Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh ...

One might even call it a license.

 

Again, from the SCOTUS opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , 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. "

 

For the record, most of the rest of the world also thinks our free speech rights are batshit.

 

I don't understand. Do you want those rights back or not? Do you think they should've been taken from us in the first place?

 

OK, so we can agree that, Constitutionally speaking, restrictions on buying guns are permissible. Now, would you care to address your specific objections to the restrictions outlined in the graphic I posted?

Why is it unreasonable to require a title and tags at the point of sale? What is your specific objection (without simply saying "Second Amendment!" or diverting to free speech or abortion)?

You seem fairly hung up on the training aspect of it. Why do you object to requiring citizens to be trained to fire a deadly weapon? Wouldn't training benefit the gun owner and make them more effective when using their weapon?

Why not require safety inspections to make certain the firearms are working properly? Wouldn't that help prevent misfires that could potentially be dangerous to the gun owner? Wouldn't it help to ensure that the gun is functioning properly so that, in the event the gun owner needs to use it for self defense, they can use it effectively?

I'm happy to skip the liability insurance requirement. I think the costs would be onerous and a barrier to legal gun ownership that is not acceptable.

 

Nah. There's simply a limit to the number of people who can fit in the room.

We already know that you can shout "you lie" and not face legal consequences.

 

Of course, we could also get into the restrictions that the framers would have thought were perfectly reasonable on speech rights. Or how they really viewed the establishment clause.

 

I never said I'm shocked. I'm asking why.

 

Yeah, because the rest of the world thinks rights are granted by the government, not the other way around

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhh ...

So the restriction on me exercising my free speech rights during the State of the Union Address by holding up a sign behind Obama that says, "Hey n#&*#&# lips, did you eat a watermelon today?" is premised upon the idea that it would be unreasonable, perhaps one might say even unsafe, to let that many people into the building?

 

Ok dick. I'm open to restricting gun ownership to the number of guns that can fit in a room the size of the Congressional chamber.

Sorry Inky, you'll have to give up some of yours.

 

But that's not the safety concern with guns. The safety concern is that some asshole will blow away eight classmates. Or fire into a crowd at a picnic on the South Side of Chicago and kill a 7-year-old.

Or that a convicted felon will own a gun and do bad things with it.