Gun Control in Massachusetts...

we know it works-your gun control plans do exactly what you want them to do-harass gun owners.

where they don't work is as crime control.

 

I would like to see national troll control.

 

Me too

 

Meanwhile, in the real world, state after state is signing historic levels of pro-2A laws.

 

states run by BM politicians like MD and Ca are trying to pass more and more harassment

 

And they will be a great cautionary example for us to show how dumb they are.

 

hopefully Trump will stock the federal appellate circuits with good judges who will slap down the BM nonsense in blue states

 

Like Monty Python's Black Knight... doesn't have arms to fight with or legs to stand on but thinks he can win, in his case by resorting to 5 year old playground tactics. Well, it's a common thing among the control advocates and during the last 8 years of Obama, the left rallied to their cause and the national exposure hit a level that began to reveal those behind the curtain had no substance... so, more guns sold in the short time the His Admin than any point in history and they lost the election that in their fantasy they think they should have won and now exist in back in the land of exposed fantasy weaving narratives of conspiracy in explanation rather than blame their failed policies.
Thank Obama and the unintended consequences of his rhetoric, the more he appealed to the people with his fantasy logic, the more it exposed the agenda of the left and the more he alienated the people. VG is similar, the more he argues, the more he exposes the inanity of the gun control position.
Opp.... tag.

 

What works is not what you support. You support that which is unsupportable: the restriction of people's rights.

 

As I mentioned previously under post #150 under the San Bernardino Shooter thread:

...You stated that: "They have gun control and low gun deaths. We don't and have high gun deaths. That's enough for me." I find that statement over simplistic, and when you look at the figures even in a rudimentary fashion you find something surprising.

In 1914, the UK had a per capita homicide rate of approximately .81 PER 100,000. That same year, the United States had a rate of 5.9. At the time, the United States had laws such as the Sullivan Act in New York City and other restrictions in different jurisdictions on the carry of defensive firearms; while the UK at the time had essentially no laws governing firearms ownership, yet had a per-capita homicide rate nearly 7 times lower than the U.S.! Based on your “that’s all I need to know” mindset, then we would have to believe, considering those numbers, that gun control was the problem and contributed to the homicide rates.

By 2002, the UK was up by a factor of 1.4 to a per capita homicide rate of 2.1, while the United States was actually DOWN to 5.6 per capita. This was, of course, after a period of rapid growth in firearms ownership in the U.S. after the Clinton Administration's pursuit of restrictive gun laws.

By 2011 (the last year I could find figures for the UK) the UK was admittedly back down a little, to 1.0 per 100,000, while the U.S. was down even further than in 2002, to 4.7. In the end, for a "that's all I need to know" mindset, the United States had actually EXPANDED gun ownership and freedoms and reduced homicide rates from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1914 to 4.7 per 100,000. At the same time, over the same period, the UK had placed ever more draconian restrictions on firearms ownership and RAISED their per capita homicide rate from .81 per 100,000 to 1 per 100,000. So, a nation enacted strict gun control and increased their homicide rates, while another nation expanded gun ownership dramatically... and reduced their homicide rates. So...."That's all I need to know."

 

Every right comes with restrictions

 

that's really a silly comment.rights don't come with restrictions. restrictions are imposed by others. The second amendment prevented the federal government from acting in a way that it was never given any power to interfere with

free Americans and those who support freedom-interpret rights broadly. Fascists and control freaks always try to construe the rights of the citizens narrowly. what part of the natural right of self defense includes "restrictions"

 

Pay no toll to the Troll.

 

No. You have the right, but when you use it irresponsibly as an individual society can choose to punitively punish you for it.

 

Every right has restrictions

 

I think you mean "responsibilities". Restrictions is a government action and 2A infringement is "restricted".

 

There is only one reason any right should be restricted and why those restrictions become enumerated in our law under the Constitution and I am betting neigther you or the other gun control advocates posting here know what that is.

 

Thread Closure- Rule 11