CDC Gun Safety Studies

[Glitch]

Perhaps you should actually read the Court's Opinion by Justice Alito....near the end of section IV:
"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

I think that's quite clear that not all gun control laws are unconstitutional.

I think it is quite clear that all gun control laws are unconstitutional.

Where does the Second Amendment state that firearms can be restricted? Where does the Second Amendment state that firearms may only be carried in a manner that is approved by government?

The phrase "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment makes it very clear that individuals may keep and carry any weapon they please, in any manner they please, for any reason they please, without government interference. Nowhere does the Second Amendment restrict individuals from keeping and bearing arms, therefore any government restrictions are an infringement against our individual right and therefore a violation of the Second Amendment.

 

[Glitch]

I'm just not knowledgeable of when they replaced the judicial legislative and executive branches that make up the government.
So if the science is done by the private sector, what's the problem?

You apparently are not knowledgeable about a great many things.

The problem is government, picking and choosing what fits with their ideology. The EPA, for example, had to use numerous completely bogus private-sector sources to cherry-pick the science they wanted in order to violate Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) and create their illegal Endangerment Finding in 2009. The IPCC is another fine example of a government body manipulating and misrepresenting the science developed in the private sector to push their own ideological agenda.

 

[pinqy]

I think it is quite clear that all gun control laws are unconstitutional.

Where does the Second Amendment state that firearms can be restricted? Where does the Second Amendment state that firearms may only be carried in a manner that is approved by government?

The phrase "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment makes it very clear that individuals may keep and carry any weapon they please, in any manner they please, for any reason they please, without government interference. Nowhere does the Second Amendment restrict individuals from keeping and bearing arms, therefore any government restrictions are an infringement against our individual right and therefore a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court, and everyone with any amount of sense, disagree with you. No rights are unlimited.

 

[Glitch]

The Supreme Court, and everyone with any amount of sense, disagree with you. No rights are unlimited.

No they don't. You continue to confuse Heller with McDonald. Heller applied only to the federal government. The Second Amendment was not incorporated by the Supreme Court in 2008. We would have to wait another two years before the Supreme Court would apply the Second Amendment to the States.

That means every prior decision the Supreme Court made concerning the Second Amendment when it applied to only the federal government now applies to the States, making any State law that infringes on the Second Amendment illegal after 2010. That includes all concealed carry permits, or any kind of carry permit. It also unbans any firearm the States may have previously banned, and eliminates all firearm restrictions created by the States. As of 2010 the States may no longer infringe on the Second Amendment like they have since 1791.

 

[Casper]

Just one observation, bump stocks are already banned and it was trump that banned them.

 

[Glitch]

Just one observation, bump stocks are already banned and it was trump that banned them.

Executive Orders have no effect beyond the Executive Branch, and they certainly aren't law. Which means that bump stocks are not banned, Trump is an idiot, and you need a lesson in basic civics.

 

[Casper]

Executive Orders have no effect beyond the Executive Branch, and they certainly aren't law. Which means that bump stocks are not banned, Trump is an idiot, and you need a lesson in basic civics.

Bump Stocks | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Supreme Court leaves Trump bump stock ban in place - CNNPolitics

Think you need to learn to do your homework before posting foolish nonsense.:roll:

 

[Glitch]

Bump Stocks | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Supreme Court leaves Trump bump stock ban in place - CNNPolitics

Think you need to learn to do your homework before posting foolish nonsense.:roll:

I don't buy bump stocks from the federal government, do you? The people I buy my firearms and firearm accessories from have nothing to do with the government.

 

[Casper]

I don't buy bump stocks from the federal government, do you? The people I buy my firearms and firearm accessories from have nothing to do with the government.

I don't own a bump stock and have no need for them, they are useless as far as I am concerned, good gun control is the most efficient method of hitting your target quickly and accurately. I buy some firearms through the system and others through private sales. Meaning the ATF has some records available, though they don't know what I actually still own or don't, and with others there is no record at all.

 

[jimbo]

I wouldn't be against the CDC study because it would show that in most cases gun ownership doesn't result in death. I would think it was the pro-gun-control crowd that didn't want this to happen. An estimated 500 million guns owned by the population, 35000 deaths a year 2/3 of them being suicide. Do you have the third probably being a majority illegal possession of weapons.

I'm 100% for researching it I just don't think it will shut up the gun control proponents. Dunning-kruger effect and all.

Redundant research hoping for different results is what the CDC wants.

Shutting up the controllers with research will not happen. They are not interested in facts.

 

[pinqy]

No they don't. You continue to confuse Heller with McDonald. Heller applied only to the federal government. The Second Amendment was not incorporated by the Supreme Court in 2008. We would have to wait another two years before the Supreme Court would apply the Second Amendment to the States.

That means every prior decision the Supreme Court made concerning the Second Amendment when it applied to only the federal government now applies to the States, making any State law that infringes on the Second Amendment illegal after 2010. That includes all concealed carry permits, or any kind of carry permit. It also unbans any firearm the States may have previously banned, and eliminates all firearm restrictions created by the States. As of 2010 the States may no longer infringe on the Second Amendment like they have since 1791.

I cited McDonald which reaffirmed the decision in Heller that not all gun control laws are unconstitutional and that specifically concealed carry laws and prohibitions against certain people owning firearms and prohibitions against carrying in schools or courthouses or churches are NOT unconstitutional. Justice Alito was very clear in that. Do you need to read it again? “We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

 

[Noodlegawd]

I cited McDonald which reaffirmed the decision in Heller that not all gun control laws are unconstitutional and that specifically concealed carry laws and prohibitions against certain people owning firearms and prohibitions against carrying in schools or courthouses or churches are NOT unconstitutional. Justice Alito was very clear in that. Do you need to read it again? “We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

Apologies for butting in with a nit, but neither Heller nor Mcdonald stated that concealed carry laws are not unconstitutional.

 

[CLAX1911]

You apparently are not knowledgeable about a great many things.

well I'm not knowledgeable about when the CDC took over the country because I don't believe that happened.

The problem is government, picking and choosing what fits with their ideology. The EPA, for example, had to use numerous completely bogus private-sector sources to cherry-pick the science they wanted in order to violate Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) and create their illegal Endangerment Finding in 2009. The IPCC is another fine example of a government body manipulating and misrepresenting the science developed in the private sector to push their own ideological agenda.

I don't know climate-science seems a lot more open to error Earth and how many people died from being shot. And let's not forget the CDC already did this during the Obama administration, in the results were not favorable by the Obama administration.

To think that everything the government does is a conspiracy is to be a conspiracy theorist.

 

[CLAX1911]

Redundant research hoping for different results is what the CDC wants.

Shutting up the controllers with research will not happen. They are not interested in facts.

No it won't shut them up. But nothing ever will. Gun control isn't about controlling criminal activity it's about controlling everyone. They don't want to control criminal Behavior they want to control non criminal Behavior.

What it will do though those people on the fence come on get that man on our side so all you have is people that accept the science and lunatics that want to control your every move.

Instead of me saying doctors 500 million guns up there owned by the public out of those there's maybe 30,000 killings a year and out of those 30,000 killings 2/3 of them are suicide. And out of the 1/3 left it isn't suicide most of those are gang-related, will have actual factual numbers to back us up.

It's not so much what they do with the data but what the data is.

 

[pinqy]

Apologies for butting in with a nit, but neither Heller nor Mcdonald stated that concealed carry laws are not unconstitutional.

Explicitly? Perhaps not. But in affirming that the 2nd amendment rights had limits, Justice Scalia wrote in Heller that “For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues,” and he did not dispute that those laws were correct.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Explicitly? Perhaps not. But in affirming that the 2nd amendment rights had limits, Justice Scalia wrote in Heller that “For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues,” and he did not dispute that those laws were correct.

Yes, but in the very next sentence, he explicitly stated that he did not mean to exhaustively review the history of such prohibitions, and specifically left that out of the litany of regulations that some now say are "presumptively legal":

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos*ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 

[Glitch]

well I'm not knowledgeable about when the CDC took over the country because I don't believe that happened.

What planet where you on when Dr. Fauci was dictating terms? The CDC in effect did take over the nation, and made it even worse. As expected.

I don't know climate-science seems a lot more open to error Earth and how many people died from being shot. And let's not forget the CDC already did this during the Obama administration, in the results were not favorable by the Obama administration.

To think that everything the government does is a conspiracy is to be a conspiracy theorist.

The CDC never does anything favorable to any administration. To think that everything the government does is altruistic and in the best interests of the public is both intentional self-delusion and monumentally naive. Government exists to push an ideology, and they will use any means at their disposal to do so. It doesn't matter if they have to deliberately lie about the climate, or COVID-19, or any other topic. The goal is always the same, to push a specific political ideology. They don't give a damn about the people, and never have.

 

[Glitch]

Explicitly? Perhaps not. But in affirming that the 2nd amendment rights had limits, Justice Scalia wrote in Heller that “For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues,” and he did not dispute that those laws were correct.

You never did answer my question. Where does the Second Amendment give the government the authority to dictate how firearms should be carried?

Any firearm license or permit issued by any State is a direct violation of the Second Amendment. For 229 years the Second Amendment has prohibited the federal government from dictating how we should be carrying our firearms, but you suddenly think that it is okay for the States to intentionally violate the Second Amendment. Why am I not surprised?

There are no permits or licenses to exercise any other constitutionally protected right, and there shouldn't be any permits or licenses to exercise our constitutionally protected Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Those who seek to keep unconstitutional gun control laws are obvious seeking to ban all firearms.

 

[Glitch]

Yes, but in the very next sentence, he explicitly stated that he did not mean to exhaustively review the history of such prohibitions, and specifically left that out of the litany of regulations that some now say are "presumptively legal":

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos*ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

He also failed to indicate where he thought the government had that authority to do any of those things, because it certainly can't be found in the US Constitution. Before 2010 the States could, and regularly did, violate the Second Amendment with impunity because it only applied to the federal government. However, since 2010 the Second Amendment now applies to the States.

That means all State laws that intentionally violated the Second Amendment, like dictating how firearms should be carried, are now unconstitutional.

 

[CLAX1911]

What planet where you on when Dr. Fauci was dictating terms? The CDC in effect did take over the nation, and made it even worse. As expected.

well in the case of a novel infectious disease you would give it to the people who's the entire reason for existing is controlling the spread of infectious disease. I'm not saying doctor falchi is beyond reproach, but the CDC is made up of more than one person. What they should be doing in a situation like we had a few months back is advising, and that's what they did.

The CDC never does anything favorable to any administration. To think that everything the government does is altruistic and in the best interests of the public is both intentional self-delusion and monumentally naive.

I absolutely agree which is why I never said anything to even hint at the idea that everything the government does is altruistic.

Yes your strawman is monumentally naive 100% agree.

Government exists to push an ideology, and they will use any means at their disposal to do so. It doesn't matter if they have to deliberately lie about the climate, or COVID-19, or any other topic. The goal is always the same, to push a specific political ideology. They don't give a damn about the people, and never have.

I'm sorry I don't buy into this conspiracy theory it is absurd. The goal of the government is to govern not to push in ideology. That's religion.

pointing out that the government's goal is to govern is not saying that everything they do is altruistic, any more than you're saying the government is a conspiracy.

if you can quit talking past me and listen to what I say and respond to that then we can have a dialogue.

 

[Glitch]

well in the case of a novel infectious disease you would give it to the people who's the entire reason for existing is controlling the spread of infectious disease. I'm not saying doctor falchi is beyond reproach, but the CDC is made up of more than one person. What they should be doing in a situation like we had a few months back is advising, and that's what they did.

It is not the CDC's, or Dr. Fauci's, place to be determining anything with regard to public policy. That is why we elect politicians and do not appoint dictators. It is the purpose of the CDC to make recommendations, like any other government agency, and allow the elected politicians determine public policy. What does Dr. Fauci know about the restrictions the US Constitution places on government? He may be an undisputed expert virologist, but he does not know diddly-squat about constitutional law or protecting the rights of every American.

I absolutely agree which is why I never said anything to even hint at the idea that everything the government does is altruistic.

Apparently you don't agree since you are arguing that we blindly accept the propaganda the government is pushing. Everything the government does needs to be questioned, without exception. As have been said by others, "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

I'm sorry I don't buy into this conspiracy theory it is absurd. The goal of the government is to govern not to push in ideology. That's religion.

Of course it is a religion. Government is a secular religion. Ask any leftist. Government is their solution to absolutely everything. According to the mentally-deranged left, government is infallible and works miracles on a daily basis. All praise be to government!

pointing out that the government's goal is to govern is not saying that everything they do is altruistic, any more than you're saying the government is a conspiracy.

if you can quit talking past me and listen to what I say and respond to that then we can have a dialogue.

As you previously pointed out, governing it is a matter of control for the sole purpose of increasing government's power. Or didn't you mean it when you said, "[g]un control isn't about controlling criminal activity it's about controlling everyone. They don't want to control criminal Behavior they want to control non criminal Behavior"?

You were exactly right.

 

[Rucker61]

He also failed to indicate where he thought the government had that authority to do any of those things, because it certainly can't be found in the US Constitution. Before 2010 the States could, and regularly did, violate the Second Amendment with impunity because it only applied to the federal government. However, since 2010 the Second Amendment now applies to the States.

That means all State laws that intentionally violated the Second Amendment, like dictating how firearms should be carried, are now unconstitutional.

You should write Alito and ask him why he still allowed carry restrictions in McDonald. Write Kavanaugh to ask why he wrote in his dissent in Heller II:

"In*Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from*Heller's*protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after*Heller.)

Indeed,*Heller*largely preserved the status quo of gun regulation in the United States.*Heller*established that traditional and common gun laws in the United States remain constitutionally permissible. The Supreme Court simply pushed back against an outlier local law—D.C.'s handgun ban—that went far beyond the traditional line of gun regulation. As*Heller*emphasized: "Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District's" law. 554 U.S. at 629.

Under intermediate scrutiny, yet another problem with D.C.'s law is its tailoring. The law is not sufficiently tailored even with respect to the category of semi-automatic rifles. It bans certain semi-automatic rifles but not others—with no particular explanation or rationale for why some made the list and some did not. The list appears to be haphazard. It does not reflect the kind of tailoring that is necessary to justify infringement of a fundamental right, even under the more relaxed intermediate scrutiny test".

Write Roberts while you're at to it to ask why he's so wishy washy on the Second Amendment.

 

[CLAX1911]

It is not the CDC's, or Dr. Fauci's, place to be determining anything with regard to public policy. That is why we elect politicians and do not appoint dictators. It is the purpose of the CDC to make recommendations, like any other government agency, and allow the elected politicians determine public policy. What does Dr. Fauci know about the restrictions the US Constitution places on government? He may be an undisputed expert virologist, but he does not know diddly-squat about constitutional law or protecting the rights of every American.

which is why do you know the CDC have been nominated dictator of the United States they are doing their job by advising the president. the president decides whether he's taking the advice whether it's good or not because that's his job.

Apparently you don't agree since you are arguing that we blindly accept the propaganda the government is pushing.

I haven't argued that once I don't know why you would think that you would get away with such an obvious straw man but go ahead and straw man away.

Everything the government does needs to be questioned, without exception. As have been said by others, "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

and the only one arguing against this as some fictitious caricature you invented because you don't want to address my posts you want to fabricate strawman fallacies.

Of course it is a religion. Government is a secular religion. Ask any leftist. Government is their solution to absolutely everything. According to the mentally-deranged left, government is infallible and works miracles on a daily basis. All praise be to government!

I must have missed it when Donald Trump said that he is the light and the way and the path and the only way through salvation is through him.

But keep on your nonsensical rants about the left it really has no bearing on this conversation. you're not arguing against the leftist you're just arguing against someone who doesn't buy into your conspiracy.

if you want to judge everyone that disagrees with you is left then you are exactly like the left. And there is no real value in discussing anything with you.

As you previously pointed out, governing it is a matter of control for the sole purpose of increasing government's power. Or didn't you mean it when you said, "[g]un control isn't about controlling criminal activity it's about controlling everyone. They don't want to control criminal Behavior they want to control non criminal Behavior"?

You were exactly right.

Law is about control if you want to live in anarchy you're part of the wrong species.

It's like I'm talking to an antifa member.

The police are funded by the government, do you support defending them?

if all of the anti-gun control rhetoric is correct if the CDC research is it you have nothing to worry about you were freaking out because you don't believe it

 

[TurtleDude]

Party Platform - Democrats
https://www.demconvention.com/wp-co...020-07-21-DRAFT-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf
Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President

And any other previous Democratic hopeful for president's platform.

every person who was featured in any of the DNC debates for presidential contenders supported

1) assault weapon "bans"
2) universal waiting periods.
3) some form of registration
4) red flag laws


where they differed is some wanted confiscation of currently owned firearms while others wanted (its the same thing but a bit less draconian) forced buy backs, while Biden suggested current owners have to obtain a 200 dollar tax stamp and register every gun they own.

most of them supported allowing democrat mayors to sue gun makers when a criminal uses a gun in a crime

anyone who thinks the Democrat party is supportive of honest people owning guns is mentally incompetent

 

[Rucker61]

every person who was featured in any of the DNC debates for presidential contenders supported

1) assault weapon "bans"
2) universal waiting periods.
3) some form of registration
4) red flag laws


where they differed is some wanted confiscation of currently owned firearms while others wanted (its the same thing but a bit less draconian) forced buy backs, while Biden suggested current owners have to obtain a 200 dollar tax stamp and register every gun they own.

most of them supported allowing democrat mayors to sue gun makers when a criminal uses a gun in a crime

anyone who thinks the Democrat party is supportive of honest people owning guns is mentally incompetent

I still haven't figured out how Joe's NFA plan is supposed to work. Do they current owners retain possession while waiting for approval, or do they have to surrender then until approval? In any case, it would take years using the current process to put even the slightest dent in that backlog.