To liberals: How many deaths are acceptable to you?

It does not matter who makes the initial statement.

 

So...you make a blank assumption about someone - whom you have never met - based on ONE parameter, that you have no idea where they stand on it?

Why am I not surprised?


So...to summarize. You make matter-of-fact statements and then patently refuse to supply ANY unbiased data/evidence to support your statements of ANY kind - yet assume that should be enough.

LOL.

Well, I think we have all the evidence we need to determine what kind of a debater you are.


We are done here...for now.

Have a great day.

 

Yes, you believe in the myth that gun control works.

Good riddance. I was tired of being stalked.

 

This isn't a loophole.
In fact, a loophole is something in the law that allows you to legally circumvent the requirements of the law.
In fact, there is no legal way to avoid the background checks required by federal law, and so, there is no loophole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole

In fact, you describe a non-liquet, which describes a situation where there is no applicable law, which, in fact, is not the same thing as a loophole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_liquet

You now have the information necessary to discuss the issue from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.
You are welcome.

 

What else do you suggest we use?

 

Is it actually able to be proven by yourself, that it is nothing more than mere propaganda put forth by the NRA, and devoid of historical evidence?

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.


This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.


This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."


This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.


This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."


It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."

 

Such an effort has been attempted for decades, largely in various individual states. And in each case, the people have told the government that they will not comply, and essentially dared to them try and enforce such requirements, knowing that it would be impossible for such to actually occur.

 

The established laws pertaining to the sale of firearms were intended to apply exclusively to those who are engaged in the business of selling firearms, and are federally licensed to do such. It was never intended to cover private transactions, as such a requirement would be unenforceable.

Like it or not, there is no law, no legal standard, under which it is illegal for a private individual to dispose of their legally owned property in a manner that they see fit.

 

Registration has been used to facilitate confiscation. This is a confirmed, documented fact.

 

This argument is brought up constantly, but it is not actually based on evidence. It is nothing more than baseless speculation. Despite having the above abilities, the united states military has been unable to bring an actual end to the so-called "war on terror" despite the ability to wipe out essentially anyone and everyone with just the push of a button. All of the advanced technology, all of the troops deployed, and it is all proving useless against an enemy with vastly inferior resources.

Beyond such, precisely how long is it believed that the some three hundred and twenty million individuals residing in the united states currently, would just idly stand by and do nothing if the federal government decided that it was going to begin killing its own people, in such a way that resulting in extreme collateral damage, and no regard for the number of innocent bystanders that may be lost in the process?

 

Well actually no. That has been beaten to death and the only evidence you can provide is the total societal breakdown in New Orleans.

 

It was not claimed that the confiscation was limited to the united states. It has been demonstrated in numerous countries where firearms registration is mandatory, primarily in countries that are held up as examples for what the united states should be doing with its firearm policy.

 

The census has been used to round up Americans and out them in camps

 

The internment camps of world war two are most certainly evidence of such. If such can be done to individuals, there is no reason to believe the same cannot, or will not, be done with regard to firearms.

 

You want to outlaw the census?

 

As any good NRA anti gun regulation person can attest the results in other countries are not relevent to the United States.

 

Can the people of the united states be forcefully compelled to take part in the census? Are they subject to arrest and imprisonment for noncompliance?

 

They are compelled to comply with registration with the irs.

 

Results pertaining to the supposed reductions in firearm-related violence are not relevant to the united states, because the cultures are vastly different from one another. It is not so much comparing apples to oranges, rather it is more akin to comparing apples to cinder blocks.

The aspect of registration invariably leading to the confiscation of legally owned firearms, however, is quite relevant to the discussion. Various countries cannot be held up as an example of what is done right with regard to firearms, without it being pointed out that they confiscated firearms from the public.

 

Such was not the question that was presented.

 

I accept your concession

 

~~~~
So you consider Democrats voting in Gun Free School Zones was part of their Anti-Gun Control reform? Where has that taken us? Unprotected schools and more school kids getting killed and wounded.

 

Nonsense arguement. You want to use other countries when they support your silliness and ignore them when they don't.

 

How is such different from any participant that points to other nations as an example of what can be done, or supposedly should be done by the united states?

 

It isn't so why are you doing it?