"Repeal The Second Amendment!"

[pismoe]

that's why we have the second amendment

No right is absolute. Even with the 1st amendment you can't yell fire in a theater.

----------------------------------------- sure you can , you'll just be Arrested if you do and they find no fire Alang .

 

[Weatherman2020]

Here's another one blabbering.

Michael Moore Calls for Repeal of 'Ancient & Outdated' 2nd Amendment

Michael Moore's Bodyguard Arrested on Airport Gun Charge

 

[Weatherman2020]

First amendment is working great

Second amendment is killing a lot of people

Never saw a piece of paper that is sealed under 3" of bullet proof glass hurt anyone.

 

[Weatherman2020]

We appear to actually be moving towards a tipping point here. Maybe we really have finally had enough.

If conservatives continue to play this libertarian all-or-nothing game, I suspect they're going to regret it.

Yes, and you will find yourself enslaved.

 

[alang1216]

that's why we have the second amendment

No right is absolute. Even with the 1st amendment you can't yell fire in a theater.

never said it wasn't. The fact remains that in 1994 the government put a ban on assault rifles and for ten years collected data, and it did not have any affect on gun deaths. So, why would we want to do that again? we have scientific statistics to show it doesn't matter. so, unless now the left doesn't believe in science then I'm not sure why we would redo this one.

Thanks, you've given me a fine example of why I don't trust what gun advocates say, especially when they cite statistics.

You're wrong about the assault ban:

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.​

You're also wrong about science, it isn't the left that doesn't believe in finding truths, even if they are uncomfortable:

Infuriated by CDC-funded research suggesting that having firearms in the home sharply increased the risks of homicide, the NRA goaded Congress in 1996 into stripping the injury center's funding for gun violence research – $2.6 million. Congress then passed a measure drafted by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) forbidding the CDC to spend funds "to advocate or promote gun control." (The NRA initially hoped to eradicate the injury center entirely.)​

dude, your post does back my post. you're not looking at it correctly. that's all. the fact is that the ban didn't stop killing. The facts are in.

You're letting your bias cloud your reading comprehension. The ban on assault weapons was effective: 'Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined'. Killings didn't decline because they were “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines]”.

Seems to me the data are saying that a ban on assault weapons that is accompanied by a limit on large-capacity magazines would work to decrease gun deaths.

 

[alang1216]

that's why we have the second amendment

No right is absolute. Even with the 1st amendment you can't yell fire in a theater.

----------------------------------------- sure you can , you'll just be Arrested if you do and they find no fire Alang .

Can vs. May.

The point is that gun control is not necessarily a violation of the the 2nd.

 

[jc456]

that's why we have the second amendment

No right is absolute. Even with the 1st amendment you can't yell fire in a theater.

never said it wasn't. The fact remains that in 1994 the government put a ban on assault rifles and for ten years collected data, and it did not have any affect on gun deaths. So, why would we want to do that again? we have scientific statistics to show it doesn't matter. so, unless now the left doesn't believe in science then I'm not sure why we would redo this one.

Thanks, you've given me a fine example of why I don't trust what gun advocates say, especially when they cite statistics.

You're wrong about the assault ban:

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.​

You're also wrong about science, it isn't the left that doesn't believe in finding truths, even if they are uncomfortable:

Infuriated by CDC-funded research suggesting that having firearms in the home sharply increased the risks of homicide, the NRA goaded Congress in 1996 into stripping the injury center's funding for gun violence research – $2.6 million. Congress then passed a measure drafted by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) forbidding the CDC to spend funds "to advocate or promote gun control." (The NRA initially hoped to eradicate the injury center entirely.)​

dude, your post does back my post. you're not looking at it correctly. that's all. the fact is that the ban didn't stop killing. The facts are in.

You're letting your bias cloud your reading comprehension. The ban on assault weapons was effective: 'Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined'. Killings didn't decline because they were “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines]”.

Seems to me the data are saying that a ban on assault weapons that is accompanied by a limit on large-capacity magazines would work to decrease gun deaths.

what it tells you is that the assault weapon isn't the weapon of choice to commit murder. that's what it tells you. my reading comprehension is just fine. you should actually take your own advice. I wish folks like you actually did investigative work and understand the statistics.

 

[TheParser]

Sadly, many Americans will always feel that guns are necessary in the United States of America because of its unique population profile.

Without guns, many Americans feel that they would be sitting ducks for bad people, who will beat up or even kill other people without a moment's thought. Such people do not have a conscience.

So 2nd Amendment or no 2nd Amendment, guns will always be a part of life for many Americans.

 

[jc456]

Sadly, many Americans will always feel that guns are necessary in the United States of America because of its unique population profile.

Without guns, many Americans feel that they would be sitting ducks for bad people, who will beat up or even kill other people without a moment's thought. Such people do not have a conscience.

So 2nd Amendment or no 2nd Amendment, guns will always be a part of life for many Americans.

either resolve the criminal element or stay away from the guns. It's simple.

 

[pismoe]

Americans have the RIGHT to have effective and efficient guns and thats just how simple it is . ---------------- fight for the RIGHT or lose the RIGHT !! -------- just a comment .