How does this not conflict with Heller?
Brown cow1: I don't think poikilotrm is part of our progressive herd nor are any others on that Silencertalk website full of reactionaries; and besides the question sounds rhetorical.
Brown cow2: If he was aware, he'd know that Scalia didn't tightly fence us in with Heller, he left a few holes in the fence. Specifically Scalia mentioned that "shall not be infringed" needs to be modified with exceptions to not allow mental incompetents to have guns; and also that dangerous or unusual weapons can also be restricted.
BC1: Yeah, we thought we were tightly fenced in for a while, but now our best legal scholars have come up with a plan to make those small fence holes into big ones, and our progressive judges are part of the plan to make the 2nd amendment our bitch.
BC2: Poiki may not realize that we just redefine dangerous or unusual at the State level to include all ARs, then all semi-automatic rifles, then pump and lever action rifles, then all bolt action rifles with removable magazines. Our aim is get rid of all guns except single-shot 22 LR rifles and single-shot shotguns. We'll leave those because we are generous towards hunters.
BC1: Poiki may not realize it, but other parts of our agenda are working marvelously. For instance, Barry got regulations passed which has allowed us to strip gun rights from 250,000 former military members. They were chumps, giving away their gun rights for a few dollars per month more in 'disability benefits'. We offered more in disability benefits if the military member just signed a paper saying they wanted someone else to manage their monthly benefits check. So 250,000 signed it just to get an extra $100 to $200 per month in free benefits. By signing it they admit they are mental incompetents, and they lose their second amendment rights. We took a huge portion of former military members out of the game for a pittance per month. It also helped to not give veterans good medical care with the VA, but we just pump them full of drugs so they don't know which way is up. We've also got great plans to expand this mental incompetent loophole for the 2nd amendment and take away gun rights of many senior citizens on Social Security. Won't those OFWGs be surprised when they lose their gun rights!
BC2: I think those Silencertalk members are savvy and they may realize that we have a national plan to take away their guns. Our boy Bloomberg is investing millions to roll out citizen petitions at the State level; and step by step, to take away gun freedoms. We pass universal background checks first, then we roll out a national database for all gunowners and guns. Hillary is on board with it and has it as part of her agenda.
BC1: Just think, when Hillary gets in, we'll make the Supreme Court progressive to the far left, and also flood the Federal District Judge-ships and Appeals Courts with our people. We'll have the courts on our side for decades.
BC2: If Hillary gets in, we'll be in progressive heaven and can do all those things that comrade Chavez did down in Venezuela. We'll crush those gunowner reactionaries under our hoofs. Most of those reactionary gunowners are individualists and won't get involved even though this is a generation-long war of policies. The herd mind will triumph!
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time...and those are pretty good odds.
Brett Maverick, gambler on TV (also used by Progressive leaders everywhere)
"Dangerous" is anything where someone might get hurt. Stopping a Rapist or Murderer might hurt them. Epso Facto: ALL defensive Tools are "dangerous."