U.S. Gun Death Rate Jumps 17 Percent Since 2008 Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller

Actually they haven't, and still are not.

How asinine of you to presume I have never heard of them. 15 years ago I knew of various means by which to fully auto a semi. What makes you think I had never heard of "bump stocks"?

Then you agree that felons should own guns. Good for you.

 

Um... no.
The pro-gun side fights against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Infringement: comes into play LONG before the prohibition of firearms.

Because these are public record, and the government need to show no cause to obtain them. Right.
And, of course, the huge majority of gun owners belong to these groups - so, membership alone is probable cause to get a warrant.

Tell us -exactly- what Scalia said in this regard.

You say this as if the only way the law abiding can be harmed by strict gun control laws is by the denial of a gun.
Why do you think this is true?

 

I see you are ignorant of the gun control act of 1968.
Allow me to educate you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
Specifically:

Prohibited persons
The Gun Control Act of 1968 was enhanced in 1993 with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Brady Act created a background check system which required licensed sellers to inspect the criminal history background of prospective gun purchasers, and the Brady Act created a list of categories of individuals to whom the sale of firearms is prohibited. As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):


It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; ( is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

There you go.

Your sudden, reactionary desire to see them banned. Bandwagon much?

I asked you a question; you are fully aware that your unsupportable nonsense does not address it.
Thus, I will ask again:
What do you think the Founding Fathers meant by "shall not be infringed"?

 

Does Virginia Tech mean anything to you? How about Sandy Hook?

How do you ASSume it was "sudden"?

Didn't like my answer, hey. Well Okay. What does the Second say? "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms". Where does that right say you can infringe on the rights of felons, etc.? To use your naive ideology there can be no restrictions on even the mentally ill, that is IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' "

 

This is a strange way for you to admit I was right, but I'll take it.
Glad I could help educate you on the subject.

Your inability to cite anything from you expressing concern over bump stocks, et al, prior to the LV shooting.
Nope - you're on the reactionary bandwagon.

Your previous answer, like this one, does not meaningfully address the question I asked.
So, again:
Recalling YOUR words: "I would prefer the attitude of the Founders, and their time."
What do YOU think the Founding Fathers meant by "shall not be infringed"?

 

At Virginia Tech, HIPAA laws prevented Cho from being added to NICS; also, he had not been adjudicated mentally defective in accordance with the law nor had he been institutionalized. If you want 18 USC 922 g to have stronger laws against gun ownership by anyone with any mental illness, you should be prepared to fight ACLU.

At Sandy Hook, the perpetrator murdered his mother and stole the guns. Not sure what law regarding his mental health would have helped there.

 

Where do strict gun laws prevent unnecessary deaths? A few European countries where murder isn't a problem in the first place?

 

The 5th Amendment requires due process - for the state to take your rights, the state needs to take you before a judge.
This isn't enough for the anti-gun left; as they hate constitution in general and the right to keep and bear arms in specific, they'd allow a doctor to remove your rights and then force you to take the state before a judge to get them back.

 

If they do not prevent unnecessary deaths why have any at all? Let the children be killed. Let any who care to kill themselves. Let any homicidal maniac kill whomever he wishes.

 

Great argument.

 

So, let more VA Tech killings occur, right? Would not want to offend the mentally ill over such a thing as gun rights.

Have you ever heard of a 72 hour involuntary commitment for mental evaluation? Should that be done away with also? The rights of the one committed are done away with.

Your defense gets more irrational the farther along we go.

Do you support felons having the right to own firearms?

 

You did not meaningfully address his question.
In fact you have done nothing to support this claim you've made at least twice now.
Why do you believe strict laws prevent needless deaths when you can provide no proof whatsoever for the claim?

 

Recalling YOUR words: "I would prefer the attitude of the Founders, and their time."
What do YOU think the Founding Fathers meant by "shall not be infringed"?

 

Wrong as usual. You were asking about the need for stricter mental health laws. I gave tyou two examples, and you ignored both.

Again with your unsupported ASSumptions.

Of course it does, you are just too ignorant to understand it. The Second in its entirety says the "Right of the PEOPLE" shall not be infringed. Yet you support the rights of certain people to be "infringed" upon, those you disapprove of. The Founding Fathers made no mention of felons not owning guns, nor did they deprive them of the right to hunt, or self defense. You do, and will in the future. So, you obviously have a limited understanding of "shall not be infringed"

 

False.
I said federal law already dealt with mental health. You disagreed. I proved you wrong.
Federal law indeed does address the issue of the mentally ill and firearms, and has for 50 years.
Just like I said.

You say this knowing full well you cite anything from you expressing concern over bump stocks, et al, prior to the LV shooting.
Disagree? Provide the cites.
Else - you;re on the bandwagon.

You and I both know you do not believe this.
So, again:
Recalling YOUR words: "I would prefer the attitude of the Founders, and their time."
What do YOU think the Founding Fathers meant by "shall not be infringed"?

 

Registration is useless if the firearm in question is reported as being stolen, even if it were intentionally given to someone who cannot legally possess a firearm. Once that report is filed, the validity of registration goes right out the window, as the records will prove nothing beneficial to anyone.

 

There is not a single legal avenue, to be found in any state in the united states, where a prohibited individual can acquire a firearm. It simply does not exist.

 

How did the firearm-related homicide rate increase within the district of columbia, when it was not legal for handguns to be owned, much less possessed outside of the home during the time period?

 

It can be demonstrated how waiting periods and permit requirements have resulted in the murder of individuals who were attempting to acquire a firearm for their own defense.

 

Then it is correct to conclude that you oppose the legal concepts of due process, and innocent until proven guilty?

 

I'm sorry but your source lacks the slightest bit of objectivity.
What would you say if someone presented to you a Study done by the NRA?

 

It's interesting that the pro-gun side doesn't complain when rover77 posts links to sites like bearingarms.com.

 

It is based on CDC data and is consistent with research outcomes seen elsewhere although I will concede that it would be preferable if it were peer reviewed and independant

 

Straw man. The issue is that lax gun laws make it easy for criminals to circumvent such laws.

 

We don't give a phuck about dead bodies, we collectively put that to rest long, long ago.