Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It sure went down after.Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?Brady Bill 1993"The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told an audience in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking."
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
Again, there is no evidence any of these regulations will stop mass shootings of reduce violent crime.
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5
Yeah looks like homicide dropped.
Never happened. Crime was going down before and after the bill.
View attachment 279489
The supreme court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.The problem with the ‘gun debate’ is that it lacks resolution.What's always missing in the gun debate is common sense.
On one extreme side of the issue, you have gun-nuts who keep on "thinking" that virtually ANY gun legislation to curb the mass shootings is tantamount to giving up their weapons to fight off the U.S. government armed forces......Yep, insanity personified.
On the other extreme side of the issue, you now have someone like Beto demanding that citizens turn in their assault rifles (AR-15 and other war military style war rifles) or face the stigma of becoming an outlaw.
What is missing in the above debate is an understanding of even recent history.
In the mid 1930's, we DID ban the sale of machine guns and short-barreled rifles, etc. mostly based on the rationale that such weapons were NOT for the hunter and sportsman....The use of such weaponry was regarded as nefarious....and the law makers were then correct.
Ask yourself WHY we don't readily sell RPG rifles?......After all, if the mental rationale of most gun owners is to be allowed to buy military weapons to ward off the federal government assault on their liberty, an RPG rifle or machine gun would certainly be handy, don't you think???
And it’s the responsibility of the Supreme Court to provide that resolution – a responsibility the Court has failed to fulfill.
In Miller the Court made a distinction between weapons ‘in common use’ and weapons which were ‘dangerous and unusual’ – the former whose possession were entitled to Constitutional protections, and the latter outside of the scope of Second Amendment protections.
‘Should gun control again reach the Supreme Court, the legal question may very well be whether assault weapons like the AR-15, which are now some of the most popular in the United States, are guns in common use under Miller or dangerous and unusual weapons under Heller.”
United States v. Miller: Which Side of the Gun Debate Does It Support?
It’s understood that the Supreme Court doesn’t consider the issue ripe for review, particularly given the lower courts consistently upholding AWBs as being Constitutional.
But the political urgency of the ‘gun debate’ demands that the justices set aside accepted judicial criteria and hear one of the many challenges to assault weapon bans so that lawmakers and citizens can know whether an AR 15 is a weapon in common use or dangerous and unusual and subject to lawful prohibition.
Absent such a decision by the High Court, the pointless idiocy that is the ‘gun debate’ will continue.
gun control is the name gun confiscation is the end gameAnd yet more idiocy from the right – a slippery slope fallacy, how typical.Its been proven that if we give gun control advocates an inch they take a mile. So piss off gun control advocates you lying scum.
I'm patiently waiting for you to show me some of your intelligenceWhat’s missing from ‘gun debates’ is knowledge, intelligence, and logic from the right.A plane ticket for you to move out.. we are a Republic you’ll never take our gunsWhat's always missing in the gun debate is common sense.
On one extreme side of the issue, you have gun-nuts who keep on "thinking" that virtually ANY gun legislation to curb the mass shootings is tantamount to giving up their weapons to fight off the U.S. government armed forces......Yep, insanity personified.
On the other extreme side of the issue, you now have someone like Beto demanding that citizens turn in their assault rifles (AR-15 and other war military style war rifles) or face the stigma of becoming an outlaw.
What is missing in the above debate is an understanding of even recent history.
In the mid 1930's, we DID ban the sale of machine guns and short-barreled rifles, etc. mostly based on the rationale that such weapons were NOT for the hunter and sportsman....The use of such weaponry was regarded as nefarious....and the law makers were then correct.
Ask yourself WHY we don't readily sell RPG rifles?......After all, if the mental rationale of most gun owners is to be allowed to buy military weapons to ward off the federal government assault on their liberty, an RPG rifle or machine gun would certainly be handy, don't you think???
And this post demonstrates another problem with ‘gun debates’: conservatives’ propensity for lying.
Wrong.I'll tell you what's missingWhat's always missing in the gun debate is common sense.
On one extreme side of the issue, you have gun-nuts who keep on "thinking" that virtually ANY gun legislation to curb the mass shootings is tantamount to giving up their weapons to fight off the U.S. government armed forces......Yep, insanity personified.
On the other extreme side of the issue, you now have someone like Beto demanding that citizens turn in their assault rifles (AR-15 and other war military style war rifles) or face the stigma of becoming an outlaw.
What is missing in the above debate is an understanding of even recent history.
In the mid 1930's, we DID ban the sale of machine guns and short-barreled rifles, etc. mostly based on the rationale that such weapons were NOT for the hunter and sportsman....The use of such weaponry was regarded as nefarious....and the law makers were then correct.
Ask yourself WHY we don't readily sell RPG rifles?......After all, if the mental rationale of most gun owners is to be allowed to buy military weapons to ward off the federal government assault on their liberty, an RPG rifle or machine gun would certainly be handy, don't you think???
Anti-gunners lack of comprehension on the understanding of the Second Amendment
And their honesty gun control is gun confiscation
The supreme court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?
They've jump to 14.5%First Obama now Beta have sold more AR15's than any ad campaign the manufacturers could have ever dreamed of.
Call for a ban on anything, and watch sales increase exponentially.
Wrong the very court you posted about was the quote I usedWrong.I'll tell you what's missingWhat's always missing in the gun debate is common sense.
On one extreme side of the issue, you have gun-nuts who keep on "thinking" that virtually ANY gun legislation to curb the mass shootings is tantamount to giving up their weapons to fight off the U.S. government armed forces......Yep, insanity personified.
On the other extreme side of the issue, you now have someone like Beto demanding that citizens turn in their assault rifles (AR-15 and other war military style war rifles) or face the stigma of becoming an outlaw.
What is missing in the above debate is an understanding of even recent history.
In the mid 1930's, we DID ban the sale of machine guns and short-barreled rifles, etc. mostly based on the rationale that such weapons were NOT for the hunter and sportsman....The use of such weaponry was regarded as nefarious....and the law makers were then correct.
Ask yourself WHY we don't readily sell RPG rifles?......After all, if the mental rationale of most gun owners is to be allowed to buy military weapons to ward off the federal government assault on their liberty, an RPG rifle or machine gun would certainly be handy, don't you think???
Anti-gunners lack of comprehension on the understanding of the Second Amendment
And their honesty gun control is gun confiscation
The supreme court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?
The Supreme Court has not ruled as to the constitutionality of AWBs; neither the AR 15 nor AK 47 have been identified by the Supreme Court to be weapons in common use and their possession entitled to Second Amendment protections.
Unfortunately, what’s all too common in ‘gun debates’ is rightwing ignorance, demagoguery, and lies.
There are no ‘anti-gunners’ – to acknowledge Second Amendment jurisprudence, the fact that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not unlimited, and that government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right, is not to be ‘anti-gun.’
And the notion that gun control is ‘gun confiscation’ is likewise a lie and a ridiculous slippery slope fallacy.
Laws and measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law are not un-Constitutional, nor will they lead to ‘confiscation.’
I don't see any other 4 point drops in less than a decade.lol I'm sure this wasn't your original source, but if you looked at the numbers violent crimes were much lower and then spiked for a few years in the early 1990's, so the long term trend was already down. This is why the article I posted stated that the Brady law did nothing.United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2017That's not how it works, Gomer....You back up your claims...You don't get to play Yogi Berra and say "you can look it up".Source for what? Those are homicide numbers, you can look them up if you doubt.So why don't you want to tell us what your source is?Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?
That simply isn't true. In Heller vs. DC, the Court held the right to bear arms was unrelated to serving in a militia.The supreme court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.The problem with the ‘gun debate’ is that it lacks resolution.What's always missing in the gun debate is common sense.
On one extreme side of the issue, you have gun-nuts who keep on "thinking" that virtually ANY gun legislation to curb the mass shootings is tantamount to giving up their weapons to fight off the U.S. government armed forces......Yep, insanity personified.
On the other extreme side of the issue, you now have someone like Beto demanding that citizens turn in their assault rifles (AR-15 and other war military style war rifles) or face the stigma of becoming an outlaw.
What is missing in the above debate is an understanding of even recent history.
In the mid 1930's, we DID ban the sale of machine guns and short-barreled rifles, etc. mostly based on the rationale that such weapons were NOT for the hunter and sportsman....The use of such weaponry was regarded as nefarious....and the law makers were then correct.
Ask yourself WHY we don't readily sell RPG rifles?......After all, if the mental rationale of most gun owners is to be allowed to buy military weapons to ward off the federal government assault on their liberty, an RPG rifle or machine gun would certainly be handy, don't you think???
And it’s the responsibility of the Supreme Court to provide that resolution – a responsibility the Court has failed to fulfill.
In Miller the Court made a distinction between weapons ‘in common use’ and weapons which were ‘dangerous and unusual’ – the former whose possession were entitled to Constitutional protections, and the latter outside of the scope of Second Amendment protections.
‘Should gun control again reach the Supreme Court, the legal question may very well be whether assault weapons like the AR-15, which are now some of the most popular in the United States, are guns in common use under Miller or dangerous and unusual weapons under Heller.”
United States v. Miller: Which Side of the Gun Debate Does It Support?
It’s understood that the Supreme Court doesn’t consider the issue ripe for review, particularly given the lower courts consistently upholding AWBs as being Constitutional.
But the political urgency of the ‘gun debate’ demands that the justices set aside accepted judicial criteria and hear one of the many challenges to assault weapon bans so that lawmakers and citizens can know whether an AR 15 is a weapon in common use or dangerous and unusual and subject to lawful prohibition.
Absent such a decision by the High Court, the pointless idiocy that is the ‘gun debate’ will continue.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?
Answer see signature below.
A few? It started a climb in the 60s. Didn't have a big drop till after the Brady Bill.And a few years before it was even lower, so we don't know why violent crime spiked and we don't know why it dropped.It sure went down after.Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?Brady Bill 1993
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5
Yeah looks like homicide dropped.
Never happened. Crime was going down before and after the bill.
View attachment 279489
There was almost no CCW in the 90s. I have noted that violent crime has gone up in recent years with significant increases in CCW.It sure went down after.Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?Brady Bill 1993
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5
Yeah looks like homicide dropped.
Never happened. Crime was going down before and after the bill.
View attachment 279489
I confused the assault weapons ban with the Brady Bill. In any case, the decline is also proportional to states adopting CCW programs and creating law that protected the victim instead of the criminal. Some states had Brady Bills of their own before the federal law, and their conclusion was they didn't do much good in those states.
It's simply is that true. heller reference Miller with the in common useThat simply isn't true. In Heller vs. DC, the Court held the right to bear arms was unrelated to serving in a militia.The supreme court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.The problem with the ‘gun debate’ is that it lacks resolution.What's always missing in the gun debate is common sense.
On one extreme side of the issue, you have gun-nuts who keep on "thinking" that virtually ANY gun legislation to curb the mass shootings is tantamount to giving up their weapons to fight off the U.S. government armed forces......Yep, insanity personified.
On the other extreme side of the issue, you now have someone like Beto demanding that citizens turn in their assault rifles (AR-15 and other war military style war rifles) or face the stigma of becoming an outlaw.
What is missing in the above debate is an understanding of even recent history.
In the mid 1930's, we DID ban the sale of machine guns and short-barreled rifles, etc. mostly based on the rationale that such weapons were NOT for the hunter and sportsman....The use of such weaponry was regarded as nefarious....and the law makers were then correct.
Ask yourself WHY we don't readily sell RPG rifles?......After all, if the mental rationale of most gun owners is to be allowed to buy military weapons to ward off the federal government assault on their liberty, an RPG rifle or machine gun would certainly be handy, don't you think???
And it’s the responsibility of the Supreme Court to provide that resolution – a responsibility the Court has failed to fulfill.
In Miller the Court made a distinction between weapons ‘in common use’ and weapons which were ‘dangerous and unusual’ – the former whose possession were entitled to Constitutional protections, and the latter outside of the scope of Second Amendment protections.
‘Should gun control again reach the Supreme Court, the legal question may very well be whether assault weapons like the AR-15, which are now some of the most popular in the United States, are guns in common use under Miller or dangerous and unusual weapons under Heller.”
United States v. Miller: Which Side of the Gun Debate Does It Support?
It’s understood that the Supreme Court doesn’t consider the issue ripe for review, particularly given the lower courts consistently upholding AWBs as being Constitutional.
But the political urgency of the ‘gun debate’ demands that the justices set aside accepted judicial criteria and hear one of the many challenges to assault weapon bans so that lawmakers and citizens can know whether an AR 15 is a weapon in common use or dangerous and unusual and subject to lawful prohibition.
Absent such a decision by the High Court, the pointless idiocy that is the ‘gun debate’ will continue.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?
Answer see signature below.
Look back to the 1980's; murders and violent crimes were much lower and we have no idea why they spiked in the early 1990's so we have no idea why they went later.I don't see any other 4 point drops in less than a decade.lol I'm sure this wasn't your original source, but if you looked at the numbers violent crimes were much lower and then spiked for a few years in the early 1990's, so the long term trend was already down. This is why the article I posted stated that the Brady law did nothing.United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2017That's not how it works, Gomer....You back up your claims...You don't get to play Yogi Berra and say "you can look it up".Source for what? Those are homicide numbers, you can look them up if you doubt.So why don't you want to tell us what your source is?
I did. 1980: 10.2Look back to the 1980's; murders and violent crimes were much lower and we have no idea why they spiked in the early 1990's so we have no idea why they went later.I don't see any other 4 point drops in less than a decade.lol I'm sure this wasn't your original source, but if you looked at the numbers violent crimes were much lower and then spiked for a few years in the early 1990's, so the long term trend was already down. This is why the article I posted stated that the Brady law did nothing.United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2017That's not how it works, Gomer....You back up your claims...You don't get to play Yogi Berra and say "you can look it up".Source for what? Those are homicide numbers, you can look them up if you doubt.
A few? It started a climb in the 60s. Didn't have a big drop till after the Brady Bill.And a few years before it was even lower, so we don't know why violent crime spiked and we don't know why it dropped.It sure went down after.Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?
Never happened. Crime was going down before and after the bill.
View attachment 279489
According to the opinion, none is needed.It's simply is that true. heller reference Miller with the in common useThat simply isn't true. In Heller vs. DC, the Court held the right to bear arms was unrelated to serving in a militia.The supreme court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.The problem with the ‘gun debate’ is that it lacks resolution.What's always missing in the gun debate is common sense.
On one extreme side of the issue, you have gun-nuts who keep on "thinking" that virtually ANY gun legislation to curb the mass shootings is tantamount to giving up their weapons to fight off the U.S. government armed forces......Yep, insanity personified.
On the other extreme side of the issue, you now have someone like Beto demanding that citizens turn in their assault rifles (AR-15 and other war military style war rifles) or face the stigma of becoming an outlaw.
What is missing in the above debate is an understanding of even recent history.
In the mid 1930's, we DID ban the sale of machine guns and short-barreled rifles, etc. mostly based on the rationale that such weapons were NOT for the hunter and sportsman....The use of such weaponry was regarded as nefarious....and the law makers were then correct.
Ask yourself WHY we don't readily sell RPG rifles?......After all, if the mental rationale of most gun owners is to be allowed to buy military weapons to ward off the federal government assault on their liberty, an RPG rifle or machine gun would certainly be handy, don't you think???
And it’s the responsibility of the Supreme Court to provide that resolution – a responsibility the Court has failed to fulfill.
In Miller the Court made a distinction between weapons ‘in common use’ and weapons which were ‘dangerous and unusual’ – the former whose possession were entitled to Constitutional protections, and the latter outside of the scope of Second Amendment protections.
‘Should gun control again reach the Supreme Court, the legal question may very well be whether assault weapons like the AR-15, which are now some of the most popular in the United States, are guns in common use under Miller or dangerous and unusual weapons under Heller.”
United States v. Miller: Which Side of the Gun Debate Does It Support?
It’s understood that the Supreme Court doesn’t consider the issue ripe for review, particularly given the lower courts consistently upholding AWBs as being Constitutional.
But the political urgency of the ‘gun debate’ demands that the justices set aside accepted judicial criteria and hear one of the many challenges to assault weapon bans so that lawmakers and citizens can know whether an AR 15 is a weapon in common use or dangerous and unusual and subject to lawful prohibition.
Absent such a decision by the High Court, the pointless idiocy that is the ‘gun debate’ will continue.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?
Answer see signature below.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?
There was almost no CCW in the 90s. I have noted that violent crime has gone up in recent years with significant increases in CCW.It sure went down after.Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?
Never happened. Crime was going down before and after the bill.
View attachment 279489
I confused the assault weapons ban with the Brady Bill. In any case, the decline is also proportional to states adopting CCW programs and creating law that protected the victim instead of the criminal. Some states had Brady Bills of their own before the federal law, and their conclusion was they didn't do much good in those states.
Ferguson was because we have too many guns. Cops don't shoot lots of people in countries with strong gun control.There was almost no CCW in the 90s. I have noted that violent crime has gone up in recent years with significant increases in CCW.It sure went down after.Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?
Never happened. Crime was going down before and after the bill.
View attachment 279489
I confused the assault weapons ban with the Brady Bill. In any case, the decline is also proportional to states adopting CCW programs and creating law that protected the victim instead of the criminal. Some states had Brady Bills of their own before the federal law, and their conclusion was they didn't do much good in those states.
No, crime and gun crime went up after 2015 after the Ferguson Effect kicked in. Police got disgusted putting extra effort into getting criminals off the street when the public turns against them all the time, thanks to the MSM.
However the Ferguson Effect is slowly starting to dwindle, and our gun crime is now back on track to going lower again.
All heller did was expand the courts opinionA few? It started a climb in the 60s. Didn't have a big drop till after the Brady Bill.And a few years before it was even lower, so we don't know why violent crime spiked and we don't know why it dropped.It sure went down after.Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?
Never happened. Crime was going down before and after the bill.
View attachment 279489According to the opinion, none is needed.It's simply is that true. heller reference Miller with the in common useThat simply isn't true. In Heller vs. DC, the Court held the right to bear arms was unrelated to serving in a militia.The supreme court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.The problem with the ‘gun debate’ is that it lacks resolution.What's always missing in the gun debate is common sense.
On one extreme side of the issue, you have gun-nuts who keep on "thinking" that virtually ANY gun legislation to curb the mass shootings is tantamount to giving up their weapons to fight off the U.S. government armed forces......Yep, insanity personified.
On the other extreme side of the issue, you now have someone like Beto demanding that citizens turn in their assault rifles (AR-15 and other war military style war rifles) or face the stigma of becoming an outlaw.
What is missing in the above debate is an understanding of even recent history.
In the mid 1930's, we DID ban the sale of machine guns and short-barreled rifles, etc. mostly based on the rationale that such weapons were NOT for the hunter and sportsman....The use of such weaponry was regarded as nefarious....and the law makers were then correct.
Ask yourself WHY we don't readily sell RPG rifles?......After all, if the mental rationale of most gun owners is to be allowed to buy military weapons to ward off the federal government assault on their liberty, an RPG rifle or machine gun would certainly be handy, don't you think???
And it’s the responsibility of the Supreme Court to provide that resolution – a responsibility the Court has failed to fulfill.
In Miller the Court made a distinction between weapons ‘in common use’ and weapons which were ‘dangerous and unusual’ – the former whose possession were entitled to Constitutional protections, and the latter outside of the scope of Second Amendment protections.
‘Should gun control again reach the Supreme Court, the legal question may very well be whether assault weapons like the AR-15, which are now some of the most popular in the United States, are guns in common use under Miller or dangerous and unusual weapons under Heller.”
United States v. Miller: Which Side of the Gun Debate Does It Support?
It’s understood that the Supreme Court doesn’t consider the issue ripe for review, particularly given the lower courts consistently upholding AWBs as being Constitutional.
But the political urgency of the ‘gun debate’ demands that the justices set aside accepted judicial criteria and hear one of the many challenges to assault weapon bans so that lawmakers and citizens can know whether an AR 15 is a weapon in common use or dangerous and unusual and subject to lawful prohibition.
Absent such a decision by the High Court, the pointless idiocy that is the ‘gun debate’ will continue.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?
Answer see signature below.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?
