The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[U2Edge]

What you are saying is, you can't prove your lie but I proved it was a lie. Thank you for verifying that.

When you prove something I will tell you that you did. Now what I did was force you to lie saying I lied.

Is that all you have to say? Keep trying to dribble that basket ball with no air.

You can't disprove because you can use a gun in self-defense without having to shoot it and if you don't shoot it, it doesn't get reported. but do keep trying

Simply displaying a gun or pulling out a gun can get you reported. Several people who did not fire a shot were reported last week.

Bullshit! In my state, open carry has been the law for many years. Now, concealed carry is perfectly legal without a CCDW permit!

You'd piss yourself walking into a Walmart here! That is why no one shoots up a Walmart in this state! They don't like people shooting back!

What state do you live in?

 

[U2Edge]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Shoot someone with an air rifle and all you will do is piss them off so that they shove that air rifle up your ass. With you, it would not meet much resistance as you have been playing wide receiver for years!

An Air Rifle can kill a person. So can a shotgun.

 

[U2Edge]

Unfortunately, the current gun control laws are not saving enough lives. What I propose will save thousands of lives a year eventually. Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The United States needs to reduce its death rate from firearms down to levels similar to Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and its intolerable to have the firearm death rate we have, when so many other 1st world developed country's have a much lower rate.

I'm more interested in saving lives than protecting the so called "rights" of the minority gun owning nerds.

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

Your figures are a bit off. The actual figure has hovered right around 40 to 44% for decades. Even though the numbers of guns had gone up, the percentage has stayed the same. Know that, repeat your statement.

Those statistics come from the less accurate telephone polling calls. The General Social Survey, which has a much higher response rate, and interviews people in person is considered more accurate. It found that only 31% of households have guns in the house compared to 1977 when 50% had guns in the household.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

Wrong.
Individual rights are not up for popular vote.
The courts have already established that firearms ARE an individual right, in McDonald vs Chicago, to you can never implement any more gun control, like an assault weapons ban.
It would never hold up in court.
But you are also wrong about how many support gun rights.
It is NOT just 31%.
Many house holds that do not have firearms do so because they live in associations that do not allow it, they can't afford it yet, they are moving too much, etc.
The fact they do not all own firearms does not mean the majority do not support private firearm ownership.
Self defense is an individual right that no one can challenge.

No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter. You can still defend yourself with a shotgun or Air Rifle provided you pass the tests and background checks. There are ways you can defend yourself without a gun too.

The number supporting gun rights may be larger than 31%, but its clear a lot lower than it was in 1977 when 50% of households had a gun in the house. Gun ownership is on the decline when looking at households. Once it drops to 20%, gun control advocates will have strong clear majorities in order to implement the laws they want on guns. The same think happened with smoking in public.

The Founding fathers created the constitution, but also created a mechanism in which the constitution could be changed if you had enough votes. Anything in the constitution can be changed with enough votes. Everything can be redefined. That's why slavery was once the law of the land, it was legal, but for the past 150+ years its been illegal. Nothing is set In stone. Anything can be changed, removed or redefined if you have enough votes, or vote in Justices that interpret the law the way you want them to.

We can say with near certainty that what you advocate for will not come to pass for at least the next 50 years, perhaps longer.

Even the most appropriate, Constitutional measures such as UBCs will be forever blocked by Senate Republicans, regardless whether they control the Senate or not.

And more aggressive measures would never pass Constitutional muster, invalidated by this conservative Supreme Court.

 

[U2Edge]

Unfortunately, the current gun control laws are not saving enough lives. What I propose will save thousands of lives a year eventually. Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The United States needs to reduce its death rate from firearms down to levels similar to Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and its intolerable to have the firearm death rate we have, when so many other 1st world developed country's have a much lower rate.

I'm more interested in saving lives than protecting the so called "rights" of the minority gun owning nerds.

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

First off, 60% of US gun deaths are suicides, so you can discount those. A person intent on killing themself is not going to stop because they don't have access to a firearm. Only 3% are accidental gun deaths.

Putting Gun Death Statistics in Perspective

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia

Secondly, the death by firearms rate in 2014 is not lower than it was in 1977. It was actually higher in 1977, according to CDC statistics. Also keep in mind that the population was only 216,332,000 in 1977, compared to over 325 million today.

Firearm-related deaths rate U.S. 1970-2016 | Statista

Nice try hillbilly, but you can't just go about making up your own facts. That's called "lying."

Um, the stats you site prove my point. Death rate was higher in 1980 than it has been in 2010 or 2015. Gun ownership went down, and death rate from guns went down as well.

Thanks for making my point.

 

[U2Edge]

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

Wrong.
Individual rights are not up for popular vote.
The courts have already established that firearms ARE an individual right, in McDonald vs Chicago, to you can never implement any more gun control, like an assault weapons ban.
It would never hold up in court.
But you are also wrong about how many support gun rights.
It is NOT just 31%.
Many house holds that do not have firearms do so because they live in associations that do not allow it, they can't afford it yet, they are moving too much, etc.
The fact they do not all own firearms does not mean the majority do not support private firearm ownership.
Self defense is an individual right that no one can challenge.

No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter. You can still defend yourself with a shotgun or Air Rifle provided you pass the tests and background checks. There are ways you can defend yourself without a gun too.

The number supporting gun rights may be larger than 31%, but its clear a lot lower than it was in 1977 when 50% of households had a gun in the house. Gun ownership is on the decline when looking at households. Once it drops to 20%, gun control advocates will have strong clear majorities in order to implement the laws they want on guns. The same think happened with smoking in public.

The Founding fathers created the constitution, but also created a mechanism in which the constitution could be changed if you had enough votes. Anything in the constitution can be changed with enough votes. Everything can be redefined. That's why slavery was once the law of the land, it was legal, but for the past 150+ years its been illegal. Nothing is set In stone. Anything can be changed, removed or redefined if you have enough votes, or vote in Justices that interpret the law the way you want them to.

We can say with near certainty that what you advocate for will not come to pass for at least the next 50 years, perhaps longer.

Even the most appropriate, Constitutional measures such as UBCs will be forever blocked by Senate Republicans, regardless whether they control the Senate or not.

And more aggressive measures would never pass Constitutional muster, invalidated by this conservative Supreme Court.

Oh changes will be happening a lot sooner than that. You definitely start to see rapid change by 2040 if not sooner.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Supreme Court has avoided that question like the plague for good reason. it's not the Feds job. They leave it up to the lower courts and the lower governments where it belongs.

It is the SCOTUS's job to defend individual rights from infringement by states. The 14th amendment started that up.
But I agree they will try to avoid this.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not natural rights.

Wrong, us usual. Government doesn't need to guarantee itself the Right to own guns.

That is the most retarded argument I have ever heard.....but then it's you, so go figure.

On the first half of the 2nd amendment, that's exactly what it does. It makes sure that the States has the right to an Organized Militia separate from the Federal Government. Due to the 1916 National Guard Act, that name is no longer State Guard, it's now State SDF or State Defense Force.

The malitia mentioned in the 2nd has absolutely nothing to do with any government body neither federal or state. One has to rember that our founders had Concord, Lexington and the minutemen fresh in their mindsbwhen the constitution was penned. The minute men were in effect a rebel group intent on overthrowing the then legitimate goverment of the British crown.
The militia as mentioned in the 2nd amendment is clearly refering to the right of the people to keep and bear arms and organize themselves into a militia of themselves to act against and overthrow a goverment run amok.

Who was called up by Washington and other Federal Generals. And afterwards, were assigned to the various states as Militia Guards. You can try and rewrite history if you wish but pesky facts get in your way.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Show us where the Bill of Rights prohibits Federal regulation of firearms.

Has anybody shown that to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

Shall not be infringed is pretty self explanatory.

Show me where there is anything called "Unbillofrightable" about anything.

The fact that gun laws do infringe on our Rights is immaterial to their violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The question was of the Bill of Rights not of the US Constitution. And I answer with, "I have never heard any court say that something was Unbillofrightable. ".

That's because the bill of Rights are part of the Constitution. Therefore anything that violates the bill of Rights is unconstitutional.

Do you mean that I can't get my Unbillofrightable ruling in court? Imagine that. The Bill of Rights has no legal uses therefore it's just a piece of paper that was designed to make a couple of old time politicions feel good about signing the real deal. Thank you for verifying that for me.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Shall not be infringed is pretty self explanatory.

Show me where there is anything called "Unbillofrightable" about anything.

The fact that gun laws do infringe on our Rights is immaterial to their violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The question was of the Bill of Rights not of the US Constitution. And I answer with, "I have never heard any court say that something was Unbillofrightable. ".

That's because the bill of Rights are part of the Constitution. Therefore anything that violates the bill of Rights is unconstitutional.

our constitution allows congress to bass bills, and the potus to sign those bills into law -

so if congress passes a gun control bill and Trump signs it there will be no argument about it being unconstitutional ...

good to know, thanks.

I don't know about unconstitutional but they may claim that it's unbillofrightable. That'll get some action and some chuckles.

 

[2aguy]

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

Wrong.
Individual rights are not up for popular vote.
The courts have already established that firearms ARE an individual right, in McDonald vs Chicago, to you can never implement any more gun control, like an assault weapons ban.
It would never hold up in court.
But you are also wrong about how many support gun rights.
It is NOT just 31%.
Many house holds that do not have firearms do so because they live in associations that do not allow it, they can't afford it yet, they are moving too much, etc.
The fact they do not all own firearms does not mean the majority do not support private firearm ownership.
Self defense is an individual right that no one can challenge.

No one has challenged ones right to self defense. But there are already restrictions on what civilians can use when it comes to self defense. My idea for gun control makes those restrictions a little tighter. You can still defend yourself with a shotgun or Air Rifle provided you pass the tests and background checks. There are ways you can defend yourself without a gun too.

The number supporting gun rights may be larger than 31%, but its clear a lot lower than it was in 1977 when 50% of households had a gun in the house. Gun ownership is on the decline when looking at households. Once it drops to 20%, gun control advocates will have strong clear majorities in order to implement the laws they want on guns. The same think happened with smoking in public.

The Founding fathers created the constitution, but also created a mechanism in which the constitution could be changed if you had enough votes. Anything in the constitution can be changed with enough votes. Everything can be redefined. That's why slavery was once the law of the land, it was legal, but for the past 150+ years its been illegal. Nothing is set In stone. Anything can be changed, removed or redefined if you have enough votes, or vote in Justices that interpret the law the way you want them to.

The Supreme Court already dealt with this....in Heller, Miller, Caetano, Friedman v Highland Park, MacDonald......

Gun ownership is not on the decline, in fact, Blacks and women are the biggest growth areas.

 

[2aguy]

States with stricter gun control regulations have fewer mass shootings

Since there's no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate.... so?

Actually there is a correlation between gun ownership rates and gun homicide, but it is that where there are the most guns per household, like in rural America, there are less homicides.

And conversely, where there are the strictest gun control regulations, like Chicago, DC, etc., there are by far the MOST shootings.

That's because people in the cities can easily obtain weapons in the suburbs or countryside. You need state law or federal law to ban certain weapons or enact successful gun control.

Another factor is that cities are where most people live, so that is where the most violence takes place that could get someone killed.

Rural areas death rates are lower because fewer people live there.

No, you can not easily obtain weapons in the suburbs or countryside any more than the cities.
In fact, almost all dealers, gun shows, etc. are in the cities.
You do NOT at all need any federal or even state gun laws, because they can never work at all.
Have any federal or state laws stopped illegal drugs or alcohol during prohibition?
Of course not.
In fact, the more restrictive laws that people do not like, the more they will spend in order to deliberately thumb their nose at the obviously evil government.

It is true that cities are where most people live so there should be more murders, but cities with the most gun laws have a much higher murder rate per capita as well.
These are murder RATES, so are per capita. And clearly the red cities are much higher than the average that included the rural.

Any Cities individual gun control laws can be easily circumvented by going outside city limits to obtain the weapons. So its not accurate to say gun control laws don't work, because an individual cities laws don't work. Gun control laws have be made and enforced throughout the country in order for them to work.


Alcohol consumption went down during prohibition despite all the speak easies and other secret places that opened up and the smuggling. Violence went up, related to the smuggling and the crime. That's why prohibition was ended. People felt it was not worth the increased violence and crime rate.

Its always easier for the average joe to consume alcohol when you can go down to the local pub, rather than having to make it himself or find a secret establishment making it.

If you outlawed McDonalds or similar fast food establishments, consumption of McDonalds food would go way down.

They can't stop illegal guns from getting into Britain and Australia...islands.....we are on the border with the Narco state of Mexico where the drug cartels are building gun factories right on the border....

 

[2aguy]

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

You, the pollsters, and the government hasn't a clue how many households has firearms. So stop with your 31% BS...because that's all it is.
Remember this......393 MILLION firearms in America. Remember that when you go knocking on a door asking for their weapons because they
couldn't get a 95% proficiency in your shooting requirement.

They do, because they have done accurate scientific polling. There are also background checks, gun sales, and other things that are checked. Its why we know there are over 300 million guns out there.

Motorcycle ownership is also dropping.

Smoking is also dropping.

Culture is changing as it always does.

The generation born after 2000 will probably be the most anti-gun generation in history. Why? Because they had to through these damn mass shooter drills when they were children. Its scared them, in put most of them on the side of gun control instead of the pro gun NRA. They are the future and will change the laws of this country once they get into elected office and other positions of power.

I hate to say it, but you are so full of BS. If a pollster calls me....scientifically and asks if I own guns, and I say no.....it doesn't make that poll accurate.
There are more and more Americans not giving out information. I know this as fact. So please don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Yep...especially after Sandy Hook when the various newspapers started printing the names of gun owners......that made people think twice about sharing their info. with left wing hacks...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Those are all weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Handguns are considered to be in common use, their possession is entitled to Constitutional protections.

As such citizens are not required to justify possessing handguns; citizens are not required to justify exercising the right to self-defense.

And until such time as the Supreme Court makes a determination as to the status of AR 15s – in common use or dangerous and unusual – citizens are not required to justify possessing an AR 15, or using them pursuant to the right to self-defense.

 

[2aguy]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Those are all weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Handguns are considered to be in common use, their possession is entitled to Constitutional protections.

As such citizens are not required to justify possessing handguns; citizens are not required to justify exercising the right to self-defense.

And until such time as the Supreme Court makes a determination as to the status of AR 15s – in common use or dangerous and unusual – citizens are not required to justify possessing an AR 15, or using them pursuant to the right to self-defense.

Already determined in Heller, Miller, Caetano..........you know this and pretend you don't...

 

[danielpalos]

It is "codified" in State Constitutions and available via Due Process. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers.

It is in State Constitutions, not implied in right wing fantasy, right wingers.

You forget, State governments are Unitary not federal.

OH I get it now, you are brain dead and need the government to tell you what you can do.
Those who can think for themselves know they can defend themselves therefore right to self-defense predates any form of government.

You are the one who is brain dead. We have a First Amendment. Our Second Amendment is expressly about the security of our free States.

iSo you're saying no one has a right to fight for their lives?

lol. no, You are saying that. was your mos in Red Herrings?

 

[JGalt]

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

First off, 60% of US gun deaths are suicides, so you can discount those. A person intent on killing themself is not going to stop because they don't have access to a firearm. Only 3% are accidental gun deaths.

Putting Gun Death Statistics in Perspective

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia

Secondly, the death by firearms rate in 2014 is not lower than it was in 1977. It was actually higher in 1977, according to CDC statistics. Also keep in mind that the population was only 216,332,000 in 1977, compared to over 325 million today.

Firearm-related deaths rate U.S. 1970-2016 | Statista

Nice try hillbilly, but you can't just go about making up your own facts. That's called "lying."

Um, the stats you site prove my point. Death rate was higher in 1980 than it has been in 2010 or 2015. Gun ownership went down, and death rate from guns went down as well.

Thanks for making my point.

You are confused. Gun ownership in 1980 was 45% of US households owning one or more firearms, and it was 41% in 2015. Yet the death rate was almost 5% lower than it was in 1980.

As anyone knows, there were far more firearms in this country in 2010 and 2015, than there were in 1980. far more of what you call "assault rifles" and high-capacity magazines. Yet the death rate was higher in 1980 that it apparently is now.

So why the need for more firearms legislation?

Dude, you suck at logic and reason.

 

[danielpalos]

Our 2nd Amendment's operation is to protect a pre-existing right of the people.

Nothing has substantially changed since the 2nd's ratification that makes it invalid.

.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not natural rights. It says so in the first clause. The second clause, merely follows the first clause.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense.

That the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law is as true for those who advocate for more gun regulations as those who oppose more regulations

The second amendment exists so you will have a first amendment right

 

[Siete]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Those are all weapons considered to be dangerous and unusual, their possession is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Handguns are considered to be in common use, their possession is entitled to Constitutional protections.

As such citizens are not required to justify possessing handguns; citizens are not required to justify exercising the right to self-defense.

And until such time as the Supreme Court makes a determination as to the status of AR 15s – in common use or dangerous and unusual – citizens are not required to justify possessing an AR 15, or using them pursuant to the right to self-defense.

our wannabe soldiers would carry a chain gun mounted on a turret if they were strong enough -

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Shoot someone with an air rifle and all you will do is piss them off so that they shove that air rifle up your ass. With you, it would not meet much resistance as you have been playing wide receiver for years!

An Air Rifle can kill a person. So can a shotgun.

I don't know what kind of air rifles you're talking about, but the average air rifle you can get from a sporting goods store does not have that kind of power. Even the best marksman would have trouble making an air rifle do much more than cause superficial injuries.

.