Guns, Abortion, Taxes and Green Energy: R v. D

[Rye Catcher]

While we're at it, why don't we allow states and cities to pass laws with regard to what religions we are allowed to practice or believe in, and what opinions we are allowed to express?

Of course the Republican Party has devolved to provide many of the aggregate of our population equal rights, equal opportunities and equal justice. So while we are at it, is to make all three of the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

["We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"]

Examples of how in this third decade of the 21st Century fascism has crept into and dominated the ideology in the Republican Party.

Side Bar:

The Right Wing rioted and used violence on January 6, by storming the gates and doors of the Capitol Building.

Left wing, and numbers not yet counted some on the right wing, yesterday posted a completely non violent protest at the Supreme Court.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I call you out on your bullshit, Rye.
everyday Americans don't shoot into crowds and kill more than 4 people at one time.
CRIMINALS do that. I'm sure you one of those that are all for the drip, drip, drip with implementing
laws to force EVERY DAY AMERICANS to give up their guns.
You frisco crowd are all the same IMO.

Your opinion lacks probative facts and evidence. A Criminal is one who has been arrested and convicted of a crime. The facts is I have never called for "EVERY DAY AMERICANS to give up their guns."

"You frisco crowd are all the same" in your opinion, that opinion is absurd.

Is in your mind a criminal someone who ran through a red light, or at age 11 stole a candy bar? Your side of the aisle, and I'm resuming you are not on my side, use hyperbole and lies using ludicrous comments that on their face absurd.

 

[Meister]

Your opinion lacks probative facts and evidence. A Criminal is one who has been arrested and convicted of a crime. The facts is I have never called for "EVERY DAY AMERICANS to give up their guns."

"You frisco crowd are all the same" in your opinion, that opinion is absurd.

Is in your mind a criminal someone who ran through a red light, or at age 11 stole a candy bar? Your side of the aisle, and I'm resuming you are not on my side, use hyperbole and lies using ludicrous comments that on their face absurd.

Bottom line, rye, criminals kill people, not the guns.
I hope I dummied that down to where even you could understand.

 

[Rye Catcher]

That damned stodgy old Constitution keeps getting in the way of the democrat party agenda and wouldn't you know, the Supreme Court relies on the Constitution to determine issues. Sorry democrats.

Statement: .."the Supreme Court relies on the Constitution to determine issues."

Response: Please explain where in Art III of the Constitution does the Supreme Court decide to determine "issues"?

 

[Rye Catcher]

Bottom line, rye, criminals kill people, not the guns.
I hope I dummied that down to where even you could understand.

You're a fool.

You dummied me down on what a criminal is when I spent 32 years as an officer of the court? I posted what one is, and that is someone who was arrested, convicted and served some time in a jail or prison.

A felon is someone who is sentence to at least one year and a day in sentenced custody, and being confined in a county jail, State or Federal Prison.

A misdemeanor is a lesser crime yet still the defendant is considered a criminal, even if a plea of guilty reduces the sentence and the defendant is placed on probation.

Mens rea does not create a criminal, if he or she has not acted and violated a crime. I hope you have been educated.

 

[Meister]

You're a fool.

You dummied me down on what a criminal is when I spent 32 years as an officer of the court? I posted what one is, and that is someone who was arrested, convicted and served some time in a jail or prison.

A felon is someone who is sentence to at least one year and a day in sentenced custody, and being confined in a county jail, State or Federal Prison.

A misdemeanor is a lesser crime yet still the defendant is considered a criminal, even if a plea of guilty reduces the sentence and the defendant is placed on probation.

Mens rea does not create a criminal, if he or she has not acted and violated a crime. I hope you have been educated.

I stand by my post, you fool.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I stand by my post, you fool.

Look up Mens rea

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters to gain power.

The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past. They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.

The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS. Not guns, per se. The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.

Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.

*** Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia.

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us​

Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.

theconversation.com

In the latter of the links above are some examples that ARMS are weapons solely for War:

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

If the reader got this far, please open the link and see the chart that is posted after the colon in the last paragraph above.

Good post.

What’s remarkable is that the Bruen Court saw fit to ignore facts and objective documented evidence in favor of the ridiculous, wrongheaded nonsense that is originalist analogical ‘reasoning.’

‘The public safety implications of the right the court announced last week are far from controversial. As social scientists and public health researchers wrote in an amicus brief, “[T]he evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that unregulated possession of firearms leads to increased fatalities and other socially harmful consequences.” Beyond anti-scientific, it is straightforwardly cold-hearted to compare the ushering forward of predictable, violent deaths affecting entire communities, with the possible danger of the occasionally freed criminal defendant inherent in a criminal justice system that strives to protect possible innocence over false determinations of guilt.

Perhaps we can forgive Thomas, at least in part, for his discomfort with scientific reasoning by acknowledging the persuasive power of marketing. Impossible to ignore in this new deadly stalemate that we find ourselves in, is that this fear sells one thing: guns. For decades the gun industry has been pushing its ever-profitable “Big Lie”: convincing Americans that guns make us safer, when in actuality they do just the opposite.

Beyond the refusal to acknowledge the scientific evidence showing the dangers inherent in the “guns everywhere” world this decision seeks to manifest, conspicuously lacking is any clear expression of the important balance struck by our common law principles of what constitutes lawful self-defense. Thomas speaks passively — very much in the abstract — about the need for a handgun in case of “confrontation.” Not once does he make reference to the personbeing confronted or, importantly, the circumstances that would make killing — yes, killing a person — in such a confrontation lawful.’

The right to fear, in public: Our town square after Bruen - SCOTUSblog

This article is part of a symposium on the court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Esther Sanchez-Gomez is the senior litigation attorney with Giffords Law Center. Last week, the juris doctors of the Supreme Court looked at the gun violence epidemic in our count

www.scotusblog.com

Clearly, we’ve entered into a conservative Dark Age where facts and the truth fall prey to subjective rightwing judicial dogma.

 

[miketx]

The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters to gain power.

The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past. They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.

The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS. Not guns, per se. The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.

Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.

*** Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia.

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us​

Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.

theconversation.com

In the latter of the links above are some examples that ARMS are weapons solely for War:

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

If the reader got this far, please open the link and see the chart that is posted after the colon in the last paragraph above.

Come get us kuntzman.

 

[miketx]

Look up Mens rea

Look up how to stop lying.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If we got the guns out of the hands of the criminals, the guns will stop shooting people.
It's the criminals and not the guns. These laws are for taking the guns from the everyday American
and not the criminals.

They don't have the capacity to comprehend such simplicity, Meister.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters to gain power.

The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past. They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.

The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS. Not guns, per se. The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.

Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.

*** Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia.

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us​

Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.

theconversation.com

In the latter of the links above are some examples that ARMS are weapons solely for War:

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

If the reader got this far, please open the link and see the chart that is posted after the colon in the last paragraph above.

Ban guns, unlimited access to abortions, tax the shit out of everyone but the poor and green energy or nothing are all wedge issues, the Democratic Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters to gain power.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Ban guns, unlimited access to abortions, tax the shit out of everyone but the poor and green energy or nothing are all wedge issues, the Democratic Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters to gain power.

No efforts to ban all guns are not in my statements, ever.

Rational people comprehend my statements on gun issues. You and others above are not rational!

Your post above is ludicrous; reactionary is defined as this:

a preexisting state of affairs.

"shall not be infringed" isn't a truth based on the facts; yet it is used by the ignorant (that being most of those above who use this phrase as universal!).

Wedge Issues are limited to Guns, Gays, Taxes & Abortions.

 

[Pete7469]

Did you read the OP and the Links? Your comment is off topic.

Hey bed wetter....

NO ONE READS YOUR STUPID CUT/PASTED AGITPROP BULLSHIT!!!

If not for criminal genetic garbage like you, there wouldn't be any fucking crime or the need for people to keep guns handy.

If not for criminal sociopaths vacuous parasites LIKE YOU empower with multiple fraudulent ballots, there would be no need for the public to worry about tyranny, genocide, and mass murder at the hands of despotic government.

Yet because you continue stealing oxygen, the rest of us have to maintain an arsenal as a matter of self preservation and public safety.

Now go abort yourself you diseased piece of shit.

 

[g5000]

The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters to gain power.

Hey, man. One tranny is more dangerous to our children's health than 350 million guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters to gain power.

The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Democratic Party is intellectually dishonest, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters to gain power.

The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS. Not guns, per se.

An such, I you will agree I should be able to walk ito my local gun store, plunk down $ for an M60 and walk out.

The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.

Democrats built the expiration into the Brady act, which depended on the creation of the NICS to take over for it.
The NICS came on line in November of 1998, at which point the Brady-mandated waiting period ended.
Thus, the GOP had nothing to do with the expiration of the Brady act.

Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.

Why did the Democrats write and pass a law with loopholes?
They did not need GOP votes to pass it.

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings?​

Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.

Third-grade reasoning, devoid of actual critical thought.

This is a post hoc fallacy - correlation does not prove causation.

Beyond that:
The 1994 AWB could not have had any effect on such shootings because it did nothing to reduce availability of 'assault weapons':
- No weapons were confiscated
- Manufacturers legally created and sold functionally identical firearms (see pic)

Thus, the answer to the question asked is an unequivocal "no".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why not allow each state to pass gun controls as well as Mayors also.

The same reason states cannot ban gay marriage:
The states do not have the right to violate rights protected by the constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What’s remarkable is that the Bruen Court saw fit to ignore facts and objective documented evidence in favor of the ridiculous, wrongheaded nonsense that is originalist analogical ‘reasoning.’

Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Pete7469]

Your opinion doesn't matter.

Plus it's a freakishly stupid opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Plus it's a freakishly stupid opinion.

A large,, steaming pile of hyper-partisan bigotry, devoid of fact or reason.