You have neither the standing nor the credibility to dismiss anyone's claims. I suggest you actually read them and learn something so your future posts demonstrate some actual understanding of the topic
your lack of deductive reasoning, logical arguments or cogent and well set out positions are amusing. have you come up for an answer why every law you wish to pass ONLY changes the legal environment for the people LEAST likely to cause harm with firearms?
see there is that lack of deductive reasoning. Apparently, your training is some sort of pseudo scientific background without any real familiarity with logic, deductive reasoning or what we call in the law, the rational progression to a conclusion. its why I find your silly arguments so worthless. you cannot PROVE that any of the laws you want will actually prevent crime because the evidence is inconclusive. You cite states that have all sorts of gun laws but you cannot demonstrate that other factors are NOT responsible for decreases in crime. Plus, you never are able to handle the fact that other areas that have silly gun laws have high crime rates-crime rates that did not decrease after the laws were passed. but we have logical deduction on our side it works like this start with a basic fact-people with felony records commit most of the gun violence in the USA- this is a fact everyone who is honest agrees to then we make a logical argument-laws that do not impact that group are not going to be as effective in reducing crime as laws that specifically target that 80% who commit the gun crime you scream that there is "no evidence" which is both silly and unresponsive but your arguments seem unable to incorporate the concept of a logical conclusion
Cite your evidence. You made a claim gun laws do not impact criminals. Of course they do. Cite your evidence
Your "scientific evidence" is politically motivated hackery that fails every ethical standard. And clearly NONE of it is Constitutional; the rubberstamping of corrupted courts notwithstanding.
registration does not impact criminals, they cannot be prosecuted waiting periods do not impact criminals, they cannot buy guns from licensed dealers Criminals cannot own any firearms-assault weapon bans don't impact them criminals cannot own any firearm that accepts a detachable magazine-those bans don't impact criminals Criminals won't engage in training to own guns-laws that require that don't impact cirminals nor do laws that require gun owners to carry insurance Laws that do impact criminals? enhanced sentences for using a gun to further a crime of violence being a felon in possession being a felon and ATTEMPTING to acquire a fireram
Cite your evidence it is politically motivated. It is not up to you to determine what is constitutional
you are wrong yet again. the founders certainly believed that the constitution was written so the average citizen was to be able to understand it and know what was constitutional and what was not
Clearly proven on numerous occasions. So-called "researchers" have a political agenda, and they decide what they want the results to be, and they cook the numbers to get the results they want. Anti-gun organizations are infamous for this. Wrong. I have EVERY right to determine what is Constitutional when it affects me and my rights under the Constitution! I do not blindly accept being stripped of my rights because corrupted courts seek to rubberstamp governmental overreach; especially when it is in clear defiance of Constitutional intent.
The studies claim it is possible, it does not state it to actually be a confirmed, proven fact. Beyond such, scientific studies do not prove that laws are constitutional.
How do you feel about your side making it harder for gun laws to be enforced? The NRA likes to keep the ATF undermanned and underfunded. They have a lot of influence over Congress. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/firing-back/
Not true, look up the fix NICS bill and see which party sponsored the bill and brought it to lawmakers. It provides for increased funding and increases in manpower for enforcement. It’s the pro gun side that has pushed hardest for aggressive gun law enforcement. Oh wait, this bill is current. You want to introduce a nine year old article.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" The key word there is "right". In America "we the people" have rights. These rights were not given by the Constitution they are protected by it. I support laws prohibiting the ownership and/or possession of arms by those who have forfeited their rights by committing illegal acts. I justify this because their rights have been forfeited. Other than that I'm pretty good with letting law abiding citizens have whatever they feel they want or need. You want a machine gun? Go for it! Some will argue that "common sense" laws should be in place to avoid all the tragedies that seem to befall us but as the saying goes: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. I'm not giving up my right to arms just because some shoots up a crowd of people. Rich
Got to disagree with you there. My right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution at the federal level, therefore my state nor any state has the authority to restrict that right.
