Mass Killer bought his rifles legally.

[ok doser]

You failed to answer the question
What would you do to prevent, deter, reduce the instances of mentally ill and extremist folks obtaining weapons legally and killing with them?

Weapons like this?

 

[Arthur Brain]

This "ignorance" you accuse me of @Arthur Brain . . . what exactly is it? What is it that I do not know? Set it out.

You're just bluffing. I call.

You seem to have your head buried in the sand as to just how serious gun related crime is in America, not to mention how easy it is for anyone to buy the darned things. Countries that aren't ensconced in such a culture have lower murder rates for obvious reasons. Your silly garbage about defence rights having no real teeth in relation is enough ignorance in itself.

 

[Idolater]

Are you telling me that only arms as meant in 1789-91 count?
Your turn.

You didn't take your turn. What other things in 1791 were considered arms, besides guns of all sorts? It's still your turn.

 

[Idolater]

Do you care about where I live?

You have crim checks in your country, you've said. I'm asking you what they're for in your country.

Now why would the US want to carry out crim checks on applicants if those folks have a right to defend their homes?

As far as I can see, it doesn't stop the behaviors we'd like to stop.

If you want to write your own dictionary then Camel could mean elecphant if you wish, but my english oxford dictionary tells me that bear means;
bear, bore, borne. ....carry, shoulder, and then moves on in to child birth etc. ,,,or a large heavy animal.

Great, now go back to your dictionary and see what it says "bearing arms" means, because that's the term we're actually talking about.

You say your dictionary doesn't have an entry for "bearing arms"? Unsurprising, which means that you have to find another "dictionary" for what it means. That means examining court records and political opinions and other writings in order to determine what "bearing arms" means when people use that term.

It means to be armed.

Stop you there.
Are you telling me that you need Courts to provide direction about all this?

No. Just mentioning that in this case, the courts haven't solved the problem. Sometimes the courts provide us with great insight and clarity, but not in this case.

Are you telling me that you accept Supreme Court Rulings?

It depends what you mean by accept. I'll answer this way. I have a moral theory, and a legal theory, and they are connected, and if ever a court rules against my moral theory and legal theory, then I do not believe such rulings are correct. For example, the Court has ruled at times that certain racist policies are moral, and those times, they have been wrong.

Irrelevant, surely?
An Amendment to the Constitution is solkid, isn't it?
Or not so?

It takes a super majority in both houses in Washington, plus a super majority of state legislatures to amend the Constitution.

Do you accept any Supreme Court rulings, regulations, red tape, rigmaroles etc?

When moral.

 

[eider]

You didn't take your turn. What other things in 1791 were considered arms, besides guns of all sorts? It's still your turn.

You didn't answer my sole question.
Are you telling me that only arms as meant in the 2nd Amendment can count?
That's an easy question.

 

[eider]

You have crim checks in your country, you've said. I'm asking you what they're for in your country.

Ours are for positions, employments, courts, law enforcement, licences, responsibilities etc. But you don't copy us, do you?
Or do you?

As far as I can see, it doesn't stop the behaviors we'd like to stop.

So you wouldn't bother with them for gun licences, is that what you think?

Great, now go back to your dictionary and see what it says "bearing arms" means, because that's the term we're actually talking about.

You say your dictionary doesn't have an entry for "bearing arms"? Unsurprising, which means that you have to find another "dictionary" for what it means. That means examining court records and political opinions and other writings in order to determine what "bearing arms" means when people use that term.

Individuals bearing arms are carrying them.
If not, then why can't you keep and use a battle tank,?

It means to be armed.

No. Just mentioning that in this case, the courts haven't solved the problem. Sometimes the courts provide us with great insight and clarity, but not in this case.

So you wouldn't be interested in any Court judgements about guns, yes?

It depends what you mean by accept. I'll answer this way. I have a moral theory, and a legal theory, and they are connected, and if ever a court rules against my moral theory and legal theory, then I do not believe such rulings are correct. For example, the Court has ruled at times that certain racist policies are moral, and those times, they have been wrong.

Judgements and verdicts you like are moral, otherwise not?

It takes a super majority in both houses in Washington, plus a super majority of state legislatures to amend the Constitution.

So the 2nd Amendment could be amended?

When moral.

What is moral?
Everybody thinks that judgements that they approve of are moral.

So I want to know if you would keep up crim checks on gun licence applicants.
O want to know if you would refuse licences to mentally ill folks

 

[Idolater]

Ours are for positions, employments, courts, law enforcement, licences, responsibilities etc. But you don't copy us, do you?
Or do you?

Ours are for similar reasons, like anybody who's going to do absolutely anything with any children, they get a background check, big time. At least annually they are rechecked!

What is moral?

Securing our moral rights. aka human rights.

Everybody thinks that judgements that they approve of are moral.

I should hope so. So it comes down to, what's your moral theory Eider? And is it worth dying for? What if someone comes along with a sharp kitchen knife and presses its tip right up to your neck, breaking skin, and tells you to falsely testify against an innocent person, and says if you don't do it, you're going to get murdered.

So I want to know if you would keep up crim checks on gun licence applicants.
O want to know if you would refuse licences to mentally ill folks

Being armed /bearing arms, means if someone threatens to murder you for refusing to bear false witness, then you have the option of standing your ground and attempting to successfully defend yourself. If you're unarmed, because your political situation has gradually transformed into a place where there's literally no way to get a gun anymore, you are at a disadvantage in any altercation with any violent criminal. Your regime has shrunken the possible ways you can access guns, down to basically zero access.

 

[Idolater]

You seem to have your head buried in the sand as to just how serious gun related crime is in America, not to mention how easy it is for anyone to buy the darned things.

I know it's serious enough that suicide is twice as deadly for Americans as murder is.

I know that Black young men so greatly disproportionately skew our national data, that due to them only, our murder rate is double what it would otherwise be, and Blacks are only 13% of our population.

And they murder each other with guns, mostly handguns, so it skews both the murder numbers and the gun numbers, this violence problem we have in the Black community.

So if you want to help end murders, you have to address this problem.

Countries that aren't ensconced in such a culture have lower murder rates for obvious reasons.

And one not-obvious, non-reason. It has nothing to do with how many guns they all have. Data doesn't lie.

Your silly garbage about defence rights having no real teeth in relation is enough ignorance in itself.

Has your life ever been imperiled? By a man or by a beast? Are you talking about defense with personal experience in mind, or . . . not?

 

[Idolater]

You didn't answer my sole question.
Are you telling me that only arms as meant in the 2nd Amendment can count?
That's an easy question.

The Second Amendment does not indicate or imply any limit on what constitutes bearable arms. Courts traditionally here reason, that it doesn't protect the keeping and bearing of dangerous-and-unusual weapons (not the same as unusually dangerous).

 

[eider]

Ours are for similar reasons, like anybody who's going to do absolutely anything with any children, they get a background check, big time. At least annually they are rechecked!

Securing our moral rights. aka human rights.

We are discussing gun rights, not children!
No Idolater.
Human Rights are human rights.
Where I live we have a Human Rights Act. No inclusion of the word '#moral' in that title.

I should hope so. So it comes down to, what's your moral theory Eider? And is it worth dying for? What if someone comes along with a sharp kitchen knife and presses its tip right up to your neck, breaking skin, and tells you to falsely testify against an innocent person, and says if you don't do it, you're going to get murdered.

My advice to anybody being threatened with a knife to their throat is to 'comply with the demands of such aggressors'.
I've taught that to security ops and detectives for most of my working life.
Moral theory is just that, theory.

Being armed /bearing arms, means if someone threatens to murder you for refusing to bear false witness, then you have the option of standing your ground and attempting to successfully defend yourself. If you're unarmed, because your political situation has gradually transformed into a place where there's literally no way to get a gun anymore, you are at a disadvantage in any altercation with any violent criminal. Your regime has shrunken the possible ways you can access guns, down to basically zero access.

This is pathetic, Idolater!
If somebody threatens you over evidence, do tell the police about it, or the court!
And if somebody holds a dagger to your throat please don't move.

Now, please answer the questions. Do you want mentally ill persons or convicts to have the right to, choose, purchase, keep and bear arms? Or are you having difficulty with that?

 

[eider]

The Second Amendment does not indicate or imply any limit on what constitutes bearable arms.

Excellent! So bearing a grenade launcher or shoulder missile could be included!
No indication of limits or implications! Lovely!

Courts traditionally here reason, that it doesn't protect the keeping and bearing of dangerous-and-unusual weapons (not the same as unusually dangerous).

Ha ha! ....... the keeping and bearing of dangerous .......... what waffle!
Arms are dangerous, Idolater.

Wonderful! Courts have guided the law about who can keep what.
Although I rather suspect that Congress/Senate has had more participation in such issues.

Now....... again! Do you think that mentally ill and/or convicted persons should be able to buy and keep any rifles/pistols?

 

[Right Divider]

You didn't answer my sole question.
Are you telling me that only arms as meant in the 2nd Amendment can count?
That's an easy question.

The 2nd amendment was not about "guns".
It was about defending against a tyrannical government... our own tyrannical government.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The Second Amendment does not indicate or imply any limit on what constitutes bearable arms. Courts traditionally here reason, that it doesn't protect the keeping and bearing of dangerous-and-unusual weapons (not the same as unusually dangerous).

What's a gun if not a dangerous weapon?

 

[eider]

The 2nd amendment was not about "guns".
It was about defending against a tyrannical government... our own tyrannical government.

The 2nd was about establishing a militia, and keeping and bearing arms.
Don't make stuff up. Somebody might accuse you of lying.

 

[Right Divider]

The 2nd was about establishing a militia, and keeping and bearing arms.
Don't make stuff up. Somebody might accuse you of lying.

The militia is made up of civilians bearing arms.
The colonies established militia's to defend their rights against the British government.
People have the right to self-defense.

 

[eider]

The militia is made up of civilians bearing arms.
The colonies established militia's to defend their rights against the British government.
People have the right to self-defense.

That's all over. No British Government has threatened you for over 200 years.
So who do you feel frightened of now?

 

[Right Divider]

That's all over. No British Government has threatened you for over 200 years.
So who do you feel frightened of now?

The 2nd amendment is to protect citizens against their government. Period.
That this simple concept is beyond your understanding shows that you are not too bright.

 

[eider]

The 2nd amendment is to protect citizens against their government. Period.
That this simple concept is beyond your understanding shows that you are not too bright.

Preparing to fight against your own countrymen yet again is even less bright.

 

[ok doser]

Preparing to fight against your own countrymen ...

No

A repressive, illegitimate government

 

[ok doser]

The 2nd amendment is to protect citizens against their government. Period.
That this simple concept is beyond your understanding shows that you are not too bright.

He really is an idiot