This is what the gun control law should be in the US.

Yep....god forbid we have any gun science

 

Still on that manufacture narrative I see.

 

Still denying reality I see

 

Still turning out the silly I see. Since you are posting nothing of value I accept your surrender..

 

Thank you for your opinion

 

So you are denying the Dickey Amendment had a negative effect on CDC research relating to firearms. Dickey himself thought so. What is your reference?

 

Has the CDC been deterred from doing firearms research in a search for political gun control activism? Yes, that was the intent of the Bill. Did the bill stop the CDC from firearms related research? No. They published a report of a CDC 2012-13 study Obama funded from the Executives coffers which proves it.

The Dickey Amendment prohibited an endless series of studies in search of any blade of grass to support an anti gun agenda.

 

The reality is that mass shootings are so rare and variable that it's pert near impossible to assess statistics. An increase (or decrease) of one or two events from year to year makes a huge difference.

 

Kind of like terrorism on a plane....but we all give up freedoms for that

 

It is indeed being denied. The CDC is free to engage in whatever degree of firearm-related research it may wish to. But it is prohibited from engaging in any activity that amounts to political advocacy or promotion of firearm-related restrictions. That is what the amendment in question states in clear, concise, simple to understand terms.

His thoughts on the matter are not relevant.

Pray tell, which reference is being referred to? To the CDC having become politicized? That is the reason for the dickey amendment being enacted to begin with, as the CDC was attempting to use its position to generate public support for politically driven firearm-related restrictions.

 

Oh look at this -- you didn't just get caught making a false claim, you KNOW you got caught making a false claim.
Interesting, isn't it?

 

This deep denial of reality is much like arguing the Bible with a fundamentalist where logic is left behind and ideology is the driving point. Pointless.

 

Then simple cease denying reality. There is not so much as a single word in the dickey amendment which forbids firearm-related research of any kind from being carried out. The only thing prohibited is political advocacy.

Pray tell, why exactly is it so difficult to tell the two apart from one another?

 

Translation: You know you cannot defend the ideology-driven points you tried to make.

 

The thing you have to remember is that the gun is the god in their theology.....and god is sacred

 

Why do you refuse to admit your claim was false?

And, to follow up:
Why can't you tell me what interest you about the 1994 AWB, an interest that YOU brought up?

How did you not know about the 1994-2004 standard-capacity magazine ban?

Why did you state we need to do "everything in our power" when you don't really believe that to be the case?

 

I'm all for it!
But let's start at the beginning; the First Amendment.
Step 1- Free Speech "school" and written exam-
Step 2- Free Speech training-
Step 3- Back ground check to ensure you are speaking correctly-
Step 4- Free speech license and restrictions on free speech
Yeah, that's it! Sounds good doesn't it?

 

I'm an atheist. What does that make my guns?

 

As a Christian, they are just like mine, tools used for many lawful purposes.

Unlike the anti's, who's lord is a false belief, I understand that it is I, not the firearm that is responsible for it's proper use.

Anti's believe, because their lord has told them so, firearms control humans and removing firearms from the population will control human behavior, which is incorrect, but facts do not matter, nor shall be considered in their world.

 

1 in every 100 deaths in the US are not due to the first amendment.

 

Nor are they due to the second amendment. The majority of those committing the killings cannot legally possess firearms under any circumstances, so the second amendment does not apply to them.

Even if, under some circumstance, such was not the case, the second amendment is not a legal defense against the crime of murder. Someone who opens fire in a crowded mall and puts others at the risk of harm, cannot claim they were merely exercising their second amendment rights and that they should not be punished for such.

 

Incorrect, they are due to the person who pulled the trigger.

 

So your intention, with regard to the Second Amendment, is to curb 1% of the deaths in the U.S. by requiring gun owners to train and take a test?

My intention, with regard to the First Amendment, was to curb 100% of ridiculous and irrelevant comments being posted in online forums.

Maybe you and I should work together to change the Constitution to fit our own personal agendas.

 

10 in 17 murders and 1/2 suisides

 

And your point?