Gun Control Doesn't Work to Reduce Violence, According to the CDC

"During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearm laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm


Gun Control Doesn't Work to Reduce Suicides, According to the AIHW

In 1996, Australia Banned and Confiscated Nearly All Modern Firearms. According to data collected by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW):
In the 18 years before the gun ban (1978-1996) there was a total of 36,376 suicides for a mean rate of 12.24
In the 18 years after the gun ban (1997-2015) there was a total of 46,387 suicides for a mean rate of 12.67

Although the slight increase in the rate is statistically insignificant, there was a 27.52% increase in the total number of suicides during the 18 years after the gun ban.

It is obvious the gun ban had no effect on suicides. Hangings merely replaced guns as the most common method of suicide.


So what does Gun Control Do?

It Makes People Defenseless in the Face of Monsters. ESPECIALLY WOMEN

After Australia imposed a Gun Ban, Sexual Assaults Increased Significantly.

I see the DIM WIT ran away again. Maybe he’s tired of constantly being shown the FOOL he is.

...and ASSHOLES = ASSHOLES. You know, people who pretend not to recognize a huge national problem simply because they don't care about it and don't want to see it solved anyway. Harm reduction ? Hah! What's that?

Sure, thousands of people will continue to die each year -- quite possibly including themselves. But they are already too dead in the head even to save their own asses. That's really dumb!

Reminder: There are nearly 40,000 gun-related deaths in this country each year. And keeping a gun in the home increases your odds of dying from a gunshot wound by a factor of nearly four.

GUNS = DEATH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...and ASSHOLES = ASSHOLES. You know, people who
> pretend not to recognize a huge national problem
> simply because they don't care about it and don't
> want to see it solved anyway. Harm reduction ?
> Hah! What's that?
>
> Sure, thousands of people will continue to die
> each year -- quite possibly including themselves.
> But they are already too dead in the head even to
> save their own asses. That's really dumb!
>
> Reminder: There are nearly 40,000 gun-related
> deaths in this country each year. And keeping a
> gun in the home increases your odds of dying from
> a gunshot wound by a factor of nearly four.


The only thing you've offered is your sanctimonious pontification. But you have been generous with it. It's a shame solutions won't grow in bull shit.

The shame is that you clowns have no qualms at all about creating these massive problems, and then no qualms at all either about having no idea of what might be done in terms of harm-reduction. You bozos just stand there like dopes with your jaws hung open.

I forgot to add that I sucked Gerry's dick last night and it's very small. He hates white people having guns too, so we often engage in gay butt sex.

GUNS = DEATH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The shame is that you clowns have no qualms at all
> about creating these massive problems, and then no
> qualms at all either about having no idea of what
> might be done in terms of harm-reduction. You
> bozos just stand there like dopes with your jaws
> hung open.

Harm reduction = notifying law enforcement when a prohibited person attempts to illegally purchase a firearm, including ICE if the purchase was attempted by an illegal alien.

The murderers were all delusional DEMS looking for their 15 minutes of fame that the GHOULISH PRESS always gives them. So the ONE THING that will work is, STOP GIVING THEM A PLATFORM. Even the last one said he did it so his story would be told.
Not a single thing that Bloomberg or the Dems proposed would have made a bit of difference. You want a law that will REALLY WORK?? Forbid the media from printing the murderers name. You can say anything else about them BUT NOT their name. These terrorist are looking for their 15-minutes of fame either to push their agenda or to look for justification for their miserable little lives. Yes, I know there is freedom of the press in this country, but it is not absolute. There are already laws regarding it. If it saves lives, why not give it a try?

True Solutions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The murderers were all delusional DEMS looking for
> their 15 minutes of fame that the GHOULISH PRESS
> always gives them. So the ONE THING that will work
> is, STOP GIVING THEM A PLATFORM. Even the last one
> said he did it so his story would be told.
> Not a single thing that Bloomberg or the Dems
> proposed would have made a bit of difference. You
> want a law that will REALLY WORK?? Forbid the
> media from printing the murderers name. You can
> say anything else about them BUT NOT their name.
> These terrorist are looking for their 15-minutes
> of fame either to push their agenda or to look for
> justification for their miserable little lives.
> Yes, I know there is freedom of the press in this
> country, but it is not absolute. There are already
> laws regarding it. If it saves lives, why not give
> it a try?


That's stupid.

XXfruppieXX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True Solutions Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The murderers were all delusional DEMS looking
> for
> > their 15 minutes of fame that the GHOULISH
> PRESS
> > always gives them. So the ONE THING that will
> work
> > is, STOP GIVING THEM A PLATFORM. Even the last
> one
> > said he did it so his story would be told.
> > Not a single thing that Bloomberg or the Dems
> > proposed would have made a bit of difference.
> You
> > want a law that will REALLY WORK?? Forbid the
> > media from printing the murderers name. You can
> > say anything else about them BUT NOT their
> name.
> > These terrorist are looking for their
> 15-minutes
> > of fame either to push their agenda or to look
> for
> > justification for their miserable little lives.
> > Yes, I know there is freedom of the press in
> this
> > country, but it is not absolute. There are
> already
> > laws regarding it. If it saves lives, why not
> give
> > it a try?
>
>
> That's stupid.

It's above your head. Go back and fantasize about dicks.

simple solutions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harm reduction = notifying law enforcement when a
> prohibited person attempts to illegally purchase a
> firearm, including ICE if the purchase was
> attempted by an illegal alien.

No, as has been previously explained to you but you have now lapsed back into doubting, that is just another manifestation of your dismal racial insensitivity. As both legal and illegal immigrants are involved in crime at rates lower than the native-born population, it is easy to see that there is no actual harm-reduction component intended in your fraudulent plan at all. It is all a masquerade hatched solely for purposes of unreasonably harassing persons on the basis of national origin. As such, the plan is indicative only of your essential worthlessness as a human being.

GUNS = DEATH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> simple solutions Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Harm reduction = notifying law enforcement when
> a
> > prohibited person attempts to illegally purchase
> a
> > firearm, including ICE if the purchase was
> > attempted by an illegal alien.
>
> No, as has been previously explained to you but
> you have now lapsed back into doubting, that is
> just another manifestation of your dismal racial
> insensitivity. As both legal and illegal
> immigrants are involved in crime at rates lower
> than the native-born population, it is easy to see
> that there is no actual harm-reduction component
> intended in your fraudulent plan at all. It is all
> a masquerade hatched solely for purposes of
> unreasonably harassing persons on the basis of
> national origin. As such, the plan is indicative
> only of your essential worthlessness as a human
> being.


The plan includes notifying all relevant law enforcement. That includes state, local, tribal, and appropriate federal entities to include the local ATF and FBI offices, and in the case of someone in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(5), the local ICE office.

It's telling that you think it's "unreasonably harassing" an individual to notify ICE when someone prohibited by law attempts to purchase a firearm. It's unreasonable to notify law enforcement when someone breaks the law?

It shows that you care less about harm reduction than those you claim have no proposals for harm reduction. You're nothing more than a hypocrite.

It’s a naked attempt to harass immigrants. Only racists share you corrupt views.

Nonsense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s a naked attempt to harass immigrants. Only
> racists share you corrupt views.

It’s harassing immigrants to notify appropriate law enforcement when individuals break the law? We’re not talking simply crossing the border, we’re talking attempting to illegally obtain a firearm. I’m a huge gun control advocate and I have no problem with this.

You're a liar and a racist prick.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're a liar and a racist prick.


And you're an asshole and self-hating douche.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're a liar and a racist prick.


You have no intelligent or rational response, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. I expect this from the braindead bots on the right, but am disappointed that the same lack of intellectual capabilities exist on the left.

There's nothing wrong with notifying the appropriate law enforcement entity when someone under their jurisdiction attempts to illegally purchase a firearm. You've provided no evidence to rebut that claim which makes you look rather stupid.

what am I missing? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have no intelligent or rational response, so you resort to
> ad hominem attacks. I expect this from the braindead bots on
> the right, but am disappointed that the same lack of intellectual
> capabilities exist on the left.

It's not at all a matter of political bent. The facts are that you are a liar and a racist prick. Your scheme has no public safety purpose at all. It is entirely designed to discriminate without valid basis against a particular population.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what am I missing? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You have no intelligent or rational response, so
> you resort to
> > ad hominem attacks. I expect this from the
> braindead bots on
> > the right, but am disappointed that the same
> lack of intellectual
> > capabilities exist on the left.
>
> It's not at all a matter of political bent. The
> facts are that you are a liar and a racist prick.
> Your scheme has no public safety purpose at all.
> It is entirely designed to discriminate without
> valid basis against a particular population.


Ahh, so you don’t understand the concept. You’re not stupid because of your political blinders, you’re just plain stupid. There is no de facto or de jure discrimination. The premise calls for ALL relevant law enforcement to be notified when a prohibited person attempts to illegally obtain a firearm. This includes the state and local law enforcement offices of this individuals living in their jurisdictions. In the case of an individual in this country illegally, it includes notification to ICE. The notifications to ICE would occur if the individual is European, African, Asian, or South American. Hardly a racist policy. Rather, it’s one that makes the utmost sense if we want to reduce incidences of gun violence. To argue otherwise is absurd and only plays into the hands of the NRA. If we can’t even coalesce around very common sense measures, you may as well wave the white flag.

You are a racist and a prick. There are no words that you can use as cover for that. There is no public safety issue involved here at all. It's just an attempt to attack hard-working and law-abiding residents on the basis of your childish dislike for those of a particular ethnic background. You are a corrupt and disgraceful bigot, pure and simple. No one will have any difficulty in recognizing or understanding that.

Law abiding? Attempting to purchase a firearm by a prohibited person is a criminal offense. That’s not law abiding. Sorry, you’re credibility is shot. Keeping firearms out of the hands of those prohibited from possessing them is absolutely a public safety issue. Only a moron would contend differently.

I’m as much a racist as you are intelligent; that’s to say not at all.

The only intent of including immigrants under this asswipe law is to roust and harass Hispanics. That's all that's behind it.

You can't put enough lipstick on the pig of the plain facts of your being both a racist and a prick to hide those facts from anyone.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only intent of including immigrants under this
> asswipe law is to roust and harass Hispanics.
> That's all that's behind it.

The intent is to ensure prohibited people who illegally attempt to purcase a firearm are dealt with appropriately. Currently, individuals breaking this law are not adequately dealt with. This proposal will remedy that.

You already screwed up when you falsely claimed that a prohibited person attempting to illegally purchase a gun was law abiding. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.

> You can't put enough lipstick on the pig of the
> plain facts of your being both a racist and a
> prick to hide those facts from anyone.

Already established that this isnt a racist policy provision. Two elected VA Democrats already endorsed this position. They aren't racists either. But, you are dumb.

Still a racist and a prick. Lipstick on a pig is just not going to work for you. Everyone can see through to the repulsive racist core of your position.

You sound like a broken record. Those of us who care about public safety will continue to advocate for responsible gun control measures. Those who prefer to hide behind a partisan agenda will be tossed off and left along the side of the road for dead. There’s nothing racist behind responsible gun control just as there’s nothing law abiding about trying to illegally buy a gun. Smart people get that. Don’t expect a response if you’re simply going to regurgitate your stale, roundly disputed racist talking point.

He doesn't seem to want to deal with the illegal alien loophole.

You're not smart. Nowhere near it. You're just a racist and a prick. There is nothing at all about being undocumented that makes one any sort of risk to public safety. All that is just a pretense for the sort of putrid acts that vile haters such as yourself seek against all sense to justify.

How about being an illegal and attempting to illegally purchase a deadly weapon?

You seem to keep bouncing over last part.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're not smart. Nowhere near it. You're just a
> racist and a prick. There is nothing at all about
> being undocumented that makes one any sort of risk
> to public safety. All that is just a pretense for
> the sort of putrid acts that vile haters such as
> yourself seek against all sense to justify.


It's posted right above, but either you're to I intellectually dishonest or too stupid to deal with it. Not once did I claim, not would I ever claim, that being undocumented makes one any sort of risk to public safety. Further, you can't point to a place where I came close to stating that.

What I have said, however, is that someone illegally attempting to acquire a firearm is a risk to public safety, regardless of immigration status. You don't want to seem to address that particular risk to public safety.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're not smart. Nowhere near it. You're just a
> racist and a prick. There is nothing at all about
> being undocumented that makes one any sort of risk
> to public safety. All that is just a pretense for
> the sort of putrid acts that vile haters such as
> yourself seek against all sense to justify.


It's posted right above, but either you're to I intellectually dishonest or too stupid to deal with it. Not once did I claim, nor would I ever claim, that being undocumented makes one any sort of risk to public safety. Further, you can't point to a place where I came close to stating that.

What I have said, however, is that someone illegally attempting to acquire a firearm is a risk to public safety, regardless of immigration status. You don't want to seem to address that particular risk to public safety.

what am I missing? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nonsense... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're not smart. Nowhere near it. You're just
> a
> > racist and a prick. There is nothing at all
> about
> > being undocumented that makes one any sort of
> risk
> > to public safety. All that is just a pretense
> for
> > the sort of putrid acts that vile haters such
> as
> > yourself seek against all sense to justify.
>
>
> It's posted right above, but either you're to I
> intellectually dishonest or too stupid to deal
> with it. Not once did I claim, nor would I ever
> claim, that being undocumented makes one any sort
> of risk to public safety. Further, you can't point
> to a place where I came close to stating that.
>
> What I have said, however, is that someone
> illegally attempting to acquire a firearm is a
> risk to public safety, regardless of immigration
> status. You don't want to seem to address that
> particular risk to public safety.

All preventive detention flies in the face of due process. William Blackstone's formulation is very clear. Potential to do harm is no crime or at least it shouldn't be

You would have defended poll taxes and literacy tests in the same way. The entire point is that the law is MISTAKEN in covering immigration status as if it were the equivalent of some violent felony. An actually smart person would have perceived that long ago and ceased the sort of racist, prick-like posting that you have persistently engaged in here. You are a vile individual and a socially pernicious person.

Preventive detention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what am I missing? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nonsense... Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > You're not smart. Nowhere near it. You're
> just
> > a
> > > racist and a prick. There is nothing at all
> > about
> > > being undocumented that makes one any sort of
> > risk
> > > to public safety. All that is just a
> pretense
> > for
> > > the sort of putrid acts that vile haters such
> > as
> > > yourself seek against all sense to justify.
> >
> >
> > It's posted right above, but either you're to I
> > intellectually dishonest or too stupid to deal
> > with it. Not once did I claim, nor would I ever
> > claim, that being undocumented makes one any
> sort
> > of risk to public safety. Further, you can't
> point
> > to a place where I came close to stating that.
> >
> > What I have said, however, is that someone
> > illegally attempting to acquire a firearm is a
> > risk to public safety, regardless of
> immigration
> > status. You don't want to seem to address that
> > particular risk to public safety.
>
> All preventive detention flies in the face of due
> process. William Blackstone's formulation is very
> clear. Potential to do harm is no crime or at
> least it shouldn't be


Committing a crime is doing harm.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You would have defended poll taxes and literacy
> tests in the same way. The entire point is that
> the law is MISTAKEN in covering immigration status
> as if it were the equivalent of some violent
> felony. An actually smart person would have
> perceived that long ago and ceased the sort of
> racist, prick-like posting that you have
> persistently engaged in here. You are a vile
> individual and a socially pernicious person.


Shocker, once thoroughly defeated, you now walk down the road of logical fallacies. The last resort for the truly stupid. The law merely treats all prohibited persons the same. That can be a felon, an individual here illegally, an individual convicted if certain misdemeanors, someone dishonorably discharged, a fugitive, etc. We get it, you prefer to allow certain prohibited people to skirt the law while enforcing the laws against others. I prefer to enforce the laws uniformly across the board. And you stupidly contend I'm enforcing it discriminatoraly. They don't come much dumber than you. At least you'll be voting the right way next year! Sorry, I couldn't fix your dumb, my friend.

Idiot is so lost in his own bullshit that he even wants to shield illegals from gun laws. lol

There is nothing even resembling moral equivalence between being undocumented and any of the other excluded classes. The law was written by and appeals primarily to those who happen to be racists and pricks. No proper person supports any of it.

Sure there is. They all are specified prohibited parties under existing gun law - The Gun Control Act (GCA), 18 U.S.C. S 922(g)

Quote

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person-

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who?[2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

You aren't familiar with the excluded classes. After being roundly trashed here, your latest attempt at relavancy is a weak attempt to split hairs. Those who have renounced their citizenship are also prohibited. Never before, have I heard a fellow liberal argue for reducing the number of categories prohibiting gun ownership. In fact, the latest VAWA to pass the House expanded the categories.

You're either really stupid or a shill for the NRA attempting to make gun control advocates look stupid. Either way, you're clearly not worth the effort.

Domestic terrorists, bring it on!
Attachments:

what am I missing? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You aren't familiar with the excluded classes.
> After being roundly trashed here, your latest
> attempt at relavancy is a weak attempt to split
> hairs. Those who have renounced their citizenship
> are also prohibited. Never before, have I heard a
> fellow liberal argue for reducing the number of
> categories prohibiting gun ownership. In fact, the
> latest VAWA to pass the House expanded the
> categories.
>
> You're either really stupid or a shill for the NRA
> attempting to make gun control advocates look
> stupid. Either way, you're clearly not worth the
> effort.

I’m an intelligent person. You’re just a racist prick. Case closed.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what am I missing? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You aren't familiar with the excluded classes.
> > After being roundly trashed here, your latest
> > attempt at relavancy is a weak attempt to split
> > hairs. Those who have renounced their
> citizenship
> > are also prohibited. Never before, have I heard
> a
> > fellow liberal argue for reducing the number of
> > categories prohibiting gun ownership. In fact,
> the
> > latest VAWA to pass the House expanded the
> > categories.
> >
> > You're either really stupid or a shill for the
> NRA
> > attempting to make gun control advocates look
> > stupid. Either way, you're clearly not worth
> the
> > effort.
>
> I’m an intelligent person. You’re just a
> racist prick. Case closed.


It’s clear you’re nothing more than an NRA shill attempting to make gun control advocates look unreasonable. The sad thing is you can’t even accomplish that without making yourself look stupid. It’s so obvious. You won’t even directly address the issues in front of you. You probably work on some NRA troll farm.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what am I missing? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You aren't familiar with the excluded classes.
> > After being roundly trashed here, your latest
> > attempt at relavancy is a weak attempt to split
> > hairs. Those who have renounced their
> citizenship
> > are also prohibited. Never before, have I heard
> a
> > fellow liberal argue for reducing the number of
> > categories prohibiting gun ownership. In fact,
> the
> > latest VAWA to pass the House expanded the
> > categories.
> >
> > You're either really stupid or a shill for the
> NRA
> > attempting to make gun control advocates look
> > stupid. Either way, you're clearly not worth
> the
> > effort.
>
> I’m an intelligent person. You’re just a
> racist prick. Case closed.


You're an empty headed ideologue.

BTW the origin of the restriction against illegals as prohibited parties dates from 1968, Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, written and passed by a Democratic congress and signed into law by Lyndon Johnson.

And, in fact, already is the law, passed in 2008 by a Democratic Congress:

Public Law 110-180
110th Congress

An Act

To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and
for other [NOTE: Jan. 8, 2008 - [H.R. 2640] purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress [NOTE: NICS Improvement Amendments
Act of 2007. Inter-governmental relations. 18 USC 922 note. assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Tile.--This Act may be cited as the ``NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007''.

...

SEC. 106. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT GUN PURCHASE NOTIFICATION.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of
this Act, all records obtained by the National Instant Criminal
Background Check system relevant to whether an individual is prohibited
from possessing a firearm because such person is an alien illegally or
unlawfully in the United States shall be made available to U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

(b) Regulations.--The Attorney General, at his or her discretion,
shall promulgate guidelines relevant to what records relevant to illegal
aliens shall be provided pursuant to the provisions of this Act.

No sensible person supports such nonsense. Being native-born is a risk factor for criminal behavior. Being undocumented is just a hook for opportunism by racist pricks.

^ Retreats into his shell of stupidity. lol

You’re a racist prick. Sensible people are not. Sensible people understand that the undocumented are not a threat.

Pelosi and the Democrats appear to be the 'racist pricks.'

They're the ones who passed the law stating that "... all records obtained by the National Instant Criminal Background Check system relevant to whether an individual is prohibited from possessing a firearm because such person is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States shall be made available to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

And Dems were the ones who wrote the prohibition against illegals into law to begin with and passed it with 204 Dem votes in the House:



and overwhelming Dem support in the Senate:



Ted Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Edmund Muskie, Frank Church, Birch Bayh, William Proxmire, Daddy Al Gore,
Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson... all "racist pricks" I suppose.

lmao

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------
> I’m an intelligent person. You’re just a
> racist prick. Case closed.


If someone feels the need to declare they're an intelligent person, that's usually a good indication the person is a blithering idiot. That's certainly the case here.

just pointing out facts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nonsense... Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------
> > I’m an intelligent person. You’re just a
> > racist prick. Case closed.
>
>
> If someone feels the need to declare they're an
> intelligent person, that's usually a good
> indication the person is a blithering idiot.
> That's certainly the case here.

Don't fall for the DIM WITS trolling. He's a blithering idiot that can only squawk what his master Bloomberg tells him to say. As demonstrated by his mindless blather, he is totally incapable of any rational thought.

Look at these 'racist pricks' who sponsored/cosponsored the bill...

Sponsor: Rep. McCarthy, Carolyn [D-NY-4]

Cosponsor statistics: 17 current - includes 14 original

Cosponsor Date Cosponsored
Rep. Boucher, Rick [D-VA-9]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Dingell, John D. [D-MI-15]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Bishop, Timothy H. [D-NY-1]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Castle, Michael N. [R-DE-At Large]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Emanuel, Rahm [D-IL-5]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-18]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Moore, Dennis [D-KS-3]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Moran, James P. [D-VA-8]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [D-NJ-8]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Shays, Christopher [R-CT-4]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-20]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Capps, Lois [D-CA-23]* 06/11/2007
Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-27] 06/12/2007
Rep. Ross, Mike [D-AR-4] 06/13/2007
Rep. Christensen, Donna M. [D-VI-At Large] 06/13/2007

Passed in Harry Reid's Senate by unanimous consent so I guess that makes him and the rest of the Senate Dems 'racist pricks.'

Politics is the art of compromise. No sensible person holds the racist prick views that you do.

Calls people racist without providing evidence and ignoring facts.

Nonsense.., Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Politics is the art of compromise. No sensible
> person holds the racist prick views that you do.


There were no amendments to the bill.

Only one in the Senate to the later bill by Patrick Leahy having nothing to do with it.

Maybe you're forgetting that this was back when that "racist prick" Obama was saying things like:

"We all agree on the need to better secure the border and to punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants. We are a generous and welcoming people, here in the United States, but those who enter the country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.

We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States, undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country."

the REAL nonsense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Calls people racist without providing evidence and ignoring facts.

Read the thread. The racist prickiness is self-evident.

Nope, still "racist pricks" Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There were no amendments to the bill.

You do not understand the political process. You are an ignorant racist prick.

Nonsense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the REAL nonsense Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Calls people racist without providing evidence
> and ignoring facts.
>
> Read the thread. The racist prickiness is
> self-evident.

Thread read. You come across as an uninformed nitwit. Probably an NRA troll like the other guy said.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope, still "racist pricks" Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There were no amendments to the bill.
>
> You do not understand the political process. You
> are an ignorant racist prick.


I understand the process perfectly well. As knowing where to find the information on the bill, floor debate, legislative history, and voting records demonstrates. Nobody had any objection to the inclusion of that provision. Nor should they have since illegals are by law prohibited from possessing firearms and have been for +50 years. The specific intent of the bill was to improve information capture for and transfer to the NCIS and to support resulting enforcement against prohibited parties.

You, as always, are left repeating the same stupid shit over and over after having your dumb ass handed to you.

As sensible people know, there is no actual justification for the provision at all. Your defense of it is knee-jerk mindlessness, being based solely on your being a racist prick. Meanwhile anyone can use Congress.gov (successor to THOMAS.gov) to track and explore legislative histories.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As sensible people know, there is no actual
> justification for the provision at all.

Sure there is. Those justifications have been listed here. Thus far, you’ve failed horribly at attempting to dispute them. NRA troll or plain stupid? Both?

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As sensible people know, there is no actual
> justification for the provision at all. Your
> defense of it is knee-jerk mindlessness, being
> based solely on your being a racist prick.
> Meanwhile anyone can use Congress.gov (successor
> to THOMAS.gov) to track and explore legislative
> histories.


Illegal alien is not a race. It wasn't 50 years ago and it isn't now. There is an obvious justification in that they are, among others, specifically prohibited parties under the law.

Unlike you anyone who does look will find the case to be exactly as I said. NOBODY objected or expressed any reservations at the time with respect to provisions regarding reporting NCIS transactions involving illegals. In fact, in the hearings prior to it was specifically addressed re NYC being a "sanctuary city" and Bloomberg's representative spoke in support for the inclusion since information flow to INS was inadequate.

Unlike you relying only on your feely feels, I know this subject very well.

As was stated long ago, the law itself is the problem. No sensible person supports it. The fact that you goose-step along in favor of it is part of what marks you as a racist prick.

Sorry, you chanting the same shit over and over like a retard doesn't count for anything. Meanwhile back in the real world, the law in its various forms has passed with overwhelming bipartisan support as well as outside support from both gun control advocates and the NRA as well as repeatedly affirmed by the courts.

Quote

The government argues that it has important “interests in
crime control and public safety.” We agree. “The
[government] has the important government interest of
ensuring the safety of both the public and its police officers.”
Mahoney, 871 F.3d at 882 (citing United States v. Salerno,
481 U.S. 739, 748 (1987); Jackson, 746 F.3d at 965);see also
Binderup, 836 F.3d at 390 (“The stated purpose of the 1968
revision was to curb crime by keeping firearms out of the
hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of
age, criminal background, or incompetency.” (Fuentes, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part) (internal citations
20 UNITED STATES V. TORRES
omitted)); Meza-Rodriguez, 798 F.3d at 673 (“Congress’s
objective in passing § 922(g) was ‘to keep guns out of the
hands of presumptively risky people’ and to ‘suppress[]
armed violence.’” (alteration in original) (quoting United
States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681, 683–84 (7th Cir. 2010))).
These government interests are particularly applicable to
those subject to removal. “[T]hose who show a willingness to
defy our law are . . . a group that ought not be armed when
authorities seek them.” Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d at 1170. If
armed, unlawful aliens could pose a threat to immigration
officers or other law enforcement who attempt to apprehend
and remove them.

Further,“[unlawful aliens] often live ‘largely outside the
formal system of registration, employment, and identification,
[and] are harder to trace and more likely to assume a false
identity.’” Meza-Rodriguez, 798 F.3d at 673 (quoting
Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d at 1170). Therefore, “the ban on
the possession of firearms by [unlawful aliens] is
substantially related to the statute’s general objectives
because such persons are able purposefully to evade detection
by law enforcement.” Id.

Finally, “the government has a[] strong interest in
preventing people who already have disrespected the law
(including, in addition to aliens unlawfully in the country,
felons, § 922(g)(1), fugitives, § 922(g)(2), and those
convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence,
§ 922(g)(9)) from possessing guns.” Id. Section 922(g)(5) and
other concurrent additions to § 922(g) “reflect[] Congress’s
judgment that persons within these categories ‘may not be
trusted to possess a firearm without becoming a threat to
society.’” Binderup, 836 F.3d at 390 & n.98 (Fuentes, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting
Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 572 (1977)).
“[T]hese restrictions . . . disarm groups whose members
Congress believes are unable or unwilling to conduct
themselves in conformity with the responsibilities of
citizenship.” Id. at 390–91.

In sum, the government’s interests in controlling crime
and ensuring public safety are promoted by keeping firearms
out of the hands of unlawful aliens—who are subject to
removal, are difficult to monitor due to an inherent incentive
to falsify information and evade law enforcement, and have
already shown they are unable or unwilling to conform their
conduct to the laws of this country. These important
government interests “would be achieved less effectively”
were it not for § 922(g)(5). Fyock, 779 F.3d at 1000.6
Accordingly, § 922(g)(5) survives intermediate scrutiny.

IV. CONCLUSION

The present state of the law leaves us unable to conclude
with certaintywhether aliens unlawfullypresent in the United
States are part of “the people” to whom Second Amendment
protections extend. Nonetheless, assuming that unlawful
aliens do hold some degree of Second Amendment rights,
those rights are not unlimited, and the restriction in
§ 922(g)(5) is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority.

AFFIRMED

The provisions relating to undocumented immigrants are gratuitous nonsense and no serious person takes them to be anything else. The law reads like one of those 'Which of the following DOES NOT BELONG' questions. You try to justify the existence of the law based on its existence. That's logical nonsense.

The government argues that it has important “interests in
crime control and public safety.” We agree. “The
[government] has the important government interest of
ensuring the safety of both the public and its police officers.”
Mahoney, 871 F.3d at 882 (citing United States v. Salerno,
481 U.S. 739, 748 (1987); Jackson, 746 F.3d at 965);see also
Binderup, 836 F.3d at 390 (“The stated purpose of the 1968
revision was to curb crime by keeping firearms out of the
hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of
age, criminal background, or incompetency.” (Fuentes, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part) (internal citations
20 UNITED STATES V. TORRES
omitted)); Meza-Rodriguez, 798 F.3d at 673 (“Congress’s
objective in passing § 922(g) was ‘to keep guns out of the
hands of presumptively risky people’ and to ‘suppress[]
armed violence.’” (alteration in original) (quoting United
States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681, 683–84 (7th Cir. 2010))).
These government interests are particularly applicable to
those subject to removal. “[T]hose who show a willingness to
defy our law are . . . a group that ought not be armed when
authorities seek them.” Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d at 1170. If
armed, unlawful aliens could pose a threat to immigration
officers or other law enforcement who attempt to apprehend
and remove them.

Further,“[unlawful aliens] often live ‘largely outside the
formal system of registration, employment, and identification,
[and] are harder to trace and more likely to assume a false
identity.’” Meza-Rodriguez, 798 F.3d at 673 (quoting
Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d at 1170). Therefore, “the ban on
the possession of firearms by [unlawful aliens] is
substantially related to the statute’s general objectives
because such persons are able purposefully to evade detection
by law enforcement.” Id.

Finally, “the government has a[] strong interest in
preventing people who already have disrespected the law
(including, in addition to aliens unlawfully in the country,
felons, § 922(g)(1), fugitives, § 922(g)(2), and those
convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence,
§ 922(g)(9)) from possessing guns.” Id. Section 922(g)(5) and
other concurrent additions to § 922(g) “reflect[] Congress’s
judgment that persons within these categories ‘may not be
trusted to possess a firearm without becoming a threat to
society.’” Binderup, 836 F.3d at 390 & n.98 (Fuentes, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting
Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 572 (1977)).
“[T]hese restrictions . . . disarm groups whose members
Congress believes are unable or unwilling to conduct
themselves in conformity with the responsibilities of
citizenship.” Id. at 390–91.

In sum, the government’s interests in controlling crime
and ensuring public safety are promoted by keeping firearms
out of the hands of unlawful aliens—who are subject to
removal, are difficult to monitor due to an inherent incentive
to falsify information and evade law enforcement, and have
already shown they are unable or unwilling to conform their
conduct to the laws of this country. These important
government interests “would be achieved less effectively”
were it not for § 922(g)(5). Fyock, 779 F.3d at 1000.6
Accordingly, § 922(g)(5) survives intermediate scrutiny.

IV. CONCLUSION

The present state of the law leaves us unable to conclude
with certaintywhether aliens unlawfullypresent in the United
States are part of “the people” to whom Second Amendment
protections extend. Nonetheless, assuming that unlawful
aliens do hold some degree of Second Amendment rights,
those rights are not unlimited, and the restriction in
§ 922(g)(5) is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority.

AFFIRMED

As sensible people know, it's all crafted bullshit. Illegals try to fly under the radar because of the gratuitous and ignorant laws that people as defective as you try to pass and promote. Then you want to brand them further for tthat alone. It's just more evidence of what a racist prick you are and how badly fucked up the subject laws are.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As was stated long ago, the law itself is the
> problem. No sensible person supports it. The fact
> that you goose-step along in favor of it is part
> of what marks you as a racist prick.


So, you support repeal of the 1968 GCA? Yup, you're a NRA shill.

As you try to ignore everything else factual regarding illegals, the facts are that the "racist" law originally was written and passed by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress with Johnson as President, was enacted long prior to any current consideration of illegal immigrants of any given origin, is not specific to any race, applies equally to all nonimmigrant aliens in all forms regardless of visa status, was further extended by the 110th Congress under Pelosi and Reid, sponsored by other prominent Democrats and supported by the vast majority of Democratic members in both houses, and has been repeatedly affirmed by the Ninth Circuit among with multiple other courts on bases completely independent of anything having to do with race.

Now in the face of these indisputable FACTS you can continue to make yourself look stupid by repeating your same appropriately titled vapid nonsense below.

Repetition is made necessary by your inability to comprehend the simple fact that sensible people are not racist pricks and hence disagree with your support for this badly misguided legislation.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Repetition is made necessary by your inability to
> comprehend the simple fact that sensible people
> are not racist pricks and hence disagree with your
> support for this badly misguided legislation.


Not "my" support.

Support by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress with Johnson as President, enacted long prior to any current consideration of illegal immigrants of any given origin, not specific to any race, applying equally to all nonimmigrant aliens in all forms regardless of visa status, further extended by the 110th Congress under Pelosi and Reid, sponsored by other prominent Democrats and supported by the vast majority of Democratic members in both houses, and repeatedly affirmed by the Ninth Circuit among with multiple other courts on bases completely independent of anything having to do with race.

Apparently "sensible people" includes only you and other ideologues who believe that illegals have some cloak of immunity from all US laws.

You’re just a low-life racist prick who thinks copy-and-paste is a big accomplishment. Sensible people do not support legislation based on counter-factual nonsense, and this is all you bring to the table.

It appears to be just him. If you notice, he appears to be all alone on his island of stupidity. I support many forms of gun control, including the one being discussed here. Refusal to support it is illogical and tantamount to not supporting harm reduction. It’s foolish.

Gratuitous nonsense is not a sound approach to any sort of problem.

Then it’s probably best for you to pack it in. Many here have refuted your nonsense, including your “you do not understand the political process” nonsense. With that singular comment, you cemented your status as a moron in that department. The House, where the bill in question began, is majoritarian. No need to compromise at all. There was no need to move it on suspension if they didn’t want to.

Your inability to understand the actual processes of politics is a critical failure. So is an inability to understand what the corrupt doings of a racist prick might look like.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your inability to understand the actual processes
> of politics is a critical failure. So is an
> inability to understand what the corrupt doings of
> a racist prick might look like.


Your obvious inability to process reality in the face of facts is the problem.

As shown above, the "corrupt doings" of the "racists pricks" are those within your own party spanning +50 years.

And the complete fallacy of your nonsense here is easily demonstrated by the question posed earlier. What are you suggesting otherwise? That illegal aliens, who as noted by the court are restricted on objective bases completely independent of race being "...subject to removal, are difficult to monitor due to an inherent incentive to falsify information and evade law enforcement, and have already shown they are unable or unwilling to conform their conduct to the laws of this country," should NOT be subject to enforcement of gun laws?

You're a tree stump.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your inability to understand the actual processes
> of politics is a critical failure. So is an
> inability to understand what the corrupt doings of
> a racist prick might look like.


This is an obvious deflection from your conspicuous and numerous failures, particularly as they relate to political knowledge and the legislative process. Further, your grasp of public policy is pretty shitty too. An all around F by most thinking folks’ accounts.

More empty babble deeply lacking in relevant context or meaning. Your copy-and-paste admin-level skills have taken you nowhere near the actual ebb and flow and give and take inherent in real-world political processes. Neither have you been able to detect or discuss the plainly racist prickiness of your desultory and derivative claims and positions. Sensible people will and do not pay any actual attention to you.

You are far from sensible and the attention of a nobody like you is irrelevant.

Section 131H: Ownership or possession of firearms by aliens; penalties; seizure and disposition

Section 131H. No alien shall own or have in his possession or under his control a firearm except as provided in section one hundred and thirty-one F or a rifle or shotgun except as provided in this section or section one hundred and thirty-one F [an exception for valid firearms competitors].

...

Any firearm, rifle or shotgun owned by an alien or in his possession or under his control in violation of this section shall be forfeited to the commonwealth. Any such firearm, rifle or shotgun may be the subject of a search warrant as provided in chapter two hundred and seventy-six.

The director of law enforcement of the department of fisheries, wildlife and environmental law enforcement, deputy directors of enforcement, chiefs of enforcement, deputy chiefs of enforcement, environmental police officers and deputy environmental police officers, wardens as defined in section one of chapter one hundred and thirty-one and members of the state police in areas over which they have jurisdiction, and all officers qualified to serve criminal process shall arrest, without a warrant, any person found with a firearm, rifle or shotgun in his possession if they have reason to believe that he is an alien and if he does not have in his possession a valid permit as provided in this section.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131H

Proof of Citizenship/Alien Registration: If you were born outside the United
States, you must submit your naturalization papers or evidence of citizenship if
derived from your parents. All other applicants born outside the United States
must submit their Alien Registration Card. If you have lived in this country less
than 7 years you must submit a good conduct certificate, or equivalent, from your
country of origin and two (2) letters of reference that certify to your good
character.

§134-2 Permits to acquire.

(e)... The issuing authority shall perform an inquiry on an applicant who is a citizen of the United States by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System before any determination to issue a permit or to deny an application is made. If the applicant is not a citizen of the United States and may be eligible to acquire a firearm under this chapter [exceptions for law enforcement and firearms competitors], the issuing authority shall perform an inquiry on the applicant, by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, to include a check of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement databases, before any determination to issue a permit or to deny an application is made.

624.719 POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY NONRESIDENT ALIEN.

A nonresident alien may not possess a firearm except to take game as a nonresident under the game and fish laws [with further specific restrictions set forth within]. A firearm possessed in violation of this section is contraband and may be confiscated.

§ 11-47-7. Possession of firearm by alien.

(a) No unnaturalized foreign born person who entered the United States in violation of the laws of the United States or, having legally entered the United States in a lawful manner, but now remains in the United States in violation of the laws of the United States, shall purchase, own, carry, transport, or have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm.

(b) When any person is charged under this section, the law enforcement agency bringing the charge shall, prior to arraignment, notify the United States Office of Immigration and Naturalization of the charge and further notify the court, at arraignment, of the alleged status of the person so charged.

The New York Times – the “paper of record” – reports that “Gun Research is Suddenly Hot.”

While we’re happy to see the Times has finally acknowledged that “gun research” can survive federal restrictions on taxpayer funded gun control advocacy, there are necessary caveats here.

The volume of “gun violence research” may be increasing, but the field has not been as neglected as the media would have you believe. The Arnold Foundation and the Rand Corporation have partnered on a research venture into firearm-related violence that to date has reviewed thousands of studies published between 2003 and 2016.

On the other hand, volume does not guarantee quality. Only 62 of these studies met the (entirely reasonable) criteria for inclusion in Rand’s synthesis of gun policy research.

Think about that, ONLY 62 of the thousands had any credibility. Which means not even Rand could stomach the stench of Bloomberg's Junk Science.

The Facts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The New York Times – the “paper of record”
> – reports that “Gun Research is Suddenly
> Hot.”
>
> While we’re happy to see the Times has finally
> acknowledged that “gun research” can survive
> federal restrictions on taxpayer funded gun
> control advocacy, there are necessary caveats
> here.
>
> The volume of “gun violence research” may be
> increasing, but the field has not been as
> neglected as the media would have you believe. The
> Arnold Foundation and the Rand Corporation have
> partnered on a research venture into
> firearm-related violence that to date has reviewed
> thousands of studies published between 2003 and
> 2016.
>
> On the other hand, volume does not guarantee
> quality. Only 62 of these studies met the
> (entirely reasonable) criteria for inclusion in
> Rand’s synthesis of gun policy research.
>
> Think about that, ONLY 62 of the thousands had any
> credibility. Which means not even Rand could
> stomach the stench of Bloomberg's Junk Science.


The Rand study mirrored the results of a similar study done by the CDC, in that gun-control DOESN'T WORD to reduce overall homicides or suicides. Here are some KEY FINDING:

There is moderate evidence that background checks reduce firearm suicides and firearm homicides, BUT limited evidence that these policies can reduce overall suicide and violent crime rates.

There is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase homicide rates BUT limited evidence that the laws increase firearm homicides in particular.

There is limited evidence that a minimum age of 21 for purchasing firearms may reduce firearm suicides among youth.

Along with all other sensible persons, I disagree with any law that seeks to impose gratuitous limits or conditions on the the rights or privileges of a person merely on the basis of being undocumented. It is possible of course that some unschooled racist pricks might view things differently.

Exhaustive study proves removing/banning guns has no affect on murder rates...

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/exhaustive-study-murder-rates-rise-every-place-that-bans-guns/

Just disarms the populace so they are easier prey. Death to liberals!!! They are the enemy of us all.

Along with other educated sensible persons, I disagree with any law that seeks to impose gratuitous limits or conditions on the rights or privileges of a citizen merely on the basis of feel good laws that have zero effects on criminals using an inanimate object. It is possible of course, that some brainwashed low IQ liberal might view things differently.

JUst to note that Constitutional rights and privileges apply to citizens, non-citizens, and any and all other persons within US jurisdiction. The above was plainly posted by an America-hater.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JUst to note that Constitutional rights and
> privileges apply to citizens, non-citizens, and
> any and all other persons within US jurisdiction.
> The above was plainly posted by an America-hater.


You are right. When I travel to another country I'm expected to follow their laws or be prosecuted for breaking them. I expect the same for anyone visiting our country, with would include the same passport and visa laws that I must follow when leaving and reentering the country.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JUst to note that Constitutional rights and
> privileges apply to citizens, non-citizens, and
> any and all other persons within US jurisdiction.
> The above was plainly posted by an America-hater.


Incorrect.

^^^ Dumb as they come.

Grade schoolers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^ Dumb as they come.


Even more incorrect.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JUst to note that Constitutional rights and
> privileges apply to citizens, non-citizens, and
> any and all other persons within US jurisdiction.
> The above was plainly posted by an America-hater.


Not all rights apply in the same ways. If actually you knew anything about the subject vs relying on your feely feels, then you'd know that's not what the courts have said with respect to gun rights even when considered in light of Heller.

And had you pulled your head out of your tight little ideologue ass and read the earlier posted UNITED STATES V. TORRES, then you'd know that the courts have decided that, even granting for the moment some level of such rights may exist, "...rights are not unlimited, and the restriction in § 922(g)(5) is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority."

Once again for Stumpy...

Quote

In sum, the government’s interests in controlling crime
and ensuring public safety are promoted by keeping firearms
out of the hands of unlawful aliens—who are subject to
removal, are difficult to monitor due to an inherent incentive
to falsify information and evade law enforcement, and have
already shown they are unable or unwilling to conform their
conduct to the laws of this country. These important
government interests “would be achieved less effectively”
were it not for § 922(g)(5). Fyock, 779 F.3d at 1000.6
Accordingly, § 922(g)(5) survives intermediate scrutiny.

IV. CONCLUSION

The present state of the law leaves us unable to conclude
with certaintywhether aliens unlawfullypresent in the United
States are part of “the people” to whom Second Amendment
protections extend. Nonetheless, assuming that unlawful
aliens do hold some degree of Second Amendment rights,
those rights are not unlimited, and the restriction in
§ 922(g)(5) is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority.

AFFIRMED

More dumbass deflection by the same old dumb-as-a-stick racist prick.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More dumbass deflection by the same old
> dumb-as-a-stick racist prick.


You're the one who's deflecting Old Stumpy.

You’ve lost all this ground before, you feckless toady. Sensible people have actually always owned all of it.

Nonsense... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You’ve lost all this ground before, you feckless
> toady. Sensible people have actually always owned
> all of it.

You two funny!!!!!

Almost there

Turn the page