Robert666 wrote:
You started this thread as a disgraceful provocation based on lies. While you are having your change of heart, why not admit this?
FALSE
I started this post because of people like you - In spite of a willingness to agree that some changes in gun laws 'may' be needed, I still see more of a threat, at least philosophically speaking, from 'control freaks' on internet forums trying to make the World safe without considering the consequences of their actions.
I am not going to keep going over all the over reactive gun confiscations that led to genocide for Armenians in Turkey or Jews in nazi Germany - There are many more examples which I listed previously.
That it is crazy to allow an 18 year old to buy a high capacity AR15 type gun should be a no brainer - But because some people have another agenda, such as ending the Second Amendment - this, more than anything else is blocking common sense gun laws.
Meantime:
"The Supreme Court Is on the Verge of Expanding Second Amendment Gun Rights"
Law professor Darrell Miller forecasts a “radical change” in the law coming from the Court’s conservative justices.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Supreme Court is poised to issue a ruling in a New York gun rights case that will likely expand the scope of protections the Second Amendment affords individual gun owners who want to carry a gun outside of their residences. The biggest question in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen may not be whether a majority of justices strike down the state’s century-old handgun licensing requirement but how far that majority goes in signaling that other licensing measures created by government officials are now constitutionally suspect..........
he current Supreme Court is far more conservative and far more friendly to gun rights than the one that first recognized a personal right to bear arms under the Second Amendment in District Columbia v. Heller in 2008. Or the Supreme Court that acknowledged two years later in McDonald v. Chicago that such protections apply to state laws and regulations as well. Gone since then is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a foe of expanded gun rights. In her place is Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose view of the Second Amendment is viewed by many as even more expansive than that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of Heller.
For many years after the Heller and McDonald decisions, Justice Clarence Thomas, an extreme gun rights supporter, urged his colleagues on the Court over and over again to accept more Second Amendment challenges to existing gun laws. He wanted the Supreme Court to use the newly recognized “personal” right under the Second Amendment to sweep away regulations restricting the possession and use of firearms. And for many years, until the arrival of the three justices nominated by President Donald Trump, Thomas’s colleagues rejected those attempts.........
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... gun-rights
So you see Robert666 you have to get with the agenda - The Conservative Court is about to expand gun rights and outlaw most abortions.
Doesn't this make sense
More gun deaths and more unwanted babies born to take the place of the victims
Besides I can troll my own post better than you can