Are revolvers the most reviled of firearms available?

I would agree. If a person has served their time they should have all rights restored. If they are too dangerous to have those rights back then they should remain in prison.

 

The NRA has one agenda.....to maximize the profits.

“ if they are too dangerous ? “ A ludicrous and ignorant POV from the NRA. If Anyone could predict who is still dangerous before release, they should be able to predict before they committed their first crime. The only thing law has to go by is behavior while in jail. This is one of the really dumb by lines the NRA promotes, along with shooting bad guys with guns by good guys with guns. All the while, being against background universal background checks.

 

Do you have a magic formula to determine if a convicted felon who has served his time is still dangerous ? No you don’t. It’s a silly idea.

 

So, you know every other countries constitution ? Did you know we can still regulate as we have for hundreds of years.? Do you know what the word regulate means ? Probably not.

 

And yet despite all of its firearm-related restrictions, despite the fact all firearms must be registered with the state government, despite the fact all private transfer are required to go through a federally licensed firearms dealer, despite the fact that everyone must obtain a permit to own a firearm, the majority of firearms found in illegal possession were originally sold within the state of California to begin with. Thus demonstrating that the firearm-related restrictions are not working as promised for keeping firearms out of the hands of those who should not possess them.

 

The difference between a city and a state are indeed known on the part of myself. It is understood on the part of yourself that certain firearm-related restrictions are unconstitutional and thus cannot be proposed?

 

To the point where it is known none have a keep and bear arms provision.

Indeed you cannot.

At the time of the ratification of the united states constitution, the word "regulate" was synonymous with maintenance, and pertained to insuring a functional and good-working order. It did not mean implementing countless restrictions to make the legal exercising of a constitutional right as difficult as legally possible.

 

You have been incorrect on all your assertions. Do you really understand the difference between city and state enforcement. Even with the high gun crime rate in Chicago with ALL the guns being imported from out of state, the state is still low because of its laws.
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/06/25/illinois-ranks-low-in-list-comparing-gun-laws-to-gun-deaths/

There is nothing unconstitutional about universal background checks. They have it in this state and others.

 

It is tiresome hearing the same tripe.

 

First, the ATF has stated that more firearms sold in the state of Illinois, even with all of its firearm-related restrictions, went to the criminal element rather than from any other state.

https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/ilwebsite17183875pdf/download

Second, all state laws for the state of Illinois are in force in the city of Chicago, along with its own firearm-related restrictions. So why is the city of Chicago so much more violent than the rest of the state of Illinois?

Such does not make the matter constitutional, nor does it make the matter enforceable or useful.

 

Then leave the discussion, as the refutation of factually-deficient nonsense being presented on the part of yourself is not going to be ending anytime soon.

 

It states no such thing. It’s a compilation of data with no summary. Is this more of your fake data like tryin* to say that illegals were committing a felony by being illegal ?

 

Wow. What a load of unexpurgated garbage, hyperbole, and falsehood.

 

Are you incapable of comparing 4,895 to 1,623?

 

Could you learn to use the quote system? You end up looking like you're having a meaningless conversation with yourself.

 

It seems so. But you guys will find a way of making something out of nothing.

 

https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html

60% of gun’s recovered still come from out of state.

 

Meaning that forty percent of those recovered, the majority share on a single-state basis, must have come from within the state, and thus sold within compliance with all state laws in place in the state of Illinois. Explain precisely why this is the case. If the firearm-related restrictions for the state of Illinois are so outstanding and capable, why is this number so overwhelmingly high? How and why do even five percent of the total number of firearms recovered, originally sold in the state of Illinois? Why is the system in the state of Illinois not capable of stopping the illegal acquisition of firearms by those within the state?

 

The so-called "something out of nothing" in this case is the fact the state of Illinois allowed more firearms to fall into the possession of the criminal element, than any other state from which firearms were recovered, despite their strict firearm-related restrictions. Meaning they cannot even manage their own affairs.

 

Nope. It’s the home state and in Chicago, 60% come from out of state.

 

Only in your mind is 40% overwhelming higher then 60%. Get a clue.

 

The truth hurts. The NRA will be indicted as a corporation enditiy and have to account for their criminal behavior.

 

Is anyone getting anywhere?

 

So why are the remaining forty percent coming from the state of Illinois? Why exactly are any firearms sold within the state of Illinois, in full compliance with all the firearm-related restrictions in the state of Illinois, managing to wind up in the possession of those who cannot legally possess them? What is the explanation for such?

 

How many states did it take to amount to sixty percent? Why is the state of Illinois supplying more firearms to criminals in a single-state basis, when at most all others are amounting to five percent and less?