Assault weapons and large magazines ban upheld in New York and Conneticut

[LOki]

Studies show fewer gun deaths in states with strict gun laws

The whole "Gun Violence" argument = tautology. The entire "gun violence" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind ofmeaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--a problem that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun violence" so that you can both include violence that was not caused by guns; and exclude violence caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

"Gun Violence"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

 

[danielpalos]

dear; why are we wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on a War on Crime, instead of faithfully executing our own laws regarding what is necessary and proper to the security of a free State.

 

[charwin95]

Studies show fewer gun deaths in states with strict gun laws

The whole "Gun Violence" argument = tautology. The entire "gun violence" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind ofmeaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--a problem that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun violence" so that you can both include violence that was not caused by guns; and exclude violence caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

"Gun Violence"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

LOL. yahoo news lying?

 

[M14 Shooter]

FYI...
The mindless inanity of the NY CT and CA 'assault weapon' bans. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[LOki]

Studies show fewer gun deaths in states with strict gun laws

The whole "Gun Violence" argument = tautology. The entire "gun violence" argument is meaningless.

Asserting that "gun violence" would be diminished by removing guns, is asserting the same kind ofmeaningless tautology that asserts getting rid of boats would diminish drownings; the argument is specious, and it distracts from discussing a "violence problem"--a problem that is not solvable by these gun-control laws you advocate.

When you deliberately create the special category of "gun violence" so that you can both include violence that was not caused by guns; and exclude violence caused by people (but without using guns), you tacitly admit that you're JUST FINE with all the violence in the world... provided no gun was involved.

"Gun Violence"...the rhetorical tautology that exposes anti-rights advocates for the callous human shit-birds that they are.

LOL. yahoo news lying?

If they are knowingly advancing a patently false argument, I'm not sure what else it should be called.

 

[danielpalos]

FYI...
The mindless inanity of the NY CT and CA 'assault weapon' bans. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

especially in California, where we really can use better aqueducts and better roads.

 

[2aguy]

Studies show fewer gun deaths in states with strict gun laws

This one was already debunked………numerous times….they fudge the numbers.

 

[2aguy]

Studies show fewer gun deaths in states with strict gun laws

And here is how they fudge the numbers…….they don't say "gun murders" they say gun deaths….which is of course misleading since they imply they are criminal use of guns….

from your post….

Because such studies also consider suicides in calculating firearm deaths, critics say it is misleading to cite them when arguing for ways to prevent mass shootings. Suicides account for the majority of America's roughly 30,000 annual gun deaths.

In 2014 there were a total of 8,124 gun murders….keeping in mind that most of the victims of gun murder are criminals, and most of the shooters are criminals, career criminals, that fact points out that gun laws do not decrease gun murder…since the ones doing most of the shooting ignore gun laws.

90% of shooters have at least one prior conviction…and 76% have at least 4……if I have to I will post where these numbers came from….

On Top of that, bill clinton commissioned a gun self defense study to debunk Dr. Gary Kleck's study on defensive gun use…and the two anti gunners who created the study for the clinton Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives…..

So……

8,124 gun murders

1.5 million times guns are used to stop violent crime.

 

[Wildman]

...an AR-15 set on Auto?

ain't no such thing as an AR-15 set on Auto

that statement alone makes you more stupid than the OP

 

[Skull Pilot]

Studies show fewer gun deaths in states with strict gun laws

Tell that to the people in Chicago

 

[Vandalshandle]

...an AR-15 set on Auto?

ain't no such thing as an AR-15 set on Auto

that statement alone makes you more stupid than the OP

Grow UP, Wild....

 

[Dana7360]

Federal court upholds post-Sandy Hook gun bans in New York and Connecticut
I guess the NRA was asleep?

Thank you very much for that good news.

However we all know the nra and gun nuts won't stop with that ruling. They will take it to the supreme court. Which I hope that the court will not twist the constitution and come up with some crazy reason why states can't regulate gun sales.

The constitution is very clear. The government has the power to regulate commerce. Selling guns is commerce so the government can impose regulations on guns.

More mindless nonsense.
There is no sound argument for neither the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

You're saying the constitution is mindless nonsense?

There is no sound argument for the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'
Disagree?
For those who want to reisntate the 1994 'assault weapon' ban....? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Still waiting for a sound response.

I already gave you one. It's taken directly from our constitution.

It's called the Commerce Clause. Look it up. It gives our government the power to regulate commerce.

In case you didn't know what the word commerce means, it's buying and selling of goods or services. In this case the goods are weapons or guns.

So if you have any sort of integrity and honesty or even simple knowledge of what's in the constitution you would know that the government has a constitutional right to regulate guns.

Well that is IF you're a real American you would.

 

[Dana7360]

Supreme Court refuses to take up NRA challenge to San Francisco gun law

The NRA is slowly losing the war....one battle at a time.

Thank you very much for that information.

I hope the nra loses more cases in the future. Our nation is being destroyed by the nra whose only motivation is money. It's controlled by weapons manufacturers and all they care about is selling more of those weapons.

They don't care about the innocent lives that are destroyed by those weapons.

 

[Dana7360]

Gun manufacturers FUND more than half of the NRA budget (not membership dues)

The NRA extorts congressional candidates with threats to do the NRA's bidding

Courts have just dealt a blow to both manufacturers and NRA basically exposing that "the emperor may indeed have no clothes on..."

Long in coming to stop the madness of right wingers who use their guns as an extension of their masculinity.....if you know what I mean.

Yes they're over compensating for a small penis and feelings of inadequacy. Along with their feelings of not having any control of their lives.

 

[Dan Daly]

Federal court upholds post-Sandy Hook gun bans in New York and Connecticut
I guess the NRA was asleep?

Thank you very much for that good news.

However we all know the nra and gun nuts won't stop with that ruling. They will take it to the supreme court. Which I hope that the court will not twist the constitution and come up with some crazy reason why states can't regulate gun sales.

The constitution is very clear. The government has the power to regulate commerce. Selling guns is commerce so the government can impose regulations on guns.

More mindless nonsense.
There is no sound argument for neither the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

You're saying the constitution is mindless nonsense?

There is no sound argument for the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'
Disagree?
For those who want to reisntate the 1994 'assault weapon' ban....? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Still waiting for a sound response.

I already gave you one. It's taken directly from our constitution.

It's called the Commerce Clause. Look it up. It gives our government the power to regulate commerce.

In case you didn't know what the word commerce means, it's buying and selling of goods or services. In this case the goods are weapons or guns.

So if you have any sort of integrity and honesty or even simple knowledge of what's in the constitution you would know that the government has a constitutional right to regulate guns.

Well that is IF you're a real American you would.

Uh, the commerce clause gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce "with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" "among the states" means interstate, not intrastate.

So yes, the commerce clause is what enabled the federal government to require licenses for INTERSTATE sales of firearms, but not private sales within the states...your so-called "gun show loophole" (which of course isn't a loophole at all, Congress realized their gun control wet dreams would go down in Constitutional smoke if they attempted to regulate private sales within the states).

I'll give you a cookie for at least trying...but so sorry, you failed because you refuse to look beyond the 30 second sound bites and actually study the facts and history of the issue.

Edit: sorry, but after reading the other emotional tripe you have written, I have to take away your cookie. When you think you know the facts and the history of this issue, try again...I might take you seriously if you do some basic homework.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Federal court upholds post-Sandy Hook gun bans in New York and Connecticut
I guess the NRA was asleep?

Thank you very much for that good news.

However we all know the nra and gun nuts won't stop with that ruling. They will take it to the supreme court. Which I hope that the court will not twist the constitution and come up with some crazy reason why states can't regulate gun sales.

The constitution is very clear. The government has the power to regulate commerce. Selling guns is commerce so the government can impose regulations on guns.

More mindless nonsense.
There is no sound argument for neither the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

You're saying the constitution is mindless nonsense?

There is no sound argument for the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'
Disagree?
For those who want to reisntate the 1994 'assault weapon' ban....? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Still waiting for a sound response.

I already gave you one. It's taken directly from our constitution.
It's called the Commerce Clause. Look it up. It gives our government the power to regulate commerce.

The commerce clause is limited by the 2nd Amendment - and so, your response does not meet the challenge.
But, you knew that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I hope the nra loses more cases in the future. Our nation is being destroyed by the nra whose only motivation is money. It's controlled by weapons manufacturers and all they care about is selling more of those weapons.

They don't care about the innocent lives that are destroyed by those weapons.

Mindless nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gun manufacturers FUND more than half of the NRA budget (not membership dues)

The NRA extorts congressional candidates with threats to do the NRA's bidding

Courts have just dealt a blow to both manufacturers and NRA basically exposing that "the emperor may indeed have no clothes on..."

Long in coming to stop the madness of right wingers who use their guns as an extension of their masculinity.....if you know what I mean.

Yes they're over compensating for a small penis and feelings of inadequacy. Along with their feelings of not having any control of their lives.

More mindless nonsense.

 

[LOki]

Federal court upholds post-Sandy Hook gun bans in New York and Connecticut
I guess the NRA was asleep?

Thank you very much for that good news.

However we all know the nra and gun nuts won't stop with that ruling. They will take it to the supreme court. Which I hope that the court will not twist the constitution and come up with some crazy reason why states can't regulate gun sales.

The constitution is very clear. The government has the power to regulate commerce. Selling guns is commerce so the government can impose regulations on guns.

More mindless nonsense.
There is no sound argument for neither the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

You're saying the constitution is mindless nonsense?

There is no sound argument for the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'
Disagree?
For those who want to reisntate the 1994 'assault weapon' ban....? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Still waiting for a sound response.

I already gave you one. It's taken directly from our constitution.

It's called the Commerce Clause. Look it up. It gives our government the power to regulate commerce.

In case you didn't know what the word commerce means, it's buying and selling of goods or services. In this case the goods are weapons or guns.

So if you have any sort of integrity and honesty or even simple knowledge of what's in the constitution you would know that the government has a constitutional right to regulate guns.

Well that is IF you're a real American you would.

No one is really saying that the government can't regulate guns... they just can't regulate guns (and/or gun ownership) in an unconstitutional manner.

 

[2aguy]

Federal court upholds post-Sandy Hook gun bans in New York and Connecticut
I guess the NRA was asleep?

Thank you very much for that good news.

However we all know the nra and gun nuts won't stop with that ruling. They will take it to the supreme court. Which I hope that the court will not twist the constitution and come up with some crazy reason why states can't regulate gun sales.

The constitution is very clear. The government has the power to regulate commerce. Selling guns is commerce so the government can impose regulations on guns.

More mindless nonsense.
There is no sound argument for neither the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

You're saying the constitution is mindless nonsense?

There is no sound argument for the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'
Disagree?
For those who want to reisntate the 1994 'assault weapon' ban....? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Still waiting for a sound response.

I already gave you one. It's taken directly from our constitution.

It's called the Commerce Clause. Look it up. It gives our government the power to regulate commerce.

In case you didn't know what the word commerce means, it's buying and selling of goods or services. In this case the goods are weapons or guns.

So if you have any sort of integrity and honesty or even simple knowledge of what's in the constitution you would know that the government has a constitutional right to regulate guns.

Well that is IF you're a real American you would.

Already been ruled on in the Lopez case where they tried to use the commerce clause to ban guns 100 feet from schools...even in private homes....