Only partially true. Hillary Clinton did not disagree with the Supreme Court overturning the handgun ban in Washington DC. She disagreed with another minor provision in the Heller decision that required the safe keeping of firearms. While I didn't find her original statement this is confirmed by the following. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/20/hillary-clinton-said-heller-gun-rights-case-was-ab/ The primary decision in Heller is the right to have a handgun in the home for self defense. I've read numerous statements by Hillary Clinton going back to right after the decision and she's never voiced any objection to that part of the decision. She was always focused on the safe storage of firearms in her concerns with Heller. Here's the deal. I don't know what the DC law stated. If it only applied to safe storage of firearms where children are present in the home then I disagree with the Supreme Court. A lot of children die because of irresponsible gun owners that don't secure their firearms which allows children access. If storage provision applied to everyone regardless of whether children were ever present in the home then I fully support the Supreme Court. It depends on how the law was written in these cases because the Supreme Court decision is typically specific to the case and not universal in application. Sometimes general but mostly very specific to the case being heard. If that is the case then Donald Trump can't issue an executive order to end the gun free zone. Even if the federal government were to end it's gun free zone requirement the state and/or city can impose it and the federal government has no authority to intervene. Remember that the only reason the states would even follow the federal requirement is the "threat" of losing school funding that the states voluntarily accept from the federal government. A funny factoid. Republicans opposed the Dept of Education and the provisions that it imposes on state education but they're not mandatory. Any state can ignore all of the Dept of Education requirements anytime they want. All they have to do is give up the money. Republicans believe the states should get the money so that Republicans at the state level don't have to tax the people in the state but then hate the requirements that go with the money. If Republicans cut federal funding for education (it would help balance the budget but they'd use it for tax cuts for the wealthy and keep on deficit spending) then the Republican state legislatures are going to have to increase taxes to make up for the funding shortfall that's created.
Maybe you'll have better luck grabbing guns in another country. I'm going to see about donating to Australian gun rights groups. Just for fun.
Actually not. The founders did not create the US government for the people to overthrow it with armed rebellion and Article I enumerated that Congress was to "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections..." At the time the "militias" were a primary source of defense against invasions and insurrections but like everything else this function has been specialized and now we have the finest military in the world and the National Guard that has replaced the citizen militias. We can also note that the founders didn't create our government to protect us from government. They created our government to protect us from Americans that will violate our rights. They ensured that the government couldn't do it because they created the United States as a Constitutional government with the means to adjudicate any (well almost any) violations of the Constitution. This crap that the 2nd Amendment was ever about providing the American people with the means to overthrow our own government comes right out of the fantasy pages of the NRA and Republican handbook. In fact the Constitutional Government that the founders created was to protect us from "conservatives" that will violate our natural rights. The two parts of the Constitution that Republicans hate the most are the 9th Amendment (often referred to in civil rights decisions such as Roe v Wade) and the 14th Amendment that contains the "equal protection clause" that Republicans routinely oppose. Think about this. Republicans oppose the EPA that imposes regulations limiting pollution because No One Has A Right to Pollute. Pollution violates the Natural Rights of every person on the Planet. Republicans want to eliminate the EPA so that a few wealthy people can make a metric butt load of money by polluting the air, land, and water sometimes with highly toxic chemicals and sometimes by emissions that can change the environment of the planet for thousands of years into the future. You want to know what the founders believe and what the "original intent" was then read this: http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm I take that back. Just reading it isn't enough. You have to study John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government until you actually understand it because that is exactly what people like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton believed. Keep in mind that Locke's arguments are contemporary to his times. Throw out "God" and the Bible because they're irrelevant to natural law. Learn to recognize the minor flaws in some of Locke's statements because they're not supported by natural law. If you finally understand what Locke says, if you understand that Natural Law based upon survival of the species is the foundation for Natural Rights of the Person (or any species). The founders didn't give us the country they "intended" because they knew they wouldn't be able to. The wealthy "colonialists" that controlled the political power had way too much to lose and they were the "conservatives" of that era that sought to retain every injustice there was if it ensured the continuation or an increase in the wealth and power they had once the authority of the King of England was removed from above them. The founders gave us the "seed" in our ideology that is a two line summary of Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government and hoped that future generations would overcome the "conservatives" of every era that fought against the ideology upon which the nation was founded. The "social (economic, political) conservative" today is fundamentally no different than the social-economic-political conservative in the 1780's that insisted on retaining slavery with the exception of the fact that we no longer have bondage because of the 13th Amendment so the "conservatives" replaced bondage slavery with economic slavery. Sorry, my thoughts sort of ran away with me but the examples are endless that demonstrate that Republicans today oppose the original intent of the founders and then lie about it claiming they do.
An order of magnitude more children die in car wrecks, but no one is asking for better protection for kids in cars. How would a law requiring safe storage be enforced?
The "radical right" keeps on saying this thinking that if they lie enough about liberals wanting to take their guns that someone will believe it. Yes, there are very rare anecdotal cases where one Democrat here and another one somewhere else actually wants to eliminate firearms in America but it is never been proposed and it would actually be unconstitutional. That's why the original National Firearms Act that highly regulated fully automatic firearms never attempted to confiscate the fully automatic firearms. Regulations do not prevent a person from owning or limit their ability to bear firearms in self defense. I'm not a fan of assault weapons bans because they're based upon appearance and not functionality but not being able to own an "Bushmaster" doesn't prevent any American from "Keeping and Bearing Arms" in the United States. Laws and regulation related to gun commerce is not protected by the Second Amendment at all but gun-nuts believe it is. Sorry, only "Keeping and Bearing Arms" (not specifically firearms) is protected. In point of fact that Constitution is often intentionally vague leaving the specifics to Congress and arguably the Congress can establish by statute which "Arms" the Second Amendment actually protects and, in fact, it has. We're not allowed to have nuclear weapons or bombs under the law. We can own fully automatic firearms but the firearm is registered and the person is licensed by the federal government and even that's conditional on local/state laws allowing it. I oppose a lot of Democrat gun control measures because they're not based upon a logical foundation but I don't oppose regulations that have a solid foundation that will prevent the wrongful use of firearms. The "Gun-Nuts" are often no different than the "Oppose Anything Obama" especially if it good for America. Guess what, some regulations actually are good regulations but a person has to be able to think for themselves to realize that.
If they are not then what is wrong with your country? Do you not have seat belt laws? Child capsule laws? Safe storage is enforced by exemption - people are assumed to be doing the right thing until proven otherwise ie they allow a child to be injured with an unsecured weapon
Then why do we still have over 2000 children dying in car wrecks every year if everyone is asking for more protection? Evidently front and side airbags, mandatory seatbelts and mandatory child seats just aren't working. We'd save hundreds of lives if we required full NASCAR protection for all passengers under 18 years old, yet...
Absolutely correct. I've made a proposal in the past. Currently only FFL's (gun dealers) can access the FBI NICS database that lists people from possessing firearms. I've proposed opening it so anyone can access it with a computer or smart phone but don't make using it mandatory. Instead simply make it a felony if the person sells or transfers a firearm to a prohibited person because they didn't run a background check. Currently it's illegal if a person "knowingly" transfers a firearm to a prohibited person and I'd eliminate the "knowingly" because they'd have a quick and easy way to "ensure" that the don't transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. No mandate but if you do sell or transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, and they get busted and turn you in as the seller, and the evidence supports that, and there's no record of the voluntary background check then guess what? You're going to prison because you were criminally negligent by not running the background check that would have stopped the transfer of the firearm.
Yes, we have them but we still have thousands of children dying every year. Accidental car deaths for this demographic account for 25 times the number of deaths than accidental firearm deaths. We don't need a new law to prosecute someone for allowing a child to get access to a firearm. Those are on the books, but there just not enforced. We really don't want to prosecute someone who just lost a child. We'd like those safe storage laws to prevent tragedies, but believing that the fear of being prosecuted for a safe storage violation is more of a deterrent than the risk of losing a child is naive.
Nothing will prevent the wrongful use of firearms. We haven't seen any such proposals that are effective, enforceable and Constitutional, which are the bare minimums for any new legislation.
See when it is unsupported it is not fact but opinion and in this case - completely wrong Hmm this is adults and children All injury deaths Number of deaths: 199,756 Deaths per 100,000 population: 62.6 All poisoning deaths Number of deaths: 51,966 Deaths per 100,000 population: 15.4 Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,804 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 33,736 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm will look further for child deaths
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/418289 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/515191 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/6/1466.short http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1416.short
Search on Unintentional firearm deaths age <0 to 17 and on unintentional motor vehicle deaths on the same demographic. 74 unintentional firearm deaths in 2014; 2081 unintentional motor vehicle traffic deaths.
First link: These laws are controversial, and their effect on firearm-related injuries is unknown. Second link: Violence, including homicide, child abuse and neglect, and assault by peers and others, causes over 2000 deaths a year to US children aged 0 to 19 years. [Nothing about firearms, and the full article is paywall, against the rules here] Third link: However, there is no evidence of effects in the other 14 states with CAP laws [I have nothing against CAP laws other than they're unenforceable....no home can be held in compliance until someone dies] Fourth link: Although rates have declined since the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued the original policy statement in 1992, firearm-related deaths continue as 1 of the top 3 causes of death in American youth.1 As shown in Fig 1, the firearm-associated death rate among youth ages 15 to 19 has fallen from its peak of 27.8 deaths per 100 000 in 1994 to 11.4 per 100 000 in 2009, driven by a decline in firearm homicide rates. [Hmmm, more guns, less deaths]
Sounds like the "other witch" may be on her way out---a Demo constituency in the House wants Nancy out as minority leader...
Stating that one machine is safer than another is not anthropomorphizing (though congrats on the polysyllabic response - rare here)
The second counts children up to 19 years old, "Children" 18 and 19 years old can buy their own guns. Including those two ages in the study of "children" in a pure Stat bump. When we include 18 and 19, firearmember homicides more than double and suicides increase by about 40%. - - - Updated - - - Accidental firearm deaths for children are two orders of magnitude less than those from car accidents.
This is either a case of deliberate cherry picking, misrepresentation or not reading the entire excerpt From my link http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/418289 conclusions. —State safe storage laws intended to make firearms less accessible to children appear to prevent unintentional shooting deaths among children younger than 15 years Next sentence reads Infantile and adolescent patterns of homicide are recognized: child abuse by parents characterizes the former; gunshots and other assaults by peers characterize the latter. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/515191 Oh! And I link to abstracts and excerpts which is allowed Agreed but there was very strong evidence in the one state with the strongest law Which does suggest a measurable effect - one that has been seen here in Australia Again you are quoting out of context and cherry picking - usually a sign of the desperate The next sentence belies your "more guns less deaths" meaningless meme No single study has adequately explained the decline in firearm-related homicide rates. Postulated reasons include improved socioeconomic conditions, violence prevention programs, decline in the crack/cocaine market, changes in legislation, declines in firearms availability for other reasons, and community policing. Nevertheless, firearm-associated death and disability rates remain unacceptably high http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1416.short The full article is free and here http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1416.full - - - Updated - - - And your research validating your contention is found where???????
Of course it is, how many guns are in the USA? How many deaths do guns cause? How many cars are in the USA? How many deaths do cars cause? The answer is 0 and 0 on deaths. If you want to say throwing a match into the gas tank of a car is the car's fault when it blows up....well then at least I'll understand where you're coming from but I won't have nice words in response.
It's not my research, it's data collected by CDC and accessible through WISQARS. You seem very familiar with that database already. The rest is just math.
