Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...

No, absurdly using the Second Amendment to try and justify greater coercion is an open assault on freedom.

 

Explain for us all a little bit about this "coercion", and don't use your usually double-speak.

 

You already know. Why pretend? Social costs understood in terms of higher crime

 

...and you already know that higher crime is the result of more gun control, so no need to re-visit that.

 

As you well know, this is nonsense. Analysis into gun control effects does indeed confirm reduces deaths and reduced crime

 

Wrinkler is irrelevant. See: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

And see: M c DONALD et al. v . CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html

 

You haven't actually provided any critique of his analysis. Tut tut

 

I don't need to. I gave you the decisions of the USSC on the issue. Since the USSC has decided the issue, anything that Wrinkler has to say is irrelevant. The case has been decided and his side lost.

 

You sure are stubborn, and just plain wrong.

 

You sidestepped the original question. Again, Where does the author, Adam Winkler, mention "right-wing authoritarians?" You also fail to show where the author refers to the Founding Fathers or anyone who agrees with their original definition of the RTKBA as "irrational" or "authoritarian?"

Please. If YOU have the final authority on what is "rational" and "irrational", then I think we all will be moving to Oppositeland.

Again, you fail to answer my original concerns and questions: If the pro-gun side of this argument had truly irrational views, then congressmen (and society in general) would be behind an amendment to the constitution that offers clarification on the right to keep and bear arms. I have not seen anyone propose such an amendment, and I probably will not see anyone propose such an amendment in my lifetime. Is your contention that the vast majority of our nation's congress and society is irrational?

You have also failed to explain the following:

How does expanding CCW conflict with "rational gun control?" How does spread of the Castle Doctrine conflict with "rational gun control?" How does imposing harsher penalties on criminals who assault people with guns or criminals who smuggle weapons conflict with "rational gun control?"

On the flip side. How is limiting magazine capacity a "rational" gun control measure? How is banning 50 caliber SINGLE SHOT rifles "rational?" How is banning handguns for law abiding citizens rational? How is banning semiautomatic versions of military rifles "rational?" How is a "one gun per month" policy "rational?"

Instead of ignoring these important questions, why not at least try to answer them?

 

Come now, whilst I can refer to scholarly research in support of my position, you cannot. Rather than evidence, you've allowed dogma to dictate

 

We've been through this before. Crime statistics prove that less gun control equals less crime. Washington DC and Chicago are perfect examples.

 

Indeed, so you have no excuse for your misrepresentation

No, convenient use of raw data can be used to support your dogma (and of course raw data can also be used to support an anti-gun position). Given the complexities in criminology (e.g. even minor demographic changes are predicted to impact on crime rates, with deterrence theory suggesting that these effects are then magnified by changes in the expected probaiblity of punishment), an empirical study has to isolate gun effects. That leads to results inconsistent with your dogma. The "real world" just doesn't agree with your dogma.

 

Ayuh,... The Only misrepresentation goin' on in this forum is the Bullship you continue to spew...

 

I'm merely prepared to refer to "real world" evidence, using objective study to reject dogmatic rant

 

The people who blame guns for killing people are not in their right mind. Consider this, if you outlaw guns because in your belief guns kill then you are going to have to outlaw cars also. If you think of this in the same sense as guns you would not blame the driver you would blame the car. Just like wanting to outlaw guns because you blame the gun not the shooter. Looking at things in this perspective blaming the gun and not the shooter then after outlawing guns you need to outlaw cars, trucks, motorcycles, fattening foods, cigars, cigarettes and on and on and on. Don't blame the gun blame the person who shot the gun. And don't outlaw guns because one, or two etc people shot and killed someone. Some of them shooters may have been protecting themselves or their family or like I have done I protected members of society from a phsycopath. Plus our Government is taking away too many of our rights lets not help them with taking away any mmore.

 

Guns don't kill people, People kill people.

For those people who think that all guns should be outlawed because they kill people then consider this. If you outlaw guns because they kill people then next your going to have to outlaw cars because cars kill people. You think it's funny, well it's not. It's the same thing. If you blame the gun and not the person who shot the gun then using the same principle you would have to blame the car and not the driver of the car. There would be no more Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. It would have to be Mothers Against Cars.

Blaming the gun and not the shooter is kind of stupid to me. About the only thing that is keeping other Countries from attacking us on our own soil (except for terrorists) is that they know that with all of the armed people in this Country equals to the second largest armed force in the world. Second to only the United States. Now take away those guns and Countries like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan Libya etc would be attacking us in an instant.

If Obama and his Cronies are allowed to disarm America then our Government could do the same thing that Hitler did in 1933. Run AMOK. Not that he isn't already running amok, he just can't run over all of the armed citizens of the United States.

Let's not let the Government take away any more of our rights. The second amendment secures all citizens right to keep and bear arms with or without a permit. If the Government does away with the second amendment which one will they do away with next?????

 

Well, I don't see him "going at it" at all.

I can not remember the president ever even mentioning guns during his presidency. There has been no proposed legislation. There has been no action at all. It does not seem as if there is a plan.

 

The evidence shows that 'more guns=more crime' so you're using cliché to ignore reality

 

In fact we are allowed to carry guns in national parks now.

....

.... so is that a part of the conspiracy as well?

 

Ayuh,... Considerin' yer cliché, is pure Bullship, only supported by leftwing papers written with hyperbole to cloud out the truth of the matter...

 

Scholarly peer reviewed research destroys your position as nothing more than dogma run amok. You should at least try and utilise the available empirical approaches to try and blag a rational debating position

 

No causal relationship between guns and violence was found.

Sorenson and Wiebe (2004, Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 94 Issue 8 )

 

That bill was a rider to a must-sign credit card reform bill. The recent appropriations bill that he signed had 12 NRA backed riders but Obama said that he would find ways around them.

 

Ayuh,... While I'm glad those riders were stuffed down his throat,...
I really wish he'd vetoed the bill...
Only because of the increased costs of credit to me, 'n everybody else...