Progressive Propaganda: The 2nd Amendment Edition

[Daryl Hunt]

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

Wrong...the state does not determine the Right...... tell that to the democrats when they tried jim crow and Poll taxes in their states... McDonald v the City of Chicago spelled that out directly for you...

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

And it referred back to Heller V which states that only certain firearms are protected under the 2nd amendment and those are only protected in the home. It also upheld DCs licensing of the PERSON to possess the handgun. McDonald wasn't anything world changing. It simply states that we have the right to bear arms, nothing more and no State can take that away from us. But through due process, they can regulate it without being in error with the 2nd amendment when you throw in Heller V. McDonald was hardly a Landmark decision. I would consider Heller V the landmark decision that all modern courts have based their decisions on.

Please stop misinterpreting the Court Decisions and Please stop just plain making shit up.

Yes...certain firearms... you know....all bearable arms...

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

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 then Scalia goes on to actually name the AR-15 rifle as a specifically protected rifle under the 2nd Amendment...

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.

You can stop misquoting or just cherry picking the rulings now. The Most Current Rulings using Heller V have all been in favor of the State being able to regulate firearms. And the only firearms that the State can't totally ban is the handgun, traditional rifles and shotguns. And then, only for the home. The State can regulate even them by requiring you to have to register them and be licensed even to have them in the home as in DC according to Heller V DC. If the State or Local Government does require you to have to be registered or licensed it must afford a method that ALL citizens in good standing can receive the Registration or License. And after all your BS and Crap, that is all that came out of both Heller and McDonnald. You are just taking up bandwidth needlessly.

And please, stop making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You back to this same tired old crap again? An ultra right and I both agreed that there was no information available to determine the number of small children accidently shot in the home. The data just isn't there. Therefore, they have to use the data from the ages up to 17 and that what was presented. Almost ALL 17 and younger children are NOT in a gang of any kind. Your assumption is MOST are.

And the CDC was stopped from putting out any more "Gun Studies" because they were pushing the NRA agenda rather blatantly. I guess the paper routes didn't pan out so they had to get their part time money from somewhere else. One of your own pointed this out. Okay, not about the paper route but...... And it wasn't Obama, it was Congress that stopped them cold. It was either stop doing it or the Justice Department was going to prosecute. It was illegal as hell. Maybe you as a Party of Trump overlook the graft and bribery but not every Republican does. Or at least didn't back then. The job of tracking it has been relinquished to the ATF and FBI where it should have been in the first place.

Moron...the CDC breaks it down by age.....

First, the CDC was never stopped from studying gun violence, and 2nd they are anti gun, not pro NRA you moron.

Here....accidental child death by age....

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74



<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

And the other causes of accidental death, by age...

Suffocation: 1,215

<1.....1,023
1-4..... 118
5-9..... 35
10-14.... 39
Drowning: 713

<1.....38
1-4....425
5-9.....147
10-14..103

Poisoning: 84

<1.....9
1-4....34
5-9....13
10-14....28

Traffic: 1,261

<1........88
1-4.......334
5-9........384
10-14.....455

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Sifting through all your myriad of information that you have flooded us with, I came out with this for firearms for children.

of the ages 1 through 14, Unintentional Firearm Deaths are in the top 10 of the reason for Deaths. Forget all the crap about Gang related, drive bys and that stuff, unintentional means children playing with Daddy's gun unsupervised and it goes Bang just like in the Movies. Except it isn't the movies. Then after age 14, it falls off the top 10 list. This is from your own data for the year 2014.

Wrong....and, of course, you gave no link..... I gave you the link to the CDC.....you know, the ones who actually count the bodies from accidental death... broken down by age group..........

74 kids..... out of 70 million kids in the country..... cars kill more kids and you morons don't want to ban them.

Actually, you gave the link and I just told you what it said. Does that mean YOU are wrong? Well your interpretation certainly is. Your motives certainly are.

And Newsflash: 74 unneeded loss of children is a big deal. Your owning 10,000 guns is a drop in the importance of even one of those lives.

Americans use their legal guns 1,100,000 times a year to save lives....... 300 people a year die falling off ladders.....

You have no point.

And that figure is misleading. Once again, you leave out the meat of the subject. I won't fault the 1.1mil figure. I won't even bother to look it up. But that would also include Law Enforcement who would make up the bulk of the number. Now, where did you get that figure. I'll let you look it up. That is, unless you are just making up more shit as usual.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Safety is always, and always should be, the number one priority of all gun owners. With rights comes responsibilities.

Do you have the accidental child gun death statistics?

I tried to look at a statistic for accidental gun deaths of children, but all I could get the global statistic (which included all the gang banger murders of children).

The reason for a lack of gun statistics is because the Dept. of Health is not allowed to collect these stats.

Do you know why?

You mean except for these...right?

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental deaths.....guns and otherwise....
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental death total for 2016....

2016

Gun.....495

Car.......38,748

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

The Constitution says keep and bear

Own and carry

 

[Skull Pilot]

But it doesn't

Rural areas with high gun ownership have lower murder rates than inner cities with low gun ownership

I have already covered why that is. But you gun nutters don't understand it. You just try and use it to explain everything. Unless you can understand the phenomena then you are just taking up the bandwidth.

No it's you morons who keep chanting
MORE GUNS =MORE MURDER
MORE GUN LAWS = LESS MURDER

And I have told you many times that 70% of all murders occur in very small very concentrated areas of 2% of all counties in the US

BUt you ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative

Let's take a look at this using the numbers.

19.3% of all the US population live in Rural Areas. That means 80.7 people live in urban or suburban areas.

Now we look at your crime rate of Rural versus Urban and Suburban. I won't use your numbers as I already know you just make shit up. So I'll use the real numbers. If I used your numbers, it would show that it would be extremely unhealthy to be living in a rural area since you would have a higher rate of being murdered than in a urban or suburban area. And even I won't buy that. So I'll jus t look it up. In 2014, per 1000, the figures for the US was 4.5 for Murder and Non Negligent Homicide. And for the Rural areas it was 3.0. The Metro Areas were 4.7. There are no new stats for the last two years but the reports coming out of law enforcement tells a story. The various agencies shows that the Metro Areas have either stayed the same or gone down while the Rural has gone up.

The reason for this increase is exactly the reason for the crime in the Metro Areas. JOBS or the lack of JOBS. It's finally hit the rural areas. In fact, with the loss of many of the Ag jobs, it's hit the Rural Areas much harder than the Metro areas recently. I don't think you know just how important that Farm really is. It affects the Processing Plants, the John Deere Shop, the Donut Shop, the Hardware Store, the Movie House, and every level of business and employment of that small town. The Farm doesn't have to shut down. It just has to get lower profits. And don't forget those mines that are either shutting down or cutting their production. Same thing goes. Rural America is getting slammed. And when that happens, tempers flair and crime increases.

Your figures are a bit high but not by very damned much. Rural America has almost caught up with Metro America in Violent Crime. It just took it longer to get the same conditions.

What part of 70% of all murders occur in very concentrated areas of just 2% of all counties did I make up.?

And you still do not understand that the RATE takes into account the differing population numbers

The MURDER RATE expressed in murders per 100000 is lower in rural areas that have a higher percentage of gun ownership than the murder rate of urban areas with a low percentage of gun ownership.

It doesn't matter how many people live in one area compared to another because the ratio takes that into account.

I really don't know why you people have such a hard time understanding what is an 8th grade mathematical concept.

So more guns do not equal more murder and more gun laws do not equal less murder

Oh, I understand it. I understand that there has been a large increase in Rural Gun Crimes in the last year. And I also understand that it has had nothing to do with the number of firearms. I have tried to get it through that sick skull of yours the reason why but you seem to be in this fantasy world that the NRA has painted for you.

and you give no numbers for this supposedly large increase and what about the MURDER RATE since that is what we have been talking about?

Or do you have to add in all kinds of other crimes to pad your numbers so they fit your narrative

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

One has to give republicans (dark money) credit, they have managed to brain wash the snowflake base with BS and more BS. If guns make us safe and secure, why so many gun deaths compared to other civilized nations?

"Other Nations"? What Specific nations?
We have a numerically larger population than those nations you're probably talking about. But the biggest factor is....we have more Democrats and Liberals with guns.....AND THERE'S THE REAL PROBLEM......NOT GUNS.

If the premise were true we'd have few deaths, but instead we lead in a category no one should be proud of. But I give them credit for keeping their base in line. Mention abortion, gun control, welfare, food stamps, immigrants, and the snowflakes sell their soul, work for peanuts, care nothing for living children, and have poor health services, oh and die too from gun violence. While insanity may be expecting different results, one could also say it is following too close slogans sans positive results. And so it goes....

In the paragraph above, you clearly say that murdering unborn children is something to be proud of. REALLY?
The rest of it doesn't make much sense.

"The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining." Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America

The only illusion here is you....thinking this is a coherent and / or meaningful paragraph.

isnot

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Fact is, idiot conservatives do nothing but lie.
No firearms have been ‘illegally’ banned, that’s a lie.
There are no ‘victim zones,’ that’s a lie.
And crime has been decreasing for reasons unrelated to the sale of firearms.
Indeed, there is no evidence whatsoever that the possession of firearms by private citizens has anything to do with a decrease in crime; to maintain otherwise is a lie.
Here is the truth:
Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

I think this one is a North Korean foreign stooge, posing as someone legitimate.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You can stop misquoting or just cherry picking the rulings now. The Most Current Rulings using Heller V have all been in favor of the State being able to regulate firearms. And the only firearms that the State can't totally ban is the handgun, traditional rifles and shotguns. And then, only for the home. The State can regulate even them by requiring you to have to register them and be licensed even to have them in the home as in DC according to Heller V DC. If the State or Local Government does require you to have to be registered or licensed it must afford a method that ALL citizens in good standing can receive the Registration or License. And after all your BS and Crap, that is all that came out of both Heller and McDonnald. You are just taking up bandwidth needlessly.

And please, stop making shit up.

Annnnnnnd another one

 

[Wry Catcher]

The reason for a lack of gun statistics is because the Dept. of Health is not allowed to collect these stats.

Do you know why?

You mean except for these...right?

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental deaths.....guns and otherwise....
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental death total for 2016....

2016

Gun.....495

Car.......38,748

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

The Constitution says keep and bear

Own and carry

And yet there are those infringed by law who cannot keep and bear. Explain that?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

And yet there are those infringed by law who cannot keep and bear. Explain that?

Liberals, Progressives, Democrats....all traitors to the Constitution

All too easy.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The reason for a lack of gun statistics is because the Dept. of Health is not allowed to collect these stats.

Do you know why?

You mean except for these...right?

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental deaths.....guns and otherwise....
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental death total for 2016....

2016

Gun.....495

Car.......38,748

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

The Constitution says keep and bear

Own and carry

You have the absolute right to own and carry within the confines of your home and property. Past that, the State can have say in what you can and can't do. As the one Judge said, if you don't like the laws where you are at, move. I'll go one step further and say, if you won't move, either get the laws changed or live within the laws.

 

[2aguy]

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

Wrong...the state does not determine the Right...... tell that to the democrats when they tried jim crow and Poll taxes in their states... McDonald v the City of Chicago spelled that out directly for you...

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

And it referred back to Heller V which states that only certain firearms are protected under the 2nd amendment and those are only protected in the home. It also upheld DCs licensing of the PERSON to possess the handgun. McDonald wasn't anything world changing. It simply states that we have the right to bear arms, nothing more and no State can take that away from us. But through due process, they can regulate it without being in error with the 2nd amendment when you throw in Heller V. McDonald was hardly a Landmark decision. I would consider Heller V the landmark decision that all modern courts have based their decisions on.

Please stop misinterpreting the Court Decisions and Please stop just plain making shit up.

Yes...certain firearms... you know....all bearable arms...

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

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 then Scalia goes on to actually name the AR-15 rifle as a specifically protected rifle under the 2nd Amendment...

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.

You can stop misquoting or just cherry picking the rulings now. The Most Current Rulings using Heller V have all been in favor of the State being able to regulate firearms. And the only firearms that the State can't totally ban is the handgun, traditional rifles and shotguns. And then, only for the home. The State can regulate even them by requiring you to have to register them and be licensed even to have them in the home as in DC according to Heller V DC. If the State or Local Government does require you to have to be registered or licensed it must afford a method that ALL citizens in good standing can receive the Registration or License. And after all your BS and Crap, that is all that came out of both Heller and McDonnald. You are just taking up bandwidth needlessly.

And please, stop making shit up.

You just make things up......

The lower courts, stacked with left wingers are deliberately ignoring the Heller and McDonald rulings as well as the other ones.....they are breaking the law.

 

[2aguy]

Moron...the CDC breaks it down by age.....

First, the CDC was never stopped from studying gun violence, and 2nd they are anti gun, not pro NRA you moron.

Here....accidental child death by age....

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74



<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

And the other causes of accidental death, by age...

Suffocation: 1,215

<1.....1,023
1-4..... 118
5-9..... 35
10-14.... 39
Drowning: 713

<1.....38
1-4....425
5-9.....147
10-14..103

Poisoning: 84

<1.....9
1-4....34
5-9....13
10-14....28

Traffic: 1,261

<1........88
1-4.......334
5-9........384
10-14.....455

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Sifting through all your myriad of information that you have flooded us with, I came out with this for firearms for children.

of the ages 1 through 14, Unintentional Firearm Deaths are in the top 10 of the reason for Deaths. Forget all the crap about Gang related, drive bys and that stuff, unintentional means children playing with Daddy's gun unsupervised and it goes Bang just like in the Movies. Except it isn't the movies. Then after age 14, it falls off the top 10 list. This is from your own data for the year 2014.

Wrong....and, of course, you gave no link..... I gave you the link to the CDC.....you know, the ones who actually count the bodies from accidental death... broken down by age group..........

74 kids..... out of 70 million kids in the country..... cars kill more kids and you morons don't want to ban them.

Actually, you gave the link and I just told you what it said. Does that mean YOU are wrong? Well your interpretation certainly is. Your motives certainly are.

And Newsflash: 74 unneeded loss of children is a big deal. Your owning 10,000 guns is a drop in the importance of even one of those lives.

Americans use their legal guns 1,100,000 times a year to save lives....... 300 people a year die falling off ladders.....

You have no point.

And that figure is misleading. Once again, you leave out the meat of the subject. I won't fault the 1.1mil figure. I won't even bother to look it up. But that would also include Law Enforcement who would make up the bulk of the number. Now, where did you get that figure. I'll let you look it up. That is, unless you are just making up more shit as usual.

No..that number does not include the police or the military, they were excluded from the CDC research.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

Wrong...the state does not determine the Right...... tell that to the democrats when they tried jim crow and Poll taxes in their states... McDonald v the City of Chicago spelled that out directly for you...

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

And it referred back to Heller V which states that only certain firearms are protected under the 2nd amendment and those are only protected in the home. It also upheld DCs licensing of the PERSON to possess the handgun. McDonald wasn't anything world changing. It simply states that we have the right to bear arms, nothing more and no State can take that away from us. But through due process, they can regulate it without being in error with the 2nd amendment when you throw in Heller V. McDonald was hardly a Landmark decision. I would consider Heller V the landmark decision that all modern courts have based their decisions on.

Please stop misinterpreting the Court Decisions and Please stop just plain making shit up.

Yes...certain firearms... you know....all bearable arms...

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

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 then Scalia goes on to actually name the AR-15 rifle as a specifically protected rifle under the 2nd Amendment...

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.

The only part of the ruling of McDonald V is this part. And it's at the very beginning.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

What you keep doing is repeating the Dissenting views. Dissenting means that one or more judges did not agree with the majority of the other judges. But it was Denied and all of Heller V was upheld. You keep misrepresenting these rulings. I know you can read. Hell, these things are enough to put anyone to sleep but you seem to get off on reading them. What you are having trouble with is understanding them. Understand this, not matter what the Dissenting Views say, the only part that counts for McDonald V is the word Denied. By the denial, the majority of the Judges refused to rule on it and it died right then and there. I suggest you drag out your favorite Dictionary and look up the word "Denied".

And stop making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have already covered why that is. But you gun nutters don't understand it. You just try and use it to explain everything. Unless you can understand the phenomena then you are just taking up the bandwidth.

No it's you morons who keep chanting
MORE GUNS =MORE MURDER
MORE GUN LAWS = LESS MURDER

And I have told you many times that 70% of all murders occur in very small very concentrated areas of 2% of all counties in the US

BUt you ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative

Let's take a look at this using the numbers.

19.3% of all the US population live in Rural Areas. That means 80.7 people live in urban or suburban areas.

Now we look at your crime rate of Rural versus Urban and Suburban. I won't use your numbers as I already know you just make shit up. So I'll use the real numbers. If I used your numbers, it would show that it would be extremely unhealthy to be living in a rural area since you would have a higher rate of being murdered than in a urban or suburban area. And even I won't buy that. So I'll jus t look it up. In 2014, per 1000, the figures for the US was 4.5 for Murder and Non Negligent Homicide. And for the Rural areas it was 3.0. The Metro Areas were 4.7. There are no new stats for the last two years but the reports coming out of law enforcement tells a story. The various agencies shows that the Metro Areas have either stayed the same or gone down while the Rural has gone up.

The reason for this increase is exactly the reason for the crime in the Metro Areas. JOBS or the lack of JOBS. It's finally hit the rural areas. In fact, with the loss of many of the Ag jobs, it's hit the Rural Areas much harder than the Metro areas recently. I don't think you know just how important that Farm really is. It affects the Processing Plants, the John Deere Shop, the Donut Shop, the Hardware Store, the Movie House, and every level of business and employment of that small town. The Farm doesn't have to shut down. It just has to get lower profits. And don't forget those mines that are either shutting down or cutting their production. Same thing goes. Rural America is getting slammed. And when that happens, tempers flair and crime increases.

Your figures are a bit high but not by very damned much. Rural America has almost caught up with Metro America in Violent Crime. It just took it longer to get the same conditions.

What part of 70% of all murders occur in very concentrated areas of just 2% of all counties did I make up.?

And you still do not understand that the RATE takes into account the differing population numbers

The MURDER RATE expressed in murders per 100000 is lower in rural areas that have a higher percentage of gun ownership than the murder rate of urban areas with a low percentage of gun ownership.

It doesn't matter how many people live in one area compared to another because the ratio takes that into account.

I really don't know why you people have such a hard time understanding what is an 8th grade mathematical concept.

So more guns do not equal more murder and more gun laws do not equal less murder

Oh, I understand it. I understand that there has been a large increase in Rural Gun Crimes in the last year. And I also understand that it has had nothing to do with the number of firearms. I have tried to get it through that sick skull of yours the reason why but you seem to be in this fantasy world that the NRA has painted for you.

and you give no numbers for this supposedly large increase and what about the MURDER RATE since that is what we have been talking about?

Or do you have to add in all kinds of other crimes to pad your numbers so they fit your narrative

I realize that your "God" or Diety calls everything but himself as false news but I suggest you listen to your local news, read a few newspapers, surf the net for this information and get out from under that rock where I had no idea they had internet access.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

Wrong...the state does not determine the Right...... tell that to the democrats when they tried jim crow and Poll taxes in their states... McDonald v the City of Chicago spelled that out directly for you...

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

And it referred back to Heller V which states that only certain firearms are protected under the 2nd amendment and those are only protected in the home. It also upheld DCs licensing of the PERSON to possess the handgun. McDonald wasn't anything world changing. It simply states that we have the right to bear arms, nothing more and no State can take that away from us. But through due process, they can regulate it without being in error with the 2nd amendment when you throw in Heller V. McDonald was hardly a Landmark decision. I would consider Heller V the landmark decision that all modern courts have based their decisions on.

Please stop misinterpreting the Court Decisions and Please stop just plain making shit up.

Yes...certain firearms... you know....all bearable arms...

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

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 then Scalia goes on to actually name the AR-15 rifle as a specifically protected rifle under the 2nd Amendment...

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.

You can stop misquoting or just cherry picking the rulings now. The Most Current Rulings using Heller V have all been in favor of the State being able to regulate firearms. And the only firearms that the State can't totally ban is the handgun, traditional rifles and shotguns. And then, only for the home. The State can regulate even them by requiring you to have to register them and be licensed even to have them in the home as in DC according to Heller V DC. If the State or Local Government does require you to have to be registered or licensed it must afford a method that ALL citizens in good standing can receive the Registration or License. And after all your BS and Crap, that is all that came out of both Heller and McDonnald. You are just taking up bandwidth needlessly.

And please, stop making shit up.

You just make things up......

The lower courts, stacked with left wingers are deliberately ignoring the Heller and McDonald rulings as well as the other ones.....they are breaking the law.

McDonald was Denied. What part of NO are you having trouble with.

And Heller supported DC with their requirement that handguns in the home had to be registered and the person had to be licensed. They did throw out the disassembling or disabling of the gun though and forced DC to have a reasonable Licensing and Registration Program. But they did NOT force DC into allowing guns to be carried outside the home or property without good reason like hunting or going to the Target Range. It's not a left or a right wing thing. It's a legal thing. You don't like the laws, get them changed. And you can't change them with the Supreme Court, you have to change them with Congress at either State or Federal Level. The Supreme Court has been extremely reluctant in accepting 2nd amendment cases. The only reason they accepted Heller was the DC was completely out of control and there was no State Government to reign them in. McDonald was denied to be heard not because he was right nor wrong, but the Supreme Court usually stays out of writing laws. That's up to the Congressional Branch.

If you want things to be changed then I suggest you get your own hand pick candidates into office to get it changed. And how is that working out for you lately.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You mean except for these...right?

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental deaths.....guns and otherwise....
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental death total for 2016....

2016

Gun.....495

Car.......38,748

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

The Constitution says keep and bear

Own and carry

And yet there are those infringed by law who cannot keep and bear. Explain that?

Due process

 

[Skull Pilot]

You mean except for these...right?

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental deaths.....guns and otherwise....
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

Accidental death total for 2016....

2016

Gun.....495

Car.......38,748

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

The Constitution says keep and bear

Own and carry

You have the absolute right to own and carry within the confines of your home and property. Past that, the State can have say in what you can and can't do. As the one Judge said, if you don't like the laws where you are at, move. I'll go one step further and say, if you won't move, either get the laws changed or live within the laws.

So the same applies to the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights?


If one has to pay to get permits and take required safety classes to exercise one right then why not all rights?

Take a class and get a permit for your first, third, fourth, fifth etc rights or you forfeit those rights when you leave your home.

That's almost as idiotic as the everyone is a criminal until they aren't argument

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it's you morons who keep chanting
MORE GUNS =MORE MURDER
MORE GUN LAWS = LESS MURDER

And I have told you many times that 70% of all murders occur in very small very concentrated areas of 2% of all counties in the US

BUt you ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative

Let's take a look at this using the numbers.

19.3% of all the US population live in Rural Areas. That means 80.7 people live in urban or suburban areas.

Now we look at your crime rate of Rural versus Urban and Suburban. I won't use your numbers as I already know you just make shit up. So I'll use the real numbers. If I used your numbers, it would show that it would be extremely unhealthy to be living in a rural area since you would have a higher rate of being murdered than in a urban or suburban area. And even I won't buy that. So I'll jus t look it up. In 2014, per 1000, the figures for the US was 4.5 for Murder and Non Negligent Homicide. And for the Rural areas it was 3.0. The Metro Areas were 4.7. There are no new stats for the last two years but the reports coming out of law enforcement tells a story. The various agencies shows that the Metro Areas have either stayed the same or gone down while the Rural has gone up.

The reason for this increase is exactly the reason for the crime in the Metro Areas. JOBS or the lack of JOBS. It's finally hit the rural areas. In fact, with the loss of many of the Ag jobs, it's hit the Rural Areas much harder than the Metro areas recently. I don't think you know just how important that Farm really is. It affects the Processing Plants, the John Deere Shop, the Donut Shop, the Hardware Store, the Movie House, and every level of business and employment of that small town. The Farm doesn't have to shut down. It just has to get lower profits. And don't forget those mines that are either shutting down or cutting their production. Same thing goes. Rural America is getting slammed. And when that happens, tempers flair and crime increases.

Your figures are a bit high but not by very damned much. Rural America has almost caught up with Metro America in Violent Crime. It just took it longer to get the same conditions.

What part of 70% of all murders occur in very concentrated areas of just 2% of all counties did I make up.?

And you still do not understand that the RATE takes into account the differing population numbers

The MURDER RATE expressed in murders per 100000 is lower in rural areas that have a higher percentage of gun ownership than the murder rate of urban areas with a low percentage of gun ownership.

It doesn't matter how many people live in one area compared to another because the ratio takes that into account.

I really don't know why you people have such a hard time understanding what is an 8th grade mathematical concept.

So more guns do not equal more murder and more gun laws do not equal less murder

Oh, I understand it. I understand that there has been a large increase in Rural Gun Crimes in the last year. And I also understand that it has had nothing to do with the number of firearms. I have tried to get it through that sick skull of yours the reason why but you seem to be in this fantasy world that the NRA has painted for you.

and you give no numbers for this supposedly large increase and what about the MURDER RATE since that is what we have been talking about?

Or do you have to add in all kinds of other crimes to pad your numbers so they fit your narrative

I realize that your "God" or Diety calls everything but himself as false news but I suggest you listen to your local news, read a few newspapers, surf the net for this information and get out from under that rock where I had no idea they had internet access.

I am an atheist.
And you're the only one here who says everything is fake news

If you're going to assert something as fact it's up to you to provide evidence of it not me.

I read the local papers but you fail to realize that just because you may see an increase in crime where you live in no way means everyone else in the country has.

I've lived in my town for 11 years and there has not been one murder in my town in that time.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

The Constitution says keep and bear

Own and carry

And yet there are those infringed by law who cannot keep and bear. Explain that?

Due process

Until it goes against what you think it should be and then it's Unconstitutional, right? Some standard there, cupcake.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Cars are regulated, registered and licensed - guns are not. People are required to obtain a drivers license, those who do not, can be fined. People can lose their license for cause, and have their car confiscated for some crimes in some states.

Some day, you and other obsessed gun owners, the NRA and Congress Critters who put their job ahead of those 74 kids killed by guns will be responsible for a gun bill much more restrictive than you and they pretend the few "gun grabbers" seek today.

Here we go again

You can own a car without registering it. You only have to register a car if you want to drive it on public roadways

You do not have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to drive a vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Same can be said for everything else including handguns. You have the right to have a handgun in your home but the state determines any rights past that. The State can determine that you need a license to take it out of your home or not. The State can ban any firearm except the traditional hunting rifle, shotgun or the handgun. And they can place limits on the ones that they can't ban when you go to purchase them. In some states, the Firearms are handled exactly like a Car in respect of having the person to be licensed to carry it outside the home.

If you reread Heller V, that is what really came out of it.

The Constitution says keep and bear

Own and carry

You have the absolute right to own and carry within the confines of your home and property. Past that, the State can have say in what you can and can't do. As the one Judge said, if you don't like the laws where you are at, move. I'll go one step further and say, if you won't move, either get the laws changed or live within the laws.

So the same applies to the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights?


If one has to pay to get permits and take required safety classes to exercise one right then why not all rights?

Take a class and get a permit for your first, third, fourth, fifth etc rights or you forfeit those rights when you leave your home.

That's almost as idiotic as the everyone is a criminal until they aren't argument

On it's face, the right for the pursuit of happiness, in itself, has no public safety involved. The right to walk down the street with a weapon might. The right to drive a car down the road might. The right to drink booze might. You have the right to drive a car on your own property without insurance, registration or license. You have the right to drink in the confines of your own home. But the State allows this. it's not an inaliable right. The State can have you need a permit to do either. The same goes for a handgun. Luckily, there aren't any states that limit us to drinking and driving (not at the same time as that would get you busted fast) on private property to date. But neither the car or the booze will go for X miles and accidently kill someone by going off accidently usually like a firearm will. I know this sounds unfair to you but life is unfair. In fact, life is a bitch sometimes. Again, if you don't like the law, get it changed, move, live within it's confines, or become a felon and lose your gun rights.