It's not an infringement? Even if it's your ox being gored?

Where are your credible nonpartisan statistics proving this alleged "diversity" within the ranks of the NRA?

 

Geography doesn't make them uncivilized.

Here's the Australian government data:

http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentCol.html

I trust you can look up Australian population data for 1996 and 2015/16 yourself.

US government data (FBI UCR):

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

UK government data:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ov.uk/ons/resources/figure21_tcm77-352428.png

Again, I'll leave you to find the UK population for each year to determine the rate of homicide per 100k population. The rate of decline between two years can be calculated by the formula (rate of later year - rate of earlier year)/rate of earlier year.

 

That was the OPINION of a couple of lawyers who work for the ACLU. They expressly stipulated at the beginning that "The American Civil Liberties Union does not oppose gun control laws".

That opinion does NOT support your allegation that the ACLU "supports" that action.

 

Are you denying that Canada still has a gun registry?

 

Yet another kneejerk response with zero substantiation.

 

Sigh.

"This month, Congress repealed a rule that would have registered thousands of Social Security recipients with mental disabilities, who have others manage their benefits, into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to prevent them from owning firearms.

The American Civil Liberties Union does not oppose gun control laws. As an organization dedicated to defending all constitutional rights, we believe the Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions to promote public safety.

But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.

The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular.

To the contrary, studies show that people with mental disabilities are less likely to commit firearm crimes than to be the victims of violence by others.

Data show that young, white men are most likely to be mass shooters — the issue that politicians care about most, despite accounting for a tiny fraction of gun violence. And men under 35 commit most murders. Shall we enter all young men into the national database? The statistical correlation with gun violence would be stronger.

The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. This is about more than guns. Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights."

https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair

 

Gun haters refuse to acknowledge that NONE of those NATIONS that have gun control laws saw ANY reductions in crime, violence, or homicide rates after enacting gun control. NONE OF THEM. In most cases they saw INCREASES in their rates of criminal violence and murder; but the gun banners myopically point to how their homicide rate is lower than ours so "gun control works!" But gun control DAMAGED public safety in ALL of those nations, while here in the U.S. gun rights have expanded and our homicide rates have gone DOWN.

 

No, it is simple fact. New York enacted a registration system. People dutifully registered their firearms. Classes of those firearms were subsequently banned and registered owners were notified to either turn their firearms in or document they have been removed from the state or otherwise rendered nonfunctional. The same thing happened in California, and in New Jersey, and in Massachusetts. Far from a "kneejerk response" it is instead a matter of public record.

 

That murdered gun owner taught her son how to shoot!

How many more innocent children have to die because of those who worship the Almighty Firearm on the blood stained High Alter of the NRA?

When does the carnage end?

At what point does the blood lust become satiated?

These are the questions that Americans are asking themselves because standing back and doing nothing about this endless slaughter is no longer acceptable.

 

False statement. Violent crime rates and homicide rates went up in both nations subsequent to gun control. Again, public record.

 

And it didn't do jack **** because the criminals don't turn in their guns. Only law abiding citizens.

 

Wow. This kind of hysterical, irrational raving contributes absolutely nothing of substance to the debate.

 

None of that refutes the data that I provided in my earlier links.

 

That is the exact same source from a different site. Go back and read what I actually posted about that OPINION.

 

Assumes factoids NOT in evidence...AGAIN!

 

Still no credible nonpartisan substantiation for your allegations.

Why is that?

 

Duplicate post deleted

 

And the public record then shows a DECLINE in homicide rates for both nations but you conveniently IGNORE that data because it exposes your fallacy.

 

Yes. That has nothing to do with the SSA ruling.

Logical fallacy - appeal to emotion. There is no endless slaughter. If the issue is innocent children dying, does that apply to any cause of death for innocent children?

 

It's the official ACLU website. It's their official position. Do you need the president of the ACLU to call you up to confirm?

 

Did you actually READ the OPINION?

It does not support what you allege it supports!

 

It applies to the NEEDLESS deaths of innocent children who are dying year in and year out from firearms.

That this is an "acceptable sacrifice" to the Almighty Firearm worshipers is not something that I am willing to stand by and do nothing about.

Adults have a responsibility to protect children.

 

They opposed the SSA ruling. Period.

"We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights"

 

By any means possible?

 

By all legal means possible.