If they suspect a gun is being carried and there are laws against carrying the gun on the streets, that is probable cause as far as I'm concerned.
Need probable cause. You are talking about reasonable suspicion. There is a difference for a reason. I guess you don't have any problem against the police searching your house because they think you might have ripped off a mattress tag........
Logic and reason, however, does. There's no sound argument for a ban on 'assault weapons', or the constitutionality of same.
You aren't aware of the mass shootings with 'assault weapons' that took place in states with bans on 'assault weapons'? You aren't aware that a ban on the sale an manufacture of new 'assault weapons' does not affect the sale of existing 'assault weapons'?
The homicide rate in NYC being less than the state of Virginia proves the point. The fact that right-wingers lie their asses off proves the point.
There is no post hoc fallacy. The intentions were clearly stated ahead of time and the activity didn't occur in a vacuum. Lying about it doesn't change it.
Fact is, you cannot produce a sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'. Fact is, you cannot produce a sound argument for such a ban not violating the constitution. Fact is, your response will prove both of the above facts true.
There is. You argue correlation proves causation; you are awfully aware of the fact you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the cause you state and effect you claim. Thus, you offer a post hoc fallacy.
The only ignorance involves someone who doesn't like reality and believes a city not allowing guns on it's streets will not reduce homicides, only because they don't want it to happen. Of course, it will reduce homicides, it's hard to shoot someone when the streets get eliminated. There's the logistics involved in the ability to shoot someone. People shoot enemies and enemies don't make house calls.
Reality, like... - 2-3 "Assault weapons" are, on average, since 1982, used each year to kill ~10 people in mass shootings - States with 'assault weapon' bans still have mass shootings with assault weapons - The 1994-2004 'assault weapon' ban did nothing to reduce mass shootings or deaths in mass shootings - Your manic and desperate repetition of your post hoc fallacy only demonstrates your inability to make a rational point
You're talking nonsense and you know it. You only care about your imaginary view that people should have no restrictions on their guns. You don't care if your view gets people killed and it surely does.
Never been out of a city, I take it ... What do you think happens to a deer or elk after it is killed by a hunter?
Says the future totalitarian....... Wow, just wow. So should we just start the house to house searches?
