Good and Bad

Status
Not open for further replies.
To the OP. The thing is while BG checks might not be the biggest inconvenience in the world and doesn't really keep anyone that can legally buy a gun from doing so you must realize gun control is a war of attrition. And BG checks are low hanging fruit. When they pass and the next mass shooting still happens they'll be asking for something else. Make no mistake the goal is no more guns in civilian hands, but something like that can't be passed overnight.
 
First, in regards to post #89.

Your analysis is that the only benefit of the NCIS system is the 135 convictions. Is that accurate?
Click to expand...
My analysis of the 2005 NICS data revealed that the sum total of NICS rejections was less than 2% of all attempted transactions (131900 rejections in total), that the ATFE considered prosecution of 14% of the Federal rejections, and that less than 2% of the potential prosecutions resulted in an actual conviction for violation of a Federal firearms law of some type. Of those 67k Federal rejections, almost 10k (extrapolated) were later adjudicated to have been in error. The number of rejections that were in fact erroneous but not appealed (and therefore not identified as erroneous) is unknown.

The primary effect appears to be that 131k potentially prohibited persons were unable to get a firearm by known legal means, and that 135 of those folk were 'convictable' of an offense related to their effort to obtain a firearm. The second order effect is that almost 10k people were proven to have been incorrectly denied a Constitutional right, to some end unknown. The effect of these rejections upon the use of guns in the commission of a violent crime is not reflected in any measurable reduction in violent crime between, say, 2005-2007, and cannot be inferred or intuited at the macro level. The number of NICS rejected individuals that subsequently obtained a firearm illegally is unknown (unless you accept the Federal data that I suggested and extrapolate an inverse or find State level alternatives). The number of rejected individuals that obtained a firearm and used it in the commission of a violent crime is similarly data constrained, as is the number of instances of the use of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in which the firearm was legally obtained.

That represents what I think is knowable.

I suppose that my macro conclusion is that the actual measurable benefit is the 135 prosecutions, weighed against close to 10,000 incorrect denials of a Constitutional right. Any other benefit that might have accrued from the NICS rejections is unmeasurable and subject to speculation UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT OR PRODUCE DATA SHOWING THE STATISTICAL LINK BETWEEN A NICS REJECTION AND A SUBSEQUENT AND PROSECUTABLE ILLEGAL PERSONAL TRANSFER.
 
Last edited:
We have a fair number of small states with 2 Senators each and a conservative electorate.
These guys know they will not get elected if they contribute to further erosion of 2A.
Once you get beyond the Northeast, Chicagoland, and California, the rest of the US is pretty gun friendly. The machine politicians have proven their complete inability to maintain law and order in the major cities in the aforementioned regions, and where there is a relatively low crime rate (N.Y.C.) this is with a tremendous offsetting reduction in civil liberties/personal freedom. I believe this is why Federal legislation has not been forthcoming. There has been a lot of unhelpfull rule-making and administrative hassle for the average gun store/gunsmith/small manufacturer. This has not yet destoyed the Second Amendment. I do not think compromise is the way to go here. I am afraid many silent gun owners do agree with our original threadstarting member.
 
Not long ago, I used to think along the lines of the OP. After the Sandy Hook shooting, I had a foolish hope that there would be a rational discussion of the root causes of the shooting and solutions to prevent similar events in the future. Then came the same old laundry list of gun control proposals that either did not work in the past, or had nothing to do with the shooting.

I have realized that the anti's are not willing to give up anything in a compromise, so I feel that we should not offer to give anything up. The only way I would consider supporting anything would be to get something big in return.
 
Be any part of seizing my guns, or denying me access to more, and you are just another of Big Bro's thugs, which you definitely don't want to be if push comes to shove!
 
Gun owners have flexed enough. It has been the gun owner who has had to put up with laws prohibiting ownership of type guns in some cities. Or the federal ban on misunderstood class 3 weapons and attachments. It's funny how hunters in many European countries, even England, require the use of suppressors while hunting. This even though they don't allow general ownership of many firearms by the mass public.
I too used to think no big deal. BG check don't make that much difference, I don't need a 30rd mag, why own an ar style rifle? That was before I saw what was really going on. Having lived in Ca most of my life I did not know any better. Once I moved to a rather gun friendly state I saw the light. I will not acquiesce to these ineffective laws any more. Not without getting involved. My rights are way more important than someones feelings.
 
Existing federal firearems law has been consistently successful in doing only one thing: Infringe on the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Time to start over.

Here is a reasonable compromise on gun control. Repeal all federal firearms laws currently on the books, returning us to status quo ante 1934. Then, once we have a level playing field, lets talk about reasonable, common-sense, and Constitutionally compliant policies to deal with real problems.
 
You go through all that analysis and explanation but completely ignore the primary purpose and benefit of mandatory background checks at FFLs.

Prohibited persons with felony can't buy guns at FFLs. Criminals know it, so they don't attempt (as indicated by your data) to buy guns at FFLs. This is the deterrent effect of the law. The purpose of NCIS and background checks is NOT to catch criminals trying to buy guns. it is to prevent criminals from buying guns at FFLs and it seems to be doing a darn good job of it.
 
Sam1911 said:
Quote:
However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution. For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today. Nor could they envision the complex issues of mental health and random shootings we are experiencing today including gang violence.
Ahh, the fallacy of "extraordinary times." It is often hard for people to see beyond the few short years they themselves have been paying attention to the goings-on of the world and understand that a) there is really nothing new under the sun, and b) the founding fathers certainly DID write a governing document for the ages -- to stand in all times and under all conditions.

Because they understood history far better than you do. They were students on a level that is hard to adequately describe to most folks today. They were educated in history, philosophy, comparative government, civics, and the good and bad of mankind from a very young age and continued that constant study and exploration through the founding of our nation and beyond. These were men who founded universities and, not to put too fine a point on it, donated THE Library of Congress from their own private collections. Stop and think about that before you elevate yourself to imagine that you understand the world better than they.

So no, they didn't see an assault rifle. But they understood the harm -- and the good -- that free men with military weapons could do, and chose to write the 2nd Amendment.

No, they didn't see a television or the internet. But they understood the harm -- and the good -- that free men with the ability to communicate to large numbers of people could do, and chose to write the 1st Amendment.

Quote:
Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level.
Baloney.

Quote:
A few, to me good, and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period.
So you are for universal background checks, AND are actually FOR registration of firearms?

Let me put this clearly: I am 100% opposed to these things in every way. It seems clear that you must have seen every argument against them and failed to understand their importance. If that's going to be your direction, I wish you failure in your efforts, and know that I'll fight you and those you support every single inch of the way. "May your chains set lightly..." as one of those old dead guys you know better than once said.

Quote:
The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls at the Federal level without endangering the Second Amendment
Simply a self-refuting idea. The best way to stop endangering the 2nd Amendment is to repeal GCA'68, and then the NFA'34. That would get us back to 'sanity' because it would put an end to the "object control" distraction that blinds so many to the real problems and solutions of crime and danger in society.

Quote:
... these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level. Some will be bad, some will be in the right direction in denying firearms to the wrong people.
Whoops. There it is again. A LAW that "denys" a firearm to someone who shouldn't have one. We don't usually pretend around here that someone who would HURT or KILL another human being (and what other reason would we have for denying someone a firearm?) will not commit a grave malum in se crime because they're stymied by a minor malum prohibidum crime?

"I won't steal a car, because to do so I'd have to steal a set of keys, and that's bad"...?

"I won't KILL someone because having a gun would be against the law..." Doesn't make sense, when you actually stop and think, does it?

Quote:
My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level.
We already have a quilt-like pattern of laws -- that's the whole federal system, don't you know? -- and the rather unsurprising fact is that the VAST majority of states have decided to have NOTHING to do with the silliness you're advocating.

You seem to be saying, "enact some bad laws, federally, or we'll end up with some bad laws in some states." That hardly makes sense, and isn't a strategy that's worth a plug nickle. Fight. That's the strategy. Fight here, fight there, fight everywhere, and make ... EVERY SINGLE INCH they take cost them dearly in political blood and tears. Just like 2013 saw after Newtown. Let them fight as hard as they can and dash their political capital on the rocks of our resolve and strength! Yeah, they'll make a little splash here or there (NY, CT, CO) but it will cost them their (political) life's blood to buy those tiny victories, and they'll inevitably lose some of that ground they bled for (again, see CO).

Quote:
Resistance to change will cause states to enact firearm laws which in the long run will erode the Second Amendment because good and bad bills will be passed. We are seeing this today.
Horse pucky. Resistance to change NATIONALLY will be backed up by resistance to change in the STATES. That's what we're seeing now. Yeah, of course they'll TRY. That's only to be expected. And every time they FAIL, they crawl away weaker than before. Gun control is a losing proposition and its old guard is dying and retiring and fading away. They're spending the last gasps of life on fruitless attempts. It is a HAPPY thing to watch.

Quote:
If we want to keep our rights to bear arms then we also need some flexibility relating to firearm control. I'm not a legislator or a lawyer I'm an RN. Security of firearms needs to be tightened to prevent children from getting killed every year.
The rates of gun accidents already the lowest ever continue to fall despite more guns being in private hands than at any point in the history of any nation. This is a red herring.

Quote:
Denying firearms to those who should not have them needs to be addressed. One firearm death is one too many.
Oh, jeeez. The "one is to many" tripe? You never took a statistics class, did you?

Quote:
A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws.
Oh, we can believe it. You or your pals used to say, "what honest man needs a handgun, or an AR-15?" And, "As long as they don't take my duck gun..." The friend of my enemy is WHO, again
Click to expand...
Damn, shootthebreeze, you may as well pack up and go home because you just got OWNED. :D
 
Don't budge on any firearm related right, for if they can gain an inch, they will try and take a mile the next time around.

My greatest fear is not that the government will suddenly invoke extreme laws that strip us of every right, but that these rights will slowly deteriorate, so that no one notices, and no one fights it....
Remember, put a frog in boiling water and it will jump out, but if you can slowly turn up the heat, then the frog is fried....
 
Felons can buy all the guns they want at FFL's, if they will first spend the money to get quality fake ID.
 
Pizzapinochle said:
...Convinced of this, the whole country stripped that one minority group of ALL their rights. Yes, guns were included in that, but it wasn't a general gun control campaign for all of Germany...
Click to expand...
*Whew* So,it was only the 6 million murdered Jews who had their gun rights stripped. Because of your enlightenment, I'm sure their families and the Jewish community at large will now have a much more positive take on the Holocaust. :rolleyes:
 
shootingthebreeze:
I barely skimmed over the original comments. I request your patience, if these three question have already been asked:
How would a new bill, which requires the seller in each new private gun sale to undergo a background check, actually Force criminals and other gun thieves/fences to Also undergo a background check?

Are many of the people who choose to comply (in any US state) with such a new law the people who commit the vast majority of gun crimes?

We already have thousands of gun laws on the books. If violent criminals already complied with those laws, even just the spirit, they would not be violent criminals, would they?

Is it clear that one of the objectives of federal bureaucracies and many politicians is to simply increase control over Everything?
This is how they justify their titles, growing payrolls paid for by taxes, and larger budgets.
Only one example: the ATF has made many random and very arbitrary decisions in order to use Exert such random control at their whim, to justify its huge size and appetite for more power (this can increase its budget). And people want it to have even More power....but when did career criminals care about this?
 
Last edited:
shootingthebreeze said:
Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level. A few, to me good, and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period.
Click to expand...

And exactly what do you believe such a private-party background check law would accomplish? As a lifelong shooting enthusiast and a career police officer, I'm telling you that most criminals acquire their guns illegally. Most are stolen, and the ones that aren't are still going to be sold illegally, irrespective of any law to the contrary.

Instead, such a law makes it very difficult to buy or sell guns even with good intentions. Colorado went that route this year, and it's a huge nuisance for gun owners. First, I have to find someone who is willing to transfer the the firearm (an FFL). Most aren't willing to do so because they don't want to have to deal with it… the issue as it was explained to me by a local FFL is that to complete this transaction they have to transfer the gun to the store's ownership, then run a background check on the other party, then transfer it to that person. But, if the person wanting to buy the gun fails the background check, the store then has to charge a background check fee to transfer the gun back to the original owner, and redo the paperwork to transfer the firearm again. While this rarely happens, many shops just don't see a reason to incorporate these transfers into their business model.

Beyond that, the parties wishing to exchange the gun still have to pay whatever transfer fee the FFL wants to require ($50+ in many cases), along with the state mandated background check fee ($10). So, suddenly buying a used .22lr for $100 isn't practical, as that gun now costs $160. That's not even to mention the fact that this ridiculously bureaucratic process has still done NOTHING to stop the illegal acts of violent criminals. THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE.

As for your mention of registration, that's just a bad idea overall… whether you're talking of a "one time registration" or a "re-registration". Frankly, it's nobody's business to know what firearms I own. I recognize that you disagree with me on this point, but before you decide to dig your heels in for that argument, I'd challenge you to answer this one question:

What possible purpose does registration of firearms serve other than to facilitate the ability of some entity in a position of authority to someday take those firearms away from you?

Now, in considering that question, please also consider the actual purpose and scope of the 2nd Amendment in the first place, and the reason that it was included in the Bill of Rights (hint: it isn't about hunting, recreational shooting, or any other similar activities. It isn't even about home defense).

I'm honestly not trying to pick on you here, and I can sympathize with your questions. At one point in my life (in my younger years) I was starting to believe that the "reasonable restrictions" group had it right. Then I later realized that those who are most loudly seeking "reasonable restrictions" aren't trying to be reasonable at all… they're mostly anti-gun activists who are trying very hard to rid our country of all guns, piece by piece, by taking just as much as they can possibly get at any one time.

Here's a scenario for you to consider in two different ways:

You buy an AR-15 from an acquaintance, which is arguably the most popular and commonly purchased rifle in America these days. Ownership of this firearm fits clearly within the definition that any reasonably scholar would see in the 2nd Amendment, and this ownership would also be supported by the "common use" explanation that was included within the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heller v. District of Columbia.

Scenario 1:

You live in a state with no gun registration, and no person-to-person background check requirement. At some point in the future the government decides to outlaw your AR-15, which you legally purchased and never used for any unlawful purpose. This new law does not contain a grandfathering provision, and simply outlaws your firearm (this has happened in some states already). You decide to keep your rightfully owned property, in spite of the law. What happens? Nothing.

Scenario 2:

You live in a state with mandatory gun registration, and mandatory background checks for person-to-person sales. At some point in the future the government (Federal or state, your pick) decides to outlaw this firearm, which you legally purchased and never used in any unlawful way. You decide to keep your rightfully owned property. The state later serves you an official letter that essentially orders you to turn over this property, or face criminal charges. Since your gun is registered, there's no escaping this attempt to take your gun; you either turn it in, or lose your freedom.

Now, I'll admit that I have a great appreciation for the law-abiding people in this country (I'm in law enforcement, after all). So, I can understand if you might say "well, I wouldn't keep my gun if it was unlawful to do so". That's fine, and I'll leave that up to your personal discretion. But, assume that the above-mentioned scenario was playing out in a different time in our nation's future, with more severe political implications. Lets assume that this scenario is playing out at an unfortunate time in our future where our government has failed to serve its citizens properly, and has begun to usurp power well beyond the authority that our citizens ever intended to give it. Assume we've started to fall into the quagmire that Germany did in the 1930's, or any other country has just before a civil war. Now, imagine that you are at this critical point (perhaps only point in our nation's history where the 2nd Amendment has actually mattered), and you are about to be forcibly disarmed. This hypothetical (and seemingly far-fetched scenario under today's America) is probably one of the biggest arguments for avoiding gun registration, at least if you value the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. Clearly our country isn't in that situation at the moment, but there's no guarantee that we won't possibly find ourselves in that situation at some point in the future.

Keep your rights intact, and don't let the anti-gun crowd convince you that we're making things safer by putting restrictions upon lawful gun owners.


EDITED TO ADD:

As for your concern about new laws constantly being introduced, I'd argue that the way to counter this trend is not through appeasement. Here in Colorado we recalled three sitting state senators who failed to protect our rights during the last legislative session. In this state's entire history there had not been even a single successful recall of a state lawmaker prior to 2013, and three legislators fell in that year alone (Giron, Morse, and Hudak), all due to their desire to restrict our gun rights. We didn't give them an inch, they still tried to take from us, and I think they'll think long and hard before they try this again. I also think there will be a wind of change sweeping through the state legislature during the next election cycle.
 
Last edited:
Prohibited persons with felony can't buy guns at FFLs. Criminals know it, so they don't attempt (as indicated by your data) to buy guns at FFLs. This is the deterrent effect of the law. The purpose of NCIS and background checks is NOT to catch criminals trying to buy guns. it is to prevent criminals from buying guns at FFLs and it seems to be doing a darn good job of it.
Click to expand...
Ah - now we get to the meat of the matter. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act tries to prevent prior convicted felons and other such prohibited people from buying guns at FFLs, based upon the assertion codified by law in 1968 that these kinds of folk could not be trusted with guns.

One data point that suggests that the underlying premise is faulty is the Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics. Examining the violent crime rates from 1961 (the start of recorded data) through 2012 shows that we're currently enjoying the same murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate as was enjoyed prior to 1968. In fact, if you look at the curve (as many have done), I will suggest that the single biggest needle swingers in the violent crime rate in general and the rate of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter specifically has been the War On Drugs and the economy. There is no possible way at the macro level to correlate the govermental policy disallowing convicted felons, as an example, access to firearms with any actual change in behavior, e.g. reduction in the rate of violent crime. Public policy with no observable benefit IN DATA is bad public policy, and calling it 'common sense' doesn't make it any less bad.

The Federal data that I cited and that you rejected suggested, among other things, that the vast majority of violent felons convicted of Federal felony charges were prior (non-felonious) offenders. That might suggest that the GCA 1968 definition of 'prohibited person' is itself fundamentally flawed, and that in fact a better check might be for a multiplicity of prior offenses rather than a singular felonious offense.

But it gets worse. The War On Drugs suddenly made a whole new class of non-violent felons out of drug users, all of whom are denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, all without any direct causality between violent crime and their use of recreational pharmecuticals. The War On Domestic Violence is currently doing the same, via treatment of misdemeanor DV convictions (which are unevenly defined across the states) as disqualifying events. The next step is the War On Mental Health, knocking on our door as we speak, in which more money will be spent trying to re-define the approriate level at which somebody is defined as a danger to themselves or others for the purposes of removing the constitutional right the keep and bear arms (instead of, you know, actually spending the money expanding treatment options).

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/25/vermont-woman-held-against-will-in-psych-ward-ordered-released/

And, in the end, cutting off one source of supply of contraband simply causes those desiring the contraband to seek other means - lawful purchases become unlawful purchases, but the purchases do not magically stop. The source of supply for the contraband is completely orthogonal to the underlying root causes of the harmful behavior. Despite Prohibition, for example, people did not stop drinking. Despite the WoD, people didn't stop using recreational pharmaceuticals. Despite having defined almost EVERYTHING as contraband, I can still buy drugs, sex, and dang near anything else that I want inside a prison. And this gets the point that Sam and others have tried to make - there is no way to change human behavior by regulating objects, and allowing the Government to try at it simply causes unintended effects that are usually quite harmful to the governed. Asking the Government for safety by labeling as contraband the tools that can be used for destruction is historically a fools errand. It never achieves its goals (behavioral modification within the society) and it disrupts or prevents constructive use of those same tools.

The reason that the NICS statistics and the Federal prison data and other datapoints are useful is to allow us to look at the dynamics of the public policy and its primary and secondary effects. After all, public policy is supposed to be about balancing the rights of the individual against the needs of the many. In the US, the rights of the individual are carefully enumerated in the Constitution to ensure that, at no point in the future, do the needs of the many drown out the innate 'natural' rights of the individual.

In my opinion, the NICS check has shown no actual societal benefit - measured not by the number of denials, since I consider that an effect of unknown actual value, but by having actually made the streets safer via correlation between the premise that felons should not have guns and a reduction in crime committed by prior felons. On the other hand, it has been shown to have a very real harm to many folk.

Why would I want to further and expand that public policy?
 
Last edited:
^^^^^^ is a very good post from a content perspective and well written. Your conclusion is pithy and weighty. I hope you are an active spokesperson in the RKBA movement.
 
ngnrd said:
I agree with most of what you said. But, I have to disagree with this idea. States should independently regulate the right to keep and bear arms as much as they should independently regulate slavery, segregation, or religious freedom. The free and legal exercise of Constitutionally protected human rights should not depend on where you live.
Click to expand...

In theory you are correct. But you also have to realize that control to some degree will be exercised for just about all of your "freedoms". I have 1A freedom of speech but if I post something against the rules on this forum it disappears. Have my constitutional rights been violated because what I posted was censored? I would have to say yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened and I don't think the supreme court is going to hear my case. Mormons believe polygamy should come under the heading of religious "freedom" but in all states it's illegal. In some states it's a felony.

In the real world all of these freedoms that you claim you are supposed to have don't exist. Some of them haven't existed for a very long time. Do you honestly believe that the fed is going to give you the "freedom" of owning a firearm if you are a convicted felon. It doesn't say anything in 2A about convicted felons, it just says you have a RKBA.

So all of our real freedoms evolve with the passing of time. I legally carry a concealed weapon. My grandfather couldn't. 2A says you have a right. The fed and your state will define that right. The only thing you can do is vote and see if you can out spend the folks that want to define your right differently. The constitution means very little, it's about time and money these days.
 
Last edited:
The first paragraph of your post is invalid. Your 1st Amendment rights do not apply here because this is private property. Rights are only protected from government infringement. Wither you like it or not Constitutional right do not come into play between private parties.
 
RPRNY good post and thank your good points.
I'm still reading the posts and again thank you all for expanding on the subject in a civil way which actually helps me understand this very complex issue. The Second Amendment is not complex is says in clear language what is complicated is our society and the changes within it since the Second Amendment was written.
 
I didn't cite Kellerman, I cited a publication of the APA that has a quote from Kellerman in it.

The NRA HAS worked to suppress research into gun injuries and gun violence. This is not some wild conspiracy theory, it is something the NRA is proud of and the congressman who authored the bill has said he was working "as the NRA’s point person in Congress."

The truth is, the NRA does not want there to be any research on gun violence. They don't think they would like the results, so they try to prevent it.

Also, if the CDC is "junk science," then I guess we need to scrap most everything they have taught us about disease prevention, workplace safety, causes and prevention of car accidents, treatment for traumatic injuries, food safety, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

You only disagree with the CDC on the one issue you have a passionate emotional attachment to, other than that you probably never give them a thought and would have no problem with 99.9% of what they say.

THe .1% you disagree with probably has more to do with YOU than the quality of the CDC's science.
Click to expand...
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that everything the CDC did was junk science. Although if you consider what they stoop to in politicizing this one issue, it does make one think about what else might be questionable.

Their darling, Arthur Kellerman, produced several "studies" to support the CDCs agenda that all guns are bad and need to be gotten rid of. Kellermans MO is cherry picking data sets (certain cities/time frames/etc), confusing correlation with causation, ignoring any data that does not support his thesis, making apples and oranges comparisons, and it seems, sometimes just making things up (we don't know because he doesn't like to release his data for review).

Is that what passes for quality research?

http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots

So the NRA successfully helped push the defunding of dishonest studies in the instance you referred to. Anything else to support your statement that they don't want ANY research? They seem to like the work of Gary Kleck, Joyce Lee Malcolm and others who stand up to peer review scrutiny much better than the likes of Kellerman.
 
The Second Amendment is not complex is says in clear language what is complicated is our society and the changes within it since the Second Amendment was written.
Click to expand...

Why apply that to the 2nd Amendment only?
The 1st Amendment is not complex either but now we have radio, television and the internet. Should freedom of speech not be applied to those. After all, the founding fathers couldn't foresee that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act Passes House. SENATE HEARING TOMORROW 4/24
2 3
Replies
58
Views
4K
CZguy
C
S
  • Locked
Bye, Representative Godfrey to Introduce Package of Firearms, Ammunition Laws
Replies
21
Views
2K
gbw
G
wally
  • Locked
Good news for TEXAS
Replies
1
Views
371
GEM
G
M
  • Locked
This IS the Law
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Macmac
M
C
  • Locked
What is a level action?
Replies
1
Views
482
Joe Demko
J
Back
Top