The REAL Reason the Hard Left Supports Gun Control

Federal and state law already addresses this - if the state has taken away your right to keep and bear arms through due process, you will not (really, should not as there's no guarantee the correct data was entered into the correct database) pass a background check.

 

Bill of rights, not bill of needs. Your assessment of someones' need for a firearm does not mean they do not have the right to one.

 

Said no one aware of the facts.

Fact: US murder rate 2012-2017: 5.3/100k
67% of US murders in the US are committed with a gun - thus, 3.5/100k
That means the US non-gun murder rate is 1.8/100k7% higher than
That is, our non-gun murder rate is 50% higher than the total murder rate of the UK, 80% higher than Australia and 7% higher than Canada.
Note too that Australia d Canada have significant gun ownership rates.

Your assertion also makes the baseless assumption that if someone did not have a gun they would not commit the murder through other means.

 

The difference between my position and yours is that mine is actually supported by evidence.

It is a fact that urban Democrats ban guns whenever they have the power to do so.

And if they had that power at the federal level, they'd ban guns across the entire country.

 

If there is so much support for gun control then change The Constitution. If you are not going to do that then find some other cause to spend your time on. My right to arms is a Constitutional guarantee.

 

Uh, no.

My position is supported by actual evidence.

I have lived in Illinois and the Chicago area for my entire life, a State and city that is virtually monopolized by Democrats.

In Chicago, there was an effective ban on ALL firearms within city limits. In Illinois, residents must apply for a State-issued FOID card in order to legally own a firearm. And now Democrats in Illinois are pushing a State-wide "assault weapons" ban.

Please tell me how much longer I'm supposed to tolerate these brazen and dishonest attacks on my rights before I can assume nefarious intent on the part of Democrats?

 

My position is based on evidence, like all positions I take.

And the evidence clearly shows that urban Democrats ban guns whenever they have the power to do so.

Simply look at places like Chicago, Washington DC, and New York City.

Democrats claim it's about safety. But that is obviously a lie. Chicago, despite having onerous gun control, is one of the least safe places in the country.

The real reason they support gun control is because an armed populace is a major obstacle to the authoritarian agenda of the Democratic elites.

 

Your guess is as good as mine.

Political dialectic and terminology across the west is schizophrenic and nonsensical.

I am simply trying to communicate within that flawed framework.

 

i asked you for evidence to specifically back up your ridiculous claim.

second, your trivializing sexual violence is disgusting. 300,000 women are raped every year. sad that you think it is a joke.

 

GO LEFT!!!

 

100% fallacy.

 

Did they say he didn't pose a threat or that it wasn't enough to violate his "basic right" to have access to guns?

Because this is something I can't quite understand. We have a government that is (rightly) quite willing to cut off anyone's ability to drive a car for just about ANY demonstrated tendency to operate it in an unsafe manner even though most of us truly NEED a car just to survive in the modern world, but that bends over backwards to ensure one's access to guns is truly unfettered even though one may have demonstrably violent tendencies while many people go their whole lives without owning any guns at all.

 

How can you know this with such certainty?

 

because firearms are not the cause of homicides.

 

Actually it's about 1/3 of that and has been declining since 1992. And I don't think it's a joke.

I think it's a joke that you and your husband feel a need to run around with guns. Did he get a holster to match his panties?

 

With "assault weapon" defined as any semi-auto with a detachable magazine.

 

Why don't people need a firearm for self-defense?

 

There is no need to alter the Constitution. Amendments are subject to judicial revue and interpretation. No Amendment bestows absolute rights upon anyone.

If our government of, by, and for the People restricts the permissiveness you crave and informs you that you are not allowed to shlep your bazooka into the local prater meeting, despite you're whining that you feel very insecure without one, you are required to follow the law.

 

It was concluded Nikolas Cruz posed no threat, even when he spoke of intending to commit a school shooting, and threatened others with a firearm before the incident took place.

Operating of a motor vehicle on a public right of way is not a constitutionally recognized or protected right, but rather a privilege issued by government.

 

Such does not mean that rights are next to nonexistent, however.

Except for the fact that even government itself must follow the law.

 

But surely anyone must see that logically it should be the other way around

 

Eh? Non sequitur

 

And poisons are not the cause of poisonings Nevertheless if there were no poisons available there would be no poisonings possible. ( and please no drivel about what are poisons etc, This is a hypothetical, stay with the hypothesis.)

 

Guns aren't going anywhere.

 

Yes... and The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Said right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.