Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Where were you when we “public servants” were serving this country during a shooting war ?
Misquoting the constitution or slandering some of us who want stricter gun laws to help protect our public servants while you and the nra want to continue arming felons ?

 

I’ll explain nothing. You reread for understanding. It will do you good.

 

Read about the five types of gun laws that the Founding Fathers loved:
https://www.hcn.org/articles/guns-five-types-of-gun-laws-that-the-founding-fathers-loved

Do you deny it?

 

You are the one making an accusation attributed to me; produce the evidence. Or, do you ascribe to what many on the left do, an accusation is evidence? As for your last statement of that post, either explain it and back it up or know it will go to the same dustbin that your credibility has been relegated to long ago.

 

Saul cornell is a whore of the Joyce Foundation and as usual, his dishonesty is patent. What we are talking about is not what STATE laws the founders acknowledged but what powers were the federal government delegated. Try again.

 

The Centurian BS doesn't work with me. And if you claim to be a vet yet you denigrate our constitutional rights, that makes it even worse. Your claims that the NRA wants to arm felons is so blatantly dishonest that it proves the paucity of logic in your position.

 

Your idea of constitutional rights is whatever the criminal Russian consorting NRA says.

 

Go enlist and maybe you’ll have a better undestanding of the constitution.

 

I’ll give the same references you do...nothing. But at least I won’t bore you with six paragraphs of bloviating.

 

Yes. The author is wrong on virtually every historic narrative and provides no factual basis for his conclusions.
Aside from not providing evidence of the laws he references, I would challenge anyone to show an record of arrest and conviction for any supposed restriction he asserted was made law, even that of storing loaded weapons at home (a deliberate distortion of the gun powder storage laws of some communities), registration of weapons relative to the militia... again a distortion filled with incorrect assumptions or even possessing concealed firearms (anywhere in the colonies, much less Britain). The latter, not the least because concealing any firearm at the time would have been difficult and impractical (something anyone using them would know) because of the flintlock ignition system and the size of most firearms of the time and because anyone could carry firearms (and rather large knives, swords Mohawks, etc.) openly. Concealable firearms didn’t really become practical until the advent of the ignition cap technology, pretty much after most, if not all the FF were in their graves. Until then, if a weapon was carried concealed it would likely to have been a reliable knife.
His reasoning for not leaving a flintlock armed is based on pure ignorance of the manual of arms for that technology.
Considering many American’s lack knowledge of their history and many couldn’t even tell you when the war of (1812) occurred (have fun try that question if out and about or of teens...I have, mind boggling), I can understand why someone would state as historical fact... what is bunk... few people will challenge him. Yet, there is no evidence to support his bunk, and further, refuting him is as easy as walking through any museum of art with depictions of the times or reading books of contemporary life in colonial days.

 

Thanks for that. You are funny...and highly predictable. I apologies for not writing in bumper sticker length posts you might understand....’guns bad’. I know reading must be a challenge and would guess you simple reject any post from me not because of the content which you don’t read, but because of the source... and, I am ok with that, I consider it, your general rejection given the level of credibility you’ve built here, a good thing.
Meanwhile, back in the canyon lands, Wile E. Coyote is searching ACME’s catalog for another trap. Pins and needles.

 

This sort of stupid hatred of the NRA proves that you, and many other anti gun posters, couldn't care less about crime control--rather you are mad that the NRA helps elect politicians who don't support your views. Your beloved gun banners like Hillary have consorted with foreign hostile agents far more than the NRA ever did

 

Go teach constitutional law and spend three and a half decades as an attorney who is intimately familiar with the constitution before you try to lecture me on this document. You pretend you gain some sort of status by claiming you enlisted. Guess what-that plays zero relevance to me-it only shows me you have disrespected the oath you claim you took. BTW I took that oath TWICE

 

.

The constitution protects guns ? Amazingly uninformed. It bears repeating just so other “experts” don’t keep making the same mistake.


Have never met a lawyer who wasn’t a sticker for proper constitutional interpretation. It seems to be a first around here with all the super experts. It’s like Trumpian braggadocios has invaded common sense.

We normal red necks from the working class who actually protected the constitution in deed, while the rest of the crowd from the privileged scholarly constitutional law side, took their deferments with their bone spurs idol. Then, claiming intellectual superiority; all the while failing to demonstrate it. Hilarious.

 

Firearm-related restrictions do nothing to protect public servants. Nor is the NRA doing anything to arm felons.

 

Such is indeed denied, because such laws did not exist at the federal level where the influence of the founding fathers had any reach. States were left to their own devices while the united states federal government was provided with absolutely zero authority to regulate firearms in any fashion.

 

I guess you have no cop and firefighter friends. Strange.

 

Firearm-related restrictions do nothing to protect public servants.

 

Ha ha, another false assumption of the constitution.
Federal level has nothing to do with it. All laws by any, state including the United States are either acknowledged or challenged or left unchallenged for constitutionality. Read the “state.” I hope you didn’t teach constitutional law either ?

 

A public servant you never were then.

 

Utterly rediculous. There is nothing in any of your oaths that pledges unwavering allegiance to and protector of firearms.

 

Not all public servants are hoplophobic.

 

Hatred of freedom.

 

This silly semantic game gets stupid-especially since I have seen it for over 40 years. The second amendment, along with the ninth and the tenth, protects the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

 

agreed-plus he is upset that gun owners kept his Goddess out of the Oval Office