Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

I have been certified as an expert on gun control issues and gun use by several courts and at least two members of congress have publicly referred to me as a national level expert (one was an anti gun dem, the other a pro gun GOP member). And the guy you claim is not an expert-well I beg to differ. His posts demonstrate a high level of understanding of gun issues.

 

because justifiable shootings have no relevance to the anti gun propaganda schemes. They are not a public safety issue.

 

Remind me of where you were awarded a law degree, the state(s) and federal courts you are licensed to practice in, the law review articles you have authored or contributed to-or cited in, and peer reviewed lectures you have presented or been cited in.

Thanks

 

I never claim to be an expert...but I can read.
You’re the so called expert. At least make your arguments based upon facts using correct references which never seem forthcoming.
You tell us again about all the law courses you taught then misspeak what the intent of the constitution is...hilarious.
No, the constitution does not protect firearms.

 

Ha ha
Unless you hold a degree from a certified institution of higher learning with an academic major, you have no expertise as far as I’m concerned. And even then, it has little meaning unless you can demonstrate a little better command of the points you’re making. Other people’s opinions mean NOTHING.
I can find a dozen who think I’m a great ball room dancer too....ha ha.

 

Gun regulations are not “anti gun” schemes. Sometimes, it’s just an attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of unqualified persons. Most NRA members want stricter gun control measures. Are they all anti gun ? I’ll answer that for you. NO.

 

There have been far too many examples to the contrary to prove that such is not and cannot be regarded as being the case.

Then actually show where such has been proven as being factually correct.

 

He has for distanced you on the command of the topics of guns, the law and Constitution. As for your assertion the other people’s opinions mean nothing, it is obvious you hold your vacuous opinions as superior to every one else’s opinion. There are places for such people; they talk to walls too...then again, many fill the seats in various legislatures as well.

 

that's really silly. I have a law degree from a top school and spent 24 years as a federal prosecutor. I was also on the US shooting team and at age 60, continue to win titles. And your posts have demonstrated that you dislike gun ownership but you really only base that on your dislike for the politics of the pro gun rights movement.

 

gun regulations designed to infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners are certainly anti gun schemes based on a desire to harass gun owners because of how you dislike their politics. Most NRA members want STRICTER enforcement of laws that punish criminals who objectively harm others with firearms. Most NRA members oppose the nonsense you support such as

magazine limits
waiting periods
"assault weapon bans"

and other crap that only restricts what honest people can do or own.

 

The bill of rights -second amendment-merely tells the government it cannot interfere with people keeping and bearing arms. The federal government never was given any power to do so. So what the constitution does is prevent the federal government from doing that which it was never properly authorized to do in the first place. If you want to play silly semantic games and claim that means the "constitution does not protect firearms" I really couldn't care.

 

Ha ha
A mind reader you’re not. In the eyes of gunners, unless one follows the nra line to the letter, they must be anti gun ownership.

 

You should care......it’s not a semantic game.
Anyone with a law degree has a responsibility to accurately portray what the constitution “says.”
The accurate use of the English language is suppose to be “your job.”

 

You don’t have a clue what I support. You’re just guessing. Anyone with a law degree would be much more careful about accusing anyone of supporting anything without a “quote”. Sorry, I see little to support your contentions.

 

There has NEVER BEEN any decision relative to the constitution that says the rights innumerate there in, are absolute. NEVER.
Govts, State, local and federal have been regulating firearms since the constitution was written. That the constitution protects the rights of unqualified people’s, is an illusion that false profit gunners just skip over, the same way born agains skip over the falsehoods in the Bible then just pretend it is, what it is not.

The biggest fear of false profit gunners is that average people will actually discover that the nra supports the “ rights” of felons on an equal basis as law abiding citizens under the sham of “ inconvenience.”

Distortion of the English language is the tool a gun activist use to cloud the actual debate. They do it with fake zealous intent to keep their own supporters confused. It’s intentional. Be accurate, and you lose the battle.

 

I have a personal right to dismiss people who use falsehoods . I think it’s for “normal” for people do this all the time. Don’t tell me I don’t. Your opinion becomes suspect in my eyes when you distort the English language and make claims filled with half truths and distortions.
No lawyer in their right mind should claim the constitution does anything but protect the rights of “peoples” , and only those rights of people who qualify.

 

Yah. It’s called regulation.

 

There are examples where regulation and prohibition are indistinguishable from one another.

 

Tell it to the people of the nation of France who have been murdered in terrorist attacks with prohibited weapons.

 

Produce evidence of half truths and distortions I have posted. I’d be happy to have members gauge my posting integrity against yours.
Explain your last sentence, on it’s surface it appears to be a ‘distortion of the English language and an example of less than half truth and a distortion of the recognized principles and framework of the Constitution.

 

Why do you spend so much time disrespecting our constitutional rights?

 

So was the final solution in Germany. Those stupid laws you support are designed only to harass honest gun owners. And since you support those laws-you prove you support harassing lawful gun owners.

 

You don't understand the constitution and that statement proves it.

 

Why do YOU spend so much time disrespecting the constitution by misquoting it. It’s me, not you who is the constitutionalist. You’re the one making up what it does not say. The constitution not only protects our rights as a document, it empowers the govs, federal state and local ( just read the pledges our civil servants take) , to protect our rights from ANYOTHER enemy , foreign or domestic. That includes domestic threats like those of business that invade our privacy and use their economic power in denying our freedoms. It’s you, not me who does not recognize governances as an arm of the constitution.



EVERY One should serve a two year stint in the service of our country in either the military or a domestic service. Maybe then you’d take the semantics of a service pledge to the constitution more seriously.

 

Read history instead of making up your own.
https://gun-control.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006436