Words have no meaning to you. Further debate with you is futile if you can just change the meaning of words at will. Let me know when you can be an adult and admit your error. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not attempt to lie but just misspoke. Until then expect no further communication from me
You will continue being addressed so long as nonsense is being presented as if it had actual merit, when in fact it does not. The idealistic statements of "anything is possible" and "firearm restrictions work" have no corresponding basis in fact in the real world, and are devoid of relevance to the discussion at hand. So long as nonsense is being presented as if it were genuine fact, it will continue to be questioned, criticized, and eviscerated without exception. Until such time that genuine effort is invested into the posts made by yourself, you will be addressed as an irrelevant, off topic nuisance that is making a deliberate effort at derailing open, honest, and legitimate debate about a matter deemed to have importance.
Chicago: Alas the bangers have come up short at least unofficially. With "early voting" in the confirmed kill number is now at 795. However, as Hey Jackass states, late passings and reclassified death investigations will push the final official number over 800 for 2016. The big but in the process is the bookkeeping shenanigans that Chiraq uses to hide the true violence numbers. The only question now is what will 2017 bring?
Key word here is hopefully. You might as well wish upon a star. A thug culture in a city associated with the Sinola cartel that is low IQ, poor impulse control and without future time orientation is not likey to follow the rules even if you make more rules. Then you have city itself that won't even enforce the rules it has. LOL. Liberalism at work. LOL
BTW, the violence in Chicago was a feature on 60 Minutes tonight. So much for the LOL 17th place finish.
So your definition of gun control is to disarm lawful Americans? To keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding? Because that is what other first world nations do.
We can maintain the second amendment and still have gun control - - - Updated - - - I disagree completely
We cannot maintain the 2nd Amendment and have the kind of gun control that those First World countries have, the kind you're asking for.
You pick a country whose gun control laws you'd like the US to emulate, and let's examine those laws with regards to Constitutionality, effectiveness in the US, enforceability in the US, likelihood of being passed into law, likelihood of being upheld by the future SCOTUS and actual need .
You make it sound like it is supposed to be easy. No one said it would be easy. No great struggles are
Nope. Any limitation on guns is unconstitutional unless you amend the second amendment. You cannot willy nilly interpret any way you want to. Otherwise you can interpret it to the point that we can only have Nerf guns.
Almost every legal scholar and expert on the constitution disagrees with you. Even Scalia disagreed with you.
And the supreme court has ruled that it is legal for government to seize your private property if the claim to believe it is in some way connected to the commission of a crime. Legally government can seize your motor vehicle, bank account, residence, or any other property you may own, claiming it is connected to a crime, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they are incorrect.
