New Virginia Gun Control Legislation

really-there are nearly 400 million legally owned guns. what is a percentage that would establish not thoroughly enough?

 

If you are incapable of seeing, acknowledging, and dealing with nuances aside from 'end of story', then any further discussion with you is pointless, especially when your 'deaths' includes those caused by literal warfare.

 

Delete

 

Funny. The numbers form the FBI's Uniform Crime reports tell a very different story.



Maybe you should use primary sources.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011
et al

 

One picture is worth a thousand words.

 

Good to see legal intervention increases surpassing murder increases. Very interesting.

 

I'll see your cherry-picked picture, and raise you one that is infinitely more important:

 

utter bullshit, the number one cause of murders is CRIMINALS. In the last thirty yearss over 100 million more guns have been bought by US Citizens-mainly semi auto handguns and the garment soiling causing Semi auto rifles and the rate of violent crime was DECREASING until the Covid shut down. And on top of that Millions of Americans were permitted to carry handguns concealed over that period-in 1992 few states allowed that-by 2016 most did. And yet the rate of violent crime went down. Suicides mean nothing given many countries that have little or no legal handgun ownership have higher rates of suicide than we do

 

The really sad point is that they only pretend to care about public safety. That is not what motivates the anti gun movement.

 

what his graph ignores is this

400 million guns

100+ million legal owners

vs 2000 or LESS legal owners who engage in murder each year

what are the percentages? how many 0000s?

 

The happy thing is that when we gun rights supporters engage them in debate, we're just participating in a bout of mutual mental masturbation. Thanks to Heller, McDonald, and most importantly, Bruen, this debate is over, and further discussion of the matter is academic. I don't know if they really grasp what has happened, but we won, at least until and unless SCOTUS reverses themselves, which it certainly won't do with the current members, and will never happen if we get Justices who are intellectually honest, regardless of what their personal opinions may be.

I've always said that the best kind of SCOTUS judge is a one who finds that whatever (abortion, gun rights, etc., etc.) is either Constitutionally protected, or not, based on text, history, and if applicable, prior precedents and case law, and that those things say what they say, not what that Justice's (or lower Court Judges, for that matter) personal opinion about what they wish it said instead.

 

Most of those who attempt suicide without guns do survive.

 

that has no relevance to constitutional rights or the fact that suicide is not a crime control issue. Japan's rate of SUICIDES (ie when people KILL themselves) is higher than ours

 

So what?

BTW, is there some reason you are completely ignoring the Constitutional issues that myself and others have brought up repeatedly?

 

The Second Amendment is a very old and outdated piece of legislation, which has cost 572,000 lives in 1999-2016.

 

what complete falsehoods. How did it cost those lives-are you pretending if we didn't have a second amendment there would be no guns? LOL there is no constitutional rights to drugs and they kill far more people than guns have.

 

1) Indonesia has very few guns and low suicide rate.

2) Illegal drugs are vigorously prosecuted.

 

irrelevant. the sort of gun control laws you yearn for in order to harass lawful gun owners are not useful in reducing criminal activities.

 

The 2nd Amendment is still valid law, until and unless it is repealed by further Amending the document using the provided process. Even then, I would argue that the 9th and 10th Amendments provides a RKBA even in the absence of the 2A, as there are more unenumerated rights than there are that have been so labeled.

• I would rather live in dangerous freedom than peaceful slavery. - Me
• Give me Liberty, or give me Death. -Patrick Henry
• Live Free or Die- NH State Motto
• They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
• Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. -Abraham Lincoln
• The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. -HL Mencken
• Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. -Hubert H. Humphrey, 38th VPOTUS
• Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. -George Bernhard Shaw
• I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson
• How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! -Thomas Jefferson

I could continue, but do I really need to?

 

I disagree with this, though I'm drifting off topic. The Federal Government had to Amend the Constitution to ban alcohol, and I maintain that without a similar Amendment on the subject of drugs, they lack the authority to prohibit us from using them. My body, my choice, as the saying goes.

If they don't have the authority to ban them, they are in fact Constitutional rights. A right need not be explicitly enumerated to be a right, which is why some of the founders were opposed to the BoR in the first place. Not because they quarreled with what it said, but because they feared, properly it turns out, that someday someone would claim that anything not specifically listed is not a birthright. The number of our Constitutionally protected rights is far too vast to be encapsulated into a single bullet list.

 

you are correct-at a federal level the war on drugs violates the tenth amendment

 

What educated Americans all know, is that SOCTUS has ruled that police have no Constitutional requirement to provide protection. I know three families who have experienced a home invasion. In two of these incidents a firearm provided effective defense. You have a smug attitude claiming anyone who does claim to have been saved with a gun is a liar or exaggerating. I sense you are not an America, but have the arrogance to opine as if you lived here. Do you live in one of those countries where self defense is a crime and the only legal weapon is a rape whistle?

 

and?