CDZ Is this the way it is or the way that it should be ?

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not intimidated by people who open carry but then again I'm not scared of guns

Then join the Marines, pussy.

What's that got to do with the topic

And I have no plans to join the military. My Dad was a Navy Pilot and got killed for nothing in Nam. I don't owe the fucking government anything

You said you're not scared of guns. Guns fire lead projectiles at thousands of feet per second. If you're not scared of them, you're not rational. Or else you're trying to sound like a tough guy. So, assuming it's the latter, join the military. Guns can't hurt you, after all.

Guns do not scare me. I have used and handled them for more than 30 years. I am not afraid of an inanimate object are you?

I bet a chainsaw will make you piss your pants huh?.

And no a gun cannot hurt me it's the human being holding it that can do that

Not always.

6 Americans Have Been Shot by Their Dogs

This argument "guns don't kill, people kill" is beyond spurious and weak. You know damned well guns are more dangerous than fists. They're more deadly than knives or forks or baseball bats or scissors. You're not being honest. No one who trumpets these NRA/gun lobby talking points is.

Let me fix that link

Six STUPID Americans Shot by Their Dogs

A gun is nothing but a hunk metal and wood and or polymers

It can do nothing on its own

I have been injured using my chef's knife far many times but never while using my guns

 

[2aguy]

. What's impossible ? That if I want to attend a rally that is divisive but peaceful, and if I feel the need to carry my weapon for protection while there, then your saying that there is no permit process for me to do so or that it is impossible to have me fill out a form to grant me the authority to carry openly my weapon at the rally in which I am seeking to attend for my personal protection ? A permit in which puts my name on a granted permit list of possible carry holders in which may be attending the rally and attending it while armed ?

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

Then obviously there's no reason to oppose such laws and regulations.

And when the democrats instituted Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting...there was really no reason to oppose those laws either..right?

There was no rational basis for those rules. There is a rational basis to require people handling a lethal weapon to do so after proving that they're not dangerous and after proving they're competent to do so.

Oh, and even 6th graders know those were Dixiecrats, who are Republicans now.

Nice attempt at an equivalency, though.

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

What they fail to realize is that our Non-gun murder rate is also higher than the other countries in Europe......it isn't guns...it is our violent thugs in our inner cities....

 

[GaryDog]

. What's impossible ? That if I want to attend a rally that is divisive but peaceful, and if I feel the need to carry my weapon for protection while there, then your saying that there is no permit process for me to do so or that it is impossible to have me fill out a form to grant me the authority to carry openly my weapon at the rally in which I am seeking to attend for my personal protection ? A permit in which puts my name on a granted permit list of possible carry holders in which may be attending the rally and attending it while armed ?

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

Then obviously there's no reason to oppose such laws and regulations.

Except for the waste of time and taxpayers' money discussing and voting on such legislation. We have bigger fish to fry in this country.

Sure, you mean by voting to repeal Obamacare for the 47th time or holding the 30th Benghazi hearing? LMAO @ you

We have 12,000 gun homicides per year. If we can reduce that by even 10%, it's surely worth the time to save 1,200 people.

Guns are used 1,500,00 times a year on average to stop violent crime....that far outweighs gun crime of any kind.....and the number from the FBI homicie table is 8,124 for 2014.....and it was going down...before obama started releasing criminals and attacking the police........

More Americans bought guns..and the gun murder rate went down....you whole argument is based on lies....

LMAO, colossal lie.

 

[GaryDog]

. What's impossible ? That if I want to attend a rally that is divisive but peaceful, and if I feel the need to carry my weapon for protection while there, then your saying that there is no permit process for me to do so or that it is impossible to have me fill out a form to grant me the authority to carry openly my weapon at the rally in which I am seeking to attend for my personal protection ? A permit in which puts my name on a granted permit list of possible carry holders in which may be attending the rally and attending it while armed ?

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

Then obviously there's no reason to oppose such laws and regulations.

And when the democrats instituted Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting...there was really no reason to oppose those laws either..right?

There was no rational basis for those rules. There is a rational basis to require people handling a lethal weapon to do so after proving that they're not dangerous and after proving they're competent to do so.

Oh, and even 6th graders know those were Dixiecrats, who are Republicans now.

Nice attempt at an equivalency, though.

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

I see, so the states don't have a "compelling interest" in keeping their citizens safe?


I'd say that's almost their ONLY interest.

 

[2aguy]

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

Then obviously there's no reason to oppose such laws and regulations.

Except for the waste of time and taxpayers' money discussing and voting on such legislation. We have bigger fish to fry in this country.

Sure, you mean by voting to repeal Obamacare for the 47th time or holding the 30th Benghazi hearing? LMAO @ you

We have 12,000 gun homicides per year. If we can reduce that by even 10%, it's surely worth the time to save 1,200 people.

Guns are used 1,500,00 times a year on average to stop violent crime....that far outweighs gun crime of any kind.....and the number from the FBI homicie table is 8,124 for 2014.....and it was going down...before obama started releasing criminals and attacking the police........

More Americans bought guns..and the gun murder rate went down....you whole argument is based on lies....

LMAO, colossal lie.

No .....that data came from the Bill Clinton Departmemt of Justice research on the defensive use of guns............two rabid anti gunners were trying to refute all the other gun self defense research...they put together their own study......hired the staff....ran the research.........and found that Americans used guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack.........that was back in the 90s before 13million Americans started carrying guns for self defense too....

Then...in 2013.... Obama told the CDC to study all available gun research...at the cost of 10 million dollars...and they ended up confirming that number.....


So you can call bill and Barack liars....

 

[2aguy]

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

Then obviously there's no reason to oppose such laws and regulations.

And when the democrats instituted Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting...there was really no reason to oppose those laws either..right?

There was no rational basis for those rules. There is a rational basis to require people handling a lethal weapon to do so after proving that they're not dangerous and after proving they're competent to do so.

Oh, and even 6th graders know those were Dixiecrats, who are Republicans now.

Nice attempt at an equivalency, though.

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

I see, so the states don't have a "compelling interest" in keeping their citizens safe?


I'd say that's almost their ONLY interest.

Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives....many times stopping mass public shooters.........vs........8,124 gun murders in 2014....

1,500,,000 to 8,124

That is a compelling interest in keeping Americans safe....

 

[2aguy]

Then obviously there's no reason to oppose such laws and regulations.

And when the democrats instituted Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting...there was really no reason to oppose those laws either..right?

There was no rational basis for those rules. There is a rational basis to require people handling a lethal weapon to do so after proving that they're not dangerous and after proving they're competent to do so.

Oh, and even 6th graders know those were Dixiecrats, who are Republicans now.

Nice attempt at an equivalency, though.

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

What they fail to realize is that our Non-gun murder rate is also higher than the other countries in Europe......it isn't guns...it is our violent thugs in our inner cities....

Ignorance and racism. The GOP tea mixture of choice.

Racism is the core idea of the democrat party, not the Republican Party....Republicans don't care about race...it is all the democrats think about...

 

[GaryDog]

Then obviously there's no reason to oppose such laws and regulations.

And when the democrats instituted Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting...there was really no reason to oppose those laws either..right?

There was no rational basis for those rules. There is a rational basis to require people handling a lethal weapon to do so after proving that they're not dangerous and after proving they're competent to do so.

Oh, and even 6th graders know those were Dixiecrats, who are Republicans now.

Nice attempt at an equivalency, though.

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

I see, so the states don't have a "compelling interest" in keeping their citizens safe?


I'd say that's almost their ONLY interest.

Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives....many times stopping mass public shooters.........vs........8,124 gun murders in 2014....

1,500,,000 to 8,124

That is a compelling interest in keeping Americans safe....

Again, bullshit. "Brandishing" a gun is not "using it".

You can bring up all the bullshit NRA statistics you want. The only one that really matters is: Which country has more gun deaths than any other industrialized nation in the world?

 

[GaryDog]

And when the democrats instituted Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting...there was really no reason to oppose those laws either..right?

There was no rational basis for those rules. There is a rational basis to require people handling a lethal weapon to do so after proving that they're not dangerous and after proving they're competent to do so.

Oh, and even 6th graders know those were Dixiecrats, who are Republicans now.

Nice attempt at an equivalency, though.

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

What they fail to realize is that our Non-gun murder rate is also higher than the other countries in Europe......it isn't guns...it is our violent thugs in our inner cities....

Ignorance and racism. The GOP tea mixture of choice.

Racism is the core idea of the democrat party, not the Republican Party....Republicans don't care about race...it is all the democrats think about...

Indeed, that's because Republicans like to pretend things like slavery and Jim Crow never happened.

 

[GaryDog]

Then obviously there's no reason to oppose such laws and regulations.

Except for the waste of time and taxpayers' money discussing and voting on such legislation. We have bigger fish to fry in this country.

Sure, you mean by voting to repeal Obamacare for the 47th time or holding the 30th Benghazi hearing? LMAO @ you

We have 12,000 gun homicides per year. If we can reduce that by even 10%, it's surely worth the time to save 1,200 people.

Guns are used 1,500,00 times a year on average to stop violent crime....that far outweighs gun crime of any kind.....and the number from the FBI homicie table is 8,124 for 2014.....and it was going down...before obama started releasing criminals and attacking the police........

More Americans bought guns..and the gun murder rate went down....you whole argument is based on lies....

LMAO, colossal lie.

No .....that data came from the Bill Clinton Departmemt of Justice research on the defensive use of guns............two rabid anti gunners were trying to refute all the other gun self defense research...they put together their own study......hired the staff....ran the research.........and found that Americans used guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack.........that was back in the 90s before 13million Americans started carrying guns for self defense too....

Then...in 2013.... Obama told the CDC to study all available gun research...at the cost of 10 million dollars...and they ended up confirming that number.....


So you can call bill and Barack liars....

Actually, the GOP passed a law preventing the CDC from studying the effects of gun violence. Lying must be second-nature to you. When the law lapsed, they blocked funding. WHy?

Why the CDC still isn’t researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two years ago

Congress has continued to block dedicated funding. Obama requested $10 million for the CDC’s gun violence research in his last two budgets. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced bills supporting the funding. Both times the Republican-controlled House of Representatives said no. Maloney recently said she planned to reintroduce her bill this year, but she wasn’t hopeful.

So, the CDC is no closer to initiating gun-violence studies.

 

[2aguy]

And when the democrats instituted Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting...there was really no reason to oppose those laws either..right?

There was no rational basis for those rules. There is a rational basis to require people handling a lethal weapon to do so after proving that they're not dangerous and after proving they're competent to do so.

Oh, and even 6th graders know those were Dixiecrats, who are Republicans now.

Nice attempt at an equivalency, though.

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

I see, so the states don't have a "compelling interest" in keeping their citizens safe?


I'd say that's almost their ONLY interest.

Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives....many times stopping mass public shooters.........vs........8,124 gun murders in 2014....

1,500,,000 to 8,124

That is a compelling interest in keeping Americans safe....

Again, bullshit. "Brandishing" a gun is not "using it".

You can bring up all the bullshit NRA statistics you want. The only one that really matters is: Which country has more gun deaths than any other industrialized nation in the world?

They are not NRA statistics...they are Statistics from an actual study conducted by the Department of Justice...and confirmed by the Obama CDC.........

And yes.....when you draw your weapon and the criminal attacking you runs away...it is an actual self defense use of the gun.......guns do not have to be fired to save the life of the owner....
I

 

[2aguy]

Except for the waste of time and taxpayers' money discussing and voting on such legislation. We have bigger fish to fry in this country.

Sure, you mean by voting to repeal Obamacare for the 47th time or holding the 30th Benghazi hearing? LMAO @ you

We have 12,000 gun homicides per year. If we can reduce that by even 10%, it's surely worth the time to save 1,200 people.

Guns are used 1,500,00 times a year on average to stop violent crime....that far outweighs gun crime of any kind.....and the number from the FBI homicie table is 8,124 for 2014.....and it was going down...before obama started releasing criminals and attacking the police........

More Americans bought guns..and the gun murder rate went down....you whole argument is based on lies....

LMAO, colossal lie.

No .....that data came from the Bill Clinton Departmemt of Justice research on the defensive use of guns............two rabid anti gunners were trying to refute all the other gun self defense research...they put together their own study......hired the staff....ran the research.........and found that Americans used guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack.........that was back in the 90s before 13million Americans started carrying guns for self defense too....

Then...in 2013.... Obama told the CDC to study all available gun research...at the cost of 10 million dollars...and they ended up confirming that number.....


So you can call bill and Barack liars....

Actually, the GOP passed a law preventing the CDC from studying the effects of gun violence. Lying must be second-nature to you. When the law lapsed, they blocked funding. WHy?

Why the CDC still isn’t researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two years ago

Congress has continued to block dedicated funding. Obama requested $10 million for the CDC’s gun violence research in his last two budgets. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced bills supporting the funding. Both times the Republican-controlled House of Representatives said no. Maloney recently said she planned to reintroduce her bill this year, but she wasn’t hopeful.

So, the CDC is no closer to initiating gun-violence studies.

You really need to do better research....last week I listed the gun studies the CDC has actually done...after the lie that they don't do gun research......in fact...they did a gun viol nice study in 2015........

The CDC is simply blocked from advocating against civil rights.......

 

[GaryDog]

There was no rational basis for those rules. There is a rational basis to require people handling a lethal weapon to do so after proving that they're not dangerous and after proving they're competent to do so.

Oh, and even 6th graders know those were Dixiecrats, who are Republicans now.

Nice attempt at an equivalency, though.

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

I see, so the states don't have a "compelling interest" in keeping their citizens safe?


I'd say that's almost their ONLY interest.

Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives....many times stopping mass public shooters.........vs........8,124 gun murders in 2014....

1,500,,000 to 8,124

That is a compelling interest in keeping Americans safe....

Again, bullshit. "Brandishing" a gun is not "using it".

You can bring up all the bullshit NRA statistics you want. The only one that really matters is: Which country has more gun deaths than any other industrialized nation in the world?

They are not NRA statistics...they are Statistics from an actual study conducted by the Department of Justice...and confirmed by the Obama CDC.........

And yes.....when you draw your weapon and the criminal attacking you runs away...it is an actual self defense use of the gun.......guns do not have to be fired to save the life of the owner....
I

Again, bullshit. The CDC has not done a study on gun violence. The reason? The NRA doesn't want them to.

And the study you're talking about WAS NOT ABOUT GUNS:

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study

 

[2aguy]

There was no rational basis for those rules. There is a rational basis to require people handling a lethal weapon to do so after proving that they're not dangerous and after proving they're competent to do so.

Oh, and even 6th graders know those were Dixiecrats, who are Republicans now.

Nice attempt at an equivalency, though.

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

What they fail to realize is that our Non-gun murder rate is also higher than the other countries in Europe......it isn't guns...it is our violent thugs in our inner cities....

Ignorance and racism. The GOP tea mixture of choice.

Racism is the core idea of the democrat party, not the Republican Party....Republicans don't care about race...it is all the democrats think about...

Indeed, that's because Republicans like to pretend things like slavery and Jim Crow never happened.

Slavery and Jim Crow were things the democrat party did.....the Republican Party fought against both of them...try to do some research before you post....

 

[2aguy]

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

I see, so the states don't have a "compelling interest" in keeping their citizens safe?


I'd say that's almost their ONLY interest.

Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives....many times stopping mass public shooters.........vs........8,124 gun murders in 2014....

1,500,,000 to 8,124

That is a compelling interest in keeping Americans safe....

Again, bullshit. "Brandishing" a gun is not "using it".

You can bring up all the bullshit NRA statistics you want. The only one that really matters is: Which country has more gun deaths than any other industrialized nation in the world?

They are not NRA statistics...they are Statistics from an actual study conducted by the Department of Justice...and confirmed by the Obama CDC.........

And yes.....when you draw your weapon and the criminal attacking you runs away...it is an actual self defense use of the gun.......guns do not have to be fired to save the life of the owner....
I

Again, bullshit. The CDC has not done a study on gun violence. The reason? The NRA doesn't want them to.

You are wrong...they just did one in 2015.....and several others that I found on their website.....

 

[GaryDog]

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

What they fail to realize is that our Non-gun murder rate is also higher than the other countries in Europe......it isn't guns...it is our violent thugs in our inner cities....

Ignorance and racism. The GOP tea mixture of choice.

Racism is the core idea of the democrat party, not the Republican Party....Republicans don't care about race...it is all the democrats think about...

Indeed, that's because Republicans like to pretend things like slavery and Jim Crow never happened.

Slavery and Jim Crow were things the democrat party did.....the Republican Party fought against both of them...try to do some research before you post....

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Votes for '64 Civil Rights bill, broken down by party:

Dems: 197
Pubs: 153.

LOL @ you

 

[GaryDog]

I see, so the states don't have a "compelling interest" in keeping their citizens safe?


I'd say that's almost their ONLY interest.

Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives....many times stopping mass public shooters.........vs........8,124 gun murders in 2014....

1,500,,000 to 8,124

That is a compelling interest in keeping Americans safe....

Again, bullshit. "Brandishing" a gun is not "using it".

You can bring up all the bullshit NRA statistics you want. The only one that really matters is: Which country has more gun deaths than any other industrialized nation in the world?

They are not NRA statistics...they are Statistics from an actual study conducted by the Department of Justice...and confirmed by the Obama CDC.........

And yes.....when you draw your weapon and the criminal attacking you runs away...it is an actual self defense use of the gun.......guns do not have to be fired to save the life of the owner....
I

Again, bullshit. The CDC has not done a study on gun violence. The reason? The NRA doesn't want them to.

You are wrong...they just did one in 2015.....and several others that I found on their website.....

That was not a gun study. It was a purposeful work-around of actual guns, thanks to Congress's orders not to fund a study devoted to guns.

 

[2aguy]

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

I see, so the states don't have a "compelling interest" in keeping their citizens safe?


I'd say that's almost their ONLY interest.

Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives....many times stopping mass public shooters.........vs........8,124 gun murders in 2014....

1,500,,000 to 8,124

That is a compelling interest in keeping Americans safe....

Again, bullshit. "Brandishing" a gun is not "using it".

You can bring up all the bullshit NRA statistics you want. The only one that really matters is: Which country has more gun deaths than any other industrialized nation in the world?

They are not NRA statistics...they are Statistics from an actual study conducted by the Department of Justice...and confirmed by the Obama CDC.........

And yes.....when you draw your weapon and the criminal attacking you runs away...it is an actual self defense use of the gun.......guns do not have to be fired to save the life of the owner....
I

Again, bullshit. The CDC has not done a study on gun violence. The reason? The NRA doesn't want them to.

And the study you're talking about WAS NOT ABOUT GUNS:

The CDC Just Released a 'Gun Violence' Study

Yes...it was...the New York Times piece even says so........

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html?_r=0

WILMINGTON, Del. — When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office.

 

[2aguy]

What they fail to realize is that our Non-gun murder rate is also higher than the other countries in Europe......it isn't guns...it is our violent thugs in our inner cities....

Ignorance and racism. The GOP tea mixture of choice.

Racism is the core idea of the democrat party, not the Republican Party....Republicans don't care about race...it is all the democrats think about...

Indeed, that's because Republicans like to pretend things like slavery and Jim Crow never happened.

Slavery and Jim Crow were things the democrat party did.....the Republican Party fought against both of them...try to do some research before you post....

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Votes for '64 Civil Rights bill, broken down by party:

Dems: 197
Pubs: 153.

LOL @ you

Yeah...look at all the actual civil rights acts before the democrats wised up and realized that they couldn't murder enough blacks to keep them from voting...so on the last one...they jumped on the band wagon......cause LBJ said he would have the "n" words voting democrat for 200 years.......and the 1964 act also gave the government more power over private businesses...which is another thing democrats love......

 

[FA_Q2]

No.
I'm saying that it's impossible to know who is carrying a weapon and who is not. I'm saying that a permit does nothing. I'm saying whether there are laws, restrictions, or check points, or not, people that want to bring weapons to marches and rallies will do so. How is anyone going to control such? So, why even get a permit? What real purpose does a permit serve? Those that have no intention to harm anyone, shouldn't be worried about anyway. And the bad guys that do have intentions to harm someone, aren't going to apply for permit.

It's basically the same as stupid gun control and attempting to get weapons off our streets. It's impossible.

Then obviously there's no reason to oppose such laws and regulations.

And when the democrats instituted Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting...there was really no reason to oppose those laws either..right?

There was no rational basis for those rules. There is a rational basis to require people handling a lethal weapon to do so after proving that they're not dangerous and after proving they're competent to do so.

Oh, and even 6th graders know those were Dixiecrats, who are Republicans now.

Nice attempt at an equivalency, though.

Ratinal basis is not what is required either - it is a compelling state interest. As there have been gun control measures passed all over the planet that show gun control does not reduce homicides the compelling state interest not present. It simply does not work - you want to address homicides and death then you need to address the underlying CAUSE rather than the instrument in which it is carried out.

I see, so the states don't have a "compelling interest" in keeping their citizens safe?


I'd say that's almost their ONLY interest.

I explicitly stated that further gun control measures do not accomplish that.

Those measures will not keep their citizens safe. It accomplishes nothing at all.