20 children hospitalized each day with gun injuries

[eflatminor]

So you're saying that Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws and criminals don't go or send someone across state lines to buy guns?

No, what I'm saying is that the facts show that "easy access to firearms" is a failed argument to support the notion that these weapons "end up doing more harm than good"...which was the poster's point. Again, we know this because in the places where citizens have the easiest access to firearms, the number of murders are are incredibly low. Where the laws are strictest, we see the highest number of murders, which proves that it's the idiots doing the murdering and not the availability of firearms that are the problem.

But I made that pretty clear in my post. Reading comprehension issues perhaps?

Secondly, criminals RARELY buy firearms legally. In the vast majority of cases, they're either stolen, purchased illegally, or transferred from a friend or relative. Only pointing that out to show the futility of laws imposed on legal purchases.

Well, you missed MY point. Criminals can get guns from areas where guns are easiest to get, it doesn't matter if they live in Chicago or wherever. Get it?

Your point is wrong. First, you have no evidence that criminals travel to areas with fewer gun control laws in order to buy them legally. NO evidence, because it doesn't happen. Criminals simply do not buy firearms legally. Therefore, no laws, rules and restrictions you impose on law abiding citizens will make a damn bit of difference other than to ensure the good guys have a disadvantage against the bad ones.

Brilliant plan...

Further, let's for a moment say that you were right...that criminals get guns from areas where guns are easiest to get. If that's true, WHY DON'T WE SEE THE HIGH MURDER RATES IN AREAS WITH LESS GUN CONTROL LAWS???

Sorry, your point is not only wrong, it's ridiculous on its face.

 

[shikaki]

2nd Amendment Clarification:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms regardless of service in a militia. The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[1] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[2]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[3] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[4][5]

I read nothing in the 2nd amendment about quantity or quality of firearms. One solution may be to allow each "law abiding" citizen to own one .22 caliber 6 shooter revolver. That would be for protection and a lot harder to take out 15 or 20 people.

 

[eflatminor]

I read nothing in the 2nd amendment about quantity or quality of firearms.

Which means the government has no ability to impose a quantitative or qualitative firearm restriction on the people.

Jesus man, it's as though you're starting from the idea the rights are granted by government! Hint: THEY'RE NOT! Government can only restrict rights, not grant them, and they can only do so with due process. You really miss the whole point of the Constitution.

One solution may be to allow each "law abiding" citizen to own one .22 caliber 6 shooter revolver. That would be for protection and a lot harder to take out 15 or 20 people.

Here's another idea. What do you think about government "allowing" each citizen to own one book? That'd be okay with you too?

 

[shikaki]

I read nothing in the 2nd amendment about quantity or quality of firearms.

Which means the government has no ability to impose a quantitative or qualitative firearm restriction on the people.

Jesus man, it's as though you're starting from the idea the rights are granted by government! Hint: THEY'RE NOT! Government can only restrict rights, not grant them, and they can only do so with due process. You really miss the whole point of the Constitution.

One solution may be to allow each "law abiding" citizen to own one .22 caliber 6 shooter revolver. That would be for protection and a lot harder to take out 15 or 20 people.

Here's another idea. What do you think about government "allowing" each citizen to own one book? That'd be okay with you too?

Nice opinions, but you prove my point that restrictions could be placed to say that you can only own a revolver, and that is still technically in line with the 2nd amendment. We are talking about guns, not books. I can't remember a book ever killing someone.

 

[eflatminor]

I read nothing in the 2nd amendment about quantity or quality of firearms.

Which means the government has no ability to impose a quantitative or qualitative firearm restriction on the people.

Jesus man, it's as though you're starting from the idea the rights are granted by government! Hint: THEY'RE NOT! Government can only restrict rights, not grant them, and they can only do so with due process. You really miss the whole point of the Constitution.

One solution may be to allow each "law abiding" citizen to own one .22 caliber 6 shooter revolver. That would be for protection and a lot harder to take out 15 or 20 people.

Here's another idea. What do you think about government "allowing" each citizen to own one book? That'd be okay with you too?

Nice opinions, but you prove my point that restrictions could be placed to say that you can only own a revolver, and that is still technically in line with the 2nd amendment.

Care to spell out EXACTLY how what I stated supports you inane point. Be specific please.

We are talking about guns, not books. I can't remember a book ever killing someone.

When you have evidence of firearm getting up and killing someone, you let us know. As soon as we see inanimate objects hurting people, I'll get behind your plan to restrict them.

Until then, I would argue that the written word has inspired FAR more violence than the existence of any weapon.

 

[shikaki]

Which means the government has no ability to impose a quantitative or qualitative firearm restriction on the people.

Jesus man, it's as though you're starting from the idea the rights are granted by government! Hint: THEY'RE NOT! Government can only restrict rights, not grant them, and they can only do so with due process. You really miss the whole point of the Constitution.



Here's another idea. What do you think about government "allowing" each citizen to own one book? That'd be okay with you too?

Nice opinions, but you prove my point that restrictions could be placed to say that you can only own a revolver, and that is still technically in line with the 2nd amendment.

Care to spell out EXACTLY how what I stated supports you inane point. Be specific please.

We are talking about guns, not books. I can't remember a book ever killing someone.

When you have evidence of firearm getting up and killing someone, you let us know. As soon as we see inanimate objects hurting people, I'll get behind your plan to restrict them.

Until then, I would argue that the written word has inspired FAR more violence than the existence of any weapon.

Did you read what you wrote?

Government can only restrict rights, not grant them, and they can only do so with due process.

So given your opinion, government can restrict rights. The case law I originally provided did just that. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[4][5] The government could restrict your ownership to only a revolver.

Get ready since you are being smug, guns are designed to kill something and a person could use one to kill someone, potentially many people. A book was created to learn something and to be read, it has probably NEVER been used by a person to kill anyone. I would talk slower so that you can piece these concepts together...

 

[Bumberclyde]

Yes, it's shame that a few idiots in cities like Chicago, Detroit, DC and New Orleans are so irresponsible with firearms and commit enough murders to thrust America into 3rd place of countries ranked by number of murders. If the murders committed by these thugs and crazies were removed from the stats, the US would rank 4th from the Bottom for total murder committed.

That's quite a difference, ain't it?

So, despite these 4 cities having the toughest Gun Control Laws in the country, that's were the bulk of the murders occur.

And yes, that is a shame.

But of course, these idiots have no more "easy access to firearms" than everyone else in the country. It should be harder in fact with all those gun control laws in those cities.

This rather dismantles your suggestion that easy access to firearms ends up doing more harm than good, doesn't it?

Why yes it does.

Let me check again.....nope it doesn't.

Saying that Chicago, Detroit, DC, etc...have the strictest gun laws in the country is meaningless. That's like boasting that you're the tallest midget or the fastest speed walker.

Go carry a gun openly on your hip in Chicago for twelve hours then come back and tell us how meaningless it is, idiot.

Bro, you're getting dumber by the post, so please be carefull. You missed his point, please try again.

 

[RDD_1210]

No, but from the tone of your posts, my OPINION is that you do not support 2nd amendment rights. This is a chance for you to state your position, so assumptions by people such as myself will not be required.

I believe responsible gun owners should be allowed to own whatever firearm they want. But we need to be much stricter about who can purchase and possess weapons. I want to ensure that if you're truly responsible than you will have no issues, but if you have any sort of question mark that you be screened thoroughly.

So you are against the law passed in NY State that forbids ownership of semi-automatic Rifles except if you already own one? You are against the ban on magazines above 10 rounds? You are against the rules in NYC that forbid concealed carry unless you can prove to the police that you "need" one?

I don't see what those laws will accomplish.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes, it's shame that a few idiots in cities like Chicago, Detroit, DC and New Orleans are so irresponsible with firearms and commit enough murders to thrust America into 3rd place of countries ranked by number of murders. If the murders committed by these thugs and crazies were removed from the stats, the US would rank 4th from the Bottom for total murder committed.

That's quite a difference, ain't it?

So, despite these 4 cities having the toughest Gun Control Laws in the country, that's were the bulk of the murders occur.

And yes, that is a shame.

But of course, these idiots have no more "easy access to firearms" than everyone else in the country. It should be harder in fact with all those gun control laws in those cities.

This rather dismantles your suggestion that easy access to firearms ends up doing more harm than good, doesn't it?

Why yes it does.

Let me check again.....nope it doesn't.

Saying that Chicago, Detroit, DC, etc...have the strictest gun laws in the country is meaningless. That's like boasting that you're the tallest midget or the fastest speed walker.

Then you're being intentionally obtuse...or you're just downright stupid.

You said "easy access to firearms" results in firearms that "end up doing more harm than good". If that were true, how do you square the incredibly low number of murders in areas with the easiest access to firearms compared to the much higher number of murders in cities with the strictest gun control laws.

Hmmm???

And "because I say so" is not a reasonable retort. Just sayin'

You seem to be implying that the violence rates in some of the urban areas you've cited is somehow BECAUSE of their "strict" gun laws. That's where you're wrong to begin with.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Let me check again.....nope it doesn't.

Saying that Chicago, Detroit, DC, etc...have the strictest gun laws in the country is meaningless. That's like boasting that you're the tallest midget or the fastest speed walker.

Go carry a gun openly on your hip in Chicago for twelve hours then come back and tell us how meaningless it is, idiot.

Did you have a point? Of course not, you're a turnip.

Yeah I thought I would have to essplain it to you, moron.

You said Chicago's gun laws were meaningless, and I offered you a way to demonstrate the validity of your bullshit statement.

and of course you pretend like you don't understand my meaning like the cowardly fascist you are.

 

[eflatminor]

Nice opinions, but you prove my point that restrictions could be placed to say that you can only own a revolver, and that is still technically in line with the 2nd amendment.

Care to spell out EXACTLY how what I stated supports you inane point. Be specific please.



When you have evidence of firearm getting up and killing someone, you let us know. As soon as we see inanimate objects hurting people, I'll get behind your plan to restrict them.

Until then, I would argue that the written word has inspired FAR more violence than the existence of any weapon.

Did you read what you wrote?

Government can only restrict rights, not grant them, and they can only do so with due process.

So given your opinion, government can restrict rights. The case law I originally provided did just that. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[4][5] The government could restrict your ownership to only a revolver.

And if you read Heller and subsequent rulings, you'll see that there is no fucking way in the world a person could be limited to a revolver and be considered to have a reasonable relationship to a militia, to self defense...to reality.

Sorry, you failed.

Get ready since you are being smug, guns are designed to kill something and a person could use one to kill someone, potentially many people.

Firearms are not ONLY designed to kill something. There are also designed to prevent someone from having to be killed. They are also designed to punch holes in paper. Further, there are plenty of other inanimate tools with which someone could kill someone.

Sorry, failed again.

A book was created to learn something and to be read, it has probably NEVER been used by a person to kill anyone. I would talk slower so that you can piece these concepts together...

Total number of people killed by a firearm: 0
Total number of people killed by a book: 0
Total number of people killed by other people: millions

And that's strike three. Yer out!

 

[eflatminor]

Let me check again.....nope it doesn't.

Saying that Chicago, Detroit, DC, etc...have the strictest gun laws in the country is meaningless. That's like boasting that you're the tallest midget or the fastest speed walker.

Then you're being intentionally obtuse...or you're just downright stupid.

You said "easy access to firearms" results in firearms that "end up doing more harm than good". If that were true, how do you square the incredibly low number of murders in areas with the easiest access to firearms compared to the much higher number of murders in cities with the strictest gun control laws.

Hmmm???

And "because I say so" is not a reasonable retort. Just sayin'

You seem to be implying that the violence rates in some of the urban areas you've cited is somehow BECAUSE of their "strict" gun laws.

You'd be wrong about that. Never said that, never implied it. I said the high violence rate in some areas is due to the PEOPLE living there and their actions, not the availability or access to firearms.

In doing so, I simply pointed out that your statement that "easy access to firearms" results in firearms that "end up doing more harm than good" is not based in reality.

You were saying something about being wrong???

 

[martybegan]

Let me check again.....nope it doesn't.

Saying that Chicago, Detroit, DC, etc...have the strictest gun laws in the country is meaningless. That's like boasting that you're the tallest midget or the fastest speed walker.

Then you're being intentionally obtuse...or you're just downright stupid.

You said "easy access to firearms" results in firearms that "end up doing more harm than good". If that were true, how do you square the incredibly low number of murders in areas with the easiest access to firearms compared to the much higher number of murders in cities with the strictest gun control laws.

Hmmm???

And "because I say so" is not a reasonable retort. Just sayin'

You seem to be implying that the violence rates in some of the urban areas you've cited is somehow BECAUSE of their "strict" gun laws. That's where you're wrong to begin with.

Its plausible, as the skells know that law abiding people are probably unarmed, and thus ripe for the picking.

 

[martybegan]

I believe responsible gun owners should be allowed to own whatever firearm they want. But we need to be much stricter about who can purchase and possess weapons. I want to ensure that if you're truly responsible than you will have no issues, but if you have any sort of question mark that you be screened thoroughly.

So you are against the law passed in NY State that forbids ownership of semi-automatic Rifles except if you already own one? You are against the ban on magazines above 10 rounds? You are against the rules in NYC that forbid concealed carry unless you can prove to the police that you "need" one?

I don't see what those laws will accomplish.

They why do you think people like Cuomo and most gun grabbers on this site support them?

 

[RDD_1210]

Go carry a gun openly on your hip in Chicago for twelve hours then come back and tell us how meaningless it is, idiot.

Did you have a point? Of course not, you're a turnip.

Yeah I thought I would have to essplain it to you, moron.

You said Chicago's gun laws were meaningless, and I offered you a way to demonstrate the validity of your bullshit statement.

and of course you pretend like you don't understand my meaning like the cowardly fascist you are.

It's meaningless to call them "strict" because you can easily circumvent them.

 

[RDD_1210]

Then you're being intentionally obtuse...or you're just downright stupid.

You said "easy access to firearms" results in firearms that "end up doing more harm than good". If that were true, how do you square the incredibly low number of murders in areas with the easiest access to firearms compared to the much higher number of murders in cities with the strictest gun control laws.

Hmmm???

And "because I say so" is not a reasonable retort. Just sayin'

You seem to be implying that the violence rates in some of the urban areas you've cited is somehow BECAUSE of their "strict" gun laws.

You'd be wrong about that. Never said that, never implied it. I said the high violence rate in some areas is due to the PEOPLE living there and their actions, not the availability or access to firearms.

In doing so, I simply pointed out that your statement that "easy access to firearms" results in firearms that "end up doing more harm than good" is not based in reality.

You were saying something about being wrong???

Of course it's based in reality. If more guns meant more safety we would be the safest nation in the world. But we're not. Hence, they are doing more harm than good. Do you need me to draw you a picture?

 

[RDD_1210]

So you are against the law passed in NY State that forbids ownership of semi-automatic Rifles except if you already own one? You are against the ban on magazines above 10 rounds? You are against the rules in NYC that forbid concealed carry unless you can prove to the police that you "need" one?

I don't see what those laws will accomplish.

They why do you think people like Cuomo and most gun grabbers on this site support them?

Maybe because they believe that it couldn't possibly make gun violence worse. And doing something is better than doing nothing.

 

[Bumberclyde]

No, what I'm saying is that the facts show that "easy access to firearms" is a failed argument to support the notion that these weapons "end up doing more harm than good"...which was the poster's point. Again, we know this because in the places where citizens have the easiest access to firearms, the number of murders are are incredibly low. Where the laws are strictest, we see the highest number of murders, which proves that it's the idiots doing the murdering and not the availability of firearms that are the problem.

But I made that pretty clear in my post. Reading comprehension issues perhaps?

Secondly, criminals RARELY buy firearms legally. In the vast majority of cases, they're either stolen, purchased illegally, or transferred from a friend or relative. Only pointing that out to show the futility of laws imposed on legal purchases.

Well, you missed MY point. Criminals can get guns from areas where guns are easiest to get, it doesn't matter if they live in Chicago or wherever. Get it?

Your point is wrong. First, you have no evidence that criminals travel to areas with fewer gun control laws in order to buy them legally. NO evidence, because it doesn't happen. Criminals simply do not buy firearms legally. Therefore, no laws, rules and restrictions you impose on law abiding citizens will make a damn bit of difference other than to ensure the good guys have a disadvantage against the bad ones.

Brilliant plan...

Further, let's for a moment say that you were right...that criminals get guns from areas where guns are easiest to get. If that's true, WHY DON'T WE SEE THE HIGH MURDER RATES IN AREAS WITH LESS GUN CONTROL LAWS???

Sorry, your point is not only wrong, it's ridiculous on its face.

You're just too thick to get the point. Next.

 

[martybegan]

I don't see what those laws will accomplish.

They why do you think people like Cuomo and most gun grabbers on this site support them?

Maybe because they believe that it couldn't possibly make gun violence worse. And doing something is better than doing nothing.

That is the purest example of why progressives are all about form and display over function and effectiveness. So by doing SOMETHING you trample on the rights of others without regards to the constitution or common sense.

Not allowing people the right their 4th amendment protections couldn't possibly make police work harder, so we might as well scrap those too.

Doing something is almost always worse than doing nothing if the something has no effect on the problem. In the first, you are proposing a feel good non-solution to the problem, and in the 2nd, all you are doing is likely trampling on the freedoms and rights of people who are NOT part of the problem.

 

[Bumberclyde]

They why do you think people like Cuomo and most gun grabbers on this site support them?

Maybe because they believe that it couldn't possibly make gun violence worse. And doing something is better than doing nothing.

That is the purest example of why progressives are all about form and display over function and effectiveness. So by doing SOMETHING you trample on the rights of others without regards to the constitution or common sense.

Not allowing people the right their 4th amendment protections couldn't possibly make police work harder, so we might as well scrap those too.

Doing something is almost always worse than doing nothing if the something has no effect on the problem. In the first, you are proposing a feel good non-solution to the problem, and in the 2nd, all you are doing is likely trampling on the freedoms and rights of people who are NOT part of the problem.

So you're ok with trampling some people's rights to bear arms?