I don't know why you insist on mixing guns with drugs. I've said all there is to be said about apples and pears. Can we get back to guns now or are you stuck?
I read some and it continues about incomplete data. Find another link that doesn't have it's own agenda.
That's fine. Hang a second here. In your first paragaraph, you impress me (intentionally or not) with your career credentials. Great! Lovely! But now in this paragraph, you speak in a way that resembles a high school dropout. What gives?
Please, only my Father calls me that And yes you are narrowing relevant data that pertains to gun control.
I understand you have no idea what you're talking about so you're lashing out while the cognitive dissonance of learning the world is not as you want it to be wracks your mind. Still, sometimes you are ever so hurtful with your personal attacks. I really don't know how I can bear it! Woe to me! The Constitution is founded upon natural law theory, if you want to change that you'll need to abolish it. Its not really amending it if you pull a Ship of Theseus.
Pardon me, Prince of peace, I got carried away. But no, I have been devoutly sticking to the subject.
Look, this below is not the most thought-out reply to any question about the Constitution or whatever lies within. Do you blame me for calling it for what it appears to be? You do know what an amendment is, yes? Furthermore, what you think of as a "personal attack" isn't personal at all nor is it an attack. I am surprised at you.
Already answered o user of hurtful personal attacks, you naughty person you. "The Constitution is founded upon natural law theory, if you want to change that you'll need to abolish it. Its not really amending it if you pull a Ship of Theseus." Its not just the 2a, that was simply an example. The Constitution itself is founded upon natural right theory. Maybe I'm simply more aware of this, being a lawyer.
The ethical argument of gun control is moot unless that control is actually feasible. Our failure to control drugs suggests a similar innevitable failure in attempts to control guns. If you disagree, explain why. Explain the difference in enforcing restrictions on guns vs restrictions on drugs. Drugs are illegal, yet anyone can go buy them relatively easily regardless. Why would we have any better success restricting guns? What would be the purpose of imposing laws that dont prevent criminals from getting guns?
So the math is walked through for you, and the FBI LINKS are at the end of the article. If you find a discrepancy in the math do go ahead an let us know dear.
No it isn't, good grief, this notion that carrying is going to make society nice is stupid, there will always be people that will find a way to exploit some security flaw. Carrying does not fix anything, it only gives an opportunity to act when all the conditions are good.
the only one talking about taking away peoples guns was Trump, the left believes in the 2nd, we just think assault riffles should be as hard to buy as a machine gun
"Founded upon" does not mean it is devout. It's like saying, "based upon a true story". Even if it is written in blood (upon stone) that does not ensure that whatever has been added ('amended' in slightly more legal terms, if you follow my train of thought) follows the rules that were placed out when the Constitution was founded and/or proclaimed to be "founded upon" anything. An amendment is still nothing more than an amendment. Trashing the whole Constitution and starting afresh over the matter of a single (or series) amendment is rather a silly thing to say.
