New Mexico governor issues order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque

So if Joe has one gun and then buys 10 more guns, is Joe more likely to commit murder?

 

OK will try to explain it to you . Many liberals seem to be ok with crapping all over constitutional rights in a stupid and mistaken effort to reduce gun violence. I asked if these same liberals were ok with violating the constitutional rights of a group that tends to be the source of -per capita-more violent criminals than any other

 

We both agree we are not knowledgeable enough to answer or even ask that question. The courts will decide, that’s their job.

 

Yep.

 

Yep, but it is interesting that the governor did not cite any law justifying her actions.

 

Not really. She did say she expected a legal battle.

 

it all depends on whether she is acting according to nm law

 

?? Just look back to the post I responded to.

We're not going to make laws that target a skin color.

 

Is a car collector more likely to be a get away driver in a bank robbery or a drive by shooter?

 

you seem ok with laws that target lawful gun owners (those who cannot legally own guns are not allowed to carry them in public) for the silly reason doing so will stop criminals. Who do you think-percentge wise-commits more violent crime. black males or lawful gun owners.

 

Yes - you postulated a racist law, as if that is some sort of example of something other that racism.

The problem with gun lovers is that they are unwilling to contribute or support any direction that could possibly reduce gun violence in America.

They don't even like background checks!! So, the idea that having criminals be restricted from gun sales is opposed.

 

This example shows the extreme disconnect between gun lovers and the real world we live in.

 

that real problem is that gun banners pretend that the ONLY way to reduce gun violence is for GUN OWNERS who are not criminals, to give up more and more rights because the GUN BANNERS ' real goal is banning guns or at least harassing lawful gun owners. Gun banners pretend that their schemes actually will reduce gun violence when in reality, they divert resources and energies away from crime control programs in favor of harassing lawful gun ownership

 

Your comment shows that gun owners are who you really want to target, not violent criminals. something we already knew

 

I don't believe "lawful gun owner" means anything.

It's a fabrication.

And, then you decide to continue racism - which is a clear sign of moral turpitude, which itself should disqualify gun ownership.

 

That’s what I’ve been saying. I’m sure the NM courts are more than capable of making that decision. And, as much as I dislike the composition of out current Supreme Court I, as a patriotic American, will have no choice but to accept their decision, if it goes that far.

Before TRAITOR tRump, that’s how it worked in America. We trustingly left it to those in charge. Every GD thing wasn’t a pissing contest to go to the mat over.

We knew they didn’t always get it right. But when you knocked the top and bottom off the curve WE were well served. Much more so than all this divisive infighting.

 

First of all, banning guns is a radical action that might not be necessary. Yet THAT is the excuse you give.

Again, I don't believe the "lawful gun owners" claim.

And, your claims of harassment are just flat out pathetic. Those who want to reduce the gun slaughter in America are not liars, and calling them that reflects on YOU, not them.

 

Take it to court. The second amendment trumps some piss ant governor.

 

Well, I suspect that gun slaughter does involve people with guns.

 

If a person has a gun does that mean that they are going to slaughter someone with that gun?

 

If the Second Amendment guarantees gun ownership to, most, Americans (it does) does that mean there is nothing that can be done about gun violence?

I think the 10th Amendment gives States the right to protect and ensure the safety of their residents. How is the question, not IF.

 

again you miss the point-you support violating the constitutional rights of gun owners because you despise gun ownership and the culture that supports lawful gun use and pretend said violations will reduce crime but you complain about infringing on the constitutional rights of a group that causes far more violent crime than lawful gun owners. So obviously, your claim that you want to reduce violent crime is not truthful

 

as long as the states don't violate the fundamental constitutional right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms.

 

you seem to think lawful gun owners and violent armed felons are the same