Virginia - This Is Only The Beginning

[Cellblock2429]

Yet you want to tell me what gun I can carry because you don't feel safe with people carrying guns

I consider my safety to be my right. If your 2nd A right conflicts with that right, guess which side I'm on?

/——/ I consider Climate Change activists to be a threat to my saftey. They need to be banned.

 

[alang1216]

Well it doesn't matter what you consider there is no written or implied right to safety in the Constitution.

Pretty arrogant considering gun manufacturing in this country is protected by a law that can be repealed by voters just like me. If that law goes, so do the manufacturers.

You don't know how the amendment process works do you?

And there is still no guarantee of safety in any government document so your quest to control everyone else just so you can feel safe will be in vain

Amendments are tough to change, laws not so much. If the public can't get the more popular gun control measures there may be support for more extreme solutions.

Repeal of this law may have a very chilling effect on US gun ownership:

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act​

 

[alang1216]

Yet you want to tell me what gun I can carry because you don't feel safe with people carrying guns

I consider my safety to be my right. If your 2nd A right conflicts with that right, guess which side I'm on?

/——/ I consider Climate Change activists to be a threat to my saftey. They need to be banned.

You should start your grassroots movement immediately, you have some serious catching up to do:

Roughly 2 in 3 Americans now say gun control laws should be made more strict in the wake of the murder of 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, according to a number of polls, including a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll that shows support for stricter gun laws among registered voters at 68 percent, compared with just 25 percent who oppose stricter gun laws.​

 

[Blues Man]

Well it doesn't matter what you consider there is no written or implied right to safety in the Constitution.

Pretty arrogant considering gun manufacturing in this country is protected by a law that can be repealed by voters just like me. If that law goes, so do the manufacturers.

You don't know how the amendment process works do you?

And there is still no guarantee of safety in any government document so your quest to control everyone else just so you can feel safe will be in vain

Amendments are tough to change, laws not so much. If the public can't get the more popular gun control measures there may be support for more extreme solutions.

Repeal of this law may have a very chilling effect on US gun ownership:

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act​

That would be one of those things that have unintended consequences.

If you repeal that then every manufacturer of every product will be liable for crimes and injuries.

Get drunk and drive and kill someone then the car maker can be sued the liquor manufacturer can be sued etc etc

What about a guy who stabs somone? Sue the knife maker.

What about a guy who beats someone to death with a baseball bat? Sue Louisville slugger?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Cellblock2429]

Yet you want to tell me what gun I can carry because you don't feel safe with people carrying guns

I consider my safety to be my right. If your 2nd A right conflicts with that right, guess which side I'm on?

/——/ I consider Climate Change activists to be a threat to my saftey. They need to be banned.

You should start your grassroots movement immediately, you have some serious catching up to do:

Roughly 2 in 3 Americans now say gun control laws should be made more strict in the wake of the murder of 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, according to a number of polls, including a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll that shows support for stricter gun laws among registered voters at 68 percent, compared with just 25 percent who oppose stricter gun laws.​

/——/ If you dig deep enough you’ll find they only polled 1,016 random adults and under sampled Republicans. Fake poll
A total of 1,016 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Interviews were conducted February 20-23, 2018. Among the entire sample, 33% described themselves as Democrats, 23% described themselves as Republicans, and 44% described themselves as independents or members of another party.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Las Vegas shooter would almost certainly not have been able to get a M134 GAU-17 up to the hotel room from which he did his shooting, along with an adequate supply of ammunition for it, and get it set up there to be fired.

Really? They search your bags before carrying them to your room? You must look very suspicious or are a lousy tipper.

I seem to have underestimated your level of abject ignorance, your level of intellectual dishonesty, or, more likely, both. It's not a matter of whether anyone would allow a minigun to be taken to a hotel room, or search any bags that might contain one. Do you have any idea how big and heavy and unwieldy a thing a minigun is? Regardless of whether anyone else might want to allow or disallow it, it's just not something that you can casually carry up to a hotel room. If it's possible to get one up there at all, it would certainly not be done without attracting a great deal of undue attention. And, assuming it's even possible, once you get it to your hotel room, to set it up to be fired, it's almost certain that the police, tipped off by people who saw you transporting what was obviously a machine gun, would be knocking at your door long before you could get it set up. You'd never get a chance to use it, even if doing so was otherwise possible.

You seem to be obsessed with trying to argue against the Second Amendment by bringing up unrealistic speculations about people using rather extreme weapons in manners that it would simply not be possible or practical to use them regardless of what legal restrictions may or may not be applied.

 

[alang1216]

Well it doesn't matter what you consider there is no written or implied right to safety in the Constitution.

Pretty arrogant considering gun manufacturing in this country is protected by a law that can be repealed by voters just like me. If that law goes, so do the manufacturers.

You don't know how the amendment process works do you?

And there is still no guarantee of safety in any government document so your quest to control everyone else just so you can feel safe will be in vain

Amendments are tough to change, laws not so much. If the public can't get the more popular gun control measures there may be support for more extreme solutions.

Repeal of this law may have a very chilling effect on US gun ownership:

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act​

That would be one of those things that have unintended consequences.

If you repeal that then every manufacturer of every product will be liable for crimes and injuries.

Get drunk and drive and kill someone then the car maker can be sued the liquor manufacturer can be sued etc etc

What about a guy who stabs somone? Sue the knife maker.

What about a guy who beats someone to death with a baseball bat? Sue Louisville slugger?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The unintended consequences would be limited since no other industry is protected in this way.

 

[alang1216]

Yet you want to tell me what gun I can carry because you don't feel safe with people carrying guns

I consider my safety to be my right. If your 2nd A right conflicts with that right, guess which side I'm on?

/——/ I consider Climate Change activists to be a threat to my saftey. They need to be banned.

You should start your grassroots movement immediately, you have some serious catching up to do:

Roughly 2 in 3 Americans now say gun control laws should be made more strict in the wake of the murder of 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, according to a number of polls, including a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll that shows support for stricter gun laws among registered voters at 68 percent, compared with just 25 percent who oppose stricter gun laws.​

/——/ If you dig deep enough you’ll find they only polled 1,016 random adults and under sampled Republicans. Fake poll
A total of 1,016 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Interviews were conducted February 20-23, 2018. Among the entire sample, 33% described themselves as Democrats, 23% described themselves as Republicans, and 44% described themselves as independents or members of another party.

Please point me to a better one. Not sure which numbers you are disputing.

 

[alang1216]

The Las Vegas shooter would almost certainly not have been able to get a M134 GAU-17 up to the hotel room from which he did his shooting, along with an adequate supply of ammunition for it, and get it set up there to be fired.

Really? They search your bags before carrying them to your room? You must look very suspicious or are a lousy tipper.

I seem to have underestimated your level of abject ignorance, your level of intellectual dishonesty, or, more likely, both. It's not a matter of whether anyone would allow a minigun to be taken to a hotel room, or search any bags that might contain one. Do you have any idea how big and heavy and unwieldy a thing a minigun is? Regardless of whether anyone else might want to allow or disallow it, it's just not something that you can casually carry up to a hotel room. If it's possible to get one up there at all, it would certainly not be done without attracting a great deal of undue attention. And, assuming it's even possible, once you get it to your hotel room, to set it up to be fired, it's almost certain that the police, tipped off by people who saw you transporting what was obviously a machine gun, would be knocking at your door long before you could get it set up. You'd never get a chance to use it, even if doing so was otherwise possible.

You seem to be obsessed with trying to argue against the Second Amendment by bringing up unrealistic speculations about people using rather extreme weapons in manners that it would simply not be possible or practical to use them regardless of what legal restrictions may or may not be applied.

Thanks I'm used to being underestimated.

 

[Blues Man]

Well it doesn't matter what you consider there is no written or implied right to safety in the Constitution.

Pretty arrogant considering gun manufacturing in this country is protected by a law that can be repealed by voters just like me. If that law goes, so do the manufacturers.

You don't know how the amendment process works do you?

And there is still no guarantee of safety in any government document so your quest to control everyone else just so you can feel safe will be in vain

Amendments are tough to change, laws not so much. If the public can't get the more popular gun control measures there may be support for more extreme solutions.

Repeal of this law may have a very chilling effect on US gun ownership:

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act​

That would be one of those things that have unintended consequences.

If you repeal that then every manufacturer of every product will be liable for crimes and injuries.

Get drunk and drive and kill someone then the car maker can be sued the liquor manufacturer can be sued etc etc

What about a guy who stabs somone? Sue the knife maker.

What about a guy who beats someone to death with a baseball bat? Sue Louisville slugger?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The unintended consequences would be limited since no other industry is protected in this way.

Of course there are

You can't sue Chevy or the jack daniels Co because some guy drank a lot of whiskey and mowed down your kid with his car

You can't sue the buck knife Co if someone stabs you with one of their knives

You can't sue Louisville slugger Co if someone bashes your head in with a bat



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Chuz Life]

Do yo need a tank in case the Russians invade?

As I wrote previously, even those unalienable rights are subject to limitations. Capital punishment, prison, and eminent domain come to mind.

If the Russians did invade, would you try to deprive me of my right to try to fight them back with a tank?

I'd have to see your tank drivers license before I decide.

Fair enough.

It's right there on the end of the barrel.

 

[Chuz Life]

There are extremists on both sides, I'm not one of them. If you can pass a background check that verifies you don't have a criminal mental health history, and you've been through some training in the safe use of your weapons, I can't imagine any law I'd support that would take away your guns.

I know of a cop who was very well trained in gun safety. He was a decorated cop (received recognition and awards.) He no doubt passed at least one "background" check and who knows what other kinds of psychological exams. . .

We was married to an extremely good looking, smart, LOVED police officer, friend of my whole family.

They divorced.

She was scared of him.

She got a restraining order.

He broke into her house, shot her in the head and then offed himself.

I have no faith or security in your much blathered about "background" checks.

 

[satrebil]

Well it doesn't matter what you consider there is no written or implied right to safety in the Constitution.

Pretty arrogant considering gun manufacturing in this country is protected by a law that can be repealed by voters just like me. If that law goes, so do the manufacturers.

Even if this nonsense were true it does nothing to remove the 400+ million firearms that are already in private hands, dingus. Whatcha gonna do about those?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unalienable refers to the belief that rights are not granted by government but rather are imbued in each person.

You're certainly welcome to your beliefs. You're not welcome to rewrite the Constitution.

And you're not welcome to disregard what the Constitution clearly, explicitly states.

Where does it say in the Constitution that gun rights are inalienable and therefore granted by our creator?

shall not be infringed

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well it doesn't matter what you consider there is no written or implied right to safety in the Constitution.

Pretty arrogant considering gun manufacturing in this country is protected by a law that can be repealed by voters just like me. If that law goes, so do the manufacturers.

you anti-gunners are going to push and push until the law-abiding gun owners come to your homes in a mob fashion and destroy everything even the memory of anti-gunners

 

[2aguy]

Yet you want to tell me what gun I can carry because you don't feel safe with people carrying guns

I consider my safety to be my right. If your 2nd A right conflicts with that right, guess which side I'm on?

Then you want more Americans to own and carry guns....

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

maybe but I don't think it has been proved. correlation does not mean cause.

And like the other anti-gunners you don't understand what this means....

We are not discussing if more gun ownership lowered the gun crime rate.....I have information on that too.......what this shows is that More Guns does not equal More Gun Crime......which means your entire anti-gun argument is false, not backed up by truth, facts or reality....

So, More people owning and actually carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate, the gun murder rate or the violent crime rate....

You have no argument for normal people owning and carrying guns.....since normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase gun crime.....

That is the point...

As to decreasing violent crime? Guns do that too...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43
====

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS

Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect.

For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year.

The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

====

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault.

This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem.

Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder.
====
An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates.

Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.

It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

===


“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Summary and Conclusion

Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime.

However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years

. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime.

Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering.

We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend.

These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted.

The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review




Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..



Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.

Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.

 

[DBA]

Even unalienable rights are subject to limitations. We have freedom of speech but we also have libel and slander laws.

Note that laws regarding libel, slander, fraud, and other such abuses of free speech only come into play when one uses one right to violate the rights of others.

There is no comparable principle to justify the way that the Second Amendment is being attacked. One person being in possession of a weapon does not, in any way, violate anyone else's rights. Now, if someone abuses that weapon, in a way that unjustifiably harms or threatens another, then that's another matter, but such conduct is already rightfully illegal.

In my county you are not allowed to carry a weapon unless you have a permit. To get a permit you have to have the proper training to know how and when to use it. Seems like a reasonable ask to me. Likewise criminals are not allowed to possess guns. Also reasonable. When I walk the dog I don't want to be thinking is that person standing on the corner an ex-con or a loon with a gun.

And you think criminals, who by defintion break the law, won't be carrying a gun? The illogical mind of a Democrat.

 

[DBA]

I'm a supporter of gun control AND civil liberty.

That's a contradiction. The right to keep and bear arms is established in our Constitution, as a civil right belonging to the people, which government is forbidden to infringe.

You cannot honestly claim to be in favor of civil rights, if you are in favor of allowing this one to be violated.

That's the kind of either or mentality that has polarized the country. Every right in the Constitution has restrictions, gun rights are no different. Do you think anyone should be able to own a 50-cal machine gun?

Yes why not own one?

The mere ownership of an item is not the issue.


The illegal use of the item is

And as I have said before there is no right to use a firearm only to own and carry (keep and bear)

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I don't want to live where anyone can legally walk into my school or office carrying a ma deuce. It would make me very unhappy (an inalienable right I have).

So then speech that makes you unhappy should be illegal as well? Until someone slanders you with their speech, they are free to say what they want. A person should be able to posses gun. If they hurt you with the gun they will have to answer to the courts as to why. We can't ban guns just because some people are scared of them.

 

[alang1216]

The unintended consequences would be limited since no other industry is protected in this way.

Of course there are

You can't sue Chevy or the jack daniels Co because some guy drank a lot of whiskey and mowed down your kid with his car

You can't sue the buck knife Co if someone stabs you with one of their knives

You can't sue Louisville slugger Co if someone bashes your head in with a bat

Incorrect. Only the gun industry is protected from lawsuits even if they are guilty of negligence.

 

[alang1216]

And you think criminals, who by defintion break the law, won't be carrying a gun? The illogical mind of a Democrat.

Criminals shouldn't be able to legally buy a gun. If they are then found with a gun they can be arrested, no other crimes need be proven.