Where exactly does this mention anything about the sales or manufacturing of weapons...

Where exactly does this mention anything about the sales or manufacturing of weapons? Restricting mentally ill people from buying guns seems perfectly constitutional to me/

I am sorry you just got here (life) so don't understand what is at play.

How about you answer the question if you can. What is unconstitutional about restricting sales or manufacturing of guns?

The question makes it clear that you don't understand what is at play and what is going on.

This whole thread is obviously bait of some kind.

How about you stop deflecting. What's unconstitutional about it?

>I don't know what a 4473 is the post
Congrats dumbass.

Shall not be infringed
A simple phrase that takes the wind out of your arguement.

well do you see the part that says (the right of the people to keep and bear arms)?

The right to bear arms would not be infringed. The right to buy arms would be infringed. There is nothing about the right to buy arms in the constitution.

...

You just want to play games.

At this point in real life I would have already slapped you.

This is a slippery slope argument, anyone can be declared unfit to own a gun by the government, stop giving the government more fucking power you mouth breathing retards

How do you keep if you can't buy? How is not allowing the store to keep not an infringement. How are you this retarded?

Is it that hard to come up with a rebuttal? Guess I must be right.

How do you think you get arms in the first place? They don't just aperate out of the aether once you turn 18.

What a cop out
Answer the question, faggot

I already explained the situation you just refuse to accept it.

You got rekt chump

>Where exactly does this mention anything about the sales or manufacturing of printing presses?
Where in the constitution does it give the feds the power to do it?

That flag doesn't suit you well

The right of some people to keep and bear arms shall occasionally be infringed.

Define mentally ill.

...

holocaust deniers

No you didn't. You implied you didn't believe OP and posted a meme gif. You didn't explain shit.

You can't
The country can't even decide on the distinction between mentally ill and criminal.
>a person can't be accountable for murder if they're not in their right mind
>no person in their right mind would kill people
Are criminals mentally ill? Or do mentally ill people commit crimes? When you break the law/infringe someone's rights, you either don't understand what you did wrong, or you do understand and you didn't care. To me, any person in either case is "mentally ill" in the sense that they aren't capable of operating within the bounds of society

>make it impossible to obtain arms
>totally not banning the ability to which people can bare arms

Look you arrogant smug dutch faggot why don't you BE as smart as you act?

Go ahead look again you will find I posted no gif and you got me confused with someone else.

That must be because of your superior education right faggot?

Well there the fuck do you get off telling people what they can do? What right does the state have to stock massive arsenals of weapons and deny the people from arming themselves?

As for "mental illness' the DSM is arbitrary bullshit that changes every few years. Some of it is clearly political, eg. homosexuality going from mental illness to not mental illness for no clear reason at all.

Why the fuck do you have a gadsden flag

The store can keep it. You can keep a gun if you have one. The right to keep and bear arms is not infringed.

Say you get to a point where you actually have a well regulated militia and you've been deep inna woods for a while but one of your guys is a bit off. You know it, everyone knows it. He talks crazy shit, he waves the gun around, points it at you, pretends to pull the trigger and laughs.Maybe you catch him trying to fuck a squirrel. It's just a prank bro.The guys a nut job. Wouldn't you want to take the gun away from him?

Please point to the post in which you explained anything at all.

So I, who doesn't own a gun, now just can't have one ever?

> "The right to use a thing comprehends a right to > the means necessary to its use, and without. > which it would be useless."
- Thomas Jefferson

No, you just can't buy one.

If I don't exchange currency in a trade for this firearm, then HOW am I going to get it?

Not my problem. If you get your hands on one you can keep and bear it.

>Restricting people from buying guns seems perfectly constitutional to me/

Nice flag, Shareblue.

Dude your head is so far up your own ass that it's nauseating

So instead of trying to fix the illegal gun trade and get bootleg firearms away from people who would fail background checks you want to increase it by 100%.
>lolbertarian
I expected nothing less from a mongoloid.

Someone post that comic with the cake analogy so the OP will get it.

Here you go baby.

Maybe now you will start getting it.

The purpose of such a restriction, making the sale of guns illegal, would be to make it harder to possess a firearm, hence you’re infringing on someone’s right to bear arms. You’re so asinine I can’t believe this isn’t a troll. Apply this logic to literally anything else. Healthcare? Paying a doctor is now illegal. Hey you still have the right to healthcare if you can magically happen about a healing potion or something but don’t you dare hire a doctor. Right to represent yourself in court? Hey you can totally represent yourself in court it’s just illegal for you to leave your jail cell, but if you can magically teleport to the courthouse no problemo. Come on dude be serious here

Because the word "infringe" has a meaning. An infringement is anything which limits, undermines, or encroaches on. The government is barred from doing anything which would even have a side effect of limiting access to weapons.

This has literally nothing to do with the constitutionality of regulating a sales process you retard. Stop trying to argue why it would be a good or bad idea and answer why it would be unconstitutional (it isn't).

Stop trying to pretend you are not just another gun grabbing faggot.

>denying access to firearms
Your idea is pretty unconstitutional m8.

I'm not. I'm trying to have a discussion on a strict interpretation of the constitution but you faggots are too retarded to think in anything but black and white.

You are just playing games and again people who were not born 10 years ago have been down this tired road.

If you don't think the gun issue is black and white then you are simply not informed about what is at play as I have stated numerous times.

>a strict interpretation of the constitution
There is no such thing obviously. The framers of the constitution didn't even agree with each other on basic points, and the resulting document is clearly ambiguous.

The idea that they would want the state to prohibit men from making and selling each other weapons is ridiculous though. Which of them said anything remotely like that?

>If you don't agree with me you are precluded from participating in the discussion
I'm still waiting for an argument, faggot.

I am now waiting for you stop fucking breathing.

What part of you are just playing games don't you get?

There is no argument you are just a faggot.

You want an argument? Here's an opinion for you do debate:
>preventing people from obtaining firearms is the same as preventing people from owning firearms
>once everyone who owns a firearm dies, then nobody has firearms

?

>What part of you are just playing games don't you get?
I don't understand since I'm not playing games.
>once everyone who owns a firearm dies, then nobody has firearms
Why can't you keep your parent's firearms when they die?
Again, I'm arguing the constitutionality of the idea. Not its merit. Bootleg trade isn't an argument.

>Why can't you keep your parent's firearms when they die?
Because as new weapons come out the firepower available to the state will rapdily outrank that remaining to the people through inheritance.

You are obviously not arguing in good faith.

Whoops, forgot to change flag before
So what are you suggestion with your original post? To outlaw the transfer of ownership of firearms, to outlaw the production of new firearms for the civilian population, or outlaw financial transaction is the transfer of ownership of firearms?

I'm suggesting that banning the sales of firearms is not unconstitutional. I'm not suggesting implementing either.
>Because as new weapons come out the firepower available to the state will rapdily outrank that remaining to the people through inheritance.
But that is already the case. Nukes aren't commercially available
>You are obviously not arguing in good faith
How do you mean?

>you can only get a gun if you have the tools and knowhow to make one
Sounds like a poll tax to me.

to make this even more clear, the constitution was framed in an era of mass armies. The freedom of the people was directly contingent on how cheap the most powerful available weapons were.


In other words the entire point of having guns was explicitly because a group of men with those guns could take down a tyrannical government.

To recreate this in the present day, where war is fought by specialized elite soldiers with extremely expensive weapons, would be to move in the opposite direction- to legalize automatic weapons, missiles, anything that a private citizen can afford.

Limiting the sale of firearms would make it difficult, if not impossible for the average man to bear arms. Making it difficult to bear arms is infringing on the right to bear arms, which is unconstitutional.
It’s like saying that you can speak freely, but only in designated free-speech zones with heavy fees.

If that's the case you are arguing then this
is the response. And if you don't agree with it then you don't have you, but you do have to abide by it. The Constitution is not a specification document, not a sequence of operations, not a blueprint to be follow as a set of explicit instructions. People spend eight years in higher education to learn how to interpret it, and in this case, it has already been interpretted for us by a man that had a hand in writing it.

>Nukes aren't commercially available
Which is technically not defensible.

Nukes make the whole discussion seem obsolete to some degree, both because no private citizen could ever produce one, and because of their destructive power.

But there are a lot things that are illegal for a private citizen to own that aren't nukes.

There is no room for this kind of compromise

You're deliberately avoiding responding to those of us who have pointed out that the meaning of the word "infringe" precludes doing exactly what you describe.

SHALL NOT INFRINGE.
WE WILL SHOW YOU WHAT THAT MEANS TRAITORS.

Repeal ALL gun laws or we will bring the country to it's fucking knees.