Those who sell guns to criminals should not be held responsible for crimes committed

I like that attitude.

 

Yet this isn't universal. New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine stand out. And if those laws are actually unconstitutional, then it doesn't matter. Should we allow unconstitutional laws if they save lives?

Edit: Again, the GCAs fail to answer the question. What would you want the CDC to recommend?

 

He knows. He chose to make a statement he knew was not true.

 

New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont are exceptions ? Each has a population little more or less then Boston. I’d count them as exceptions and research why. But that doesn’t negate a trend established in 47 others.

You’re argument has gone quickly waaaay of the tracks.
How can you say ANY additional federal laws are unconstitutional, when we have them in states already.
You are aware that constitutionality applies to state laws as well.

 

Less gun violence, but not less violence.

 

So then a factor is population and not just gun laws?

I didn't say that any additional federal gun laws are unconstitutional. You've inferred a position I did not imply. I'll rewrite: even if a law is found to reduce violence or increase safety, if it is found to be unconstitutional, should it be retained?

Should a law that is unconstitutional on its face even be considered, even if lives could be safe?

These are generic questions not pointing at any particular law or even any gun law?

You haven't answered this question, either: what are the limits on the powers of the federal government in regards to gun control? Can either pass any form of gun control they wish, given the position that the 2nd is not an unlimited right?

 

And the factor could be trees as well. There is nothing more then a statistical inference. You do know math is seldom discrete and statistically allows for outliers without affecting general tendencies.
Youre a math person, right ?
You know the conclusion of the article in the text of the title is valid even with a few outliers. You know also, this is not the only study with the same statistical conclusion.

There are no whys with these studies. They are correlations. They make no suggestions as numbers.

 

Until you delve into the details, then the studies are to be viewed with a dubious eye, like the 1993 Kellermann study, the Missouri study and the Connecticut study. All have significant flaws.

Why do you keep avoiding this question: what are the limits on the powers of the federal government in regards to gun control? Can either pass any form of gun control they wish, given the position that the 2nd is not an unlimited right?

 

All of which is nothing more than avoidance of the questions that were presented to yourself.

 

I have answered your question. STATES ALREADY HAVE MOST OF THESE REGULATIONS. The limits on the powers of the Fed are the same as those for any “state” government.
The SC bandles challenges of state laws all the time for their constitutionality. .

For example, Did you hear of ANY universal background checks laws being overturned ?

 

I have avoided nothing on this question. The limits on the Fed are the same as those on any state govt. , or even local.
As a matter of fact, passing many state laws in one area establishes precedence for federal laws.

 

Such is not an actual, legitimate answer to the question being presented to yourself.

 

We haven't discussed any particular regulations - we're talking about the theory of whether unconstitutional laws that have been shown to save lives should be kept in place.

If you want to discuss particulars, are assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, required firearm owner licenses or restrictions on short barreled rifles and silencers Constitutional, given Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano?

Does this lack of overturned laws mean anything from a Constitutionality standpoint?

 

"Can either pass any form of gun control they wish, given the position that the 2nd is not an unlimited right?"

 

Well, if “yourself” can’t understand ?

Examine all the state laws now in effect on any topic you choose, like firearms. You’ll have a good idea of the scope of regulations you might be concerned about on the federal level.

 

Are all of the current state laws Constitutional?

 

While it is true that federal, state, and local government is restricted equally by the Second Amendment, federal government faces additional Tenth Amendment restrictions that do not restrain state and local government.

 

They are not. And many will be struck down by the courts in coming years.

 

Whatever federal law is, is the law if the land. There is no restrain on local and state govts that don’t violate the basic rights civil rights set forth in the constitution in any additional laws they make. But, the same holds true for the Fed too, when the courts upheld Obanacare and the mandate.

 

In the words of Scalia, we’ll see.

 

Not if the Supreme Court strikes it down for violating the Constitution.

True.

The federal government faces additional restrictions from the Tenth Amendment.

 

We’ll see.

 

Terminators have been known to say it too:

http://terminator.wikia.com/wiki/We'll_see.

 

Would a law limiting the magazine capacity to 5 rounds and limiting monthly ammo purchases be Constitutional?

 

Ha ha
How about those Patriots ?