Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

This is your idea of a meaningful point?

There are numerous studies on which to base the conclusion that sensible gun control lives save lives. Here is a partial list:

Therefore, the conclusion is rational, factual, and thus motivation is clearly about saving lives.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306059?download=true (for the PDF)
Webster DW, Vernick JS, Zeoli AM, Manganello JA. Association between youth-focused firearm laws and youth suicides. JAMA. 2004;292(5):594-601. doi:10.1001/jama.292.5.594

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29785569/
Alex McCourt JD, PhD, MPH, Cassandra K Crifasi, Molly Merrill-Francis, Jon S Vernick, Garen J Wintemute, Daniel W Webster Association between firearm laws and homicide in urban counties: PMID: 29785569 PMCID: PMC5993701 DOI: 10.1007/s11524-018-0273-3

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Summary of Evidence Regarding Gun Violence Prevention Policies.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2798210
Ye Liu, MD,; Michael Siegel, MD; Bisakha Sen, PhD. Association of State-Level Firearm-Related Deaths With Firearm Laws in Neighboring States. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(11):e2240750. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.40750

https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/39/1/171/3827865
Santaella-Tenorio J, Cerda M, Villaveces A, Galea S. What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries? Epidemiol. Rev., Volume 39, Issue 1, January 2017, Pages 171–172,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
Michael Siegel, MD,corresponding author Craig S. Ross, MBA, and Charles King, III, JD, PhD. The relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981-2010. Am J Public Health. 2013 November; 103(11): 2098–2105.

Unless one is a cynic, I don't see how one can come to any other conclusion than the fact that gun control, sensible, rational, just, gun control is about nothing more than saving lives.

 

Okay, but it was still bipartisan, so my point is unchanged.

 

not really=the vast majority of democrats voted for that turd
the vast majority of republicans voted against it.

it was typical democrat gun control bullshit-it pretended to do something useful-when in reality it was designed to harass lawful gun owners.

 

Yes.
Choosing to ignore an obvious truth illustrates your lack of intellectual honesty, intellectual rigor, or both.

Each and every one one of these rests on a post hoc fallacy; none of them demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws/regulations in question and the claimed effect.
Disagree?
Cite the work and copy/paste the text to that effect.

Absent that:
There's no rational, factual basis for the view you claim; as such the motivation you attach is, at best, circumspect.

 

If there are a dozen or so dems voting for it, it is considered bipartisan.

 

what> there weren't a dozen republicans voting for that idiocy.
btw nothing the democrats have proposed in years is "Sensible"

 

vacuous drivel.

Your repeating yourself. That's the same thing is being stuck in the mud and spinning your wheels. You are not moving the conversation forward.

I offer you several studies by scholars, and the depth of your rebuttal is 'they aren't valid', is hardly a compelling argument.

Let's register cars, require licensing for their operation, but not for guns.

I don't even need a study to see the fallacy in that argument. Simple logic dictates the value of sensible gun legislation.

Sorry, my comment stands. Yours fails.

 

your argument fails-registration for cars is both constitutional and a revenue creation device. No one (at least no one who has any credibility or standing) is seeking registration of cars to facilitate the confiscation of those cars in the future. Those who want to register firearms are almost always people who want additional restrictions on guns and re often hostile to firearms owners. Registration has no value in crime reduction and criminals cannot even be forced to register guns due to the fifth amendment.

 

To me SENSIBLE gun legislation means constitutionally sound laws that target violent or improper use of firearms. Crap that only reduces non harmful activities that lawful owners can currently do is not sensible whatsoever.

 

Truth hurts, eh?

Only because you repeated yourself -- as false proof of your claim, you could only offer the same old, tired examples of correlation masquerading as proof of causation.
That is, your usual post hoc fallacy.
And to that, you know you have no meaningful response.

Thus, my comment stands:
There's no rational, factual basis for the liberal view that gun control saves ; as such the motivation you claim is, at best, circumspect.

 

the entire leftist arguments for gun control are based on the well proven lie that they only pretend controlling crime is their main motivation. when you understand that crime control has almost nothing to do with their schemes, the various plans make sense-as a way to harass gun owners while planting low IQ voters who want SOMETHING to be done

 

If an argument is fallacious, it doesn't matter who makes it -- it is invalid.
Post hoc arguments, like the ones you offered are, by their very nature...fallacious.
And thus, invalid.

Vacuous drivel that does nothing to move the conversation forward -- or defend your unsupportable claim.
.

 

I disagree, but, let's just leave it at that.

 

Premise rejected.
It has been said 'correlation isn't causation'.
that's not an accurate statement.

the accurate statement is:

Correlation isn't necessarily causation, unless, an abundance of studies, done from many angles, confirm the causality

One A near B, doesn't prove A caused B,
Unless you can show many studies, where A near B, from many angles, then it association can demonstrate causality, or at least make it a strong bet, (which is about the best you can do when the objective is data upon which to base policy) there were many more studies I could have linked to.

mockery is not an argument.

Fail.

 

well since you want to restrict the freedom of people who legally own firearms (meaning they have never been convicted of misusing firearms) I think the rather high burden is upon YOU to prove that your desired plans to restrict our rights is sensible in the sense it will reduce crime. I spent 24 years as a federal prosecutor, a handful of years before that as a local prosecutor and almost everything democrats claim will reduce crime is absolute nonsense

 

Why should we even have to prove it reduces crime? Given the infinite variables, proving it is well nigh possible. If I show you a bunch of studies showing the relationship between sensible gun regulation and lowered crime rates, you'll just say 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' , right? What's the point of 'proof" There is no proof other than common sense.

Moving on....

I've argued with Republicans that there is no proof that voter ID is justified.

And you want to know what their argument is, just about every time I have this conversation?

"Well, we ID for buying Booze, we ID to drive a car, then we can ID for voting".

On that basis, we can license and train for guns.

YOu see, the came claim you hurl against me I can hurl it right back at you, and if you say 'those aren't rights in the constitution"

Ahh, but they are, per the 9th Amendment. The bill of rights was NEVER meant to claim that that no rights exist not written in the bill of rights, which was
the entire reason for the 9th amendment.

I say common sense dictates the need for gun licensing and training.

and the Supreme Court says no right is absolute, even in Heller is says that, right?

I don't buy your premise.

 

Common sense is the motivation.

I argue with the right about voter ID, their argument is always

"we show ID to buy booze, we show ID to drive a car, we can show ID to vote".

On that basis, we can license and train to use a firearm.

I'm jsut using the same logic that the right uses for voter ID.

and if you say 'those aren't rights in the constitution"

Ahh, but they are, per the 9th Amendment. The bill of rights was NEVER meant to claim that that no rights exist not written in the bill of rights, which was
the entire reason for the 9th amendment.

I say common sense dictates the need for gun licensing and training.

and the Supreme Court says no right is absolute, even in Heller is says that, right?

So, with a more liberal Congress and Senate, we'll have sensible gun legislation because it's common sense, just like voter ID is 'common sense'.

You can't have it both ways.

 

OMG-there is no possible argument for restrictions on our freedom if you cannot prove it reduces crime. That you cannot shows that crime control has NOTHING TO DO WITH your real motivations.

Thanks for admitting what I already knew. and the supreme court's comments were DICTA (look it up)

 

this is hilarious..you admit you cannot prove it reduces crime-there is no other argument in support of limiting freedom.

why not just cut the bullshit and tell us what we know you believe: you're a left-winger, and you want to harass gun owners because a large number of us don't buy into leftist schemes

 

And your assessment of Democrat's motivations is derived from your POLITICAL BIAS, which is pure SPECULATION WITHOUT FOUNDATION, which has NOTHING to do with our 'real motivations'.

Doesn't matter if it is DICTA, it is long established as PRECEDENT (cases cited below) where the court declares that rights are not absolute, which means they are subject to regulations as long as those regulations are conceived within constitutional constraints.

Additionally, my point was, which you are missing, is that the argument you are hurling against me can be used against republicans who insist on Voter ID,

But on that issue, you are silent. .

Moreover, ALL regulations on rights are limitations on 'freedom', which is authorized by the Supreme Court and so your point is MEANINGLESS.

Here is a partial list of cases in which the court establishes the principle that rights are not absolute, and therefore can be regulated insofar as those regulations are aligned with public safety and not impose an unreasonable burden:

1. Schenck v. United States (1919) - In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech could be restricted if the speech presented a "clear and present danger" to national security.
   
   
2. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) - In this case, the Supreme Court upheld a state law that made it a crime to use "fighting words" that would likely incite an immediate breach of peace.
   
   
3. Korematsu v. United States (1944) - In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the government's internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, despite the fact that it violated their constitutional rights. The Court held that the need to protect national security outweighed individual rights.
   
   
4. New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) - In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not prevent the New York Times from publishing classified information about the Vietnam War, unless the government could show that publication would cause a "grave and irreparable" danger to national security.
   
   
5. District of Columbia v. Heller (200 - In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for self-defense, but that the government can regulate the sale and possession of firearms to promote public safety.

Moreover, there is no requirement in the Constitution, nor does the Supreme Court require, as well, that Congress must "prove" that an enacted law which limits a particular right must be statistically efficacious, given that proving efficacy of public policy, owing to the infinite variables of life, cannot be proven to a scientific standard, as this is not a hard science issue , this is a public policy (ergo 'political science' ) issue, and, as such, the only criterion for enacting any legislation is common sense (aided via consultation with experts who are called to testify in hearings at the committee stage), which is the default, where a reasonable person can logically conclude a proposed law is aligned with public safety, and does not impose an unreasonable burden. As for the issue of what is, and what isn't 'unreasonable' or 'reasonable', this is why Congress and the senate debate the issue on the floors of their respective houses, to hash the issue out and form a consensus and vote on the final bill. This is democracy. Democracy does not always give you, personally, what you want, but, welcome to democracy.

There is only one salient point: States can regulate firearms under the 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. which grants states the right to regulate arms as long as the regulation is aligned with public safety and does not impose an unreasonable burden on the individual.

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 The principal powers available to Congress to regulate firearms are the “commerce power,” arising from the Commerce Clause, and the “taxing power,” arising from the Taxing and Spending Clause. A regulation based on the exercise of the “taxing power” must be consistent with that power.

In short 'freedom' is a BOGUS argument and a term bandied about
ever-so-cavalierly by the right to buzzkill legitimate policy and fog the issue.

 

For someone who purports to be a member of the bar, your bloviating language is not consistent with your declared credentials.

Gun policy is not a right or left issue, it is a public safety issue.

 

what has the supreme court actually held is legal gun control?

And this was BEFORE MCDONALD (look it up)

1) that state restrictions on concealed carrying of weapons in sensitive areas were valid
2) that unusually dangerous weapons such as grenades or bazookas could be restricted
3) that people with felonies, adjudications of mental incompetence, fugitive status could be prohibited from owning or possessing firearms
4) and that use of firearms in certain areas could be restricted

so tell me what of your "SENSIBLE" ideas meet those tests

 

true-about gun policy. but when it comes to gun banning and malum prohibitum actions targeting honest gun owners its ALL LEFTWING.

 

I guess he didn't realize that some of the cases he cited were later overturned

 

That B follows A never...ever.. proves A caused B.
You choose to make statements you know are false.
Fail.