Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional

[2aguy]

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

Why carve out just "western democracies"? Why discount the 100+ countries with total gun control and yet high murder rates. I see you also ignored the correlation in the US with strict gun control and high murder rates. Seems you're the one lying by omission!

Anyway, I'm glad to have cleared up the definition of murder for you. You're welcome.

Which came first, high murder rates or efforts to control guns? Correlation does not prove causation:
Consider:

• Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
• joint effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
• Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
• Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
• Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders. If you had ever read a coroner's report you would notice murder is never used as a term to describe a death. The phrase, "at the hands of another" is the proper form.

I didn't carve out 'Western Democracies' I simply used an apples and apples comparison.

And of course you won't explain how it is that more Americans now own and carry guns......and our gun murder rate decreased...via the FBI table 8: homicides, and the CDC......

4.7 million Americans carried guns in the United States in 2007........13 million Americans now carry guns in 2016...and our gun murder rate went down....

And you know what....we aren't even talking causation...it doesn't matter if people carrying guns lowered the crime rate or not....

The fact is...as more Americans have started carrying guns.....your belief that more crime would be created was wrong...completely wrong....

The FBI, the CDC show that you are wrong......and yet you cling to your non truth and false reality.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

And when those statistics show year after year that you are wrong....you say they are lies...

 

[eflatminor]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

Why carve out just "western democracies"? Why discount the 100+ countries with total gun control and yet high murder rates. I see you also ignored the correlation in the US with strict gun control and high murder rates. Seems you're the one lying by omission!

Anyway, I'm glad to have cleared up the definition of murder for you. You're welcome.

Which came first, high murder rates or efforts to control guns? Correlation does not prove causation:
Consider:

• Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
• joint effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
• Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
• Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
• Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders. If you had ever read a coroner's report you would notice murder is never used as a term to describe a death. The phrase, "at the hands of another" is the proper form.

I didn't carve out 'Western Democracies' I simply used an apples and apples comparison.

Doesn't matter which came first. What does matter is that we do not see higher murder rates where firearm ownership is high and/or gun control laws are lax. That is clear.

Apples to apples, eh? Interesting you don't explain that one. I suppose any country that has a higher murder rate despite the ban on civilian firearm ownership just isn't an apple. Whatever dude.

Then there's this comparison: Why don't you look at a state like Minnesota and compare it to one of your western democracies, say, Norway. Both have about 5 million people. They have similar weather, similar socio-economic status, similar racial diversity, etc. Hell, they even have the same damn ethnic background...many are related!

One BIG difference between the two is the rate of firearm ownership. Among the highest in the world in Minnesota and in Norway, not so much. YET, if you look over time, Norway actually has a higher murder rate than Minnesota, despite all those evil guns.

Now how could that be remotely possible if guns cause murder???

You really have no clue what you're going on about. Seriously.

 

[Contumacious]

This is a stupid thread.

You know they are not. The 2A provides no regulatory authority.

We are going to buy our firearms legally from Colt or in the blackmarket .


We will NOT be deprived - we will not be disarmed

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...
It's good for the country.

 

[nat4900]

Do you believe that the right to speech can be subject to background checks to ensure that said speech complies with party goals? Are speech controls constitutional?

How does the old adage go about what "sticks and stones [assault weapons] will do to you versus words...?

 

[Contumacious]

Buy more guns and ammo...
It's good for the country.

"Several years later, the Founders amended the Constitution to expressly protect many of the same fundamental rights against interference by the Federal Government. Consistent with their English heritage, the founding generation generally did not consider many of the rights identified in these amendments as new entitlements, but as inalienable rights of all men, given legal effect by their codification in the Constitution's text. See, e.g., 1 Annals of Cong. 431-432, 436--437, 440--442 (1834) (statement of Rep. Madison) (proposing Bill of Rights in the first Congress); The Federalist No. 84, pp. 531-533 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton); see also Heller, 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19) ("t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right"). The Court's subsequent decision in Barron, however, made plain that the codification of these rights in the Bill made them legally enforceable only against the Federal Government, not the States. See 7 Pet., at 247."

United States Supreme Court
MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL., (2010)
No. 08-1521

.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The argument appears to be "well regulated" didn't mean well regulated back then. It meant no regulation at all.

This is the attempt by people to change the meaning of the Constitution because it doesn't fit their already set in stone nonsense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In response to you first question; no I don't.

In response to your second question, Yes, they are (doubt that, next time you get on an airliner tell the flight crew you have a gun and want to go to Cuba)

To tell the airline crew that I am armed is a thread, a form of assault. Assault is illegal. Just as to hit a person with a hand gun is battery. Battery is not a function of the right to posses the weapon, it is a criminal act independent of the civil right.

You want to end civil rights, but your logic fails, as always.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How does the old adage go about what "sticks and stones [assault weapons] will do to you versus words...?

While Kindergarten playground logic is what I expect from you, the question of whether prior restraint can be attached to civil rights is a serious one. You demand that "rights" are subject to approval by our rulers, which makes them privileges.

 

[nat4900]

You demand that "rights" are subject to approval by our rulers, which makes them privileges.

Cute......So, tell me, why did right wingers like you give up that "right" to carry weapons into the republican convention coming up in Cleveland???
You and your ilk have given up the right, following "our rulers" making that right a privilege which is NOW denied to you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:
Do you believe Adam Lanza,....

Adam Lanza murdered his mother and stole her rifle.
For some reason, dishonest, childish fools like yourself believe that, somehow, gun control could have stopped Lanza from shooting up a school.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well is it legal to attach a 50cal Gatlin gun to a Ford Pickup then ride thru downtown Reno? What about that one?[

Gatling. Gatlin refers to Larry and his brothers.
Since I have a carry permit, I can legally do this anywhere in Ohio.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In response to you first question; no I don't.

In response to your second question, Yes, they are (doubt that, next time you get on an airliner tell the flight crew you have a gun and want to go to Cuba)

To tell the airline crew that I am armed is a thread, a form of assault. Assault is illegal. Just as to hit a person with a hand gun is battery. Battery is not a function of the right to posses the weapon, it is a criminal act independent of the civil right.

You want to end civil rights, but your logic fails, as always.

You too are a lunatic. The post had nothing to do with a gun, it had everything to do with the fact that freedom of speech is not absolute, nor is the Second. You can claim both mean what they say, but in practice they are not.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:
Do you believe Adam Lanza,....

Adam Lanza murdered his mother and stole her rifle.
For some reason, dishonest, childish fools like yourself believe that, somehow, gun control could have stopped Lanza from shooting up a school.

His mother might be alive today, among other killed by Lanza, had she stored her guns in a secure safe and denied her son and others the ability to open it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:
Do you believe Adam Lanza,....

Adam Lanza murdered his mother and stole her rifle.
For some reason, dishonest, childish fools like yourself believe that, somehow, gun control could have stopped Lanza from shooting up a school.

His mother might be alive today, among other killed by Lanza, had she stored her guns in a secure safe and denied her son and others the ability to open it.

None of which changes the fact that, for some reason, dishonest, childish fools like yourself believe that, somehow, after killing his mother and stealing the rifle, gun control could have stopped Lanza from shooting up a school.