In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

It amazes me how often the left goes to the gun control well, trying to convince us that they need to probe legal gun openers, limit types of guns for our own good, while completely ignoring illegal gun owners.

something tells me this is more about effectively eliminating our rights to protect ourselves than this supposed need for legal gun owners to prove their legality in the face of no probable cause.

Nobody is ignoring illegal gun owners...unless you count the reductions in police at the local level due to lack of public funding.

The 'right to protect ourselves' ultimately precludes owning a gun.  There are laws about how to protect oneself while using a gun.

How else for legal gun owners to prove themselves legal but to check in with law enforcement?  

How about presumed legal, as the 2namendment indicate?

look, you want your gun control, repeal the 2nd amendment, fair and square, and stop trying to hobble legal gun owners.

if you really wanted to do something about gun violence, you would do a house to house search on the soth chide of Chicago and take every gun found.

but, instead, you turn to make it more difficult for women to defend themselves against rapists, for example.

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

The Scalia decision said, "The right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, unconnected with service in a militia"

 it rather ends the discussion.

Attorney GreginMeffa, you are rather dead wrong.

You're making the same mistake that I see most pro se (unrepresented) defendants make. They take the lines from a case that they happen to like and quote those to the court, while ignoring all the facts of the case, the body of law at issue, and really...well..everything else in the case.

So sure, Scalia wrote what you quoted. He also wrote another forty something pages. You can't just ignore that.

Putting criminal thugs in jail  prevents gun violence.

You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

Putting criminal thugs in jail  prevents gun violence.

No, it really doesn't.

It creates a criminal culture that is MORE likely to use guns in crime than they were before.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

It amazes me how often the left goes to the gun control well, trying to convince us that they need to probe legal gun openers, limit types of guns for our own good, while completely ignoring illegal gun owners.

something tells me this is more about effectively eliminating our rights to protect ourselves than this supposed need for legal gun owners to prove their legality in the face of no probable cause.

Nobody is ignoring illegal gun owners...unless you count the reductions in police at the local level due to lack of public funding.

The 'right to protect ourselves' ultimately precludes owning a gun.  There are laws about how to protect oneself while using a gun.

How else for legal gun owners to prove themselves legal but to check in with law enforcement?  

How about presumed legal, as the 2namendment indicate?

look, you want your gun control, repeal the 2nd amendment, fair and square, and stop trying to hobble legal gun owners.

if you really wanted to do something about gun violence, you would do a house to house search on the soth chide of Chicago and take every gun found.

but, instead, you turn to make it more difficult for women to defend themselves against rapists, for example.

Sure Mr Attorney, so the second amendment does not protect, " an INDIVIDUAL right, unconnected with service in a militia

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

I'm not paying attention? Or perhaps the problem is you aren't applying logic properly.

Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close. Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

That's why you need to add more to your position for it to make any sense.

Um...it was YOU who brought up tanks and flame throwers not me,

Facepalm.

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

So we should launch an attack?  Complaints without purpose.  Nothing to see here.

Yea, completely abandoning a US Citizen being held in Iran is nothing to see, you cold hearted bahstid.  I got this feeling 52 of them would still be there if you were in charge.

Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close. Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Sure Mr Attorney, so the second amendment does not protect, " an INDIVIDUAL right, unconnected with service in a militia

Why be such a smartazz? Or do you really just plain not get it?

Scalia said there is an INDIVIDUAL (if caps help) right to be arms. As Matty pointed out, he ALSO said that that INDIVIDUAL right is not unlimited and that there are valid restrictions:

'nothing in our opinion should 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.'

The ruling also allows limitations on ownership of 'dangerous and unusual' weapons that are not in 'common use' — like, for example, assault weapons. (And military-style weapons).

Waving around "INDIVIDUAL right", as if it somehow undermines that point, simply doesn't.

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close. Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

Holy crap dude.

Read slowly; reread caps: The fact that they are LEGAL has no bearing whatsoever on whether they SHOULD BE LEGAL.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

It amazes me how often the left goes to the gun control well, trying to convince us that they need to probe legal gun openers, limit types of guns for our own good, while completely ignoring illegal gun owners.

something tells me this is more about effectively eliminating our rights to protect ourselves than this supposed need for legal gun owners to prove their legality in the face of no probable cause.

Nobody is ignoring illegal gun owners...unless you count the reductions in police at the local level due to lack of public funding.

The 'right to protect ourselves' ultimately precludes owning a gun.  There are laws about how to protect oneself while using a gun.

How else for legal gun owners to prove themselves legal but to check in with law enforcement?  

How about presumed legal, as the 2namendment indicate?

look, you want your gun control, repeal the 2nd amendment, fair and square, and stop trying to hobble legal gun owners.

if you really wanted to do something about gun violence, you would do a house to house search on the soth chide of Chicago and take every gun found.

but, instead, you turn to make it more difficult for women to defend themselves against rapists, for example.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

I'm not paying attention? Or perhaps the problem is you aren't applying logic properly.

Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close. Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

That's why you need to add more to your position for it to make any sense.

Um...it was YOU who brought up tanks and flame throwers not me,

Facepalm.

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

I'm not paying attention? Or perhaps the problem is you aren't applying logic properly.

Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close. Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

That's why you need to add more to your position for it to make any sense.

Um...it was YOU who brought up tanks and flame throwers not me,

Facepalm.

We decide what weapon is too dangerous for an individual to have legally.  That list has been changed as technology has changed.  Machine guns today.  Assault weapons hopefully tomorrow.  And Heller supports such a limitation on the right.

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

I'm not paying attention? Or perhaps the problem is you aren't applying logic properly.

Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close.c

That's why you need to add more to your position for it to make any sense.

Um...it was YOU who brought up tanks and flame throwers not me,

Facepalm.

 Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

There's a bunch of parents of six yr olds on Newtown Conn. who may disagree and want to ban some of those LEGALLY bought weapons.

Nice try!

Liberals want to take the small crack of Scalia's remarks on 'dangerous and unusual' weapons, and drive a bulldozer through it.

By claiming ,

a) 'dangerous and unusual weapons' include 'assault weapons',

and then

b) defining just about all weapons as 'assault weapons'.

Bingo! take away all guns. That was easy.

Also, Scalia is listing laws that would be constitutional:
"laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..."

Such laws banning guns in "schools" are no doubt constitutional, but in practice may be found to be stupid and counterproductive, and subject to repeal.

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

Nice try!

Liberals want to take the small crack of Scalia's remarks on 'dangerous and unusual' weapons, and drive a bulldozer through it.

By claiming ,

a) 'dangerous and unusual weapons' include 'assault weapons',

and then

b) defining just about all weapons as 'assault weapons'.

Bingo! take away all guns. That was easy.

Also, Scalia is listing laws that would be constitutional:
"laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..."

Such laws banning guns in "schools" are no doubt constitutional, but in practice may be found to be stupid and counterproductive, and subject to repeal.

Aren't all fire arms dangerous?  What would be the point of a benign firearm?

that was easy.

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

You're not paying attention. If it was LEGALLY purchased (which is what i posted...but you know that) then it doesn't matter. Are fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks and drones legal to purchase? No they are not. I was referring to LEGALLY purchased firearms. 

I'm not paying attention? Or perhaps the problem is you aren't applying logic properly.

Your rhetorical question leads to the conclusion that "fully autos, howitzers, flame-throwers, tanks" SHOULD be legal to purchase.

Um...no...it doesn't. Not even remotely close. Law abiding citizens buy LEGAL guns. The things you mentioned are not legal to buy. Therefore any citizen who LEGALLY buys a weapon is no ones goddamn business. 

That's why you need to add more to your position for it to make any sense.

Um...it was YOU who brought up tanks and flame throwers not me,

Facepalm.

We decide what weapon is too dangerous for an individual to have legally.  That list has been changed as technology has changed.  Machine guns today.  Assault weapons hopefully tomorrow.  And Heller supports such a limitation on the right.

Try to follow what I post instead of what you think I'm posting. It will help tremendously.

my argument is that RIGHT now..anyone who has LEGALLY purchased a gun shouldn't have to tell you or anyone else what it is or how many of them they have. the only entity that should know is the authorized dealer the person bought the gun from as they will have the paperwork on file.