What's always missing in the "gun debate"

[Brain357]

Never happened. Crime was going down before and after the bill.

View attachment 279489

It sure went down after.

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.

A few? It started a climb in the 60s. Didn't have a big drop till after the Brady Bill.

The problem with the ‘gun debate’ is that it lacks resolution.

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.

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?
Answer see signature below.

That simply isn't true. In Heller vs. DC, the Court held the right to bear arms was unrelated to serving in a militia.

It's simply is that true. heller reference Miller with the in common use
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?

According to the opinion, none is needed.

All heller did was expand the courts opinion
It didn't change anything about Miller
Also every able body man and woman are members of the unorganized Militia

Courts sure messed up on Heller. Completely ignore well regulated as if they threw that in for no reason.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It sure went down after.

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.

A few? It started a climb in the 60s. Didn't have a big drop till after the Brady Bill.

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?
Answer see signature below.

That simply isn't true. In Heller vs. DC, the Court held the right to bear arms was unrelated to serving in a militia.

It's simply is that true. heller reference Miller with the in common use
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?

According to the opinion, none is needed.

All heller did was expand the courts opinion
It didn't change anything about Miller
Also every able body man and woman are members of the unorganized Militia

Courts sure messed up on Heller. Completely ignore well regulated as if they threw that in for no reason.

Heller changed nothing from Miller

 

[Brain357]

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.

A few? It started a climb in the 60s. Didn't have a big drop till 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.

It's simply is that true. heller reference Miller with the in common use
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?

According to the opinion, none is needed.

All heller did was expand the courts opinion
It didn't change anything about Miller
Also every able body man and woman are members of the unorganized Militia

Courts sure messed up on Heller. Completely ignore well regulated as if they threw that in for no reason.

Heller changed nothing from Miller

The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure

District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution, is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench.

 

[nat4900]

if you make it difficult for a wannabe mass shooter or a violent criminal to buy a gun legally, they will find an illegal source to buy it from.

An "inspirational" thought for Iran wanting a nuke to counter Israel's nukes.........

 

[nat4900]

All heller did was expand the courts opinion
It didn't change anything about Miller
Also every able body man and woman are members of the unorganized Militia

Should then there be AN problem for anyone carrying an AR 15 from sitting at the SCOTUS chamber during deliberation???

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

The government and civilian criminal element are the only ones who should be armed !
Derp
YEA sure we're the"gun nuts "
Morons

 

[toomuchtime_]

if you make it difficult for a wannabe mass shooter or a violent criminal to buy a gun legally, they will find an illegal source to buy it from.

An "inspirational" thought for Iran wanting a nuke to counter Israel's nukes.........

Why would Iran need a nuke to counter Israel's nukes? Non nuclear Iran is in no danger from Israel. The only reason Israel might attack Iran is to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Never happened. Crime was going down before and after the bill.

View attachment 279489

It sure went down after.

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.

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.

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.

Ferguson was because we have too many guns. Cops don't shoot lots of people in countries with strong gun control.

What does Ferguson have to do with too many guns? We had the same amount of guns before Ferguson as after.

Considering we are a population of 320 million people, cops don't shoot a lot of people here either. Like citizens, they are allowed to use deadly force provided their safety or life is in jeopardy. If you don't put an officers life or health in jeopardy, you won't get shot.

 

[Brain357]

It sure went down after.

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.

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.

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.

Ferguson was because we have too many guns. Cops don't shoot lots of people in countries with strong gun control.

What does Ferguson have to do with too many guns? We had the same amount of guns before Ferguson as after.

Considering we are a population of 320 million people, cops don't shoot a lot of people here either. Like citizens, they are allowed to use deadly force provided their safety or life is in jeopardy. If you don't put an officers life or health in jeopardy, you won't get shot.

Ferguson happened because we have too many guns. Because we have too many guns our law enforcement shoot a lot of people. Because law enforcement shoot a lot of people we had ferguson.

The rate cops shoot people is way higher than countries with strong gun control.

US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015

 

[easyt65]

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???

Some have argued that NRA 'Extremists' are equal / akin to Pro-Abortion 'Extremists' - both believe if they give an 'inch' based on Common Sense their opposition will attempt to take a 'Mile'. Not quite:

- Pro-Abortionists refused to give up barbaric late-term abortions. Many of us believed it was because they thought if they gave in to anything pro-lifers would demand more. As it turns out, that was never the case - they wanted to go even further in murdering indefensible children. This was made obvious by Democrats attempting to pass laws making it legal to murder babies AFTER they were born and by Sanders recently admitting he wanted to use abortions as part of the fight on Global Warming and as part of 'population control'. (Margaret Sanger must be smiling in whatever corner of hell she is in right now...)

- Anti-2nd Amendment Extremists have been trying for decades to eliminate the 2nd Amendment while snowflakes have mocked Conservatives' belief that Democrats were coming for their guns....as it turns out, as Beto and Harris have no problem revealing, YES, Democrats are telling Americans they are coming for our guns.

 

[candycorn]

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???

It’s irresponsible not to arm yourself when you live in an area that is far away from the police. It’s crazy. Thinking that a rural person shouldn’t have some means of defense is mean and dumb.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

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.

Ferguson was because we have too many guns. Cops don't shoot lots of people in countries with strong gun control.

What does Ferguson have to do with too many guns? We had the same amount of guns before Ferguson as after.

Considering we are a population of 320 million people, cops don't shoot a lot of people here either. Like citizens, they are allowed to use deadly force provided their safety or life is in jeopardy. If you don't put an officers life or health in jeopardy, you won't get shot.

Ferguson happened because we have too many guns. Because we have too many guns our law enforcement shoot a lot of people. Because law enforcement shoot a lot of people we had ferguson.

The rate cops shoot people is way higher than countries with strong gun control.

US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015

We have more violent people here than Germany. They are virtually a single-race country. We are mistakenly a very diverse country.

Cops don't shoot people here because they have more leeway. Read your own article. It clearly states that German police only use deadly force when their safety or life is on the line. We have the same protocol here. Police cannot legally shoot anybody they desire, or for committing any crime.

In Ferguson, the suspect was not armed, so I don't know where you get this "too many guns" thing had anything to do with Ferguson.

 

[nat4900]

Why would Iran need a nuke to counter Israel's nukes? Non nuclear Iran is in no danger from Israel. The only reason Israel might attack Iran is to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes.

I'm not here to educate ignorant folks......Keep listening to FOX for your education.

 

[Brain357]

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.

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.

Ferguson was because we have too many guns. Cops don't shoot lots of people in countries with strong gun control.

What does Ferguson have to do with too many guns? We had the same amount of guns before Ferguson as after.

Considering we are a population of 320 million people, cops don't shoot a lot of people here either. Like citizens, they are allowed to use deadly force provided their safety or life is in jeopardy. If you don't put an officers life or health in jeopardy, you won't get shot.

Ferguson happened because we have too many guns. Because we have too many guns our law enforcement shoot a lot of people. Because law enforcement shoot a lot of people we had ferguson.

The rate cops shoot people is way higher than countries with strong gun control.

US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015

We have more violent people here than Germany. They are virtually a single-race country. We are mistakenly a very diverse country.

Cops don't shoot people here because they have more leeway. Read your own article. It clearly states that German police only use deadly force when their safety or life is on the line. We have the same protocol here. Police cannot legally shoot anybody they desire, or for committing any crime.

In Ferguson, the suspect was not armed, so I don't know where you get this "too many guns" thing had anything to do with Ferguson.

Our police are far more likely to be in danger themselves. They are shot and killed at a far higher rate than countries with strong gun control. Because of this they themselves shoot far more people. The people of ferguson were tired of seeing police shoot so many people, so we had ferguson. Too many guns.

 

[Markle]

Probably not many given they rarely show up in crime. But the nuts now act like tyranny will take over if we have any new regulations on semi auto rifles. Well why didn't tyranny take over when we had machine gun regulations? Guns aren't stopping tyranny, we have checks and balances in our government that do that.

You and I both (assuming you can pass a background check, can both, legally, buy and own a machine gun. What is your point?

 

[Brain357]

Probably not many given they rarely show up in crime. But the nuts now act like tyranny will take over if we have any new regulations on semi auto rifles. Well why didn't tyranny take over when we had machine gun regulations? Guns aren't stopping tyranny, we have checks and balances in our government that do that.

You and I both (assuming you can pass a background check, can both, legally, buy and own a machine gun. What is your point?

They are in very limited supply. Point being we had some gun control and tyranny didn't take over. Just like it didn't when they passed the brady bill.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Why would Iran need a nuke to counter Israel's nukes? Non nuclear Iran is in no danger from Israel. The only reason Israel might attack Iran is to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes.

I'm not here to educate ignorant folks......Keep listening to FOX for your education.

I understand, that means that you have no idea why you put up such a stupid post.

 

[Oddball]

“…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…”

Not most, actually – some, mostly conservatives.

And of course their ‘rationale’ is wrong and devoid of merit.

There is nothing in Second Amendment case law in support of insurrectionist dogma – the Second Amendment doesn’t authorize the violent overthrow through force of arms of a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

Indeed, there’s nothing in the Constitution as to the criteria of ‘tyranny,’ and nothing in the Constitution abridging the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process.

The gun debate has plenty of arrogant and ignorant windbags, who presume the supremacy of The State over the people.

 

[Rustic]

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???

The military would never be used to confiscate firearms it doesn’t work that way, and even if I did they are overwhelmingly pro second amendment they would turn their firearms on the leaders if they tried any type of confiscation. The federal government would use the United Nations for any type of firearm confiscation...

 

[Rustic]

Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?

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

It sure went down after.

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.

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.

Lol
Na, not really