CA is about to become the toughest state on guns (San Diego: swimming, office)

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

As long as you use the "it's for the children", your argument will always be based on emotions.

Should kids getting killed by daddy's gun he left on the table or in the closet not elicit an emotional response?

Or how about those mowed down by the latest Mad Guy with Gun?
'Loud Music' case: Michael Dunn portrayed himself as 'f-----g victim' in Florida shooting death of Jordan Davis - NY Daily News

(Sounds like the Mad Guy is a bit emotional himself. As in DENIAL)

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Should kids getting killed by daddy's gun he left on the table or in the closet not elicit an emotional response?

Or how about those mowed down by the latest Mad Guy with Gun?
'Loud Music' case: Michael Dunn portrayed himself as 'f-----g victim' in Florida shooting death of Jordan Davis - NY Daily News

(Sounds like the Mad Guy is a bit emotional himself. As in DENIAL)

A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than by a gun, maybe you should worry about that and leave my guns alone.

Op-ed piece on swimming pools vs. guns as the most dangerous weapon – Deltoid

After all, arnt you tired of seeing all those dead children face down in a pool? How many children are we going to let die in this nation before doing something about pools? Think of all the children that could be saved of we had the same laws about pools as Canada, your just not taking the death of children seriously. See these crying mothers of the dead children behind Obama at a speech.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than by a gun, maybe you should worry about that and leave my guns alone.

Op-ed piece on swimming pools vs. guns as the most dangerous weapon – Deltoid

Pools are for swimming. Guns are for killing. Lots of ways to die, but few items are made for the express purpose of annihilation.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Pools are for swimming. Guns are for killing. Lots of ways to die, but few items are made for the express purpose of annihilation.

No need to address the point, you can keep deflecting.

[krudmonk]

You're doing the deflecting when you claim that swimming pools are a bigger threat than guns.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

You're doing the deflecting when you claim that swimming pools are a bigger threat than guns.

No, that is to show that their argument is about infringing on my rights, not about safety.

Gun control is not about guns, it is about control.

[MovingAloha]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

No, that is to show that their argument is about infringing on my rights, not about safety.

Gun control is not about guns, it is about control.

Yep, it is about control! Controlling whether mentally unstable have easy access to guns. Controlling how and where military grade guns are used. Controlling whether guns are regulated like cars, motorcycles and boats. Yes, it is about control.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by MovingAloha

Yep, it is about control! Controlling whether mentally unstable have easy access to guns. Controlling how and where military grade guns are used. Controlling whether guns are regulated like cars, motorcycles and boats. Yes, it is about control.

1. We already have background checks for all gun purchases in California, doesn't seem to be really doing any good. Crime is just as high here as in less restrictive gun control states with similar economics like Texas.

2. What is a military grade gun? Please define the made up terminology that you created to scare people.

3. You actually only have to register a vehicle if you use public roads, you do not have to register vehicles if used on private property. Also, car ownership is not a civil right, the bar is much higher to restrict the civil rights of all Americans through gun control. Very apples and oranges.

[beb0p]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

McDonald incorporated the Heller ruling to the states via the 14th amendment, it has nothing to do with outside of the home. You need to do a little better reading.



McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never said it specifically deals with outside of the home, that question was never raised to the court, and I've already said it wasn't raised to the court.

That case and the Heller case, saw the SCOTUS specifically addressed concerns that their ruling would cast doubt on gun regulations already in place, which in their writing they specifically said is not the case.

The fact remains, the SCOTUS never ruled that the right to bear arms extend outside of the home. They went out of their way to tell the citizens that they were not overturning most gun regulations.

Those are facts. What I'm saying is that in light of these facts, it's a huge stretch to say that the SCOTUS are firmly on the side of gun nuts. You presented a lot of evidence that doesn't refute anything I say, but then you harped on this "outside the home" question as if that's the main point of my argument.

Nice.

.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by beb0p

I never said it specifically deals with outside of the home, that question was never raised to the court, and I've already said it wasn't raised to the court.

That case and the Heller case, saw the SCOTUS specifically addressed concerns that their ruling would cast doubt on gun regulations already in place, which in their writing they specifically said is not the case.

The fact remains, the SCOTUS never ruled that the right to bear arms extend outside of the home. They went out of their way to tell the citizens that they were not overturning most gun regulations.

Those are facts. What I'm saying is that in light of these facts, it's a huge stretch to say that the SCOTUS are firmly on the side of gun nuts. You presented a lot of evidence that doesn't refute anything I say, but then you harped on this "outside the home" question as if that's the main point of my argument.

Nice.

.

SCOTUS said that their ruling does not cast doubt on long standing laws like felons in possession of guns or taking guns into schools. This does not mean that 1. Every law is ok because SCOTUS said these few things are ok and 2. They didn't stay away from anything, they addressed the case at hand, if anything, they stayed away from determining a level of scrutiny, which will hopefully be addressed in the next case.

You don't have any evidence to support your argument, because SCOTUS has not filled that way. Your arguing that some undetermined gray area that was not part of the two SCOTUS cases as fact. The only fact is that the issue has not been addressed.

"The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the crux of your argument. Do you see the difference between all the gun regulation you want and what SCOTUS gives as examples long standing prohibitions. The thinking pretty much says the 1968 gun control act is OK but everything passed that is up in the air. They did not mention anything about registration, private party transfers, assault weapons bans, magazine capacity or the scores of other silly laws that have been put in place in the last 40 years in various states.

The heller ruling goes as far as overturning the requirement of trigger locks. If something as simple as requiring trigger locks is unconstitutional, why would all the other nonsense some how pass constitutional muster?

You really just don't understand how the legal system works.


Hell, even Jerry Brown thinks we do not need any more guns laws. He even says we need to enforce the laws on the books and that fighting crime starts at the community level with families, police, etc.
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election...land-violence/

Why not just admit that you want the confiscation of all guns?