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.
Compared to the decrease in the past 30 years that increase is insignificant and cannot be proven to be directly caused by gunsAnd crime in the country is at a 30 year low
so one state doesn't matter
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year
Concealed carry is at its highest and violent crime went up. Clearly it does not decrease crime.
IDGAF if it decreases crime and I never claimed it did but you have not proven in any way shape or form that concealed carry is a direct cause of the increased crime rates have you?
Concealed carry is at its highest and violent crime went up. Clearly it does not decrease crime.
Crime has increased in WI every year since they got concealed carry.
While crime goes up in the US, crime goes down in New York where they have stuck to strong gun control.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/nyc-crime-continues-to-plummet-in-2018/
And you are lying by omission...
New York's crime dropped because Rugy Guiliani cleaned up the city by arresting criminals.......and they have followed his techniques until this latest socialist showed up as mayor....
Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop
New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.
The degree of demographic change is startling.
In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.
In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.
In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.
This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.
A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.
Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.
When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)
----
The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decad
Compared to the decrease in the past 30 years that increase is insignificant and cannot be proven to be directly caused by gunsAnd crime in the country is at a 30 year low
so one state doesn't matter
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year
Concealed carry is at its highest and violent crime went up. Clearly it does not decrease crime.
IDGAF if it decreases crime and I never claimed it did but you have not proven in any way shape or form that concealed carry is a direct cause of the increased crime rates have you?
Concealed carry is at its highest and violent crime went up. Clearly it does not decrease crime.
Crime has increased in WI every year since they got concealed carry.
Compared to the decrease in the past 30 years that increase is insignificant and cannot be proven to be directly caused by gunsAnd crime in the country is at a 30 year low
so one state doesn't matter
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year
Concealed carry is at its highest and violent crime went up. Clearly it does not decrease crime.
IDGAF if it decreases crime and I never claimed it did but you have not proven in any way shape or form that concealed carry is a direct cause of the increased crime rates have you?
Concealed carry is at its highest and violent crime went up. Clearly it does not decrease crime.
Crime has increased in WI every year since they got concealed carry.
While crime goes up in the US, crime goes down in New York where they have stuck to strong gun control.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/nyc-crime-continues-to-plummet-in-2018/
And you are lying by omission...
New York's crime dropped because Rugy Guiliani cleaned up the city by arresting criminals.......and they have followed his techniques until this latest socialist showed up as mayor....
Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop
New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.
The degree of demographic change is startling.
In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.
In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.
In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.
This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.
A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.
Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.
When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)
----
The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decad
Make up your feeble mind. Did they stop all criminals from getting guns? Did they stop straw buyers? Hell no. By your own reasoning, nothing short of stopping that 100% is worthwhile.
Compared to the decrease in the past 30 years that increase is insignificant and cannot be proven to be directly caused by gunsAnd crime in the country is at a 30 year lowCrime has gone up every single year since getting concealed carry.That is a lie numb nuts.......you have been shown it is a lie...
Milwaukee drives the crime rate in Wisconsin....and crime has been going down numb nuts..
“You’re seeing a rebirth:” Crime rates in Milwaukee’s Amani neighborhood down significantly
The data shows crime in 2016 compared with 2015 was down in the Amani neighborhood by 10.42%. For the city as a whole, the decline was 4.66%.
--------
Over the past four years: crime in the Amani neighborhood declined 26.36% -- for the city: 10.86%.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/sheriff-shreds-anti-gun-mayors-excuse-for-crime-spree/
Clarke, who still lives in the city, points out that while the number of homicides in Milwaukee has shot up this year over last, one must look at a larger sample of data, not just this year over last, to get an accurate picture. That’s because last year was a particularly safe year in Milwaukee. Homicides were down 14 percent from the year before.
“The holes in that argument are obvious. First of all, there’s an ebb and flow to crime,” Clarke told WND. “You’ll see a high period followed by a low period, and a low period will often be followed by a high. But some things remain constant, and one is the availability of guns.”
Wisconsin Crime Rates 1960 - 2016
so one state doesn't matter
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year
Concealed carry is at its highest and violent crime went up. Clearly it does not decrease crime.
While crime goes up in the US, crime goes down in New York where they have stuck to strong gun control.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/nyc-crime-continues-to-plummet-in-2018/
And you are lying by omission...
New York's crime dropped because Rugy Guiliani cleaned up the city by arresting criminals.......and they have followed his techniques until this latest socialist showed up as mayor....
Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop
New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.
The degree of demographic change is startling.
In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.
In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.
In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.
This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.
A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.
Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.
When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)
----
The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decad
Make up your feeble mind. Did they stop all criminals from getting guns? Did they stop straw buyers? Hell no. By your own reasoning, nothing short of stopping that 100% is worthwhile.
No.....that is your reasoning......my way is to lock up gun criminals for 30 years.....that stops gun crime...you guys keep letting them out over and over again......you reduce the population of actual criminals who actually use guns to commit crimes....this has the incredible benefit of leaving normal, law abiding gun owners alone...
While crime goes up in the US, crime goes down in New York where they have stuck to strong gun control.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/nyc-crime-continues-to-plummet-in-2018/
And you are lying by omission...
New York's crime dropped because Rugy Guiliani cleaned up the city by arresting criminals.......and they have followed his techniques until this latest socialist showed up as mayor....
Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop
New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.
The degree of demographic change is startling.
In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.
In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.
In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.
This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.
A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.
Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.
When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)
----
The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decad
Make up your feeble mind. Did they stop all criminals from getting guns? Did they stop straw buyers? Hell no. By your own reasoning, nothing short of stopping that 100% is worthwhile.
No.....that is your reasoning......my way is to lock up gun criminals for 30 years.....that stops gun crime...you guys keep letting them out over and over again......you reduce the population of actual criminals who actually use guns to commit crimes....this has the incredible benefit of leaving normal, law abiding gun owners alone...
Oh shut up.
The entire left-wing narrative about firearms is a lie. It’s all built on a political agenda rather than on data.
That’s right - 0% of the ATF investigators were able to make an illegal purchase. Not even one.The report states that investigators posing online as gun buyers who were not legally able to purchase a firearm were completely unsuccessful when attempting to purchase firearms from private sellers. In fact, the report states that investigators tried 72 times — and each time they failed.
Investigators test how well gun laws work online — and find shocking results that undermine liberals
The entire left-wing narrative about firearms is a lie. It’s all built on a political agenda rather than on data.
That’s right - 0% of the ATF investigators were able to make an illegal purchase. Not even one.The report states that investigators posing online as gun buyers who were not legally able to purchase a firearm were completely unsuccessful when attempting to purchase firearms from private sellers. In fact, the report states that investigators tried 72 times — and each time they failed.
Investigators test how well gun laws work online — and find shocking results that undermine liberals
Democrats are powerless when it comes to repealing the 2nd amendment. It's their 'Row v. Wade', so to speak. Why are you so fucking paranoid?
While crime goes up in the US, crime goes down in New York where they have stuck to strong gun control.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/nyc-crime-continues-to-plummet-in-2018/
And you are lying by omission...
New York's crime dropped because Rugy Guiliani cleaned up the city by arresting criminals.......and they have followed his techniques until this latest socialist showed up as mayor....
Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop
New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.
The degree of demographic change is startling.
In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.
In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.
In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.
This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.
A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.
Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.
When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)
----
The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decad
Make up your feeble mind. Did they stop all criminals from getting guns? Did they stop straw buyers? Hell no. By your own reasoning, nothing short of stopping that 100% is worthwhile.
No.....that is your reasoning......my way is to lock up gun criminals for 30 years.....that stops gun crime...you guys keep letting them out over and over again......you reduce the population of actual criminals who actually use guns to commit crimes....this has the incredible benefit of leaving normal, law abiding gun owners alone...
Oh shut up.
Did you think that up that reply all by yourself?
And you are lying by omission...
New York's crime dropped because Rugy Guiliani cleaned up the city by arresting criminals.......and they have followed his techniques until this latest socialist showed up as mayor....
Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop
New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.
The degree of demographic change is startling.
In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.
In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.
In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.
This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.
A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.
Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.
When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)
----
The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decad
Make up your feeble mind. Did they stop all criminals from getting guns? Did they stop straw buyers? Hell no. By your own reasoning, nothing short of stopping that 100% is worthwhile.
No.....that is your reasoning......my way is to lock up gun criminals for 30 years.....that stops gun crime...you guys keep letting them out over and over again......you reduce the population of actual criminals who actually use guns to commit crimes....this has the incredible benefit of leaving normal, law abiding gun owners alone...
Oh shut up.
Did you think that up that reply all by yourself?
It's what I, and most others should have told your dumb ass long ago. Just shut up. Your goofy crap isn't even funny any more.
The entire left-wing narrative about firearms is a lie. It’s all built on a political agenda rather than on data.
That’s right - 0% of the ATF investigators were able to make an illegal purchase. Not even one.The report states that investigators posing online as gun buyers who were not legally able to purchase a firearm were completely unsuccessful when attempting to purchase firearms from private sellers. In fact, the report states that investigators tried 72 times — and each time they failed.
Investigators test how well gun laws work online — and find shocking results that undermine liberals
Democrats are powerless when it comes to repealing the 2nd amendment. It's their 'Row v. Wade', so to speak. Why are you so fucking paranoid?
You are incorrect...had hilary won, she would have placed the one Justice on the Court, and the 2nd Amendment would be attacked mercilessly.....she also had a plan in the works to sue gun makers.....the anti gunners are also attacking gun rights at the state level...knowing that if they can pass a gun restriction at the local level, they can get a friendly, left wing court to make it a broader law......taking the legislature out of the equation altogether......
Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat
Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”
But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?
The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”
This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?
The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.
The terms were extensive and drastic:
Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.
The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.
Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).
After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).
But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.
The dealers in turn must agree:
They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.
They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.
They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.
They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.
They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.
The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.
The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.
The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).
Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.
The entire left-wing narrative about firearms is a lie. It’s all built on a political agenda rather than on data.
That’s right - 0% of the ATF investigators were able to make an illegal purchase. Not even one.The report states that investigators posing online as gun buyers who were not legally able to purchase a firearm were completely unsuccessful when attempting to purchase firearms from private sellers. In fact, the report states that investigators tried 72 times — and each time they failed.
Investigators test how well gun laws work online — and find shocking results that undermine liberals
Democrats are powerless when it comes to repealing the 2nd amendment. It's their 'Row v. Wade', so to speak. Why are you so fucking paranoid?
You are incorrect...had hilary won, she would have placed the one Justice on the Court, and the 2nd Amendment would be attacked mercilessly.....she also had a plan in the works to sue gun makers.....the anti gunners are also attacking gun rights at the state level...knowing that if they can pass a gun restriction at the local level, they can get a friendly, left wing court to make it a broader law......taking the legislature out of the equation altogether......
Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat
Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”
But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?
The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”
This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?
The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.
The terms were extensive and drastic:
Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.
The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.
Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).
After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).
But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.
The dealers in turn must agree:
They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.
They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.
They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.
They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.
They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.
The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.
The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.
The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).
Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.
I beg your pardon for any and all future communications: Please. I can read links, I don't require a wall of copypasta text. It is all academic hyperbole as Hillary is not president. Again, why are you so fucking paranoid? People in this country seem to have abandoned all logic. An unsettling trend.
Gun control just won't work in America.
The entire left-wing narrative about firearms is a lie. It’s all built on a political agenda rather than on data.
That’s right - 0% of the ATF investigators were able to make an illegal purchase. Not even one.The report states that investigators posing online as gun buyers who were not legally able to purchase a firearm were completely unsuccessful when attempting to purchase firearms from private sellers. In fact, the report states that investigators tried 72 times — and each time they failed.
Investigators test how well gun laws work online — and find shocking results that undermine liberals
Democrats are powerless when it comes to repealing the 2nd amendment. It's their 'Row v. Wade', so to speak. Why are you so fucking paranoid?
You are incorrect...had hilary won, she would have placed the one Justice on the Court, and the 2nd Amendment would be attacked mercilessly.....she also had a plan in the works to sue gun makers.....the anti gunners are also attacking gun rights at the state level...knowing that if they can pass a gun restriction at the local level, they can get a friendly, left wing court to make it a broader law......taking the legislature out of the equation altogether......
Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat
Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”
But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?
The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”
This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?
The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.
The terms were extensive and drastic:
Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.
The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.
Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).
After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).
But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.
The dealers in turn must agree:
They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.
They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.
They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.
They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.
They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.
The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.
The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.
The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).
Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.
I beg your pardon for any and all future communications: Please. I can read links, I don't require a wall of copypasta text. It is all academic hyperbole as Hillary is not president. Again, why are you so fucking paranoid? People in this country seem to have abandoned all logic. An unsettling trend.
Gun control just won't work in America.
The link is for you...the rest for anyone who doesn't simply go to links.....
The entire left-wing narrative about firearms is a lie. It’s all built on a political agenda rather than on data.
That’s right - 0% of the ATF investigators were able to make an illegal purchase. Not even one.
Investigators test how well gun laws work online — and find shocking results that undermine liberals
Democrats are powerless when it comes to repealing the 2nd amendment. It's their 'Row v. Wade', so to speak. Why are you so fucking paranoid?
You are incorrect...had hilary won, she would have placed the one Justice on the Court, and the 2nd Amendment would be attacked mercilessly.....she also had a plan in the works to sue gun makers.....the anti gunners are also attacking gun rights at the state level...knowing that if they can pass a gun restriction at the local level, they can get a friendly, left wing court to make it a broader law......taking the legislature out of the equation altogether......
Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat
Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”
But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?
The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”
This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?
The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.
The terms were extensive and drastic:
Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.
The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.
Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).
After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).
But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.
The dealers in turn must agree:
They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.
They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.
They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.
They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.
They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.
The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.
The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.
The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).
Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.
I beg your pardon for any and all future communications: Please. I can read links, I don't require a wall of copypasta text. It is all academic hyperbole as Hillary is not president. Again, why are you so fucking paranoid? People in this country seem to have abandoned all logic. An unsettling trend.
Gun control just won't work in America.
The link is for you...the rest for anyone who doesn't simply go to links.....
Fair enough. It is annoying though, just being real. America has concocted the Orange virus, so why on earth are you worrying about gun control? It should be the very least of your worries. I'm not worried about it at all.
While crime goes up in the US, crime goes down in New York where they have stuck to strong gun control.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/06/nyc-crime-continues-to-plummet-in-2018/
And you are lying by omission...
New York's crime dropped because Rugy Guiliani cleaned up the city by arresting criminals.......and they have followed his techniques until this latest socialist showed up as mayor....
Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop
New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.
The degree of demographic change is startling.
In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.
In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.
In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.
This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.
A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.
Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.
When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)
----
The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decad
Compared to the decrease in the past 30 years that increase is insignificant and cannot be proven to be directly caused by guns
Concealed carry is at its highest and violent crime went up. Clearly it does not decrease crime.
IDGAF if it decreases crime and I never claimed it did but you have not proven in any way shape or form that concealed carry is a direct cause of the increased crime rates have you?
Concealed carry is at its highest and violent crime went up. Clearly it does not decrease crime.
Crime has increased in WI every year since they got concealed carry.
Dip shit...
Wisconsin gun deaths marked by suicides among rural men, study says – Twin Cities
The state’s proportion of firearm deaths that are suicides — 72 percent — is higher than the national average of 60 percent, according to the study by UW-Madison researchers in the Wisconsin Medical Journal.
Though the state’s overall rate of deaths from guns is lower than the national average, the rate has been on the rise in recent years.
Compared to the decrease in the past 30 years that increase is insignificant and cannot be proven to be directly caused by guns
Concealed carry is at its highest and violent crime went up. Clearly it does not decrease crime.
IDGAF if it decreases crime and I never claimed it did but you have not proven in any way shape or form that concealed carry is a direct cause of the increased crime rates have you?
Concealed carry is at its highest and violent crime went up. Clearly it does not decrease crime.
Crime has increased in WI every year since they got concealed carry.
Moron....
As another violent year ends, memories of homicide victims live on
Milwaukee's per capita homicide rate was 23.7 per 100,000 residents — a lower rate than the 26.27 per 100,000 residents in 1991.
