I said: Nothing here demonstrates the necessary relationship between the cause you cite and the effect you claim. Because it doesn't You refuse to make this demonstration because you know you cannot. Thus, all you have is a post hoc fallacy. You should also lean the difference between ad hoc and post hoc. Still waiting for you to present a sound argument for banning 'assault weapons' as well as how such a ban does not violate the Constitution.
You should know the mayor involved, so why haven't you said so? I'll give you a hint, this guy doesn't shut up when he puts his foot in his mouth (which is often), so finding even his bio in wiki will prove the facts. You'd think the idea that homicides will drop if guns aren't on the streets would be a no brainer, but a brain being used is required to have a no brainer.
Nothing here demonstrates the necessary relationship between the cause you cite and the effect you claim. You refuse to make this demonstration because you know you cannot. Thus, all you have is a post hoc fallacy. Still waiting for you to present a sound argument for banning 'assault weapons' as well as how such a ban does not violate the Constitution.
The bottom line is I don't give a damn what you have to say about allowing cities to get the guns off their streets. It's obvious, that's the way to reduce homicides. The way I look at it, the more crime is removed from the streets is an improvement and cities should be able to do that without violating my rights. I don't find a cop searching to find a gun on a person to the same high standards you require. To me, just the presence of a cop falls within the domain of a public safety issue. Cops have guns and have a good reason to want to be the only people having the guns when interacting with the public.
... the fact you keep repeating a post hoc fallacy. I know. It doesn't bother you one bit that you cannot demonstrate the cause you cite brought the effect you claim - you still believe it. It also doesn't bother you that you cannot present a sound argument for banning 'assault weapons' as well as how such a ban does not violate the Constitution - you still want to ban them. Put simply: your positions are devoid of reason, and you don't care.
Couldn’t maintain the context of your post I was replying to, eh? You .... “I'm not interested in harming animals except to eat or for clothing. Leave nature alone. Get a burger.” Typical ... always someone else's responsibility And, humans are smart enough to avoid slaughter houses? Read history much?
Tyrants and despots prefer an unarmed populace too. As for you comment, “I don't find a cop searching to find a gun on a person to the same high standards you require.”. Why is that? Assume you are immune to such searches and that you’d never piss off a cop enough to plant evidence or figure the police should have the power to search anyone at any time? Sure now, no opportunity for abuse of power there of those that work for the citizenry and no violation of the Constitution’s provisions, eh?
The problem with such a claim is that all firearms currently available on the private market, every last one of them, can be used to facilitate a mass shooting, regardless of magazine capacity. Therefore, the argument ultimately being presented on the part of yourself is that all firearms must be removed from society, without exception. Explain why. Why is it common sense? How was such a determination ultimately made? Common sense is of no benefit when the problem seeks out the individual, and thus making it impossible to avoid.
Who exactly are you proposing to remove the firearms from? What tactics for achieving such are supported on the part of yourself?
We have a military now, remember. The founders didn't have a military at that point in time, but some lived long enough for the militia defense option to change. If we have to rely on you or your kind to save us from tyranny, then we're in big trouble. Your ways reek of tyranny. You're the one trying to tell others how to live and they're just telling you to mind your own business.
BS. I don’t tell others how to live and you cannot find a single post of mine advocating that, but I reject others trying to make me conform to their doctrine that denies me the right of self defense and other rights of a free person. I already lived in a country that was devoid of civil rights, where your religion determined your status and privileges, where ethnic and religious discrimination prevented people from having jobs and housing, where you could be incarcerated without due process, held indefinitely (even without being charged with a crime, in prison and a concentration camp, be tortured, and even killed by government sanctioned military kill teams and unrestrained, government armed loyalists. Tyranny...I know what that is and experienced it first hand... you haven’t a clue. The founders crafted the Constitution after having just emerged from tyranny which had well educated them on what it was, experiencing many of the same as above and were determined to create a framework for governance to minimize opportunity for tyranny to emerge from the government they were establishing, one that was based on serving a union of individual sovereign citizens not on a servile collective which it appears you favor.
The Founder's plan against tyranny was primarily to not have a standing army and they added the militia talk and prohibition from disarming the people as an alternative. We have a military and it isn't like they will support a tyrant taking over. What could you do if they did? You want to dictate your comprehension of gun laws determines what other areas of the country can do and that's not going to fly.
What is not understood on the part of yourself, or perhaps is simply not acknowledged due to it being an inconvenient fact, is the united states constitution as a whole, and specifically constitution rights, do not exist for the purpose of protecting you from yourself. Nor do they exist for the purpose of protecting you from your neighbor. Instead they exist to protect you as an individual from the government, by defining what the scope of its authority is, and specifying rights held by the public that it cannot interfere with. Yet it is yourself who is arguing that you do not want those rights or protections, because ultimately you believe that government knows what is best for everyone, and that is simply cannot act in a tyrannical manner against the people it is supposed to serve.
Gun laws don't disarm the public and courts support the right of various governments to make the gun laws. Tell it to the judge. Laws prohibiting guns on the streets are wise in densely populated areas. Policing to keep guns off the streets is wise in densely populated areas. Following your extreme view on gun rights isn't wise in densely populated areas.
And yet not only did they have a standing, they gave Congress the power to raise one and equip it as it saw fit. USSC rulings apply all across the US, and, in regard to rights protected by the Constitution, apply to the actions of the states. This means it doesn't matter how much the city/state of NY wants to, it cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. You may not like it, but there's nothing you can do about it.
"Shall not be infringed". Infringement comes into play long before prohibition. What happened to the District of Columbua's handgun ban? And yet, the 2nd protects the right of the people to carry a gun in public.
Do you know anything about US history? You posted the dates, so figure it out. What happened in 1776?
You can't change history by typing a wrong date on the internet. You don't know what you are talking about, period, when you post a date for the US Army and US Navy before the Declaration of Independence. You can't even get history right, so law must be like another galaxy to you.
