Does gun control work???

[eflatminor]

In any case..just wondering why the "State's rights" crowd suddenly get all federal when it comes to this issue.

Because certain rights, such as those codified in the Bill of Rights, are inalienable and not to be denied by any state or local government. Is this not obvious?

 

[auditor0007]

The reality in the US is that in those locals with less restrictions crime goes or stays down while those with the most restrictive laws crime is much higher.

Two points. Gun restrictions are generally at their lowest in higher income areas where crime is low to begin with. Gun restrictions tend to be the most restrictive in lower income areas with higher density populations (big cities) where crime is much higher to begin with. Would adding more guns to big cities be beneficial? Not so sure about that one. I'm sure you could make a valid argument for either side.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The reality in the US is that in those locals with less restrictions crime goes or stays down while those with the most restrictive laws crime is much higher.

Two points. Gun restrictions are generally at their lowest in higher income areas where crime is low to begin with. Gun restrictions tend to be the most restrictive in lower income areas with higher density populations (big cities) where crime is much higher to begin with. Would adding more guns to big cities be beneficial? Not so sure about that one. I'm sure you could make a valid argument for either side.

The origins of gun restrictions were anti black. Dare I say more?

 

[Sallow]

Why call it " gun control"? Do we use the term "vehicle control" when we enact driving regulations? Of course reasonable regulations regarding weapons posession work.

Wow.

 

[Sallow]

In any case..just wondering why the "State's rights" crowd suddenly get all federal when it comes to this issue.

Because certain rights, such as those codified in the Bill of Rights, are inalienable and not to be denied by any state or local government. Is this not obvious?

Is it?

Free speech is regulated all the time.

Don't really see you guys have all that much trouble with that.

 

[Contumacious]

Does gun control work??? ?

Stupid question.....yes, it does.......I practice, practice, practice and I am 100% accurate at 100 feet with a snub nose .357 magnum.

So practice makes for excellent gun control.

.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

In any case..just wondering why the "State's rights" crowd suddenly get all federal when it comes to this issue.

Because certain rights, such as those codified in the Bill of Rights, are inalienable and not to be denied by any state or local government. Is this not obvious?

Not to mention the language of the 10th ammendment, the same ammendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

In any case..just wondering why the "State's rights" crowd suddenly get all federal when it comes to this issue.

Because certain rights, such as those codified in the Bill of Rights, are inalienable and not to be denied by any state or local government. Is this not obvious?

Not to mention the language of the 10th ammendment, the same ammendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

You know what they say about an intelligent man?

 

[bripat9643]

No they don't. The murder rate in NYC was far higher before strict gun laws were implemented.

The facts don't support your claim. The Sullivan Act was passed in 1911. Here is a historical chart of the murder rate in NYC:

Mandatory sentencing came much later then that.

What does that have to do with anything? You claimed that strict gun laws lowered the murder rate. NYC has had strict guns laws since 1911, and the murder rate only went up after that.

 

[eflatminor]

Free speech is regulated all the time.

Don't really see you guys have all that much trouble with that.

I don't know who "you guys" are but Libertarians have ALWAYS stood against regulation of speech or any other inalienable right for that matter. Who are you referring to?

 

[Sallow]

In any case..just wondering why the "State's rights" crowd suddenly get all federal when it comes to this issue.

Because certain rights, such as those codified in the Bill of Rights, are inalienable and not to be denied by any state or local government. Is this not obvious?

Not to mention the language of the 10th ammendment, the same ammendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

Really?

There is quite an argument about the 2nd Amendment. One side says it allows for unrestricted access to guns. Another side said it codifies the sort of military we should have. And there are strong arguments for either side.

In any case..unless you want to litigate that..there are all sorts of restrictions on the other rights given to citizens by the Constitution. Free speech is one. The practice of religion is another. I seriously doubt you'd have a problem with curtailing the right of someone to yell fire in a crowded theater or engage in human sacrifice..or would ya?

But all of a sudden..when it comes to this..some really dodgy ideas come from the right wing. Having a concealed weapon in a bar? Really? In school? In church? At political rallies?

It's just amazing how irresponsible you guys are about this issue.

 

[uscitizen]

Does gun control work???

Not perfectly but then nothing with humans works perfectly.
Should we give it up becuase it is imperfect?
Should we make murder legal since people kill each other even if it is illegal?

btw the controls on all my guns work perfectly.

 

[peach174]

In any case..just wondering why the "State's rights" crowd suddenly get all federal when it comes to this issue.

Because certain rights, such as those codified in the Bill of Rights, are inalienable and not to be denied by any state or local government. Is this not obvious?

Not to mention the language of the 10th amendment, the same amendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

Not only our 2nd amendment and 10th amendment.
Our State Constitutions.
Here is Arizona's;
26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Combined with our Federal and Sate Constitutions we citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend ourselves.

 

[uscitizen]

Because certain rights, such as those codified in the Bill of Rights, are inalienable and not to be denied by any state or local government. Is this not obvious?

Not to mention the language of the 10th amendment, the same amendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

Not only our 2nd amendment and 10th amendment.
Our State Constitutions.
Here is Arizona's;
26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Combined with our Federal and Sate Constitutions we citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend ourselves.

Hmm sounds like Militia organizations are illegal in AZ.
Perhaps even the NRA and such gun owner groups.

 

[Sallow]

Because certain rights, such as those codified in the Bill of Rights, are inalienable and not to be denied by any state or local government. Is this not obvious?

Not to mention the language of the 10th amendment, the same amendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

Not only our 2nd amendment and 10th amendment.
Our State Constitutions.
Here is Arizona's;
26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Combined with our Federal and Sate Constitutions we citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend ourselves.

That's rich. The state's constitution changes the US constitution.

 

[peach174]

Because certain rights, such as those codified in the Bill of Rights, are inalienable and not to be denied by any state or local government. Is this not obvious?

Not to mention the language of the 10th ammendment, the same amendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

Really?

There is quite an argument about the 2nd Amendment. One side says it allows for unrestricted access to guns. Another side said it codifies the sort of military we should have. And there are strong arguments for either side.

In any case..unless you want to litigate that..there are all sorts of restrictions on the other rights given to citizens by the Constitution. Free speech is one. The practice of religion is another. I seriously doubt you'd have a problem with curtailing the right of someone to yell fire in a crowded theater or engage in human sacrifice..or would ya?

But all of a sudden..when it comes to this..some really dodgy ideas come from the right wing. Having a concealed weapon in a bar? Really? In school? In church? At political rallies?

It's just amazing how irresponsible you guys are about this issue.

We are being gunned down in bars, schools, colleges and Churches and we have the right to defend ourself against murders.
Everyone that was at the tea party rallies had permit's. That is why they were not arrested.
There is a big difference between law breakers and law abider's.
Law breakers will always be able to get guns no matter how many laws are passed.

 

[uscitizen]

Sounds like the AZ constitution is against the TP organizing groups of armed citizens.

 

[Sallow]

Not to mention the language of the 10th ammendment, the same amendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

Really?

There is quite an argument about the 2nd Amendment. One side says it allows for unrestricted access to guns. Another side said it codifies the sort of military we should have. And there are strong arguments for either side.

In any case..unless you want to litigate that..there are all sorts of restrictions on the other rights given to citizens by the Constitution. Free speech is one. The practice of religion is another. I seriously doubt you'd have a problem with curtailing the right of someone to yell fire in a crowded theater or engage in human sacrifice..or would ya?

But all of a sudden..when it comes to this..some really dodgy ideas come from the right wing. Having a concealed weapon in a bar? Really? In school? In church? At political rallies?

It's just amazing how irresponsible you guys are about this issue.

We are being gunned down in bars, schools, colleges and Churches and we have the right to defend ourself against murders.
Everyone that was at the tea party rallies had permit's. That is why they were not arrested.
There is a big difference between law breakers and law abider's.
Law breakers will always be able to get guns no matter how many laws are passed.

Plenty of "Law abiding" people have had unhinged moments and gone berzerk. There were plenty of people with guns at Gabby Gifford's event. They couldn't prevent what happened.

 

[peach174]

Not to mention the language of the 10th amendment, the same amendment states rights crowds are going on about, is the one that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Its pretty clear where the difference comes from sallow.

Not only our 2nd amendment and 10th amendment.
Our State Constitutions.
Here is Arizona's;
26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Combined with our Federal and Sate Constitutions we citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend ourselves.

That's rich. The state's constitution changes the US constitution.

No it doesn't.
Our Federal 2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Our State constitution says the same thing.

 

[eflatminor]

I seriously doubt you'd have a problem with curtailing the right of someone to yell fire in a crowded theater or engage in human sacrifice..or would ya?

But all of a sudden..when it comes to this..some really dodgy ideas come from the right wing. Having a concealed weapon in a bar? Really? In school? In church? At political rallies?

It's just amazing how irresponsible you guys are about this issue.

Good God man! Yelling fire in a crowded theater is NOT practicing free speech! It's USING speech to actually harm another. Just like having a firearm is perfectly legal. Using a gun actually harm another is of course illegal outside of self defense. Such a tired and misguided argument!

As far as concealed weapons...are those places you listed private property? Then what ******* business is it of yours? If you own the bar, feel free to ban concealed weapons. If you don't take your business elsewhere. It's really that simple.