New Orleans Shooting Injures 10 People Near French Quarter

Please - demonstrate the necessity for, and the efficacy, of, either of these restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Please - demonstrate the necessity for, and the efficacy, of, either of these restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

You can, but you're wrong.

 

Would eliminate straw purchases and people that are negligent with their firearms (allowing children, friends or family to obtain them) would be held responsible.

 

Like any other right, the right to keep and bear arms can be removed by due process.
Does the fact you can be jailed or executed for a crime mean you don't actually have a right to life or liberty?

 

Do you believe rights can be removed or revoked?
If you do, then the right to bare arms is not a right
If you do not, then explain why convicts are nit allowed to own firearms

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true, as legal privileges are granted by law.
No state has a law granting the privilege to own a gun.

 

You can call it whatever you like. No one is arguing that dangerous people should own firearms. Los Angeles is an example of the erosion of the second amendment you support. Only law enforcement, judges, and criminals carry guns here.

 

This is a claim - I asked for a demonstration, of both the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law abiding.

 

Ok, an no one is removing firearms — they are adding a requirement for legal ownership. How is this blocking anyone from exercise said right?

 

Like any other right, the right to keep and bear arms can be removed by due process.
Does the fact you can be jailed or executed for a crime mean you only have a privilege to life or liberty?

 

Where have I ever said “Only law enforcement, judges, and criminals“ should be allowed to carry guns?

 

"Blocking"?
The term used in the constitution is "infringement" - that is, a unnecessary and/or ineffective restriction.

 

Which, as we see in states that have universal registration, prevents no such thing.

 

That’s why I said “I believe”

 

And how does requiring insurance or registration infringe on the ability to own a weapon?

 

Your unsupportable beliefs do not support, much less generate, a sound argument for the creation of the restrictions you seek to place on the law abiding.

 

These restrictions are neither necessary nor effective - thus, infringements.
Disagree?
Demonstrate the necessity for, and the efficacy of, either of these restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

That is the result of what you are proposing.

 

Insurances will result in them being banned?
How much longer do I have before I must surrender my vehicle? I just bought it! Will there be a buyback at the very least?!?
How will I get to work? Or the grocery store!??! Oh my gerd!!

This is of course hyperbole, insurance requirements do not result in bans.
Try again.

 

Im surprised you weren't aware of the erosion of the second amendment in Los Angeles. While moving the goal post to cars may be your only move, the reality is that there is a lot of money and effort behind gun control. Other than making lawyers and insurance companies rich, can you name one benefit to society if insurance was required?

 

So prior to these gun control measures they enacted registration and insurance requirements first?

 

You realize insurance doesn't cover intentionally shooting people and criminals can't be charged for not registering their illegally possessed weapons, right?

 

"fled the scene on foot toward Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard." - Funny that many shooting takes place on or around streets named after MLK...

 

This is why he cannot demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, these restrictions.