Stop twisting my words, I support firearms only be available to the law abiding, if you cannot argue a point without lying about what was posted you will be ignored.
The 40 years of shootings you just provided isn't a sound argument that the "right" needs some revision?
No - you made it up, out of whole cloth, for convenience. You cannot support your assertion in any way, and you admitted as much.
How about some facts per the DoJ? School shootings only account for 4% of all mass shootings and yet they dominate the news media and get the entire country talking about them for weeks on end. There are a few reasons for this: 1.They occur in everyday public locations which are supposed to be safe. 2.The victims are targeted and killed at random. 3.The victims are innocent bystanders and often children. 4.The killers leave behind large amounts of material about themselves for the media to share. 5.The perpetrator and victims are generally upper-middle class, white, and privileged. These shooters know what they are doing. They’re not “crazy.” They don’t just “snap.” Most of them spend months or years planning their massacres. Elliot Rodger had apparently been planning his shooting for over a year. You don’t just show up with a 140-page manifesto and a large stockpile of weapons one day. You work at it for a long time. And you plan not only the violence but the presentation for the audience, the performance — what they will see from you, what they will hear from you, the reasons why, the message. It’s all very conscious and deliberate. And it works. Their killing sprees are specifically targeted to generate the most fear and uncertainty from the public, because the more fear and uncertainty they generate, the more attention they get. They then use all of the attention as a platform to promote themselves or whatever complaints they may have against society. It’s the Columbine formula. It works. And as Eric Harris pointed out in his journal, it’s not about the guns. It’s about the television. The films. The fame. The revolution. If this sounds like a familiar strategy, that’s because it is.
You cannot demonstrate how the data in the link I gave you supports the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you seek. The law abiding have a right to own and use firearms that shall not be infringed and, constitutionally, must be as easy to exercise as the right to free religion, religion, abortion, etc - there's no sound argument for the necessity or efficacy of making it harder for them to exercise their rights.
I have provided you with enough information to show that is very possible but perhaps your reading comprehension is lacking? It takes what it takes. Do you not realize that? It irrelevant to the law. That is a childish response. You know very well you are wrong. Again .... this demonstrates that laws are broken every day but the law is the law. You have lost your way in this dialogue.
And all this somehow means we should continue to provide the easy access to guns that we do? If that sounds insane, it's because it is.
The law abiding have a right to own and use firearms that shall not be infringed and, constitutionally, must be as easy to exercise as the right to free religion, religion, abortion, etc - there's no sound argument for the necessity or efficacy of making it harder for them to exercise their rights.
So no gun law will stop those determined to violate the law and yet you come with a whole list of laws you want. You're as anti-gun as the others here. It is a common practice among the anti-gunners (I include you) to pretend to support the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms while advocating for more and more compromise, taking little bites at a time, death by a thousand cuts, approach to gun control.
I can go right now and buy several high-powered rifles and pistols. There may be short waiting periods but I can be very well armed by the end of the next week
Total BS and a disgusting insult, I advocated nothing be given up other than gun grabs by the GCA's, you must have a serious problem understanding what I posted. As for anti-gun, ever heard of the Jack Hagler Self Defense Act? I and others I worked with, put in 4 hard years of lobbying to get it passed, and it is now a model law which has been utilized in a number of states to pass shall carry concealed weapon licenses, does that sound like something an anti-gunner would support? You have no clue as to who I am or how much I support the Second both in deeds and monetarily.
Good point on the right to keep and bear arms being an equal right to the other rights we hold. Minor correction, though, in that there is no authority or wording in the Constitution that would permit the restriction of the rights you mentioned, including the right to keep and bear arms, for those who are not law abiding. While in prison, a person may not have access to their guns but their right to have them is not, constitutionally, stripped. There is just one right mentioned in the Constitution that can actually be restricted, constitutionally, based on criminal history.
you have provided nothing to show how you plan to get a constitutional amendment to pass, and what you will do about the 500 million guns in circulation currently. It takes something that is not possible currently. You can not get 37 states to agree to your amendment. no it isn't. those 500 million guns don't magically vanish if you were able to pass your amendment. if I was wrong you would be able to prove it. You can't do that of course, and we both know that. not sure how directly refuting your points is losing my way? lol.
No, I am a normal citizen, but so were the majority of mass shooters. Most have had no mental issues or criminal records. Some do, but it is not the majority.
And I can go to any street corner downtown here in Raleigh and buy any number of illegal drugs, all of which are banned in the US. Prohibition does not work, at any level.
So you want to disarm the law abiding majority, in a false attempt to disarm a paper thin slice of society that might cause a problem? That's really some screwed logic right there.
If you do not understand the function of an amendment then I cannot be responsible for your education.
Actually not, normal citizens don't go around urinating on other citizens Constitutional rights to promote a destined to fail, poorly thought out plan.
Then explain how laws serve to physically prevent a physical act from being committed. Exactly what part of the laws against murder, serve to physically restrain and individual from picking up any random, blunt object, and proceeding to bludgeon another individual to death with it. Then explain why the absolute prohibition on illicit narcotic substances, is failing to do anything to prevent or otherwise address the number of heroin and cocaine deaths in the united states.
Not what was being discussed, He said there was no easy availability to firearms. Normal people's response to madmen randomly murdering others isn't to make sure that we have laws ensuring these same madmen are well-armed. If anyone has some odd micturition habits it is you who are urinating on the corpses of the shooter's victims