We should try to pass gun control on the ballot.

Such will never pass constitutional muster, regardless of what standard of scrutiny is utilized by the united state supreme court for review. Therefore there is no point in discussing such a proposal as if it ever had any actual merit.

Perhaps familiarizing yourself with the united states constitution, and what it is supposed to do and not do, would be a worthwhile endeavor on the part of yourself, before making further proposals about how to change the law of the united states.

 

It does not prohibit gun ownership thusbiys Constitutional

 

Wait a second... Is this Stalin?

 

Get an amendment, stop trying to circumvent the Constitution with this nonsense...

 

The states are allowed to do anything not prohibited by the Constitution. The BOR is against the feds not the states a 5-4 decision is not a strong indicator.

Democrats could add 2 members to the supreme Court and the individual right to a fire Arm is dead.

 

Shall not be infringed is in the Constitution, what you want is one massive infringement after another, no thanks...

 

Neither did the firearm-related restrictions of the district of columbia or the city of Chicago, yet the united state supreme court still overturned them as being unconstitutional.

 

The ratification of the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution changed that.

Such does not matter. The majority ruled in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms for purposed unconnected with militia duties and/or services. No amount of arguing to the contrary will ever change that such is fact.

The same narrow margin was what decided the issue of homosexual marriage being a constitutional right. Shall the individual states decide the ruling does not apply to them, and refuse to recognize homosexual marriages as being legitimate?

And the world as it is known could end tomorrow in a cataclysmic event that renders all known life on the planet extinct in the blink of an eye. But hypothetical possibilities of an undetermined future do not serve to undermine what exists in the here and now.

 

Did you see the threat the senate democrats gave Roberts if he does not rule in favor of Gun control? https://www.chicagotribune.com/opin...0190904-v4pc6s2d4rewbnr7yx5s3id3hy-story.html

It is a very real threat if we take both houses and the presidency.

 

It was seen. Such could be considered as an act of treason on the part of every elected official who signed onto such a warning, in a blatantly transparent effort to influence justice.

 

Tell me, how does someone in say NYC use a gun safely? 8 million people in a 300MI parameter that is 26,666 people per mile.

 

Well when you're elected to Mayor next year you can simple take all your constituents firearms away!

BTW
Cut and paste this in a google search and you will find pages and pages of the answer you seek

 

No need small and rural.

WTF 3 in the city. NRA must have good talkers to get that approved. Also outside the range it is completely unsafe.

 

What does such have to do with the discussion pertaining to treason on the part of certain elected officials who have threatened the united state supreme court with repercussions for how they rule on a particular case?

 

Glad I could help! Lemme know whenever you get stumped and I'll walk you thru whatever it is!!

 

That the NYC law is what the case is about. It shows the need for local regulation of guns.

You should also talk to the GOP about cancelling the NYC local GOP, since um they have not been in power since 1977 and have 3 out of 51 seats on the assembly.

Also LOL at a minority leader for 3 people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Council

 

I'll get right on it!

 

Explain precisely how. How is the firearm-related restriction at the heart of the case evidence that local level of regulations of firearms is necessary?

 

Since the city is very densely populated the law makes perfect sense that someone would be restricted to only carry an unloaded gun to a range and back, and that the gun must be locked and unloaded inside the house.

To have the laws be any different would be ridiculous. Basically the gun group suing just wants the government to have to stop its ironclad grip on where when and how guns are acquired used and enter.

They only have a 3.4 murder rate. Basically their laws keep their citizens safe and the citizens vast majority approve, when less than 6% of the population wants "more gun rights" they should just leave the city. Only 3 reps and not in control since 1977.

 

What is the legitimate purpose of the city of New York attempting to restrict the legal transport of firearms outside of its limited territory to any other location in the rest of the state of New York? Explain such.

 

To prevent people from being able to easilly kill people. There is zero reason, none, that anyone outside of a range needs a fire arm in the city

 

I'll be curious to see which (if any) state adds this to their constitution.

 

So, out of eight and a half million people, there is no reason why even one person needs a gun outside of the range?

 

Unless you are an officer/security no.

 

The general government has no authority to enact the law you suggest.