Bogus Gun Research

[rwl1955]

"
Last week Rep. Nancy Pelosi warned President Donald Trump that if he declared an "emergency" to build a wall, "think what a president with different values can present... Why don't you declare (the epidemic of gun violence in America) an emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would... A Democratic president can declare emergencies as well."

Her fellow Democrats Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Elizabeth Warren quickly agreed.

Warren tweeted: "Gun violence is an emergency. Climate change is an emergency..."

Yikes.

Not every problem in America should be declared an emergency -- or used by a president to justify acting without Congress.

But why are guns on the Democrats' "emergency" list anyway?

One reason is sloppy reporting by lazy media."
Bogus Gun Research

 

[67ray]

Lott is one sharp cookie - saw him speak at Suffolk Law last year. Very well prepared research and thoughtful writings. If you get a chance make a point to to hear him.

 

[Boris]

The last two "studies" that I saw on "gun violence" were complete lies. I won't waste my time again. If this info comes from front a**h***s of a libtard I simply ignore it. Libtards are liars, simple as that. Don't trust them, call them liars.

 

[MGnoob]

Even if all the anti gun “research” was 100% factual and accurate.....what does it matter?It doesn’t change the constitution......

The whole second amendment debate is lame.
The ship has sailed....make guns as illegal as you want.... in the end there will be even more guns.

I bet the dems would “build that wall” if they thought it would “save just one life from gun violence” but they just love illegals too much.

Stopping illegal immigration is impossible, but convince 100s of millions of Americans to bend over and confiscating hundreds of millions of firearms is possible.... uhh ok

 

[cams]

It’s not about studies, or protecting the kids, or having a “safer” nation for all of our illegals to come to, it’s about control and obedience. Always has been. They are the plantation owners of the future. We are the slaves in the making.

 

[drgrant]

I want this bitch to bring it on so we can get this over with, frankly, hopefully in the courts or otherwise. IMHO she did this intentionally but it's an idle
threat, based on convoluted logic, flung out there to try to "make the Trumpettes angry at orange man. "

-Mike

 

[StevieP]

We need a SCOTUS ruling that states THESE things are patently legal, and no bills should be submitted to further attempt to regulate, ban, or otherwise infringe on 2A rights. Playing defense is frickin exhausting ALL THE TIME, EVERYWHERE. We need to have a line in the sand (as if the 2A wasn't obvious enough...) that the gun grabbers just cannot cross any more. NO new bills. No more bullshit. It's exhausting, and expensive.

The list of "These things" may vary, I suppose, but should include the following:
All semi-automatic rifles and handguns ARE legal, regardless of cosmetic features, copies or duplicates, blah, blah, blah... Only if the specific gun is proven un-safe due to a design flaw, could .gov get involved.
Magazines of any size ARE legal
Face-to-face transfers without involving .gov ARE legal
Suppressors ARE legal to own, and should be no harder to buy than a muzzle brake or any other non-regulated device. They should be 100% unregulated.
Open or concealed carry IS LEGAL except where specifically excluded, and where that location takes responsibility for your safety in return for disarming you. A courthouse. Not very many other places should be gun-free zones. Inherent to this is that National reciprocity is the de facto standard.
Ammo should be un-regulated, including mail ordering

What else?

 

[rwl1955]

I want this bitch to bring it on so we can get this over with, frankly, hopefully in the courts or otherwise. IMHO she did this intentionally but it's an idle
threat, based on convoluted logic, flung out there to try to "make the Trumpettes angry at orange man. "

-Mike

Me too! Botox Nancy is talking shit.

 

[drgrant]

We need a SCOTUS ruling that states THESE things are patently legal, and no bills should be submitted to further attempt to regulate, ban, or otherwise infringe on 2A rights. Playing defense is frickin exhausting ALL THE TIME, EVERYWHERE. We need to have a line in the sand (as if the 2A wasn't obvious enough...) that the gun grabbers just cannot cross any more. NO new bills. No more bullshit. It's exhausting, and expensive.

The list of "These things" may vary, I suppose, but should include the following:
All semi-automatic rifles and handguns ARE legal, regardless of cosmetic features, copies or duplicates, blah, blah, blah... Only if the specific gun is proven un-safe due to a design flaw, could .gov get involved.
Magazines of any size ARE legal
Face-to-face transfers without involving .gov ARE legal
Suppressors ARE legal to own, and should be no harder to buy than a muzzle brake or any other non-regulated device. They should be 100% unregulated.
Open or concealed carry IS LEGAL except where specifically excluded, and where that location takes responsibility for your safety in return for disarming you. A courthouse. Not very many other places should be gun-free zones. Inherent to this is that National reciprocity is the de facto standard.
Ammo should be un-regulated, including mail ordering

What else?

We're always going to be playing defense as long as the public view of anti gun people is way below child molesters. There's no real way around it. A court is not likely going to issue a ruling that broad, although they might be able to issue one that forces gun legislation to face some sort of well defined declaration that "any law that completely bans an entire class of small arms from ownership by citizens is unconstitutional" or similar, even if they weaseled it up a bit they could say "even under the accepted concept of "reasonable restrictions" that the court would conclude that a wholesale ban on a class of small arms, by definition, is clearly not reasonable. " Even if it was such that garbage states still had regulation, the laws would only be allowed to go so far. EG, like for example, even if a garbage state like NJ was allowed to regulate "AW possession" they would not be allowed to do things which would dramatically impede a non-disabled person from obtaining one.

-Mike