Ending the Myth that America is Dangerous because of Gun Ownership

The question above is perhaps the dumbest question I have ever been asked!

How the crap would I know anything about the Center for Disease Control?

Simply asking for confirmation of the reliability of the stats given...and suddenly I am supposed to be an expert on an entity I've never heard of.

This kind of inane dumbness is a waste of my time....I am done with idiot gunnuts incapable of seeing beyond their own selfishness....I will not be reading the replies to this post...just remember, each time a child dies because of your gun obsession, each death is partially due to your idiocy.....every death....

 

And yet we are not the ones claiming to have never heard of a federal agency that has been in existence for nearly seventy years, despite it being in the news numerous times.

Who shoulders the responsibility for every death attributed to an overdose of medical marijuana?

 

gun banners always try to claim that their schemes are "FOR THE CHILDREN". we don't buy that anymore. no rational person can possibly believe that people who are willing to commit the MOST SERIOUS felony in state codes (capital murder or first degree murder) are going to be prevented from obtaining a firearm given how the complete banning of cocaine and crack and heroin and acid has not prevented people from getting those forms of contraband.

its all about control or punishing people who don't buy into the left wing agenda of those who promote gun bans. It has nothing to do with public safety and the claims that these schemes will make us safer don't pass any logical smell tests.

 

Funny that you won't reply now that it has been proven that guns save far more lives than they are criminally used.
I'm sure that you won't let these facts sway your emotionally based opinion.

Ps. Since when is the desire for self preservation considered "selfish"?

 

I don't recall threatening you or children. Did I miss something or are you fantasizing about staring at me and my guns?

 

Having a gun in the house puts you and your family at increased risk of being shot.

 

Nonsense. the studies that "support" that claim used cases where criminals brought guns into unarmed houses and shot the occupants.


your chances of being successfully victimized goes way up if you are unarmed

 

Somebody had better save our president, with all of those guns in his house. Especially the drunk SS agents.
http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/drunk-secret-service-agent-backed-zero-tolerance-policy/

Mayor Bloomberg may be in danger as well. NYPD marksmanship has been pretty poor at times. Didn't he use NYPD for much of his security detail? Do only the rich deserve protection?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/

 

Not me. I'm a firearm safety trainer and a national ranked competitive shooter. Guns are completely safe if you follow established safety protocal. I teach people how to be safe and qualify for concealed carry licensing. Firearms are my livelihood
320 million guns in America, and about 600 fatalities per year due to accidents. That's .000001 percent.

 

Just as having a bathtub in the house puts you and your family at increased risk of drowning?

 

Looks like everyone is jumping on this sweeping assertion.. and for good reason.

1. There is no evidence to support this.
2. What is claimed by assertion, can be dismissed by assertion.
3. Universal truth is not regional.
4. Correlation does not imply causation.

But it got us all riled up, so if that was the main goal, it was successful!

 

When you say "us", I'm sure it's sheer coincidence that two people comment on a post made 24 hours ago within minutes of each other.

 

Nobody gave me a posting schedule. Who do I contact for one?

 

what is wrong with instilling a character of a "well regulated militia" in any gun lovers who may present themselves before to Judicature for any breaches of the domestic Tranquility or security of our free States, for "Judicial activism" that may result in better aqueducts and better roads for our States and Republic.

disclaimer: Only our federal Congress is delegated the social Power to write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our Republic.

 

could you actually reword that so it actually fits with the conversation that has been taking place on this thread?

 

Your post is difficult to decipher. It almost reads as if you are advocating an armed posse assembling anytime some crisis is occurring.

 

Or so it sounds like English?

 

Of course you all know that Mason talked Madison into this amendment so that the potential federal army could not theoretically disarm slave militias...right? This was more about slave patrols than anything else folks.

 

that fails to explain why the federal government was never given any power to regulate firearms in the main body of the constitution

 

Drivel as usual.

The organization and role of the federal government is spelled out in the Constitution and has limits. All other functions are given to the states and the people per the 10th Amendment. If you don't think states and cities can make laws, ignore all of the gun laws, traffic laws, and pollution laws in California and tell us how you do.

 

Of course. Everyone knows that, in the wake of the british engaging in the battles of Lexington and Concord, putting out that they will confiscate and destroy all weapons found, the most absolute pressing matter on everyone's mind when ratifying the bill of rights was slaves.

Sarcasm is not one of my strong points. And you fail to cute anything to suggest your position is factually correct.

 

I disagree. Perhaps you could provide a source for us to review.....

 

y'all really just need a clue and a Cause.

 

OK I guess the answer is no.

 

this slave patrol nonsense is the theory of a fourth rate law professor Carl BOGUS, who teaches at what is at best, a third rate law school. he came up with this silliness Pre-Heller in an attempt to sway the court to rule against gun rights, Once Heller was decided, his drivel went largely unnoticed because it was so idiotic, serious 2A scholars such as Akhil Reed Amar, William Van Alstyne, Sanford Levinson and Eugene Volokh basically ignored it and it was relegated to the dung heap of silly outcome based theories