Stop blaming the NRA for failed gun control efforts

Right, I've never discussed Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano at length on this forum.

That authority is limited.

Just the statistics alone would tell you that you're wrong, in that there are millions of 30 round magazines in the hands of citizens who use them lawfully every day/month/year as opposed to the rare occassion where they are not; likewise, of all the bump stocks sold one has been used unlawfully. And with regards to machine guns, of the hundreds of thousands legally owned since NFA 1934, there has only been one, possibly two instances of illegal use vs the hundreds of thousands of lawful uses.

But just in case you don't understand statistics, there's this:

"The Connecticut legislation here bans firearms in common use. Millions of Americans possess the firearms banned by this act for hunting and target shooting. See Heller II, 670 F.3d 1244, 1261 (finding "[a]pproximately 1.6 million AR-15s alone have been manufactured since 1986, and in 2007 this one popular model accounted for 5.5 percent of all firearms, and 14.4 percent of all rifles, produced in the U.S. for the domestic market").40

Additionally, millions of Americans commonly possess firearms that have magazines which hold more than ten cartridges.41 See Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1261 (finding that "fully 18 percent of all firearms owned by civilians in 1994 were equipped with magazines holding more
than ten rounds, and approximately 4.7 million more [of] such magazines were imported into the United States between 1995 and 2000)."42

The court concludes that the firearms and magazines at issue are "in common use" within the meaning of Heller and, presumably, used for lawful purposes."

Shew v Malloy.

 

on what planet?

 

Yeah, that's your canned response when you know you're wrong.

 

Good god, google what dicta is and go away

 

The supreme law of the land would be the constitution. Statutes crafted by the legislature are lesser laws, subordinate to the constitution. This is basic civics.

 

Irony squared!

 

Asinine semantic quibbling nonsense!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

 

Thanks for proving my point for me.

 

Can statutes violate the constitution? No, they cannot. Ergo the Constitution is superior to the statute.

 

yet, the right wing always infringes on natural rights, for their socialism on a national basis, at every opportunity.

 

Muster the militia.

 

that-like most of your repeated canned one liners-has nothing to do with this conversation. need to work on your AI program

 

require too much of a work ethic from the Age of Iron, right wingers?

 

Cite the evidence of such.

 

does anyone have a clue what this is about?

 

Asinine semantic quibbling duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

 

wasn't it the right wing that wants to Infringe upon the right to keep and bear Arms of the lgbt community?

 

definitely not about the moral of true witness bearing, on the part of the right wing.

 

it appears you don't even have a clue about what you post

 

i try to be, cluefull and Causefull; unlike the right wing.

 

Its been doing that for years. Bad bot, not very well programmed.

 

Again, cite the evidence of such. Do not post supposition, do not present questions about matters that may or may not have happened, actually cite something that would amount to evidence. Show that conservative individuals have tried to prevent firearms ownership by members of the homosexual community. Actually prove a point being presented by yourself.

 

not really keeping up with current events? thank goodness, the right wing is clueless and Causeless (unlike the left wing), and most of their public policies are held up in court, as a result.

 

Since no citations have been presented on the part of yourself to show that members of congress who align with conservative politics have made any attempts at restricting firearms ownership by those who are homosexual, no such evidence of such charges actually exists. If such evidence did indeed exist, it would have been presented by yourself by now. Since no such evidence has been presented, the only logical conclusion to be had is that there is no evidence of such, and what is being presented on the part of yourself is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. In simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, you are making things up and lying through your teeth.

 

Yet, it happened and you can't blame the left. People vote democrat Because they are escaping socialism on a national basis.