That number represents 0.009% of the guns in the US.There are about 28 thousand gun related deaths in the US a year. So that's about 1 in 10 thousand Americans a year. Not that many in the big picture, but not an inconsequential number either.
If you figure just the murders, it represents 0.003% of the guns in the US.
Thats about as inconsequential as it gets.
The SCotUS, in the last two years, overturned two laws that do just that, amid healthy complaisn from the anti-gun side. Your statement is unsupportable.Like I said though, nobody is advocating taking away your guns
As long as -I- get to define what is "responsible" and "reasonabke", sure.We're advocating responsible gun ownership is all. Accept some reasonable safety requirements and focus on something important instead.
Are you game for that?
Yes... because Constitutionally protected rights are something to be considered lightly.You guys just need to chill out about it.
And that's all the needed to do go get us to tuck tail and leave.And even with all that they certainly can't overthrow the US military presense there, they can just destabilize the country....
You can lose every battle and still win the war, just as they did.
So? If the issue is a number of guns relating to a number of deaths, then the only valid comparison is the number of deaths for each gun.Of the guns? That is 1 in 10,000 people. Only about 40 million households in the US have guns in them, so that is one gun death a year for every 1,428 households that have a gun.
No, I am not. You were talking about banning guns. In those cities, the guns were banned. They would have remained banned of not for the court, and if, God forbid, the court over overturns itself, you can bet the guns will be banned again. Banning these guns takes away the right to own them; by supporting these bans, you want to take away the right to own guns.You're talking about a different thing.
This is a self-serving, baseless and unsuppotable assumption. Straw, man.Somehow I have this sneaking suspicion that your idea of reasonable safety regulations involves 12 year old juvenille delinquints being allowed to bring grenade launchers with them to school without a permit..
A "reasonable" gun control law does two things:
- Ensures that criminals will not get guns
- Does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
You say that because this particular right doesnt mean much to you.Just because it's a right you have doesn't mean it's worth your time to get all up in a tizzy about it all the time.
If the issue were a right that did mean much to you, and the anti-right people were looking to restrict in whatever way THEY found "reasonable", your attitude would change.
As such, your commentary here means nothing.
1) pretend they were trying to do something about urban violence
2) cover their asses without hurting a main constituent group
going after gun owners was not the original intent for most of the gun controllers-merely collateral damage. Indeed, there were no real pro gun lobbying groups (NRA was more into training and competitions) until the dems pushed the 68 GCA. after gun owners hit back against the cover their asses legislation dems pushed, then sticking it to the NRA and gun owners became the main foal of the ARC
1) the second amendment did not say the militia only has the right to keep and bear arms
2) nor did it merely say "the several states"
3) more importantly, the second is to be read in the context of the entire bill of rights and the constitution which clearly demonstrates that the US Government was never delegated the power to regulate small arms and thus, under the tenth amendment, EVEN IF the second only applies to those on active duty in the militia (BTW how do disarmed people muster for a militia if they don't have arms?), then the 9th and tenth cover everyone else
YOu are clearly clueless about the constitution and you make up what you hope it should say rather than what was intended by those who wrote it