Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

No, you’ve provided a library’s worth of bloviation and self indulgence.

 

Seriously, you think people who work in gun manufacturing can easily remove guns from the premises ? It’s a tightly controlled environment. The easiest way for anyone to get a gun without being required to show proof of eligibility, is to buy it privately in a state that has no requirements.

 

Unlike other civilized nations they like having the instant facility to kill one another as easily as possible ..... they call this 'freedom'

At the coal face their police officers are as a consequence over 200 times more likely to be killed in the line of duty as are those in countries like the UK

Other developed countries would simply call this barbarism as the comparative casualty figures so grimly confirm

 

The nra presents every choice as binary. You’re either for or against gun ownership. Forget the dillusional statement by the nra that, “ the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” It’s a false choice, I’d like the good guys stopping bad guys who couldn’t find a gun easily and had knives or sticks...I want only the good guys with guns.

 

Says one who slings baseless, slanderous allegations calling them fact. Your insults hurled toward me I accept as complements... considering your posts are reverse barameters of rationality and reality. Thanks.

 

Fortunately for gun rights activists, your studies are crap. And you're not a "gun safety activist", you're an enemy of the Constitution.

 

Yet another bald-faced lie. You're far more transparent than you think.

 

So you want to use violence to make people do what you want, right? Would this violence you advocate involve the use of guns?

 

Your spit-spewing, eye-bulging, fist-flailing hyperbole is clearly based on irrationality and hysteria, and renders anything you say devoid of credibility.

 

Lot of insults, but no denial you’re against requiring convicted felons and insane from having a required background check for private gun sales.

 

The nra is on record opposing putting any terrorist on watch list on background check denial. Likewise, they are against requiring any check of any criminal buying a gun privately.

 

You’ve yet to prove the nra has not engaged in money laundering while they have admitted publically to receiving funds from Russia and other foreign sources while donating millions to Trump who has been humping Putin ‘s leg for years.

 

I endeavor with providing proof for or against fantasies presented as fact. Arguing over the color of a unicorn’s horn first requires agreeing unicorns exist...or arguing over how many angles can dance on the head of a straight pin.
Explain how Russians are engaged in money laundering...should be interesting to see how you define money laundering.
Since I am Irish and have provided money to the NRA does that mean the Irish are laundering money and Trump is receiving funds from Ireland. Hmmm... what of the Clinton’s with money from Russia or the Saudis? Or what of American businesses that have foreign investors (like China).
You do realize that under Obama the US borrowed over 100 billion from Russia and far more from Hong Kong. So, was Obama humping someone’s leg.
Do you understand anything of international banking and investment or are you as ignorant of that as you are of the NRA.

 

I’m not responsible for telling you how to get up in the morning and get your breakfast either. If you’re that unaware because all you do is listen to Faux News channel, you’re uneducable.

 

Trump is himself a money launderer.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-drugs-corruption-panama-hotel-money-laundering-714891

 

Been going on for years.
https://www.csgv.org/how-the-nra-arms-criminals/

 

The no-fly list is not a list of known or suspected terrorists. Nor are those on the list subject to due process. Therefore they should not be deprived of their constitutional rights.

 

The citation is nothing more than an opinion piece, presented by someone who has absolutely no understanding of how the law of the united states actually works.

 

Neither is a domestic violence complaint. By your logic, denying anyone passage on a public conveyance which is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT is unconstitutional as few on the list have due process and most use circumstantial evidence . Yet, gunaholics are the first to complain if the have to sit next to a Muslim.
Don't get into the second amendment rights as even firearms are not directly constitutional. Arms are not necessarily firearms .

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/RightToTravel.htm

 

And you do ?
I've debunked you a plethora of times. The NRA has done everything in the article claimed. Of course any NRA a Holic would never research of their own.

 

Traveling is a constitutional right. Traveling via motor vehicle is a privilege. Traveling via and airplane is a service provided to the public by the airlines, hence why service is reserved to those who purchase the goods and services and comply with the requirements attached to said services.

What is either not understood on the part of yourself, or simply not cared about in this particular regard, is that individuals listed on the no-fly list are placed there on the basis of their name, rather than any other identifying information. The late senator Ted Kennedy was placed on the list because a suspected terrorist used his name as an alias. Once someone is on the list, they are not made aware of such, nor are they actually able to get off the list, even if they have done nothing wrong. The criteria for being listed is secretive, so there is no way of knowing whether or not someone has done anything wrong to warrant being placed in the list to begin with.

Unless there is willing support on the part of yourself for abridgement of all constitutional rights on the basis of secretive watch lists, such as due process, voting, and public trial, there is no legitimate reason to single out only one constitutional right for abridgement.

 

Restoration of constitutional rights, and insisting on due process to protect constitutional rights, has absolutely nothing to do with supplying firearms to terrorists, criminals, or minors.

 

Public conveyance is a constitutional right. Access to public highways is a constitutional right. You're so wrong about so many things it's embarrassing
No reference, typical.

 

Says you with no reference.

 

Another deflection as usual. You are the one making baseless, slanderous accusations as if they are fact. Transparent and serves to undermine your position to anyone with a rational mind. Your posts certainly don’t help the GCA cause, but underline why many abandoned the leftist ‘emporer’s clothes’ dogma to elect Trump in 2016 and why he will win again in 2020... unfortunate, really, because not only do the Dems not have a viable candidate, but helps to prevent any better on emerging from the GOP. Yep, you, and many of those on the left, fell hook, line and sinker to Russia’s strategy of sowing division and discord in the US.