Uvalde shooter legally bought his guns............

[Flash]

You've obviously not checked out the Freedom and Liberty thread. If you had and checked the link, you would have found the indices used to rank countries, and the indices from which countries. Then you have further seen that America is included in what to use to rank countries.

So instead of repeating the same ole sound bites year in, year out, go and educate yourself. Freedom and Liberty obviously doesn't mean the same your definition and/or agenda.

I don't give a shit about other counties. Here in the US we have the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution and that is real Liberty. Like I said, you wouldn't understand. You can't explain the concept of Liberty to an idiot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

.... you fucking lying sack of shit.

This really sums it up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's outdated. You have gun nuts running about with guns, yet they haven't got the brain power to list Japan's gun incidents and mass shooting stats.

But....Japan has gun control? So how was the Prime Minister shot? Breaking news.....

Yep...the majority of those are suicides....but Faun won't let the truth get in the way of a good lie... Meanwhile, Japan murdered 3 million innocent civilians during the war....unarmed civilians... Also, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies...

www.usmessageboard.com

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

Until 2008, the Supreme Court recognized a collective – not individual – right to possess firearms enshrined in the Second Amendment.

The collective right interpretation would have authorized the firearm regulatory measures you support:

‘In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008…’

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Your issue, then, is with the Supreme Court, not the Second Amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

Until 2008, the Supreme Court recognized a collective – not individual – right to possess firearms enshrined in the Second Amendment.

^^^^
This is lie.
Disagree?
Cite the holding and copy/paste the text to that effect from same.

 

[M14 Shooter]

‘In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

^^^^
Another lie.

"...Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for … military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.

This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. Justice Stevens can say again and again that Miller did “not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns,” post, at 42–43, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise. The most Justice Stevens can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor General’s argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective, see Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, pp. 4–5. Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."
DC v Heller 2008

 

[Captain Caveman]

No, he is a combination of dishonest and evil.

If you believe those numbers, I have a BEAUTIFUL beach house for sale really cheap. It's an hour north of Wichita.

The stage is yours, just post a couple of links that states over 50% of the population own a gun. A few state 32%, some are reporting between mid 30's to mid 40's.

If you can do that, problem solved (btw, no gun nut sites, has to be official stat sites)

 

[Captain Caveman]

I don't give a shit about other counties. Here in the US we have the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution and that is real Liberty. Like I said, you wouldn't understand. You can't explain the concept of Liberty to an idiot.

Yet again, put your silly criteria to one side and go check the indices.

 

[Captain Caveman]

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

Until 2008, the Supreme Court recognized a collective – not individual – right to possess firearms enshrined in the Second Amendment.

The collective right interpretation would have authorized the firearm regulatory measures you support:

‘In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008…’

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Your issue, then, is with the Supreme Court, not the Second Amendment.

The only trouble is, American culture is based on Toxic Individualism. One day, the Right to Bear Arms will be amended.

 

[Flash]

Yet again, put your silly criteria to one side and go check the indices.

Indices made by idiot like yourself that don't have any concept of real Liberty is as worthless as tits on a boar hog.

If anybody thinks that living in a country that doesn't have the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is living in freedom doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground and it would be a waste of time to explain it to them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

Until 2008, the Supreme Court recognized a collective – not individual – right to possess firearms enshrined in the Second Amendment.

The collective right interpretation would have authorized the firearm regulatory measures you support:

‘In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008…’

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Your issue, then, is with the Supreme Court, not the Second Amendment.

Lying sack of shit

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The only trouble is, American culture is based on Toxic Individualism. One day, the Right to Bear Arms will be amended.

And you'll never live to see it happen.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The stage is yours, just post a couple of links that states over 50% of the population own a gun. A few state 32%, some are reporting between mid 30's to mid 40's.

If you can do that, problem solved (btw, no gun nut sites, has to be official stat sites)

Actually, it depends on what group you are using to conduct the poll with. If you are going for general population (meaning everyone) then your figures are right. However, if you start to break it down by various subgroups of the population (married or single, living in the city or the country, Republican or Democrat), the stats can vary over quite a wide range.

Here is a link to a Gallup poll, and has a breakdown of not only the population at large, but also various subgroups of the American population.

Hope it helps.

What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?

Read Gallup's short answer to this common question about gun ownership, including what percentages of major demographic subgroups own guns.

news.gallup.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually, it depends on what group you are using to conduct the poll with. If you are going for general population (meaning everyone) then your figures are right. However, if you start to break it down by various subgroups of the population (married or single, living in the city or the country, Republican or Democrat), the stats can vary over quite a wide range.

Here is a link to a Gallup poll, and has a breakdown of not only the population at large, but also various subgroups of the American population.

Hope it helps.

What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?

Read Gallup's short answer to this common question about gun ownership, including what percentages of major demographic subgroups own guns.

news.gallup.com

How Many Guns Do Americans Own?

Lack of a central database makes gun tallies tricky, but research shows a sharp rise in gun ownership.

www.wsj.com

 

[ABikerSailor]

How Many Guns Do Americans Own?

Lack of a central database makes gun tallies tricky, but research shows a sharp rise in gun ownership.

www.wsj.com

Your link has a pay wall, not gonna subscribe just to read what you think is correct. Mine is a Gallup poll that anyone can read without subscribing, and has a breakdown of gun ownership (people who actually own guns), as well as people in gun households (people don't own the guns, but someone in the house does, so they are living in a house with a gun). It also breaks it down via political party, male or female, as well as some other subgroups. Yours appears to be an opinion piece (like I said, couldn't read because it requires a subscription to do so), whereas mine has actual figures from an actual poll.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your link has a pay wall, not gonna subscribe just to read what you think is correct. Mine is a Gallup poll that anyone can read without subscribing, and has a breakdown of gun ownership (people who actually own guns), as well as people in gun households (people don't own the guns, but someone in the house does, so they are living in a house with a gun). It also breaks it down via political party, male or female, as well as some other subgroups. Yours appears to be an opinion piece (like I said, couldn't read because it requires a subscription to do so), whereas mine has actual figures from an actual poll.

Makes no difference more people own guns than what gallop says

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here is a link to a Gallup poll, and has a breakdown of not only the population at large, but also various subgroups of the American population.

According to this, 44% of households have a gun. That's 44 houses out of my 100 house neighborhood.
~122,000,000 households in the US - 53,000,000 of them have a gun.
~2.6 people per household - 139,000,000 people in the US have direct access to a gun.
And yet, we only see ~10k gun-related murders per year
Hmm.

Interesting that the higher your income, the more likely you are to have a gun/have a gun in the house.
Looks like my 100-house neighborhood is more like 55 houses with a gun it it.

 

[Captain Caveman]

And you'll never live to see it happen.

You won't either, but it's gonna happen. So make sure you get tears etched into your gravestone.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Actually, it depends on what group you are using to conduct the poll with. If you are going for general population (meaning everyone) then your figures are right. However, if you start to break it down by various subgroups of the population (married or single, living in the city or the country, Republican or Democrat), the stats can vary over quite a wide range.

Here is a link to a Gallup poll, and has a breakdown of not only the population at large, but also various subgroups of the American population.

Hope it helps.

What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?

Read Gallup's short answer to this common question about gun ownership, including what percentages of major demographic subgroups own guns.

news.gallup.com

I am going by, what percentage of the US population own a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

^^^
Hates facts, whishes he had some.

 

[Flash]

The stage is yours, just post a couple of links that states over 50% of the population own a gun. A few state 32%, some are reporting between mid 30's to mid 40's.

If you can do that, problem solved (btw, no gun nut sites, has to be official stat sites)

How does anybody determine who has a gun and who doesn't? I was born when Harry Truman was President and in my long life I never had anybody ask me about the firearms I own. If they did I would probably not tell them the truth because it is none of their business.

I have friends that own firearms that would never admit to anybody that they have them.

The references you posted are based upon telephone polling from a small number of people and are very unreliable. You are just gullible.