Rico, "just being a person."

[Coyote]

No...it doesn't....you are a dipshit...... The first clause is the dependent clause, the second part is the independent clause....you dope.......

Since you haven't read the Heller decision, the Bruen, Caetano, or MacDonald decisions....you really have no idea what you are talking about.

And what makes you think those decisions are correct and will not eventually be overturned? Remember, YOUR judges no longer feel there is any such thing as settled law or value in precedent.
The fact that one is a dependent clause or an independent clause is an issue of grammar, not meaning. A dependent clause can’t be a standalone sentence. That is it.

On the other hand….

The Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms - FindLaw

The Second Amendment is possibly the most hotly debated single sentence of the United States Constitution. For over 200 years, the Supreme Court has analyzed the Second Amendment to determine just how far the right to bear arms can go. Learn more on FindLaw.

constitution.findlaw.com

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

For over 200 years, despite extensive debate and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there was no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).
To perhaps oversimplify the opposing arguments, the states’ rights thesis emphasized the importance of the prefatory clause, arguing that the purpose of the clause was to protect the states in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. The individual rights thesis emphasized the operative clause, so that individuals would be protected in the ownership, possession, and transportation of firearms.1 Whatever the Amendment meant, it was seen as a bar only to federal action, not state2 or private3 restraints.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nope...not even close...you know this, you lie about it...you are an idiot.

People who actually use their guns to commit murder ........90% of them have long histories of crime and violence going back to their teenage years....they are not "law abiding up to the point they pull the trigger."

The Criminology of Firearms


The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."
========

The 1 % of the population accountable for 63 % of all violent crime convictions​

The 1 % of the population accountable for 63 % of all violent crime convictions
===========

http://www.haciendapublishing.com/m...art-ii-gun-violence-and-constitutional-issues


Another favorite view of the gun control, public health establishment is the myth propounded by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former head of the NCIPC of the CDC, who has written: "Most of the perpetrators of violence are not criminals by trade or profession. Indeed, in the area of domestic violence, most of the perpetrators are never accused of any crime. The victims and perpetrators are ourselves --- ordinary citizens, students, professionals, and even public health workers."(6)

That statement is contradicted by available data, government data. The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.



(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18)



Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities with gangs involved in the drug trade. Crimes in rural areas for both blacks and whites, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low.(11,19)



Gun availability does not cause crime. Prohibitionist government policies and gun control (rather than crime control) exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In fact, there was a modest increase in both homicide and suicide after prohibition and passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.(20)

I didn't say they were law abiding up to the point they pull the trigger. The NRA and gun nuts consider them good guys with a gun, and will fight for them to be fully armed. Doesn't matter how wacked out and crazy they might be.

 

[Coyote]

We don't have a gun problem. But you aren't actually interested in solving problems. You are interested in in removing opposition to your Marxist fantasy.
Remove the Negro contribution from the US violent crime statisics... And we pretty much look like any other nation. We don't have a gun problem. There are just certain parts of the country that have a Negro problem....
I don't shoulder collective guilt for any of these shit bags.

The fact that this is all can up with makes it clear you are not interested in solutions. All you can come up with is “yer a Marxist!”

 

[Vastator]

The fact that this is all can up with makes it clear you are not interested in solutions. All you can come up with is “yer a Marxist!”

Blah blah. Does this country, have a gun problem? Or a Negro problem? Feel free to compartementalize.
Problem solver that you are. I'm sure you have no problem getting down to brass tacks. Unless you want to saunter off, and start another thread about Palistinians that no one gives a shit about...

 

[Vastator]

Blah blah. Does this country, have a gun problem? Or a Negro problem? Feel free to compartementalize.
Problem solver that you are. I'm sure you have no problem getting down to brass tacks. Unless you want to saunter off, and start another thread about Palistinians that no one gives a shit about...

Don't worry.... Ill wait...

 

[2aguy]

I didn't say they were law abiding up to the point they pull the trigger. The NRA and gun nuts consider them good guys with a gun, and will fight for them to be fully armed. Doesn't matter how wacked out and crazy they might be.

You mean except forthe fact it is the democrats, not the NRA, actively releasing real gun ceiminals whole the NRA is trying ro keep criminals in prison.

 

[2aguy]

Oh goodie, I knew someone would bring up the Hitler fallacy as soon as a sane and responsible gun culture was proposed. “Theyregonnagrabourguns!”. Everytime. As if the only two options are no regulations inhibiting guns or no guns for anyone. That is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion and why it is a culture problem more tha. A gun problem.

Hey, dumb ass....did they confiscate guns? After confiscating guns dis they murder 15 million innocent men, women and children?

You can try to deflect by pretending it didnt happen but it did......and they banned guns based on the exact same arguments you idiots keep pushing

 

[Captain Caveman]

There are millions of Ammosexuals in this country, and what gets them hard is when they are loaded up with guns and ammo they feel something they can not feel any other way: They feel powerful.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Hey, dumb ass....did they confiscate guns? After confiscating guns dis they murder 15 million innocent men, women and children?

You can try to deflect by pretending it didnt happen but it did......and they banned guns based on the exact same arguments you idiots keep pushing

No, surprise surprise, you are wrong yet again. The Third Reich never passed any gun laws.

When it comes to gun and knife laws in other nations, you are one heck of a thick ***".

 

[2aguy]

No, surprise surprise, you are wrong yet again. The Third Reich never passed any gun laws.

When it comes to gun and knife laws in other nations, you are one heck of a thick ***".

Moron…..the socialists in Germany used the registration lists mandated in the 1920s in Germany to confiscate guns from their enemies….people they then went on to murder…,,

They then went on to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children across Europe…..except in Switzerland……where the people still had guns…in particular, military rifles in vast numbers…

 

[Captain Caveman]

Moron…..the socialists in Germany used the registration lists mandated in the 1920s in Germany to confiscate guns from their enemies….people they then went on to murder…,,

They then went on to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children across Europe…..except in Switzerland……where the people still had guns…in particular, military rifles in vast numbers…

What an utter thicko. I bet your own family don't listen to the shite you come out with. Definitely an ex storm front nut.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Less than the number murdered after they had their guns taken away from them.

In Europe...the favorite of gun control fanatics like you........they began the process of registering, banning and confiscating guns in the 1920s.......by the mid 1930s, the German sociallists, in control of much of Europe, began the process of murdering 6 million defenseless, men, women and children. And in 6 years they performed the majority of that slaughter...

15 million men, women and children murdered in just 6 years, in countries that did what you said they should do.....give up their guns.

Meanwhile, in the United States, we average about 10,000 gun murders a year......the majority of those murdered are not innocent men, women and children, they are violent criminals murdered by other violent criminals in the commission of crimes or the criminal lifestyle.

In the entire 246 year history of our country, that makes about 2,460,000 million gun murder victims...

Now you have to comment on theses facts.

Europe...gave up their guns...

15 million innocent men, women and children murdered in 6 years.

The entire 246 year history of the United States?

2,460,000

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Non sequitur fallacy

Your arguement is, "Countries have different gun laws, a world war kicked off and so 15 million people died because people didn't have a 2nd amendment".

You are truly one utter thick ****

You're the type of guy that failed the non exams at school

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would suggest that anyone who can not see the absurdity of what has become of the 2nd A, which gave permission to members of a well regulated militia the right to possess a musket, has lost all perspective on the amendment's intent.

This is a lie.
You choose to argue from dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How many millions of people have unnecessarily died or been wounded from gunfire because of these words.............
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Zero.
Zilch.
Nada.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And what makes you think those decisions are correct and will not eventually be overturned?

Until they are they remain in place and in force
That is, you do not get to ignore them because you hope they may someday be overturned .

Remember, YOUR judges no longer feel there is any such thing as settled law or value in precedent.

You choose to not understand the argument in Dobbs and you cannot demonstrate how it could apply to the rulings regarding the 2nd.
And lets be honest: Liberal justices rule based on how they feel about an issue, not the law surrounding same, as proven inthe dissents in v Bruen.

For over 200 years, despite extensive debate and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there was no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.

Until 2008, in Heller, which followed, rather than overturned, any and every bit of jurisprudence from the USSC even remotely related to the 2nd.
So?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The fact that this is all can up with makes it clear you are not interested in solutions. All you can come up with is “yer a Marxist!”

The unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you seek to place on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding are not "solutions" - especially as they violate the constitution.

 

[2aguy]

Non sequitur fallacy

Your arguement is, "Countries have different gun laws, a world war kicked off and so 15 million people died because people didn't have a 2nd amendment".

You are truly one utter thick ****

You're the type of guy that failed the non exams at school

No....the argument is that when only the government has guns, that is one less roadblock to mass murder and genocide by the government.........the Holocaust did not happen in Switzerland, the only country in Europe that did not take guns away from their people.....

And you use gun murder to condemn the U.S.....but you guys murdered 15 million people in 6 years, after you took guns away....

Meanwhile, in the US.......where we have lots of guns...our total gun murder number in 246 years is only 2,460,000

Government murder, permitted by a disarmed population, murders far more people than criminals with guns....

Meanwhile, you ignore the other side of gun ownership.....normal people stopping criminals from committing rape, robbery, murder, stabbings, beatings, kidnappings, and even mass public shootings....

One calculation put the numbers of lives saved each year to be about 175,000.......more lives than are taken in this country when our criminals are murdering each other with guns.....criminals who are the vast majority of our gun murder victims, unlike in Europe where the actual victims of government murder are innocent men, women and children....

Lives saved....based on research? By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct





that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.


Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns



A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)




2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey

 

[Coyote]

Until they are they remain in place and in force
That is, you do not get to ignore them because you hope they may someday be overturned .

You choose to not understand the argument in Dobbs and you cannot demonstrate how it could apply to the rulings regarding the 2nd.
And lets be honest: Liberal justices rule based on how they feel about an issue, not the law surrounding same, as proven inthe dissents in v Bruen.

Until 2008, in Heller, which followed, rather than overturned, any and every bit of jurisprudence from the USSC even remotely related to the 2nd.
So?

Actually, Heller didn’t follow previous jurisprudence, it tool it to an entirely level. No different than you claim about abortion.

 

[2aguy]

Actually, Heller didn’t follow previous jurisprudence, it tool it to an entirely level. No different than you claim about abortion.

Nope.......they went through the entire history of gun laws from Britain, the colonies, to the state constitutions.....you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, Heller didn’t follow previous jurisprudence, i

Demonstrate this to be true.
Cite the relevant holding(s) by the USSC and copy/paste the text found in same overturned by Heller..

It tool it to an entirely level. No different than you claim about abortion.

You choose to not understand the argument in Dobbs and you cannot demonstrate how it could apply to the rulings regarding the 2nd.
And lets be honest: Liberal justices rule based on how they feel about an issue, not the law surrounding same, as proven inthe dissents in v Bruen.