So it's not based on reality, but on perception of reality? You see the problem with that? When so called "assault weapons" clearly aren't the problem that should be focused on, even from a gun control perspective, it's no wonder the gun control efforts get a lot of opposition. Dying from a mass shooting is about as likely as dying from a lightening strike, yet we don't see any campaigning for mandatory rubber boots.
Suck this up: the courts are corrupt and no longer represent the Constitution or the Intent of the Founders. Their rulings no longer have any credibility, and they no longer possess any standing as far as I'm concerned. Ignorant and self-righteous people will continue to push their agendas. Others will act to try and block that agenda, and for now they will continue to conduct that defense via the ballot box. But the possibility that the people might need to turn from the ballot box to the cartridge box is growing at a disconcerting rate; whether people like you want to acknowledge that fact or not.
I'll tell you why I think those who wish to ban guns chose to start with so called "Assault Weapons" even though they are very rarely used in homicides. Gun Banners feel that through fear mongering and factually flawed, emotionally charged rhetoric about demonic "weapons of war" & "only good for killing lots of people" they can more easily deceive "Fudds" and/or gullible individuals who know nothing about firearms into supporting an AW ban ..."for the children". They chose AW bans BECAUSE it will fail to reduce homicide rates so they can come back later and incrementally ban other classes of firearms. In other words: "First they came for the "assault weapons", and I did not speak out— Because I did not own an "assault weapon". Then they came for the handguns, and I did not speak out— Because I did not own a handgun. Then they came for the rifles and I did not speak out— Because I did not own a rifle Then they came for the shotguns —and then I learned what "common sense" gun control "for the children" really meant." (Apologies to Martin Niemöller)
Unless there is actual evidence that a significant number of murders in the city of New York utilized rifles, then the above statement is nothing more than the causation/correlation substitution fallacy, attempting to suggest that the two are directly linked to one another.
If such firearms are deemed unsuitable to be owned by the general populace, then they are unsuitable for law enforcement, security guards, personal bodyguards, and other hired services where firearms are necessary for protecting someone from harm. No exceptions. Why should they? What makes either them, or their clients, of any greater importance than the general populace?
Then such firearm-related restrictions are not actually constitutional, otherwise they would have stated such, and put the matter to an end once and for all. Such is how matters of constitutionality are ultimately decided in the united states.
You felt the courts were corrupt since Brown v Board of Ed and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. in other words, your lack of respect for our Constitution means nothing to us or the authorities,
I need a laugh Ron-what do you think the founders intended with the second amendment and the commerce clause I want you to claim that the second amendment was intended to be balanced against the commerce clause because that is what you argue
why do you have such a hard time actually answering straightforward questions Its obvious to most people that the founders never intended the federal government to have any role in telling private citizens how they possessed, used or acquired firearms. That was a state issue. and the second amendment reiterated that the federal government had no such power. Along came the patron saint of gun haters, FDR who pretended that the second amendment was not blanket ban and the commerce clause was intended to allow federal firearm control. Thus the second amendment and the CC have to be constantly balanced by the courts. your posts suggest you believe the founders intended this balancing. well do you believe that
Right. More simplistic pigeonholing that continues to illustrate just how far off base you and your entire worldview are. If I believe in the Constitution I'm a racist, right? Utterly laughable. Who's "us", Ron? You have a mouse in your pocket or what?
If you can't answer a straightforward question without violating the rules then you must not have a valid answer to give.
dont preach to us about "freedom" when you believe discrimination against blacks, Jews, women and Muslims should be ok in businesses, employment, education, public accomodations.
Where does this claim come from? Is it okay to discriminate against white males in any of these areas?
of course not racial discrimination is illegal, thanks to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. something many Conservatives oppose
You just don't get it, do you? You're accusing me of things I have not only never advocated for but have actively opposed. Your desperation is showing, and you clearly know you are losing this fight because you are lashing out with all kinds of slanderous falsehoods trying to land any kind of effective blow, and failing miserably in the process.
just wanted to make sure that your cries of "Freedom!!!!!!" were consistent, and that you actually believe in Freedom for all people. and yes, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a great thing, glad we agree
Passionate and dedicated defender of Freedom for all Americans and always have been. You should try it sometime.
Bull. You advocate for the destruction of it on a daily basis. Oh, PLEASE spare me. The violins! Do you hear the violins??
100% false. I regularly defend freedom and liberty in this forum. just today I have defended freedom of speech and the 1964 Civil Rights Act in many posts.
No, you didn't. You slandered and disparaged people as racists because they reject your attacks upon their Freedom and Liberty.
