Gun Control & RKBA

You asked another poster this:



That's one example of the pretenses I refer to. The pretense is that it is the hobby rather than the wrong choices of an individual in choosing to murder someone, which is detrimental to the people of this country, which makes it a false pretense.

It is when people act outside their rights where the problem occurs, just as it does when someone shouts fire in a crowded theater or incites a riot.

This is self evident, but not to those that hate guns.



But it isn't due to guns, its due to bad choices. Guns are simply the instrument.



Think outside the gun control box.



No, I didn't say that.



Here, let me highlight the relevant parts for you:

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

In case it had not occurred to you, amendment 2 is contained within the bill of rights.



Insisting that it is a right and not a privilege, is not defending giving guns to anyone. If you can't be bothered to know the difference and to treat it as the right it is, we're definitely not going to make any progress.

Instead, Universal mandatory gun safety training in grade 12 of high school. I'm all for it.



Good luck. The other anti-gunners will just accuse you of using an nra talking point.



A ban on semi-auto weapons would most certainly be an interference with my rights. You just proposed that in this thread, so please, don't try to project the pretense it is otherwise.



Again, you do not understand the difference between a right and a privilege. When you're evaluated at a DMV, you're being evaluated for the PRIVILEGE of driving on public roads, not the right to own a car. You propose a constitutionally protected civil right be treated EXACTLY the same way by government as a PRIVILEGE. Blind people can own cars, and guns, because owning property is a RIGHT and owning a gun is a constitutionally protected RIGHT.



What are you willing to give up?



Its called behavior. Bad people aren't bad people until they've done something to justify the label.

Any farther than that and you begin to leave due process territory and enter minority report territory.



The NSSF is the gun industry lobby group. The nra doesn't influence anyone to murder anyone, nor do they try, nor do they come even arguably close.



Nobody sues ford for a mustang that handles too good, holds too much fuel, goes too fast, or looks like a race car.

The equivalents of those are what anti-gunners want to sue gun makers for, when some third party criminal illegally misuses a firearm.



The gun industry certainly does pay its share. Nobody is prevented from suing them for a defective firearm.



Promotes and lobbies for the second amendment and gun related causes. I haven't heard their stance on immigration, have you?




I can not support holding a company responsible for what a third party (you DO understand that gun makers don't sell direct to the public right, they sell to FFLs, who sell to the public?) does with the companies legally sold legally made product, and I certainly would not want to live in the bland world where it was commonplace with all industries.



I would agree to a blanket covering all markets guns or not.

I don't think ford or miller should be sued when someone drives drunk, nor do I think DPMS should be sued when someone criminally misuses one of their rifles.



Firearms that are unsound are still allowed as grounds to sue. Firearms that function properly are not.

The PLCAA keeps it that way.