasy to support their opinions?

What we're seeing now?

[Jazzhead]

England is already in the middle of trying to regulate knives in the same manner Progressives here are trying to regulate guns.

China has zero private gun ownership and a deranged man managed to kill as many innocent people as the Odessa shooter did...except he did it with a knife.

So what?   

[Jazzhead]

What will happen to political discourse in this nation when fully half of the electorate content themselves with ONLY lies and fantasy to support their opinions?

And you count yourself as a member of which half?   

[Sanguine]

And you count yourself as a member of which half?   

What's funny about that?

[Cyber Liberty]

What's funny about that?

Maybe it's a nervous laugh, like when you accidentally slammed your little brother's finger with a car door?

[txradioguy]

What Scalia cited were historic examples of reasonable regulation,  not limitations on the reach of such regulation.  That, as you must know, is how the Court works - it only rules on the cases and issues before it.   Even Scalia's examples would suggest the constitutionality of red flag laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.   As for licensure and registration,  such regulation is inherently reasonable in that it does not implicate the ability of a law-abiding citizen to own a firearm,  just the procedures to be followed in so doing.   As for registration leading to confiscation,  that's just your slippery-slope paranoia and I dismiss it as ridiculous.

I provided quoted writing with page number and a link to the actual ruling to show where your wrong and have been wrong on this.

You’ve got nothing more than your imagination and a crystal ball or a Ouija Board.

[txradioguy]

So what?

Not surprised that went right over your head.

[Sanguine]

Maybe it's a nervous laugh, like when you accidentally slammed your little brother's finger with a car door?

Must be.   

[Jazzhead]

What's funny about that?

I think it's flippin' hilarious. Here's a guy who believes that any attempt by the community to reasonably regulate the ownership of firearms is a prelude to confiscation if not civil war,  suggesting that the opinions of others consist of "fantasy". 

[Jazzhead]

I provided quoted writing with page number and a link to the actual ruling to show where your wrong and have been wrong on this.

You’ve got nothing more than your imagination and a crystal ball or a Ouija Board.

Scalia's words that you quoted stand for exactly the proposition I cited.   All rights secured by the Constitution are nevertheless subject to reasonable regulation.   That goes for abortion.  That goes for the individual RKBA.   

[skeeter]

I think it's flippin' hilarious. Here's a guy who believes that any attempt by the community to reasonably regulate the ownership of firearms is a prelude to confiscation if not civil war,  suggesting that the opinions of others consist of "fantasy".

I'll let your above statement stand on its own and let others decide who's full of crap.

BTW its refreshing to see you're finally dropping the affable, reasonable 'hey-i'm-with-you' @Jazzhead shtick. You weren't fooling anyone.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think it's flippin' hilarious. Here's a guy who believes that any attempt by the community to reasonably regulate the ownership of firearms is a prelude to confiscation if not civil war,  suggesting that the opinions of others consist of "fantasy".

"Reasonable regulations" is where your relationship with this Forum breaks down.  You and everybody else have insanely different interpretations of "reasonable."  You've listed what you think is reasonable, and have been roundly disagreed with.  This will continue as long as you call people things like "paranoid."

We've seen your kind before, and I join with @skeeter in being refreshed.

[txradioguy]

Scalia's words that you quoted stand for exactly the proposition I cited.   All rights secured by the Constitution are nevertheless subject to reasonable regulation.   That goes for abortion.  That goes for the individual RKBA.

No it’s not. He clearly stated what he meant by regulation and he listed the specific instances.

It is not what you’re claiming. Not even close...no matter how much you wish it  is.

And there you go again trying to toss a flaming straw man into a subject when you’re losing the debate.

Try and focus please.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'll let your above statement stand on its own and let others decide who's full of crap.

BTW its refreshing to see you're finally dropping the affable, reasonable 'hey-i'm-with-you' @Jazzhead shtick. You weren't fooling anyone.

The mask always falls eventually, Skeets.  Always.

[txradioguy]

I think it's flippin' hilarious. Here's a guy who believes that any attempt by the community to reasonably regulate the ownership of firearms is a prelude to confiscation if not civil war,  suggesting that the opinions of others consist of "fantasy".

What is an “assault weapon”?

[Jazzhead]

No it’s not. He clearly stated what he meant by regulation and he listed the specific instances.

It is not what you’re claiming. Not even close...no matter how much you wish it  is.

And there you go again trying to toss a flaming straw man into a subject when you’re losing the debate.

Try and focus please.

Those instances he cited were by way of example, not of limitation.   Read it again, sir.   That's not to say that Scalia would not have vigorously protected the individual RKBA against unreasonable regulation (say, e.g., an "assault weapons" ban),  but the proposition that constitutionally secured rights are nevertheless subject to reasonable regulation is not controversial.

Bottom line is you don't see the forest for the trees.  Be thankful the Court recognized your individual RKBA.  I'm afraid it won't be that way for long - in part because of extremists whose view of the 2A is so absolute that the community is hamstrung in addressing the current epidemic of gun violence.     

[Sanguine]

What is an “assault weapon”?

Even more to the point, what is a non-assault weapon?  Doesn't "weapon" imply that it can be used for "assault"?

[Jazzhead]

What is an “assault weapon”?

I am not in favor of "assault weapon" bans.   I am in favor of licensure, registration and insurance for firearms generally, "assault" or otherwise.       

[Jazzhead]

Even more to the point, what is a non-assault weapon?  Doesn't "weapon" imply that it can be used for "assault"?

It's a term that can only be defined by politicians.   

[skeeter]

The mask always falls eventually, Skeets.  Always.

The flat refusal to cede a point, no matter how well argued obvious or rational - time after time after time - in favor of mindlessly reading from the same damn script is a dead giveaway.

[txradioguy]

Those instances he cited were by way of example, not of limitation.   Read it again, sir.   That's not to say that Scalia would not have vigorously protected the individual RKBA against unreasonable regulation (say, e.g., an "assault weapons" ban),  but the proposition that constitutionally secured rights are nevertheless subject to reasonable regulation is not controversial.

Bottom line is you don't see the forest for the trees.  Be thankful the Court recognized your individual RKBA.  I'm afraid it won't be that way for long - in part because of extremists whose view of the 2A is so absolute that the community is hamstrung in addressing the current epidemic of gun violence.     

Again you’re trying to mind read with no basis in fact other than your own wishful thinking.


And yet again you are tragically...factually wrong on where my right to keep and bear arms comes from. It comes from the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights written in 1798 and ratified in 1791.

All the Heller and McDonald decisions did was REAFFIRM what the Framers approved two centuries ago because 2nd Amendment illiterates like you have tried to wipe it out through various unconstitutional means.

So have you figured out yet what an “assault weapon” is?