• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden rails against access to assault weapons after recent spate of shootings

That is just 3 states and California is far more spread out than Florida plus Florida has many more elderly people because they are a retirement state.
Originally you asserted that 'states that didn’t mandate them [masks] ha[d] no more deaths per capita' than states that did, without any citation. The reality is that masked did help. But don't listen to me. Listen to the Mayo Clinic.
Can face masks help slow the spread of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.
 
Originally you asserted that 'states that didn’t mandate them [masks] ha[d] no more deaths per capita' than states that did, without any citation. The reality is that masked did help. But don't listen to me. Listen to the Mayo Clinic.
Can face masks help slow the spread of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.
All claims. If masks worked the states that mandated should have had dramatically less deaths but they do not in spite of your cherry picking.
 
Then prove me wrong. You can't. Crime using the banned weapons fell during the decade they were banned.
Sigh. You made the initial assertion, which is false and unsupported.

There were a lot of studies on the ban, and again, showed a negligible effect. That's why it was dropped. Worth noting that weapons that would be covered account for only a small percentage of homicides - most are from handguns.

But here are a few citations for you...

From the conclusion....
[qoute]However, other analyses using a variety of national and local data sources
found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that were thought to
be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons
and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The
ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident
of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds. [/quote]


From the summary
Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of nonbanned semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.
 
All claims. If masks worked the states that mandated should have had dramatically less deaths but they do not in spite of your cherry picking.
Show your work.
 
I provided you with direct access to his statement. You not wanting to read is your problem.
His statement doesn't say what you claimed it does. His statement was his own opinion.
 
So if all of those things are available in other weapons, a ban on that style (which reduced crime with that style of weapon during the decade it was banned) shouldn't be an issue.

Banning something for no good reason is always an issue.
 
I doubt it.
Oh I did and I am on my cell phone now and just found a site that shows masks increase infections and deaths. I don’t know how to link it from a cell phone.
 
Which Walmart shooter and based on what?
I was thinking about what he wrote
 
I was thinking about what he wrote

Did you expect that a (suicide?) note placed on his phone the day of the shooting was going to be found and flagged?

BTW, he wasn’t a gun owner until the day of his murders and suicide.
 
Did you expect that a (suicide?) note placed on his phone the day of the shooting was going to be found and flagged?

BTW, he wasn’t a gun owner until the day of his murders and suicide.
No, and I don't mean to come across as argumentative. Those around him noticed him being mean spirited and I don't doubt for a minute that he worried at least some. Calling attention to someone like that can't be easy, least of all because we don't expect something like that to happen near us.
The following isn't quite as eventful and the investigation hasn't completed but it shows that it can happen near you.
 
No, and I don't mean to come across as argumentative. Those around him noticed him being mean spirited and I don't doubt for a minute that he worried at least some. Calling attention to someone like that can't be easy, least of all because we don't expect something like that to happen near us.
The following isn't quite as eventful and the investigation hasn't completed but it shows that it can happen near you.

It shouldn’t be “easy” to get someone’s 2A rights removed.
 
All claims. If masks worked the states that mandated should have had dramatically less deaths but they do not in spite of your cherry picking.

Yes they do.
 
Yes, living in fear of something nobody i actually proposing must be tough.

Nobody talks more about ”gun grabbers” than gun nuts. They need to fear of imaginary “gun grabbers” to feed their fear and paranoia.
Is this some sort of word jumble?
 
Home defense? So the random shot that tears through the wall of your kids bedroom is appropriate.

Removing a weapon is not disarming the populace, how's your machine gun working?
Machine guns are fully automatic weapons, and pretty much banned already.
 
Then you haven't looked. I consistently support the 2nd, regardless of party...as I view and it's interpretation as a single voter.

Not "only" when Trump does it, but when he does it, and his supporters ignore it, then I call out the hypocrisy.
Strange because it has happened in this very thread and all you wanted to do was complain about trump.
Not a word about anyone else.
 
That’s where “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is stated. The better question is: why not focus on that?
The structure of text of the 2nd Amendment is what is known an "absolute construction". An absolute construction is a secondary clause in a sentence that modifies the whole meaning of the main clause. This is a type of grammar originating from Latin. The absolute construction can form the first or last part of a sentence. Such clauses are not linked grammatically to the main clause, but are linked thematically. In Latin, in which many of the writers of the Constitution, particularly Virginians such as Jefferson were very well versed, an absolute construction is known as an"ablative absolute". In Latin, the ablative absolute explains the reason for the independent clause that follows in the sentence. The two parts form one single thought. So it's telling us the reason why the founding fathers felt it was necessary to state the stricture; “... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So the more expected or modern language of of that clause might read as; “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” People who advocate an “originalist” approach to the Constitution need to understand the precise meaning of the words and grammar the writers of that document used in the 18th century. The two parts of the sentence cannot be separated, as they all too often are.
 
The structure of text of the 2nd Amendment is what is known an "absolute construction". An absolute construction is a secondary clause in a sentence that modifies the whole meaning of the main clause. This is a type of grammar originating from Latin. The absolute construction can form the first or last part of a sentence. Such clauses are not linked grammatically to the main clause, but are linked thematically. In Latin, in which many of the writers of the Constitution, particularly Virginians such as Jefferson were very well versed, an absolute construction is known as an"ablative absolute". In Latin, the ablative absolute explains the reason for the independent clause that follows in the sentence. The two parts form one single thought. So it's telling us the reason why the founding fathers felt it was necessary to state the stricture; “... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So the more expected or modern language of of that clause might read as; “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” People who advocate an “originalist” approach to the Constitution need to understand the precise meaning of the words and grammar the writers of that document used in the 18th century. The two parts of the sentence cannot be separated, as they all too often are.

That doesn't change who is in possession of the right.
 
That doesn't change who is in possession of the right.
Yes it does if your going to claim that it represented an individual right rather than a collective right.
 
Yes it does if your going to claim that it represented an individual right rather than a collective right.

It doesn't grant the right. It recognizes it.
 
The structure of text of the 2nd Amendment is what is known an "absolute construction". An absolute construction is a secondary clause in a sentence that modifies the whole meaning of the main clause. This is a type of grammar originating from Latin. The absolute construction can form the first or last part of a sentence. Such clauses are not linked grammatically to the main clause, but are linked thematically. In Latin, in which many of the writers of the Constitution, particularly Virginians such as Jefferson were very well versed, an absolute construction is known as an"ablative absolute". In Latin, the ablative absolute explains the reason for the independent clause that follows in the sentence. The two parts form one single thought. So it's telling us the reason why the founding fathers felt it was necessary to state the stricture; “... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So the more expected or modern language of of that clause might read as; “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” People who advocate an “originalist” approach to the Constitution need to understand the precise meaning of the words and grammar the writers of that document used in the 18th century. The two parts of the sentence cannot be separated, as they all too often are.

That (your?) argument had been presented to and was rejected by the SCOTUS on multiple occasions.

More often separated (typically at the state and local government level) are the 2A rights to keep and bear arms, much as if the 2A said to keep or bear arms.

Another common (modern) abuse of the 2A’s text is to assert that ‘military style’ guns or ‘weapons of war’ were not the topic of the 2A.
 
Yes it does if your going to claim that it represented an individual right rather than a collective right.
Funny how the people who actually helped with the writing of constitution disagree with you.

But I am sure you know what they meant better then they did.
 
Back
Top Bottom