Dems vow to kill 50 state CCW reciprocity bill

Which one? They aren't even statistically equivalent to each other. We're not far off. We're in the same order of magnitude. Truly violent countries laugh at how low our murder rate is. Ours is about 3.9 per 100,000 people (per the UNODC in 2013). Most of Europe is at around 3 per 100,000 people (per UNODC in 2013). The third world is in the teens and twenties (up to around 100 per 100k for some Central American countries) per 100k. The Global average is about 6.2 per 100k people (per UNODC in 2012).

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Do you ever look things up?

 

Try violent crime. Winner winner chicken dinner

 

If we just keep doing what we are doing, the violent crime rate will continue its downward trajectory and will be where you want it to be soon.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

 

You are entitled to your theory. It is not near fast enough

 

There is no international standard for defining violent crime, so it's a waste of time comparing them.

That said, just looking at the U.S. violent crime rate, it's just over half of what it was in 1991. Our property crime rate has done the same thing.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

Yeah....lets just assume we are way more peaceful. Lol

 

The definitions of the different crimes that make up violent crime are different between countries. Read up on it, you might learn something.

 

I know. We are way safer than these countries. ...right?

 

Drug usage is not a right. That's just a law that is open to states to develop their own opinions.

Gun ownership is a right that is protected by the BoR, and should apply equally in every state.

Your first amendment rights apply no matter what state you are in. So should the 2nd.

 

Pretty much. Your chance of being assaulted is lower here. In fact, in the U.S., if you (or your friends/family) are not involved in the drug trade or criminal activities, you're pretty safe.

 

Yep very safe here. Lol

 

Is that desirable? Seems to me it will only concentrate the grabbers efforts on Federal rather than state legislation. It's not like SCOTUS has been all that enthusiastic about prohibiting the Feds from making laws which abridge the RKBA.

 

If legalised on a Federal level does that mean all states have to mirror the policy of the lowest common denominator? Ie: Colorado?

I just don't understand the desire to have a one size fits all national policy.

 

By what constitutional mechanism do you figure SCOTUS can prohibit Feds from making laws? Do you have an understanding how cases reach the Supreme Court?

 

Don't nitpick. I very clearly mean overturning Federal gun control legislation like the 68' GCA or NFA Act or Reagan's grandfathering, etc.

You know, that whole judicial review thing.

 

we need to arm more honest people and get rid of more liberal judges. that would accelerate the decline in violent crime.

- - - Updated - - -

if its so dangerous that you demand gun bans, its also so dangerous that honest people should all be issued machine guns for self defense. If its not dangerous enough to justify honest citizens from owning the same defensive firearms cops have then its not dangerous enough to arm police officers as they are armed or to pass more laws that people like you dishonestly claim are for "public safety"

- - - Updated - - -

 

Very few 2A cases have been accepted by SCOTUS. Here are the important ones....

http://ammo.com/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Of import.... a foundation laid by D.C. Vs Heller.

Several cases winding through lower courts, particularly stemming from CA legislation will hit the extremely liberal 9th circuit court (overturn rate of about 80%) and in turn will likely result in SCOTUS appeals over the next year will be interesting... one reason many 2A advocates thought a Trump nomination for a SC Justice was important to their cause.

Several cases are likely to wind the path in the next year or two....

There is already a substantial base set that the 2A protects an individual right.... now it will likely be interpreted how far that right extends.

 

It won't mean anything. Replace a Scalia with a Scalia and the court is the same

 

Here's a more extensive list:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

 

A whole lot of nothing

 

Apparently the SCOTUS did so on the gay marriage ruling.

 

So you can't read it?

 

What makes you think any of this will amount to anything.?

 

Depends on the nature of the case presented to the SCOTUS and whether they agree to adjudicate it. Thus far, there has never been a thurough review of the 2A and I see that being a low probability thing. Most cases will likely result from appeals of lower court rulings on specific state law challenges.

 

Yeah...go with that. Lol