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.
Which shows no cause and effect relationship.Stop babbling.
There are plenty examples of countries with stricter gun laws that have far less RATES of gun murders and murders in general.
Which shows no cause and effect relationship.
We have a cultural problem, not a gun problem. Take away the guns and what you would then have is an explosion in violent crime as has never been seen before because then it's just open season on the law abiding.
Bullshit. Almost every first world country with stricter gun laws has lower rates of gun murders and murders in general. That's powerful evidence whether you like it or notWhich shows no cause and effect relationship.
So you think you fellow Americans are inherently more murderous than the rest of the world?We have a cultural problem, not a gun problem.
Then you are living in a fairytale world.Bullshit. Almost every first world country with stricter gun laws has lower rates of gun murders and murders in general. That's powerful evidence whether you like it or not
So you think you fellow Americans are inherently more murderous than the rest of the world?
I don't. People are people
So you're saying that Americans are savages.Then you are living in a fairytale world.
Culture as much as anything else dictates behavior and we have a segment of our population with a culture that adores and practically worships violence.
You really have no clue what you are talking about at all here.
Some of us absolutely are. Go spend some time in the ghettos of our large cities.So you're saying that Americans are savages.
uhhum...whatever dude...
You have no concept of reality so that is why you are confused about this.Well, idiot, strict scrutiny has nothing to do with determining whether or not a law is constitutional. Strict scrutiny is used to excuse the government from the constitutional requirement when they can convince the Court that the law is in the interest of the government. There's no court claim that strict scrutiny is designed to ensure compliance with the Constitution. Did you even read the article you posted about Kavinaugh?
In many areas of constitutional law, the Court allows a constitutional right to be overcome when a restriction passes "strict scrutiny"—i.e. (to oversimplify slightly), when the government can show that restricting the right is the "least restrictive means" of serving a "compelling government interest."
The test for constitutionality is very simple: Original intent.
We're fucking doomed with idiots arguing against the Constitution when pretending to defend our rights.
Yea...people like youSome of us absolutely are. Go spend some time in the ghettos of our large cities.
And where did strict scrutiny come into play in that? The Government was arguing that the government's compelling interest in preventing crime warranted an exception to "shall not be infringed". The court said, that had they met the strict scrutiny standard, then the infringement would have been allowed but that they had not met strict scrutiny.You have no concept of reality so that is why you are confused about this.
Stupid asshole politicians pass all kinds of anti Constitutional oppressive laws all the time. Sorry but that is the hard truth reality. Like when DC told Dick Heller that he couldn't have a firearm in his own home.
There are two remedies to that.
One is to fight back, which is really what our Founding Fathers wanted us to do but nobody has the courage to do.
Second is to take it to court.
If it goes to court then it is in the hands of the Judges or the Justices.
When they look at the case they have to decide how important it is to our basic Liberties. It may be something like a stupid law preventing you from spitting on the sidewalk. A breach of Liberty but not one that the verdict will result in a massive loss of Liberties for Americans. In that case they may look at it will a lesser regard than other cases.
When DC took away Dick Heller's right to have a firearm that required a very strict look at individual Liberty as protected by the Bill of Rights. Even at that there were four dumbass Justices that said Heller had no right to own a firearm and that is scary as hell.
What we want is for any case involving Liberties protected by the Bill of Rights to be judged in the strictest manner possible to protect individual Liberty.
That is why it is important for the Supremes to make a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms cases will always have Strict Scrutiny applied. If they do that then many of the oppressive gun laws will go away and that is a good thing.
The alternative to that is for Patriots to take to the streets with arms or just take whatever the assholes give us. You know, like the Canadians, Austrailians, Brits, New Zealanders or most of the rest of the world.
youre forgetting stealing, borrowing or that they already have a gun,,
not to mention not even using a gun and using a car instead,,
dead is dead,,
If you think NICS works, then please tell us a single case of any shooter anywhere in the nation who wasn't able to get a gun legally in a FFL gun store due to NICS (either by rejection or choosing not to try) and then wasn't able to otherwise get a gun with which to commit their crime - provide just one single case. If you can name a single one, I'll quit the forum.If I KNOW they violated a law to PURCHASE that gun used in a shooting, then they are a criminal just like the one that STOLE a firearm.
The question really IS -- how many purchases does the NICS system STOP from falling into the hands of people PROHIBITED from buying? I think that number is extraordinarily high JUST BECAUSE THE SYSTEM exists as a deterrent. Not that many UNQUALIFIED are stopped.
I have no problems with a NICS concept. It actually needs to be fed more complete and accurate data to work as designed.
I think you confusion is that you are under the impression that original intent is ever used by the courts to protect our Liberties.And where did strict scrutiny come into play in that? The Government was arguing that the government's compelling interest in preventing crime warranted an exception to "shall not be infringed". The court said, that had they met the strict scrutiny standard, then the infringement would have been allowed but that they had not met strict scrutiny.
Do you get it? Under strict scrutiny, the court would have allowed them to violate your rights. Arguing strict scrutiny is never the right standard; it's a standard for violations of rights only. The correct standard is original intent: did the Founders mean "shall not be infringed" or did they mean only infringed when the government wants to?
Failure of meeting strict scrutiny might prevent your rights from being infringed upon but when strict scrutiny passes, someone lost a right. Strict scrutiny is NEVER about upholding the Constitution; it's about upholding the interests of the government over and above the Constitution.
If you really want to fight back, fight to keep your rights, the correct answer is that strict scrutiny should never stand. If the government is allowed to define for itself what are its compelling interests and the Court decides whether violating the Constitution is allowed in support of those compelling interests, then there may as well be no Constitution at all.
No strict scrutiny, only original intent. No violations of the Constitution for any reason, no matter how much better off we think the world might be. No violations to keep guns out of the hands of those we don't want to have guns. We know, for one thing, that it doesn't work; it's never worked. It's a stupid violation of the Constitution and yet so many self-proclaimed-but-not-really supporters of the 2nd Amendment defend vociferously. When you support the government violating the Constitution in any case, then you can never complain when they violate it in any other case.
my guess is the BG check hasnt stop a single restricted person from getting a gun once they decided they wanted one,,If I KNOW they violated a law to PURCHASE that gun used in a shooting, then they are a criminal just like the one that STOLE a firearm.
The question really IS -- how many purchases does the NICS system STOP from falling into the hands of people PROHIBITED from buying? I think that number is extraordinarily high JUST BECAUSE THE SYSTEM exists as a deterrent. Not that many UNQUALIFIED are stopped.
I have no problems with a NICS concept. It actually needs to be fed more complete and accurate data to work as designed.
I think you confusion is that you are under the impression that original intent is ever used by the courts to protect our Liberties.
It was not used in any gun law case that I know of. As cowardly they are it not likely it will ever be used.
I mean we are talking about a Court that allowed Obamacare to stand based upon an argument that wasn't even argued in court (it was a tax). A Court that was too cowardly to grant the States standing to challenge a blatant stolen Presidential election. They ain't gonna say that "shall not be infringed" means no goddamn infringement. Even Scalia pussied out by saying that the Heller case did not prevent "reasonable" gun control restrictions.
Good luck with demanding that they ever look at original intent. it ain't gonna happen and that is the harsh reality.
Since the Courts don't really give a fuck about our basic Liberties then Strict Scrutiny is best we can hope for.
Unless you are willing to take to the street and tar and feather the bastards. When you form your militia to do that let me know. I am "well regulated". I may join.
Until then my hope is on the Court stating in the judgement on this case from New York that Strict Scrutiny must be applied to gun control laws.
You keep saying this - and yet you know you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the guns laws in those countries and their lower rates of gun violence.And those with strict gun control are safer
Horse shitIt ain’t the border.
It ain’t the narco shit
It’s the guns
If you think NICS works, then please tell us a single case of any shooter anywhere in the nation who wasn't able to get a gun legally in a FFL gun store due to NICS (either by rejection or choosing not to try) and then wasn't able to otherwise get a gun with which to commit their crime - provide just one single case. If you can name a single one, I'll quit the forum.
Better not tell the pro-abortion crowd this - they'll lynch you.No rights are absolute.
Find a drug dealer and you are no more than one step away from buying a gun illegally.my guess is the BG check hasnt stop a single restricted person from getting a gun once they decided they wanted one,,
Dude. That's racist.Yea...people like you
You think there aren't dangerous poor sections of cities in ANY country?
Dude save the racism and "dangerous black man" rhetoric
Both of these are already covered by federal law.Certain individuals (mentally unstable and criminals for instance) are and should be restricted.
Certain types of guns and weapons are and should be restricted...sawed off shotguns, machine guns, explosive devices...
