Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
facts are such nasty little devils
Bare facts are useless.
For example, the statistic cited in the graphic is a correlation, not proof of anything regarding the wisdom of gun regulation. It may be the case that what your post implies is true, that legal gun ownership makes society safer, and that's why those states who allow it have less crime. But it could also be the case that the reason legal gun ownership is viable in in those states is because they have less crime, and repealing gun regulations in the crime ridden states would be a disaster.
Facts are inert. It's sorting out the cause and effect that gets tricky.
Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.
Crazy.
How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.
So by you logic speed limits are "feel good" laws?
Apples and oranges. Driving is not a right. Additionally the state can show that having limits will reduce accidents.
Next.
Stop using the phrase "law-abiding citizens". No such animal as everybody speeds and drives drunk on the highways - two super violent crimes that kill people every day.
and are cars banned? do we physically limit how fast they can go? I mean whay aren't Porsche and lamborghini's banned and everyone driving a k car? why don't people have to go through universal background checks to get a license? why don't we make it illegal for one person to see his car to another person? why don't we require a permit to buy gasoline a track every gallon someone buys?
Actually not a single one has.
You seem to be out of touch. One of the big proposals is background checks. Name me a single court decision which has found that unconstitutional.
Name me one that has considered the issue to begin with.
Conversely, if the NRA were to take the same approach to the 1st amendment and abortion rights as they do the 2nd amendment, then we could each say anything we liked any time we liked and abortions would be allowed up to age 18. Perhaps there is a middle road on both sides.
Lets look at the standard comparison used when looking at the 1st and the 2nd amendment. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.
Now, that is not covered under freedom of speech, and like shooting someone, it is very dangerous. However lets look at how one would prevent somone from yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, considering first that both shooting someone without cause (self defense) and yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre without cause (no fire) are both illegal.
Applying current gun control.
In order to enter a theatre run by a federally liscenced theatre owner, you have to wait outside while the usher checked your background for any felonies. In some states you would need to be registered prior to entering the theatre. In other states if the show was outside in public, you would need a Outside speaker permit (OSP). Some states only issue these to police officers and retired police officers. One state doesnt require it at all.
People could run thier own theatre, but if they let in someone who is not allowed to watch the movies, they could be found liable. Furthermore, fast talking people (auctioneers) need to have a special permit to enter the theatre, and can only do so with the permission of the local theatre security guard. They also have to pay a tax for being able to talk so fast. This all depends on the state the theatre is in.
Now in some states as well, to prevent people from talking, gags have to be worn, with the gag only removed in case of emergency.
Currently there are movements to restrict even more fast talkers from entering the theatre. People allowed would only be those known to speak less than one word per 5 seconds, and are only allowed 10 words (or 7) at a time, before having to breathe in again"
People with funny accents would also be banned from the theatre.
If you wish to make this an accurate comparison then you should at least use the correct comparison. The "fire in a crowded theatre" was merely a metaphor used in the Schenck case. Schenck was not shouting fire when he was arrested. He was handing out political pamphlets calling for the overthrow of the US. Quite like a lot of posts on this very board. This case was overturned in the Brandenburg decision in 1969. However, the concept is the same. The idea is that this right is not unlimited, just as the 2nd amendment right is not unlimited (as supported in the Heller case). What you can't have is an outright ban.
The NRA, OTOH, is currently opposed to any limitations at all. So, to make this an accurate comparison (and we do want to be accurate, don't we) then if one is unlimited the other is as well. I can shout fire to my hearts delight. Though I wasn't the person who decided to bring in the abortion issue, it is now in the discussion, so an accurate comparison would be that any woman could have an abortion whenever she chose with no restrictions of any kind.
That is, of course, if we actually do wish to be accurate.
Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.
They do??
The constitution says "shall not be infringed" and that means all federal gun laws are unconstitutional. Gun laws are a state issue and states need to assert that.
The Constitution also says that the right of freedom of speech cannot be abridged,
which is essentially synonymous with infringed,
and yet we know that speech can be regulated and limited.
If the gun grabbers would apply the same standards to the 2nd Amendment as they do to Freedom of Speech and Right to abortions, there would be no problems.
And the ACLU's hypocrisy on this issue is blinding.
So by you logic speed limits are "feel good" laws?
Apples and oranges. Driving is not a right. Additionally the state can show that having limits will reduce accidents.
Next.
So, the a State can show setting and enforcing speed limits reduces accidents and we can infer injury's too. How many gun accidents would be prevented if all guns were outlawed? (now don't get your panties all bunched up, I don't advocate outlawing all guns).
We can also infer - if we were honest - that licensing and training everyone who wishes too own, possess or ever have in their custody and control a gun would reduce injury's too.
Licensing may also reduce the non accidental incidents of guns by suspending, revoking and denying a license. Of course registering one's weapons is anathema to the NRA and many gun owners so I've suggested that a law require that all guns owned be insured and allowing the insurance industry to set their rates by the type of firearm(s) owned. Said records could be shielded from the government unless a compelling reason was presented to the court and a warrant issued for said records. I'm sure that will not satisfy the paranoid gun owner, it wouldn't bother me one bit.
facts are such nasty little devils
Bare facts are useless.
For example, the statistic cited in the graphic is a correlation, not proof of anything regarding the wisdom of gun regulation. It may be the case that what your post implies is true, that legal gun ownership makes society safer, and that's why those states who allow it have less crime. But it could also be the case that the reason legal gun ownership is viable in in those states is because they have less crime, and repealing gun regulations in the crime ridden states would be a disaster.
Facts are inert. It's sorting out the cause and effect that gets tricky.
so did the chicken or the egg come first? fact is we have chickens and eggs. Fact is, states with strict gun laws have more murders, states with limited laws have less. which would you rather have? more murders or less?
... maybe if the states with the higher murder rates addressed their real issues instead of saying its the guns fault, they would have lower rates too.
Please cite the text in Heller that considers, and then rules on:You seem to be out of touch. One of the big proposals is background checks. Name me a single court decision which has found that unconstitutional.
Name me one that has considered the issue to begin with.
No problem. DC vs Heller. You really should read the decision.
I'm sorry - YOU claimed that "just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster."No, the big issue is requiring the private individual to perform a background check. Dealers are already required to perform background checks.
It would be interesting to see how a court would rule since it would be the first time ever a private transaction between two individuals would be subject to Federal Law.
Yes. It will be very interesting. Now please cite a single court decision which says that is unconstitutional.
Please cite the case(s) where the SCotUS uhpeld:
-'Assault weapon' bans
-"hi-cap' magazine bans
-Universal background checks
E]
and are cars banned? do we physically limit how fast they can go? I mean whay aren't Porsche and lamborghini's banned and everyone driving a k car? why don't people have to go through universal background checks to get a license? why don't we make it illegal for one person to see his car to another person? why don't we require a permit to buy gasoline a track every gallon someone buys?
You won't get a license to drive if you've been disqualified from doing so.
How many 'law abiding' citizens cheat on their taxes?
This is a lie, as Heller neither considered nor upheld any of these things.I'm sorry - YOU claimed that "just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster."Yes. It will be very interesting. Now please cite a single court decision which says that is unconstitutional.
Please cite the case(s) where the SCotUS uhpeld:
-'Assault weapon' bans
-"hi-cap' magazine bans
-Universal background checks
Yes, I did. Because it has. Background checks have been found constitutional. Control over the sales of guns - constitutional. Bans on military style weapons - constitutional. I have yet to have anyone here name me a single proposal that any court has even indicated it might find unconstitutional.
As to your specific request.... will you folks please take the time to actually read the Heller decision. In that decision the SC upheld all of those things.
E]
and are cars banned? do we physically limit how fast they can go? I mean whay aren't Porsche and lamborghini's banned and everyone driving a k car? why don't people have to go through universal background checks to get a license? why don't we make it illegal for one person to see his car to another person? why don't we require a permit to buy gasoline a track every gallon someone buys?
You won't get a license to drive if you've been disqualified from doing so.
But you can still buy all the cars you want even with a suspended license. Would you support a law that lets felons buy guns but says they can't use them? THINK
Please cite the text in Heller that considers, and then rules on:Name me one that has considered the issue to begin with.
No problem. DC vs Heller. You really should read the decision.
-Banning assault weapons
-Banning hi-cap magazines
-Universal background checks.
This is a lie, as Heller neither considered nor upheld any of these things.I'm sorry - YOU claimed that "just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster."
Please cite the case(s) where the SCotUS uhpeld:
-'Assault weapon' bans
-"hi-cap' magazine bans
-Universal background checks
Yes, I did. Because it has. Background checks have been found constitutional. Control over the sales of guns - constitutional. Bans on military style weapons - constitutional. I have yet to have anyone here name me a single proposal that any court has even indicated it might find unconstitutional.
As to your specific request.... will you folks please take the time to actually read the Heller decision. In that decision the SC upheld all of those things.
Disagree? Cite the text that considers these things and then passes judgement.
The truth:
You cannot cite the case(s) where the SCotUS upholds, 'Assault weapon' bans, "hi-cap' magazine bans and universal background checks, becauise no such case(s) exist.
Thus, your claim that "just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster" is a lie.
Nothing here, or anywhere else in Heller, considers and then rules on:http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdfPlease cite the text in Heller that considers, and then rules on:No problem. DC vs Heller. You really should read the decision.
-Banning assault weapons
-Banning hi-cap magazines
-Universal background checks.
Read it yourself. Look on pages 54-55.
You obviously aren't paying attention.This is a lie, as Heller neither considered nor upheld any of these things.Yes, I did. Because it has. Background checks have been found constitutional. Control over the sales of guns - constitutional. Bans on military style weapons - constitutional. I have yet to have anyone here name me a single proposal that any court has even indicated it might find unconstitutional.
As to your specific request.... will you folks please take the time to actually read the Heller decision. In that decision the SC upheld all of those things.
Disagree? Cite the text that considers these things and then passes judgement.
The truth:
You cannot cite the case(s) where the SCotUS upholds, 'Assault weapon' bans, "hi-cap' magazine bans and universal background checks, becauise no such case(s) exist.
Thus, your claim that "just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster" is a lie.
Unchallenged laws are constitutional by default since they can remain in effect unless successfully challenged. You obviously don't understand how judicial review works.
