Common sense gun law
- Thread starter Merlin99
- Start date
black dog
Free America
Freedom is Scary.. Things need to be run through the courts so no ones god given rights are violated.
Sure, mandate under Federal law that the States have to report to nics when someone has been red flagged through the court system and also when under the care of crazy doctor either as a in or outpatient for xx amount of days also through the courts.
Seems most problem shooters have a history of being crazy and LE, friends, family, doctors and schools always go Oh Sh!t they have been a problem for awhile now.
NONE of the Proposed ' Common Sense ' Gun Control Laws would have Stopped ANY of the Mass Shootings in the past 25 yrs
Weapons were;
- Legally Purchased - but ' EVERYONE ' Just Knew they were crazy - AZ Gifford's Shooter, Aurora Colorado, Boulder and others
- Illegally Purchased via a Straw Purchaser - already illegal - Columbine and San Berdino etal
- Stolen - Sandy Hook
Mandate EVERY Citizen MUST have a full-auto M-4 with 12 mags and 1440 rds of green tip, a Sig P226 with 6 20rd mags and 600 rds., must open carry whenever in public. No exceptions.
too damn heavy .... but yeah ... maybe keep 8 mags in a go bag in the car and 3 mags + 1 in the weapon in my Gym Bag
Ban Democrats.
It's the reasoning that is behind it - GUNS cause crime - stop the guns. Simple, right?
How about - young males cause crime - lock them all up? That would stop it, right?
Cars cause car accidents - ban all cars.
What little I've noticed is that ban or no ban, crime isn't affected by gun bans.
Sure, people will say but wait, crime dropped after the ban - yeah - at a rate absolutely consistent with the rate BEFORE the ban.
Gun crime has mostly dropped overall since the 70's.
It is precisely like saying the rooster's crows make the sun come up.
When they say "common sense" laws, they don't mean it the way you and I mean it - they mean it the way I've just described - you THINK banning guns fixes it - but - it doesn't. You'd THINK heavier things fall faster than lighter ones - but they don't.
So - forget "common sense" as it fails to be accurate - how about something factual and verifiable? "Go with the science" as it were.
50 State Constitutional Carry.
That attempted correlation was completely invalid, as you inferred. The statistically-challenged left cannot understand how valid correlations are even established. But to claim that the "ban" on further sales of a very select group of firearms (the millions already in circulation were not removed), that are used in a tiny fraction of all gun crimes, had even the slightest impact on gun crime levels, is - and always was - ludicrous on its face.
black dog
Free America
Please explain how that would curtail "Mass" shootings.
Guessing that it might not, since mass shooters are pretty much of the idea they won't survivie the ordeal.
DEATH is usually a good deterrent to most things - on the other hand, they do tend to find venues where no one will be shooting back.
What would this accomplish? There's a lot of people without guns and I'm good with that.
Toxick
Splat
I once thought the 2nd Amendment would stop the government from infringing on people's natural rights.
I have since learned nothing will accomplish that, without open rebellion and bloodshed. And even then, it's only temporary.
Biden’s Ill-Considered Gun-Control Gambit
The president’s other ideas were just as ill-considered. As he confirmed once again, Biden hopes to prohibit the sale of certain cosmetically displeasing rifles and to ban magazines that are capable of holding more than ten rounds. But, as one of the architects of the now-expired 1994 “assault-weapons ban,” he should know better than that. Not only are so-called “assault weapons” used so infrequently in crimes that the FBI does not even keep statistics — rifles of all types, recall, are used less frequently as murder weapons than are hammers, fists, or knives — but the evidence that prohibiting them does anything of consequence is non-existent.
When, in 2004, the “assault-weapons” ban was up for renewal, a report issued by the Department of Justice submitted that “should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” Congress let it lapse, and, since then, the evidence has become no stronger. In their 2014 work, The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know, Stanford University’s Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss concluded that “there is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives,” while, in a research review that was updated in April of 2020, the RAND Corporation found the evidence that “assault-weapons” bans reduce homicides in general and mass shootings in particular to be “inconclusive.” The AR-15 is the most commonly owned rifle in the United States, and, as such, is almost certainly protected under the Supreme Court’s “in common use” standard. In Congress and in the courts, “inconclusive” ain’t gonna cut it.
The president’s other ideas were just as ill-considered. As he confirmed once again, Biden hopes to prohibit the sale of certain cosmetically displeasing rifles and to ban magazines that are capable of holding more than ten rounds. But, as one of the architects of the now-expired 1994 “assault-weapons ban,” he should know better than that. Not only are so-called “assault weapons” used so infrequently in crimes that the FBI does not even keep statistics — rifles of all types, recall, are used less frequently as murder weapons than are hammers, fists, or knives — but the evidence that prohibiting them does anything of consequence is non-existent.
When, in 2004, the “assault-weapons” ban was up for renewal, a report issued by the Department of Justice submitted that “should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” Congress let it lapse, and, since then, the evidence has become no stronger. In their 2014 work, The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know, Stanford University’s Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss concluded that “there is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives,” while, in a research review that was updated in April of 2020, the RAND Corporation found the evidence that “assault-weapons” bans reduce homicides in general and mass shootings in particular to be “inconclusive.” The AR-15 is the most commonly owned rifle in the United States, and, as such, is almost certainly protected under the Supreme Court’s “in common use” standard. In Congress and in the courts, “inconclusive” ain’t gonna cut it.
Don’t Waste Our Time
The firearms used in these crimes were, as far as the evidence indicates, legally acquired from federally licensed and regulated firearms dealers. That means that the killers passed background checks. The demand that other people pass background checks in other circumstances (for example, if you give someone a firearm as a gift) is completely irrelevant to these crimes. It is not even entirely clear that the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate private transfers that take place within a single state and therefore do not constitute interstate commerce. But even if it did, such measures would not prevent crimes such as the ones in Atlanta and Denver, nor would they do much to prevent other kinds of crimes, because criminals most often come by their weapons by means of straw purchasers (people with clean criminal records who buy guns on behalf of felons who cannot pass a background check), by buying stolen guns, or by stealing the guns themselves.
And as much as Joe Biden and his allies may stamp their feet, the federal government cannot ban firearms of the sort that were used in these shootings. They are not exotic, military-grade “weapons of war,” but two of the most common firearms sold and used in the United States. The Supreme Court has made it clear that certain kinds of restrictions are consistent with the Bill of Rights: For example, fully automatic weapons (“machine guns”) are subject to such stringent regulation that it effectively amounts to a general prohibition. But the Bill of Rights protects weapons “in common use.” There may be no weapon in more common use than the 9mm handgun wielded in Atlanta and the 5.56mm semiautomatic rifle used in Colorado.
The anti-gun advocates demand: “Why would anybody need a rifle like that?” The best, most direct, and most American answer is: “None of your goddamned business.” We don’t expect Americans to prove that they need free speech or freedom of religion or that they need the means to exercise those rights. But, contrary to what our friends on the left often claim, those scary black rifles have many legitimate uses: People do indeed hunt with them, mostly small animals — in spite of all the talk about “high-powered rifles,” these weapons are not powerful enough for hunting deer or feral hogs, and hunting regulations in some jurisdictions have over the years specifically excluded them from such uses. They are frequently used by ranchers, farmers, and residents of rural areas to control coyotes and other pests. That may all sound pretty exotic if you live in Brooklyn or D.C. That’s why we have 50 states.
The firearms used in these crimes were, as far as the evidence indicates, legally acquired from federally licensed and regulated firearms dealers. That means that the killers passed background checks. The demand that other people pass background checks in other circumstances (for example, if you give someone a firearm as a gift) is completely irrelevant to these crimes. It is not even entirely clear that the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate private transfers that take place within a single state and therefore do not constitute interstate commerce. But even if it did, such measures would not prevent crimes such as the ones in Atlanta and Denver, nor would they do much to prevent other kinds of crimes, because criminals most often come by their weapons by means of straw purchasers (people with clean criminal records who buy guns on behalf of felons who cannot pass a background check), by buying stolen guns, or by stealing the guns themselves.
And as much as Joe Biden and his allies may stamp their feet, the federal government cannot ban firearms of the sort that were used in these shootings. They are not exotic, military-grade “weapons of war,” but two of the most common firearms sold and used in the United States. The Supreme Court has made it clear that certain kinds of restrictions are consistent with the Bill of Rights: For example, fully automatic weapons (“machine guns”) are subject to such stringent regulation that it effectively amounts to a general prohibition. But the Bill of Rights protects weapons “in common use.” There may be no weapon in more common use than the 9mm handgun wielded in Atlanta and the 5.56mm semiautomatic rifle used in Colorado.
The anti-gun advocates demand: “Why would anybody need a rifle like that?” The best, most direct, and most American answer is: “None of your goddamned business.” We don’t expect Americans to prove that they need free speech or freedom of religion or that they need the means to exercise those rights. But, contrary to what our friends on the left often claim, those scary black rifles have many legitimate uses: People do indeed hunt with them, mostly small animals — in spite of all the talk about “high-powered rifles,” these weapons are not powerful enough for hunting deer or feral hogs, and hunting regulations in some jurisdictions have over the years specifically excluded them from such uses. They are frequently used by ranchers, farmers, and residents of rural areas to control coyotes and other pests. That may all sound pretty exotic if you live in Brooklyn or D.C. That’s why we have 50 states.
Bonehead
Well-Known Member
Is it permissible to exceed these expectations ?
jrt_ms1995
Well-Known Member
No, because "equity" and "equality" would suffer from your "white privilege", and we can't have that.
To explain to you please provide proof that you are for the 2nd amendment.
It's really a no brainer. 10 Law abiding Armed citizens vs 1. What are the mass shooters chances are of getting shot before he reaches 10?
Please do the math to show your intelligence.
So...Toximus...have you established a campaign fund yet? Is there a link?... ;-)