Because of no right to own firearms...

[2aguy]

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

And yet firearms have tripled and STILL accidents down murders down violent crime DOWN. You are to stupid to breed you keep proving the point.

I already covered where your thesis comes from. And it dates back to 1998 to one specific book that ALL other authors keep repeating. Lott and a co-author wrote it but it was debunked as using false math and incomplete data by every decent expert out there. The first fewyears, authors would spout what you spout giving Lott as the source. But at some point, the authors stopped giving the source and some peopole started accepting it as fact. This is the source of your beliefs. It's been debunked 20 years ago. The problem is, a whole society has been founded on it. This is much like the way Carl Marx founded Communism and marxism. How's it freel to be in that company. Brainwashing is a wonderful thing when it's done for good. But in your case, it's not done for good.

Actually RETARD I have Government sources for my facts. Not some book from 20 years ago. Government FACTS show a decline in firearm accidental shootings, A decline in murders a declie in accidental deaths by firearms and MORE firearms in private hands. Do keep up dumb ass

Are you smart enough to corrolate that information into usable data? Or are you going to use the false information that is going around that has been debunked 20 years ago.

The real data is that there are fewer firearms in the hands of normal civilians than there were in 1993. But the 3% that owns over 50% of all firearms has increased a thousand fold.

1993 The Brady Act was passed.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 is named after White House press secretary James Brady, who was permanently disabled from an injury suffered during an attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. (Brady died in 2014). It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law, which amends the GCA, requires that background checks be completed before a gun is purchased from a licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer. It established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is maintained by the FBI.


1994

Tucked into the sweeping and controversial Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by President Clinton in 1994, is the subsection titled Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. This is known as the assault weapons ban — a temporary prohibition in effect from September of 1994 to September of 2004. Multiple attempts to renew the ban have failed.


The provisions of the bill outlawed the ability to “manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon,” unless it was “lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.” Nineteen military-style or “copy-cat” assault weapons—including AR-15s, TEC-9s, MAC-10s, etc.—could not be manufactured or sold. It also banned “certain high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than ten rounds,” according to a U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet.

This was all in affect until 1998 where it was allowed to run out. But if you notice, using your own figures, the bulk of the reduction in firearms accidents and murders went down during 1993 to 1998. Firearms were not held very high on the list of society at this point and sales were way down.

Then the onslaught of stripping of laws began happening and the gun culture began to grow. A lot of that had to do with the lie propagated by the Lott Book, "More Guns, Less Crimes". The book was based on bad data and bad math that was from the 70s that was already proven to be false. But the Gun Culture was born.

2003

The Tiahrt Amendment, proposed by Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), prohibited the ATF from publicly releasing data showing where criminals purchased their firearms and stipulated that only law enforcement officers or prosecutors could access such information.


“The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny,” The Washington Post wrote in 2010. “It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.”


There have been efforts to repeal this amendment.

2005 The NRA changed and it became the voice of sales for the Gun Industry.

In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was signed by President George W. Bush to prevent gun manufacturers from being named in federal or state civil suits by those who were victims of crimes involving guns made by that company.

The first provision of this law is “to prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” It also dismissed pending cases on October 26, 2005.

2008 Here is the one that you and others keep misquoting. It only applies to handguns in the home, nothing else.

District of Columbia v. Heller essentially changed a nearly 70-year precedent set by Miller in 1939. While the Miller ruling focused on the “well regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment (known as the “collective rights theory” and referring to a state’s right to defend itself), Heller focused on the “individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

Heller challenged the constitutionality of a 32-year-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and found, “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.”

It did not however nullify other gun control provisions. “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” stated the ruling.

The older laws are slowly being put back in place as well as new regulations. More and more people are not buying into the lie laid out by Lott of "More Guns Less Crime". It was a lie in 1998 as much as it is a lie today.

Wrong...gun ownership is slightly up....

NBC Poll: Does Gun Ownership Increase Or Decrease Safety? Anti-Gun Activists Won't Like The Results.

nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe that getting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens increases safety.

"In the poll, 58 percent agree with the statement that gun ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves," NBC News reports. "By contrast, 38 percent say that gun ownership reduces safety by giving too many people access to firearms, increasing the chances for accidental misuse."

------

NBC notes that the overall result is a "reversal" of the findings of a 1999 survey that found that 52 percent of respondents believed gun ownership reduced safety. The more positive perspective on gun ownership is partly reflected in gun ownership trends: "47 percent of American adults say they have a firearm in the household, which is up from 44 percent in 1999."

 

[2aguy]

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

And yet firearms have tripled and STILL accidents down murders down violent crime DOWN. You are to stupid to breed you keep proving the point.

I already covered where your thesis comes from. And it dates back to 1998 to one specific book that ALL other authors keep repeating. Lott and a co-author wrote it but it was debunked as using false math and incomplete data by every decent expert out there. The first fewyears, authors would spout what you spout giving Lott as the source. But at some point, the authors stopped giving the source and some peopole started accepting it as fact. This is the source of your beliefs. It's been debunked 20 years ago. The problem is, a whole society has been founded on it. This is much like the way Carl Marx founded Communism and marxism. How's it freel to be in that company. Brainwashing is a wonderful thing when it's done for good. But in your case, it's not done for good.

Actually RETARD I have Government sources for my facts. Not some book from 20 years ago. Government FACTS show a decline in firearm accidental shootings, A decline in murders a declie in accidental deaths by firearms and MORE firearms in private hands. Do keep up dumb ass

Are you smart enough to corrolate that information into usable data? Or are you going to use the false information that is going around that has been debunked 20 years ago.

The real data is that there are fewer firearms in the hands of normal civilians than there were in 1993. But the 3% that owns over 50% of all firearms has increased a thousand fold.

1993 The Brady Act was passed.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 is named after White House press secretary James Brady, who was permanently disabled from an injury suffered during an attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. (Brady died in 2014). It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law, which amends the GCA, requires that background checks be completed before a gun is purchased from a licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer. It established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is maintained by the FBI.


1994

Tucked into the sweeping and controversial Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by President Clinton in 1994, is the subsection titled Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. This is known as the assault weapons ban — a temporary prohibition in effect from September of 1994 to September of 2004. Multiple attempts to renew the ban have failed.


The provisions of the bill outlawed the ability to “manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon,” unless it was “lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.” Nineteen military-style or “copy-cat” assault weapons—including AR-15s, TEC-9s, MAC-10s, etc.—could not be manufactured or sold. It also banned “certain high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than ten rounds,” according to a U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet.

This was all in affect until 1998 where it was allowed to run out. But if you notice, using your own figures, the bulk of the reduction in firearms accidents and murders went down during 1993 to 1998. Firearms were not held very high on the list of society at this point and sales were way down.

Then the onslaught of stripping of laws began happening and the gun culture began to grow. A lot of that had to do with the lie propagated by the Lott Book, "More Guns, Less Crimes". The book was based on bad data and bad math that was from the 70s that was already proven to be false. But the Gun Culture was born.

2003

The Tiahrt Amendment, proposed by Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), prohibited the ATF from publicly releasing data showing where criminals purchased their firearms and stipulated that only law enforcement officers or prosecutors could access such information.


“The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny,” The Washington Post wrote in 2010. “It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.”


There have been efforts to repeal this amendment.

2005 The NRA changed and it became the voice of sales for the Gun Industry.

In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was signed by President George W. Bush to prevent gun manufacturers from being named in federal or state civil suits by those who were victims of crimes involving guns made by that company.

The first provision of this law is “to prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” It also dismissed pending cases on October 26, 2005.

2008 Here is the one that you and others keep misquoting. It only applies to handguns in the home, nothing else.

District of Columbia v. Heller essentially changed a nearly 70-year precedent set by Miller in 1939. While the Miller ruling focused on the “well regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment (known as the “collective rights theory” and referring to a state’s right to defend itself), Heller focused on the “individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

Heller challenged the constitutionality of a 32-year-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and found, “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.”

It did not however nullify other gun control provisions. “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” stated the ruling.

The older laws are slowly being put back in place as well as new regulations. More and more people are not buying into the lie laid out by Lott of "More Guns Less Crime". It was a lie in 1998 as much as it is a lie today.

You don't know what you are talking about.....you also don't provide links to your quotes......

You don't understand Heller.....you nuts keep quoting Scalia, and then ignore what he actually said.....

Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

And again....you don't understand Friedman...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3.

The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

And yet firearms have tripled and STILL accidents down murders down violent crime DOWN. You are to stupid to breed you keep proving the point.

I already covered where your thesis comes from. And it dates back to 1998 to one specific book that ALL other authors keep repeating. Lott and a co-author wrote it but it was debunked as using false math and incomplete data by every decent expert out there. The first fewyears, authors would spout what you spout giving Lott as the source. But at some point, the authors stopped giving the source and some peopole started accepting it as fact. This is the source of your beliefs. It's been debunked 20 years ago. The problem is, a whole society has been founded on it. This is much like the way Carl Marx founded Communism and marxism. How's it freel to be in that company. Brainwashing is a wonderful thing when it's done for good. But in your case, it's not done for good.

Actually RETARD I have Government sources for my facts. Not some book from 20 years ago. Government FACTS show a decline in firearm accidental shootings, A decline in murders a declie in accidental deaths by firearms and MORE firearms in private hands. Do keep up dumb ass

He thinks he is quite the brainiac......and yet...he isn't....

 

[Rustic]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

Legal Firearm ownership is very low in urban America, and very high in rural America

Population is very high in Urban America and very low in rural America. And then, not all rural people own firearms as well. I will admit that most do but some don't. Meanwhile, MOST Urban households don't own firearms.

I was wondering where you and your little buddy was getting your data from. I finally found it. Lott and Mustards book that was largely discredited that made all the same claims you do. In fact, almost all pro gun writing since then have largely been based on that flawed book although none of them gives reference to it. Hate to break it to you but you have been sold a huge bill of goods based on a book that lied and whose main purpose was to sell a book, not stick with facts and real data.

Na, I sell firearms and ammo in a rural area for more than 20 years.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

We already have laws that allow us to arrest straw buyers...prosecutors are not locking them up.....

As to Murdock, you don't understand the ruling.....it directly states that fee cannot be charged for the exercise of a Right....that is any Right......

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....
... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Murdock specifically states it's about Religious items. There is no mention of firearms. It's very specific as most SCOTUS rulings are. Once again, you are reaching and misinterpreting to justify your own bad behavior.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

Legal Firearm ownership is very low in urban America, and very high in rural America

Population is very high in Urban America and very low in rural America. And then, not all rural people own firearms as well. I will admit that most do but some don't. Meanwhile, MOST Urban households don't own firearms.

I was wondering where you and your little buddy was getting your data from. I finally found it. Lott and Mustards book that was largely discredited that made all the same claims you do. In fact, almost all pro gun writing since then have largely been based on that flawed book although none of them gives reference to it. Hate to break it to you but you have been sold a huge bill of goods based on a book that lied and whose main purpose was to sell a book, not stick with facts and real data.

You guys keep lying about Lott....and yet his research still stands the test of time.....

And it was Pew, not Lott, that showed that as more Americans own and carry guns the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate went down....supporting Lott's argument...

I just read the Pew report. it doesn't take a side one way or another. It just states who supports and doesn't support and who supports a little gun regulation. Really, nothing more. It doesn't go into who is right or who is wrong. It's non political. You are reading into what they are saying once again. Aren't you worried that many of us will research it? Well, we will.

As for lott, not one qualified person in the 90s and early 2000s found his book to be factual. it was debunked. I wondered where you get all your goofy ideas from. You aren't even aware of the source. Well, cupcake, now you are. It should make some really good reading for you. I read it and found it was entertaining and book selling. But when I researched his data I found his conclusions were flawed just like the other qualified people. But since you aren't qualified you might read it and actually believe it. Of course, it really needs a rewrite where it starts with "Once upon a time".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

Legal Firearm ownership is very low in urban America, and very high in rural America

Population is very high in Urban America and very low in rural America. And then, not all rural people own firearms as well. I will admit that most do but some don't. Meanwhile, MOST Urban households don't own firearms.

I was wondering where you and your little buddy was getting your data from. I finally found it. Lott and Mustards book that was largely discredited that made all the same claims you do. In fact, almost all pro gun writing since then have largely been based on that flawed book although none of them gives reference to it. Hate to break it to you but you have been sold a huge bill of goods based on a book that lied and whose main purpose was to sell a book, not stick with facts and real data.

Na, I sell firearms and ammo in a rural area for more than 20 years.

After listening to you, I find that I doubt seriously that you would be allowed the FFL to sell firearms in a garbage can. So stop lying.

 

[g5000]

The cesspool that is Western Europe...

Home Secretary Sajid Javid reveals how he was a moped mugging victim as he launches battle to beat villains

Less than one in 20 street robberies are being solved by police | Daily Mail Online

United Kingdom homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000

United States homicide rate: 5.35 per 100,000

We're more than four times better at it because we have more guns.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The cesspool that is Western Europe...

Home Secretary Sajid Javid reveals how he was a moped mugging victim as he launches battle to beat villains

Less than one in 20 street robberies are being solved by police | Daily Mail Online

United Kingdom homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000

United States homicide rate: 5.35 per 100,000

We're more than four times better at it because we have more guns.

And yet the gun nutters want us to have more guns in inexperienced hands. Talk about the Darwin Affect.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

And yet firearms have tripled and STILL accidents down murders down violent crime DOWN. You are to stupid to breed you keep proving the point.

I already covered where your thesis comes from. And it dates back to 1998 to one specific book that ALL other authors keep repeating. Lott and a co-author wrote it but it was debunked as using false math and incomplete data by every decent expert out there. The first fewyears, authors would spout what you spout giving Lott as the source. But at some point, the authors stopped giving the source and some peopole started accepting it as fact. This is the source of your beliefs. It's been debunked 20 years ago. The problem is, a whole society has been founded on it. This is much like the way Carl Marx founded Communism and marxism. How's it freel to be in that company. Brainwashing is a wonderful thing when it's done for good. But in your case, it's not done for good.

Actually RETARD I have Government sources for my facts. Not some book from 20 years ago. Government FACTS show a decline in firearm accidental shootings, A decline in murders a declie in accidental deaths by firearms and MORE firearms in private hands. Do keep up dumb ass

Are you smart enough to corrolate that information into usable data? Or are you going to use the false information that is going around that has been debunked 20 years ago.

The real data is that there are fewer firearms in the hands of normal civilians than there were in 1993. But the 3% that owns over 50% of all firearms has increased a thousand fold.

1993 The Brady Act was passed.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 is named after White House press secretary James Brady, who was permanently disabled from an injury suffered during an attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. (Brady died in 2014). It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law, which amends the GCA, requires that background checks be completed before a gun is purchased from a licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer. It established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is maintained by the FBI.


1994

Tucked into the sweeping and controversial Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by President Clinton in 1994, is the subsection titled Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. This is known as the assault weapons ban — a temporary prohibition in effect from September of 1994 to September of 2004. Multiple attempts to renew the ban have failed.


The provisions of the bill outlawed the ability to “manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon,” unless it was “lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.” Nineteen military-style or “copy-cat” assault weapons—including AR-15s, TEC-9s, MAC-10s, etc.—could not be manufactured or sold. It also banned “certain high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than ten rounds,” according to a U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet.

This was all in affect until 1998 where it was allowed to run out. But if you notice, using your own figures, the bulk of the reduction in firearms accidents and murders went down during 1993 to 1998. Firearms were not held very high on the list of society at this point and sales were way down.

Then the onslaught of stripping of laws began happening and the gun culture began to grow. A lot of that had to do with the lie propagated by the Lott Book, "More Guns, Less Crimes". The book was based on bad data and bad math that was from the 70s that was already proven to be false. But the Gun Culture was born.

2003

The Tiahrt Amendment, proposed by Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), prohibited the ATF from publicly releasing data showing where criminals purchased their firearms and stipulated that only law enforcement officers or prosecutors could access such information.


“The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny,” The Washington Post wrote in 2010. “It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.”


There have been efforts to repeal this amendment.

2005 The NRA changed and it became the voice of sales for the Gun Industry.

In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was signed by President George W. Bush to prevent gun manufacturers from being named in federal or state civil suits by those who were victims of crimes involving guns made by that company.

The first provision of this law is “to prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” It also dismissed pending cases on October 26, 2005.

2008 Here is the one that you and others keep misquoting. It only applies to handguns in the home, nothing else.

District of Columbia v. Heller essentially changed a nearly 70-year precedent set by Miller in 1939. While the Miller ruling focused on the “well regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment (known as the “collective rights theory” and referring to a state’s right to defend itself), Heller focused on the “individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

Heller challenged the constitutionality of a 32-year-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and found, “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.”

It did not however nullify other gun control provisions. “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” stated the ruling.

The older laws are slowly being put back in place as well as new regulations. More and more people are not buying into the lie laid out by Lott of "More Guns Less Crime". It was a lie in 1998 as much as it is a lie today.

Wrong...gun ownership is slightly up....

NBC Poll: Does Gun Ownership Increase Or Decrease Safety? Anti-Gun Activists Won't Like The Results.

nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe that getting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens increases safety.

"In the poll, 58 percent agree with the statement that gun ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves," NBC News reports. "By contrast, 38 percent say that gun ownership reduces safety by giving too many people access to firearms, increasing the chances for accidental misuse."

------

NBC notes that the overall result is a "reversal" of the findings of a 1999 survey that found that 52 percent of respondents believed gun ownership reduced safety. The more positive perspective on gun ownership is partly reflected in gun ownership trends: "47 percent of American adults say they have a firearm in the household, which is up from 44 percent in 1999."

Your article cherry picked the poll. You left out the negatives. And here are just some of them.

While only 48 percent of adult support Gun Regulation only 37 percent are against it. Not 52 percent like you would report it.

As a plurality of Americans say they back gun-control organizations, the latest NBC/WSJ poll finds
the National Rifle Association with its worst net positive-negative score since the 1990s

The biggest drops for the NRA come from white married women (50 percent positive in April 2017, 35 percent now), urban residents (43 percent positive in April, 28 percent now), white women (47 percent positive in April, 33 percent now) and moderate/soft Republicans (72 percent positive in April, 60 percent now).

.

While 6 in 10 people polled stated that Guns created safety, the majority also supported gun controls of various levels. That means that only 37% don't want gun controls or wont only minor gun regulations according to the poll.

I read the poll directly from NBC and your author on YOUR cite certainly took creative liberties and expanded on the data. You just used another British Tabloid. Can't you get one of our own US Tabloids to print this garbage or is it above them to lie out their asses like this. I sort of doubt it but so far........

 

[Rustic]

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

Legal Firearm ownership is very low in urban America, and very high in rural America

Population is very high in Urban America and very low in rural America. And then, not all rural people own firearms as well. I will admit that most do but some don't. Meanwhile, MOST Urban households don't own firearms.

I was wondering where you and your little buddy was getting your data from. I finally found it. Lott and Mustards book that was largely discredited that made all the same claims you do. In fact, almost all pro gun writing since then have largely been based on that flawed book although none of them gives reference to it. Hate to break it to you but you have been sold a huge bill of goods based on a book that lied and whose main purpose was to sell a book, not stick with facts and real data.

Na, I sell firearms and ammo in a rural area for more than 20 years.

After listening to you, I find that I doubt seriously that you would be allowed the FFL to sell firearms in a garbage can. So stop lying.

Lol
Says a progressive gun grabber...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

Legal Firearm ownership is very low in urban America, and very high in rural America

Population is very high in Urban America and very low in rural America. And then, not all rural people own firearms as well. I will admit that most do but some don't. Meanwhile, MOST Urban households don't own firearms.

I was wondering where you and your little buddy was getting your data from. I finally found it. Lott and Mustards book that was largely discredited that made all the same claims you do. In fact, almost all pro gun writing since then have largely been based on that flawed book although none of them gives reference to it. Hate to break it to you but you have been sold a huge bill of goods based on a book that lied and whose main purpose was to sell a book, not stick with facts and real data.

Na, I sell firearms and ammo in a rural area for more than 20 years.

After listening to you, I find that I doubt seriously that you would be allowed the FFL to sell firearms in a garbage can. So stop lying.

Lol
Says a progressive gun grabber...

I doubt that most in here believe that. The more you make stupid claims like that the more the rest of us start questioning your truthfulness and whether you should be allowed anywhere near a toaster much less a gun.

 

[2aguy]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

We already have laws that allow us to arrest straw buyers...prosecutors are not locking them up.....

As to Murdock, you don't understand the ruling.....it directly states that fee cannot be charged for the exercise of a Right....that is any Right......

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....
... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Murdock specifically states it's about Religious items. There is no mention of firearms. It's very specific as most SCOTUS rulings are. Once again, you are reaching and misinterpreting to justify your own bad behavior.

It states......a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. It doesn't narrow it down to just religioius freedom.....

 

[2aguy]

And yet firearms have tripled and STILL accidents down murders down violent crime DOWN. You are to stupid to breed you keep proving the point.

I already covered where your thesis comes from. And it dates back to 1998 to one specific book that ALL other authors keep repeating. Lott and a co-author wrote it but it was debunked as using false math and incomplete data by every decent expert out there. The first fewyears, authors would spout what you spout giving Lott as the source. But at some point, the authors stopped giving the source and some peopole started accepting it as fact. This is the source of your beliefs. It's been debunked 20 years ago. The problem is, a whole society has been founded on it. This is much like the way Carl Marx founded Communism and marxism. How's it freel to be in that company. Brainwashing is a wonderful thing when it's done for good. But in your case, it's not done for good.

Actually RETARD I have Government sources for my facts. Not some book from 20 years ago. Government FACTS show a decline in firearm accidental shootings, A decline in murders a declie in accidental deaths by firearms and MORE firearms in private hands. Do keep up dumb ass

Are you smart enough to corrolate that information into usable data? Or are you going to use the false information that is going around that has been debunked 20 years ago.

The real data is that there are fewer firearms in the hands of normal civilians than there were in 1993. But the 3% that owns over 50% of all firearms has increased a thousand fold.

1993 The Brady Act was passed.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 is named after White House press secretary James Brady, who was permanently disabled from an injury suffered during an attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. (Brady died in 2014). It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law, which amends the GCA, requires that background checks be completed before a gun is purchased from a licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer. It established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is maintained by the FBI.


1994

Tucked into the sweeping and controversial Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by President Clinton in 1994, is the subsection titled Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. This is known as the assault weapons ban — a temporary prohibition in effect from September of 1994 to September of 2004. Multiple attempts to renew the ban have failed.


The provisions of the bill outlawed the ability to “manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon,” unless it was “lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.” Nineteen military-style or “copy-cat” assault weapons—including AR-15s, TEC-9s, MAC-10s, etc.—could not be manufactured or sold. It also banned “certain high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than ten rounds,” according to a U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet.

This was all in affect until 1998 where it was allowed to run out. But if you notice, using your own figures, the bulk of the reduction in firearms accidents and murders went down during 1993 to 1998. Firearms were not held very high on the list of society at this point and sales were way down.

Then the onslaught of stripping of laws began happening and the gun culture began to grow. A lot of that had to do with the lie propagated by the Lott Book, "More Guns, Less Crimes". The book was based on bad data and bad math that was from the 70s that was already proven to be false. But the Gun Culture was born.

2003

The Tiahrt Amendment, proposed by Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), prohibited the ATF from publicly releasing data showing where criminals purchased their firearms and stipulated that only law enforcement officers or prosecutors could access such information.


“The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny,” The Washington Post wrote in 2010. “It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.”


There have been efforts to repeal this amendment.

2005 The NRA changed and it became the voice of sales for the Gun Industry.

In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was signed by President George W. Bush to prevent gun manufacturers from being named in federal or state civil suits by those who were victims of crimes involving guns made by that company.

The first provision of this law is “to prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” It also dismissed pending cases on October 26, 2005.

2008 Here is the one that you and others keep misquoting. It only applies to handguns in the home, nothing else.

District of Columbia v. Heller essentially changed a nearly 70-year precedent set by Miller in 1939. While the Miller ruling focused on the “well regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment (known as the “collective rights theory” and referring to a state’s right to defend itself), Heller focused on the “individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

Heller challenged the constitutionality of a 32-year-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and found, “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.”

It did not however nullify other gun control provisions. “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” stated the ruling.

The older laws are slowly being put back in place as well as new regulations. More and more people are not buying into the lie laid out by Lott of "More Guns Less Crime". It was a lie in 1998 as much as it is a lie today.

Wrong...gun ownership is slightly up....

NBC Poll: Does Gun Ownership Increase Or Decrease Safety? Anti-Gun Activists Won't Like The Results.

nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe that getting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens increases safety.

"In the poll, 58 percent agree with the statement that gun ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves," NBC News reports. "By contrast, 38 percent say that gun ownership reduces safety by giving too many people access to firearms, increasing the chances for accidental misuse."

------

NBC notes that the overall result is a "reversal" of the findings of a 1999 survey that found that 52 percent of respondents believed gun ownership reduced safety. The more positive perspective on gun ownership is partly reflected in gun ownership trends: "47 percent of American adults say they have a firearm in the household, which is up from 44 percent in 1999."

Your article cherry picked the poll. You left out the negatives. And here are just some of them.

While only 48 percent of adult support Gun Regulation only 37 percent are against it. Not 52 percent like you would report it.

As a plurality of Americans say they back gun-control organizations, the latest NBC/WSJ poll finds
the National Rifle Association with its worst net positive-negative score since the 1990s

The biggest drops for the NRA come from white married women (50 percent positive in April 2017, 35 percent now), urban residents (43 percent positive in April, 28 percent now), white women (47 percent positive in April, 33 percent now) and moderate/soft Republicans (72 percent positive in April, 60 percent now).

.

While 6 in 10 people polled stated that Guns created safety, the majority also supported gun controls of various levels. That means that only 37% don't want gun controls or wont only minor gun regulations according to the poll.

I read the poll directly from NBC and your author on YOUR cite certainly took creative liberties and expanded on the data. You just used another British Tabloid. Can't you get one of our own US Tabloids to print this garbage or is it above them to lie out their asses like this. I sort of doubt it but so far........

Yes.....and when they find out that the gun controls you want don't work, and that they set the law abiding gun owner up to have their guns confiscated at a later date, then you will get the real number in those polls....

 

[Rustic]

Legal Firearm ownership is very low in urban America, and very high in rural America

Population is very high in Urban America and very low in rural America. And then, not all rural people own firearms as well. I will admit that most do but some don't. Meanwhile, MOST Urban households don't own firearms.

I was wondering where you and your little buddy was getting your data from. I finally found it. Lott and Mustards book that was largely discredited that made all the same claims you do. In fact, almost all pro gun writing since then have largely been based on that flawed book although none of them gives reference to it. Hate to break it to you but you have been sold a huge bill of goods based on a book that lied and whose main purpose was to sell a book, not stick with facts and real data.

Na, I sell firearms and ammo in a rural area for more than 20 years.

After listening to you, I find that I doubt seriously that you would be allowed the FFL to sell firearms in a garbage can. So stop lying.

Lol
Says a progressive gun grabber...

I doubt that most in here believe that. The more you make stupid claims like that the more the rest of us start questioning your truthfulness and whether you should be allowed anywhere near a toaster much less a gun.

Says the dude that wants to get rid of the Second Amendment...

 

[2aguy]

The cesspool that is Western Europe...

Home Secretary Sajid Javid reveals how he was a moped mugging victim as he launches battle to beat villains

Less than one in 20 street robberies are being solved by police | Daily Mail Online

United Kingdom homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000

United States homicide rate: 5.35 per 100,000

We're more than four times better at it because we have more guns.

Gun crime rate up 44%...... the gun murder rate in Britain did not get reduced after they banned and confiscated guns...but keep bringing up the homicide rate, you have to hide the truth that gun crime and violent crime are sky rocketing in Britain.....but no mater how hard you try to hide gun violence, British criminals will not cooperate with you...

Their criminals have guns.

Their criminals point those guns at British people.

They do not pull the trigger, and/or when they do pull the trigger they do not shoot to kill.

Where in any of that did British gun control laws keep those guns out of the hands of British criminals?

Please....explain that...

 

[2aguy]

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

Legal Firearm ownership is very low in urban America, and very high in rural America

Population is very high in Urban America and very low in rural America. And then, not all rural people own firearms as well. I will admit that most do but some don't. Meanwhile, MOST Urban households don't own firearms.

I was wondering where you and your little buddy was getting your data from. I finally found it. Lott and Mustards book that was largely discredited that made all the same claims you do. In fact, almost all pro gun writing since then have largely been based on that flawed book although none of them gives reference to it. Hate to break it to you but you have been sold a huge bill of goods based on a book that lied and whose main purpose was to sell a book, not stick with facts and real data.

You guys keep lying about Lott....and yet his research still stands the test of time.....

And it was Pew, not Lott, that showed that as more Americans own and carry guns the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate went down....supporting Lott's argument...

I just read the Pew report. it doesn't take a side one way or another. It just states who supports and doesn't support and who supports a little gun regulation. Really, nothing more. It doesn't go into who is right or who is wrong. It's non political. You are reading into what they are saying once again. Aren't you worried that many of us will research it? Well, we will.

As for lott, not one qualified person in the 90s and early 2000s found his book to be factual. it was debunked. I wondered where you get all your goofy ideas from. You aren't even aware of the source. Well, cupcake, now you are. It should make some really good reading for you. I read it and found it was entertaining and book selling. But when I researched his data I found his conclusions were flawed just like the other qualified people. But since you aren't qualified you might read it and actually believe it. Of course, it really needs a rewrite where it starts with "Once upon a time".

Yes....anti gunners said Lott was wrong...they couldn't prove that he was wrong...but they said he was wrong...a lot......

If you researched his data the way you researched D.C. v Heller, then Lott's finding are obviously dead on...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The cesspool that is Western Europe...

Home Secretary Sajid Javid reveals how he was a moped mugging victim as he launches battle to beat villains

Less than one in 20 street robberies are being solved by police | Daily Mail Online

United Kingdom homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000

United States homicide rate: 5.35 per 100,000

We're more than four times better at it because we have more guns.

And yet the gun nutters want us to have more guns in inexperienced hands. Talk about the Darwin Affect.

And yet FACTS are with more firearms we have less accidental shootings less death by accidental shootings and less murder by firearms, go figure.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

We already have laws that allow us to arrest straw buyers...prosecutors are not locking them up.....

As to Murdock, you don't understand the ruling.....it directly states that fee cannot be charged for the exercise of a Right....that is any Right......

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....
... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Murdock specifically states it's about Religious items. There is no mention of firearms. It's very specific as most SCOTUS rulings are. Once again, you are reaching and misinterpreting to justify your own bad behavior.

It states......a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. It doesn't narrow it down to just religioius freedom.....

You can cherry pick the rulling all you wish but the meat of the ruling is for religious publications and nothing else.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The cesspool that is Western Europe...

Home Secretary Sajid Javid reveals how he was a moped mugging victim as he launches battle to beat villains

Less than one in 20 street robberies are being solved by police | Daily Mail Online

United Kingdom homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000

United States homicide rate: 5.35 per 100,000

We're more than four times better at it because we have more guns.

And yet the gun nutters want us to have more guns in inexperienced hands. Talk about the Darwin Affect.

And yet FACTS are with more firearms we have less accidental shootings less death by accidental shootings and less murder by firearms, go figure.

We don't have more firearms per person. We have more firearms per capita. but over 50% of all firearms are owned by less than 3% of the population. The real increase in firearms ownership was inside that 3% not the other 97%. As usual, you are just messing with the data misquoting it to your own ends. In reality, there has been a decrease in gun ownership in the 97% which would explain the lower accident rate.