True, but the intent, it seems to me, is to imply causation. “If only we did these ‘reasonable steps’,…”
I agree. It is disingenuous to give a conclusion as if it is supported by a chart. I think in fact the source of this data from 2003 gave the opposite conclusion,
Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons. … However, NICS lacks much of the required background information, particularly on certain restriction categories. … However, denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means. Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases.
These discussions have become comically absurd. “Lawdy, lawdy! They gonna take my guns away!” Ridiculous. 8 years of extreme left-wing leadership, and nope, I still have all my guns. Relax! Find something else to save the world from. This dead horse has been sufficiently beaten.
Thank goodness for the NRA.
But the fact is there is in progressive circles a strong movement to do just that: disarm citizens. You can deny it all you want, but it is there.
Here is where you are right, however. The American people still recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a right. The SCOTUS has provided settled law on this fact. And finally, there are over 300 million firearms in the hands of almost 100 million law abiding Americans, most of home would be unwilling to abide by any kind of confiscation plan. There is no way, other than using guns, ironically, to affect a confiscation in the United States. That’s a good thing.
The first post has a basic flaw. A bad law does not mean no law is good. We would never give up on passing laws, that constantly change, making certain drug possession and and trafficking illegal based on a few laws that are inconsistent. We can ban assault rifles. First, we use the illicit drug model and make firearms illegal by model. Second, we could use the FDA model and authorize only those models which are legal for sale.
This is not rocket science. It is not impossible. The argument from the first post is an NRA line that no one that is not already in favor of legalized, high-power ordinance will be fooled by.
I think the point of the OP was that what is illegal in California about one firearm and not the other does not impact its power, which, by the way, is not “high powered” ordinance, but 9mm
Malarkey. It’s been a long, bitter and CONTINUED fight.
You still have yours, but what about the next generation, and the one after that?
Nope. It’s just a very graphic/simple example.
I’m talking about gun control. There are not “good” gun control laws.
“Assault rifles” have effectively been banned since 1934. It’s laughable how the gun-haters keep trying to sell the lie that modern sporing rifles are “assault rifles.” It’s that sort of disingenity that makes ALL of their comments suspect.
It is indeed impossible to pass ANY gun control law that will reduce gun-related violent crime. It’s been proven not to work, time and time again.
Oh! The dreaded NRA “boogieman” comment! It always shows up when there is nothing left!
withdrawn. No need to stir this any longer.
And from “like CA” to like Nazi Germany.
Once should never make comments simply to “stir” things.
Just think, the government has even more powerful weapons that are secret…
Uh-huh. You do realize that progressives own the education system from kindergarten through college…right? Just look at the inroads they’ve made on gender and LGBT issues alone. And as said, this liberal agenda is being taught to 5 and 6 year olds. By the time these kids graduate, unless parents deprogram their children of this radicalism, they will have far left socialism so well ingrained in them, that most of them wouldn’t give a rat’s patoot about the 2nd amendment! The liberal education system in this country, which I perceive to be largely over looked in this battle, is a huge chunk of the playing field for the future of American gun rights. Right now, if this were a chess match, I would say that liberals are very, very, close to “check mate.”
Let’s take a look at religious freedom. Oh, it’s still there alright. But it is under such constant attack from the left, that they have inflicted heavy damage. All across America, and indeed the entire planet, religious institutions and individuals are being subjected to increasing restrictions on their free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. Thanks to the previous administration’s HHS Mandate, the Little Sisters of the Poor, EWTN, and Priests for Life just to name a few, are still fighting hard to avoid being forced to choose between crippling fines and violating their consciences. Thank God for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty! And that doesn’t even include the multitudes of wedding photographers, florists, bakers that face massive fines, or worse still, being forced to close up shop permanently simply for wanting nothing more than to obey their conscience, and practice their faith in peace.
Lastly, just seeing daily the things these college kids profess makes one scratch their head in total disbelief. Shocking as this may sound, a recent poll found that a quarter of all millenials age 21-29 consider Soviet dictators Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin,and Kim Jong Un heroes. Say what??? Hell, by that way of thinking, years from now, removing the 2nd Amendment may just be as simple as taking candy from a baby…Just sayin.’
This Thread is heating up! Deploying countermeasures.
So the only possible reasonable response to someone stepping across your property line is to instantly rip their body to shreds?
That is a matter of opinion, which is kind of the point. Your arguments only preach to the choir and will only persuade those who do not believe in any gun control, or a limited gun control. The Catholic bishops in the United States have repeatedly spoken up for the need of some control, that elevates public safety over the right to own any and every gun one wants. It is a pro-life issue for them.
Ah, the dreaded scare quotes. I said I won’t waste time with that stupid argument. It is a pro-gun red herring that no one believes works except those who are pro-gun. Yet, as someone who would like to see America a safer place, I think threads like this will move us forward. The rather terrible defense of our proliferation of firearms and death is so hypocritical, the lesser threat of Muslim terrorist has sending us into extreme measures when it comes to travel.
At the end of the day, I believe our spiritual shepherds have a better grasp on the moral situations. No, one can disagree, but one darn sure can agree and view those that believe in no gun control as extremist, dangerous people, that are arguably more deadly than Muslim extremist, at least based on the numbers that die.
Or one can take a balanced view and listen to the warning of the Church and balance legislation as a pro-life issue. I will not take anyone seriously on abortion that does not at least consider the Church’s stance on other life issues.
Engaging a little intelligence, I would like to point out that this was my first post and the NRA is always part of the discussion when it comes to gun control.
Somalia has no rule of law. There’s plenty of gun control. Those in power control the guns.
That’s not true. A gun control law has to be EFFICACIOUS for it to be a GOOD gun control law. None have been thus far, and none will ever be.
“Stupid”? Your rude retort shows me that you know you’re in the wrong. Nice projection.
It’s simply wrong is to lie about guns in order to scare/gin-up people. An “assault rifle” is a select-fire, fully automatic machine gun. That definition has existed since WWII. It’s a world away from a semi-automatic rifle. Yet the anti-gun camp continues to LIE by misusing the definition. Talk about a group that’s sans all morals.
I had a very pleasant conversation with a parishioner who recently returned from a weeklong deer hunting trip with family and friends. I’m not pro-gun, don’t eat venison (I’m a vegetarian), but I certainly respect his right to hunt and own a gun. This friend and I have many more things that we agree on, than the one or two things that could divide us. It’s much easier to rant at each other in anonymous chat rooms than to serve next to each other on the same parish committee where we have to work in at least a civil, if not friendly way with each other.