how much for the funerals of those who get shot trying to take handguns from people who won't give them up
None of which changes the fact that the Joyce Foundation paid for the research paper to present the conclusions that it does. It is tainted by political bias, and cannot be regarded as valid. The fact that it has been subject to peer review does nothing but prove those conducting the review process are prone to the same political bias, making it little more than an echo chamber.
The organization that funded the study, and every other peer-reviewed study that presents the same political message, is the flaw. The Joyce Foundation has long advocated for restricting and outright eliminating private firearms ownership, and funding studies that support its position. Anything with their name cannot be regarded as being free from bias. Therefore any article with their name on it that is certified as being "peer-reviewed" does nothing but demonstrate how the ones doing the review are prone to political bias themselves.
Drivel! The empirical approach is straightforward. You critique methodology; you search for empirical bias through flaw. That you can't refer to even one flaw indicates how your bias operates. Its a bias which makes you incapable of objective consideration of the evidence.
Of course not nor should any citizen of a true American democracy be compelled to forfeit their personal property under any conditions.
I'm afraid that the type of gun bans driven by Gun Ban gangs are of the mandatory variety in which case America's citizens have to take what pittance is offered so your $2,000- German Luger must be forfeited for $250- or the government will make life miserable for you & your family. The machinations of implacable Gun Ban gangs are frighteningly totalitarian in nature & will only increase gun violence while turning millions of Americans into noncomplying "criminals". At the same time, the LEOs sent to enforce the various Gun Ban schemes become the enemies of lawful citizens & only the Gun Ban gangs & criminals "win". Briefly put, Gun Bans are contemptible forms of totalitarian theft embraced by the most myopic and fascist elements of our society.
Two things .... Try prosecuting millions of otherwise law abiding people and see how well that works out. And second, there are large swathes of the country where law enforcement would simply not cooperate with a mandatory turn-in scheme.
10 million. This is “crumbs” to Pelosi, so she could put her hundreds of millions where her mouth is ... and pay up. She and all those other Uber-rich California liberals. Aaaah! Full retirement is looking better the more I think about it. Maui is a nice place too.
I agree, it's a moronic & counterproductive proposal in more ways than I can count. Already, the vast majority of semi auto rifle owners are refusing to comply with "assault weapon" bans & the local governments in which "AW" bans are in effect are making no effort to enforce them. Naturally, those behind the bans are insisting that the ban law "have teeth" so the only way I see a ban being implemented is by someone ratting "AW" owning citizens out or an LEO spotting you with a banned firearm via traffic stop etc. Again, I don't see a handgun ban ever becoming law on a national level.
I am aware of Eminent Domain as you will please note that I said "...nor should any citizen..." Eminent domain only applies to to land. As of now, the government cannot seize the personal property of lawful American citizens except for some recent Civil Forfeiture laws of dubious constitutionality. What is your point as it relates to the topic of this thread?
The flaw was pointed out to yourself. The simple fact it is not accepted by yourself is not the problem of myself.
My point was that your argument against gun confiscation is invalid. There is no reason to believe that the government can never ever constitutionally confiscate personal property. It's interesting to note that if eminent domain does not apply to guns then you would be in an even worse position if the government decided to confiscate your guns. Your guns could be taken without any compensation at all: "Laws banning especially dangerous guns—such as assault weapons—and large capacity ammunition magazines are not takings and do not require compensation.... "For example, in Fesjian v. Jefferson, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld a D.C. law that effectively banned machine guns.4 The court found that 'the statute in question is an exercise of legislative police power and not of eminent domain' and therefore did not constitute a taking, even though the ban contained no 'grandfather clause' and required owners to dispose of their machine guns.5 .... "In short, because laws banning dangerous guns and ammunition seek to protect the public rather than to confiscate private property for public use, they are perfectly consistent with the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." http://lawcenter.giffords.org/the-takings-clause-not-an-obstacle-to-smart-gun-laws/
your understanding of eminent domain is even more lacking than your understanding of gun issues. ED is when the state takes something for public use and pays a fair price for it. ED has nothing to do with gun confiscation
Then your position would be even worse as I explained above. Drug dealers do not get compensated when their drugs are confiscated. Likewise, the police could confiscate any guns you chose to illegally own without compensating you. In this thread I have made a proposal which is much more generous than it may need to be.
