Supreme Court dismisses second amendment case.

yes is true that criminals dont care about gun laws.

but murderers and thieves also dont care about the law, but yet we still make murder and theft illegal

 

Murder and theft were never legal, nor constitutional rights, to begin with. Carrying and owning a firearm, however, are constitutional rights.

 

not for criminals.

 

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

if you dont want criminals possessing guns, you must support background checks.

its that simple

 

In truth it is not that simple. Even in states where background checks are mandate for private firearm transaction, even in states where all firearms are registered and easily traced, criminals are still easily acquiring firearms without any difficulty. This has been proven as fact time and time again, in the state of California and elsewhere. The ATF has confirmed such as being fact.

https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/cawebsite17183919pdf/download

In the cited point of time, the latest year for which data is available, the ATF was asked by the state of California to trace some forty one thousand five hundred and twenty seven firearms that were found in the possession of criminal individuals within the state.

Of that amount, the ATF determined, through running the serial numbers on the firearms, that nearly half of the total amount, some forty two percent, were originally sold within the state of California itself.

The state of California requires the registration of all firearms held by private individuals without exception. No firearm can be purchased without a background check, and no firearm can be sold without a background check, not even by private individuals. All firearm purchases, regardless of commercial or a private nature, are subject to permits to purchase, and permits to own. All firearms must be stored in a secure manner, and are subject to reporting requirements if they are lost of stolen.

Despite all of these requirements and countless others, nearly half of the firearms found in possession of criminal individuals, were acquired within the state of California itself. The second highest amount, a mere five percent, were traced back to the state of Arizona, where there are no such requirements on the private sale of firearms.

If these firearm-related restrictions truly worked as their supporters claim, the number of illegally acquired firearms in the state of California would not even exceed one percent of the total number. It would not be physically possible for the amount to reach forty two percent of the total number.

 

I just submitted my NRA questionnaire that they send to candidates and I was open about wanting to repeal the 2A and confiscate guns, so I know I am getting an F grade and hopefully I get media coverage when they receive my questionnaire in a few days

 

Unlikely.

 

F- for missing American History class

 

I don't care about american history or tradition, I'll work to get rid of anything I think will result in a safer america.

 

And many others as well.

 

For no reason whatsoever.

 

and a traitor to the constitution they are sworn to uphold.
if they dont like it here they should leave.
rather than undermining the constitution and laws of this nation.

 

1. If election a take an oath to uphold the state constitution not federal
2. My goal is to not only fix the state but to make it the best state in the US by working on innovation.
3. Why would I leave when it takes so much more work than working to change where I already live.

If I can turn the state into the "Shining city on a hill" people won't care that their firearms are all but banned.

 

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

That is the reason.

 

Thus, you prove my point.
Well done.

 

all immigrants to this country take a federal oath. you would not be here if your parents did not do that for you.
so little you know about the feds, you have in the broader scope of things far mor rights in the fed than the state. With one exception the federal you have the right to exercise your religion, the states do not acknowledge that right.

 

Such as ensuring life sentences for certain criminal offenses, so those who commit them can never be released back into the public again?

 

My moms side of the family was in this country during the AoC at least as I am related to Benjamin Franklin so no I would still be here.

I don't care about the feds unless they are doing things for me like giving me guaranteed healthcare or income, the constitution intended the federal government to have practically no affect on peoples lives,

Also I don't want to assume but did you move here from another country? The syntax seems off.

 

The only crimes that should be life sentences are murder rape or crimes involving guns or attacking LEOs.

The rest of all crimes should be less than 5 years because that way, people will have incentives not to kill or fight because they know they will be much better off accepting their fate.

Legalise Weed completely with no maximum amount and no age limit, and then decriminalize everything else with users getting sent to rehab instead of prison. Crime will drop dramatically.

 

Why?

The incentive for not committing crime in the first place is not going to prison, where one may potentially be killed by another inmate. Why is that not good enough?

Ceasing to count criminal acts as crimes, does not make crime drop. It is simply sanctioned dishonesty and ignoring the problem by pretending the underlying issue does not exist.

 

Because those are the only major violent crimes.

Because if you are going to prison for 20 years to life for committing armed robbery you don't have anything to lose attacking or killing someone to try and escape because the sentence is not going to be much different. If you are only getting 5 years if you don't shoot your weapon then you likely won't shoot your weapon since your max is only 5 and you might be given less.

There is no reason someone should be in prison for putting something into their own body, plus weed is less harmful than coffee. Organised crime started in prohibition aka ban of drugs because they could make huge illegal profits since people get addicted to them. Legislise them and the market goes above ground and people are able to seek help without fear of inprisonment.

 

So a life sentence should be the punishment for possession of an unregistered firearm?

If an individual has already demonstrated that they are simply going to remain as a career criminal, no matter how many times they are arrests and imprisoned, what is the point of ever letting them out again?

Following such logic, the government should not have any authority to prevent individuals from ending their own existence through whatever means they see fit. If an individual wishes to commit suicide, they should simply be left to their own devices without interference.

Such is the claim, but no evidence has ever been presented to demonstrate such would actually be the case.

 

No only for using a gun as in shooting one. Having one would be 1 year, using one life.

You imprison them, then teach them life skills like work training and then when they leave hook them up with a job, focus on rehabilitation like in Norway.

Assisted suicide for medical purposes sure but those who are thinking of killing themselves should be given counselling and help, keeping drugs illegal does not help anyone other than the prison complex.

The repeal of the amendment just a decade after does not show that there was a huge problem? When before did organised crime exist?

 

Why?

And if they have no interest in using such skills for legitimate work purposes? What then? What is done when an individual demonstrates that they absolutely will not abide by the rules of society, either because they do not want to, or because crime is far more profitable to engage in?

So the position on the part of yourself is the united stats government should have no authority over the body of the individual as far as consumption of a harmful substance, but yet should have authority over the body of the individual as far as preventing them from ending their own existence?

It showed the public will support crime so long as it can get whatever it wants.

For centuries.