- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 36,705
- Reaction score
- 17,867
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
So you are using anti-2nd amendment trash to make your case that Lott's works are not good.
Hahahaha
The National Research Council, a branch of the*National Academy of Sciences, convened a panel to study the effect of concealed-carry laws. Of the 16 panel members, 15*concluded*that the existing research, including Lott’s, provided “no credible evidence” that right-to-carry laws had any effect on violent crime.
Two economists, John Donohue of Stanford University and Ian Ayres of Yale University,*argued*that Lott had drawn inaccurate correlations: Cities had experienced a spike in crime in the 80’s and 90’s*not*because of strict gun laws but largely as a result of the crack epidemic. Further, when they extended their survey by five years, they found that*more guns were actually linked to more crime, with states deemed “right to carry” showing an eight percent increase in aggravated assault.
After reexamining Lott’s research, even researcher Gary Kleck, who had written the forward to Lott’s book, found serious flaws with Lott’s methodology and missing data.**Of Lott’s work, he said, “It was garbage in and garbage out.”
David Hemenway, the director of the*Harvard Injury Control Research Centerconcluded, “Virtually all of Lott’s analyses are faulty; his findings are not ‘facts’ but are erroneous.”
As scrutiny of Lott’s work increased,*Lott created an internet persona named Mary Rosh*who, claiming to be a former student of Lott, praised his work and defended his research.**Eventually, it was discovered that Miss Rosh and Lott shared an IP address.**Lott admitted to creating the persona.
So you are using anti-2nd amendment trash to make your case that Lott's works are not good.
I looked at the website about what they support. If Gary kleck supports any of that stuff then he is not pro-gun.It's not. You dont even know who he is!!!!!
This gets better and better. Lol
So kleck is second amendment trash?
Just say that. Lol
Does he support any of the policies in this website?
About - Safe Tennessee Project
Holy cow. You are hilarious.
He wrote the forward to Lott's book....and then he realized it was garbage. Lol
I take your none answer as a yes he does support those things on the website that you posted.
1) Unconstitutional-turns a guaranteed right into a privilege-worthless in preventing violent crime
You know what the word "Well Regulated" means right? The reason for the second amendment was due to the potential need for the country to form a militia and to draft civilian men to join it. If the government ultimately decides that fully automatic weapons wouldn't be necessary for such a militia then they would not apply.
By your logic there's no rational justification for banning Nuclear Arms either. Every idiot in Alabama should be able to just pick up an intercontinental ballistic missile at Walmart right?
Well that part is incredibly simple. Guns are a commodity. There is no customs or boarder patrol between states, therefore if one state wanted to ban any type of good whatsoever it would be virtually impossible since they could so easily be manufactured in one state and transported to the next. As a result, if enough states want those guns banned they have a right to vote in order to force the Federal Government to ban them.
That's the whole point of the Commerce Clause. This is basic Constitutional Law 101 pal.
Just another troll. Trying to get gun owners all fired up. Don't think I'll play. And you need to work on your trolling. Much too obvious.
You know what the word "Well Regulated" means right?
Luckily, the Constitution can be amended...
yeah, but I don't believe you can amend away a fundamental right. However, the FDR administration was too dishonest to do that, so their pet monkeys on the courts pretended that the commerce clause was actually a complete grant of any power congress wanted.
Sure we can amend it away... just get Congress to do so by vote. Done.
So now common sense is "trolling"! :lol:
Can't make this **** up!
sure you can,,,you've done a pretty good job of it so far.
It is the 'conservatives' now pushing for stricter ID and registration laws because of the false claim of voter fraud (a minuscule problem at best). These laws tend to affect African American, native american and Latinx communities.
Yet they will not tolerate stricter gun laws to address a huge problem: frequent mass shootings and tens of thousands of murders, suicides and accidents per year.
I say if the right cared about people's basic rights, they'd fight as hard for voting as they do for the AR-15. Of course minority votes are not quite the tool of white power that a good old Armalite is.
If that's how you feel, there's nothing else for us to discuss.
You know what the word "Well Regulated" means right? The reason for the second amendment was due to the potential need for the country to form a militia and to draft civilian men to join it. If the government ultimately decides that fully automatic weapons wouldn't be necessary for such a militia then they would not apply.
By your logic there's no rational justification for banning Nuclear Arms either. Every idiot in Alabama should be able to just pick up an intercontinental ballistic missile at Walmart right?
Well that part is incredibly simple. Guns are a commodity. There is no customs or boarder patrol between states, therefore if one state wanted to ban any type of good whatsoever it would be virtually impossible since they could so easily be manufactured in one state and transported to the next. As a result, if enough states want those guns banned they have a right to vote in order to force the Federal Government to ban them.
That's the whole point of the Commerce Clause. This is basic Constitutional Law 101 pal.
Sure we can amend it away... just get Congress to do so by vote. Done.
I am not saying I support any of these, but I want to know what you guys think of these proposals.
Proposal A - Treat guns like cars. You want to own a weapon, you need a license first and foremost. You then need to get your gun/s registered and renewed on a yearly basis.
Proposal B - Treat gun ownership like the drinking age or the ability to rent a car. Make the age to own a gun 21 years old or 25 years old. If an 18 year old, wants to go shooting, he or she needs to bring a parent or guardian or somebody of legal age.
Proposal C - Put a limit on the number of bullets a gun can fire. Gun manufacturers cannot sell guns in the U.S, if they surpass the legal amount.
Proposal D - Require all gun owners to take a psychological test every year. If you fail, you lose your guns.
Proposal E - Require all school security guards to carry around bean bag guns.
Congress can’t amend the Constitution. Only the States can. 3/4 of them.
That is what I meant. The exact process wasn't the point the point was that the constitution can be amended. Word. Thanks. Goodvibes.
The commerce clause lacks the authority to ignore the 2A.
You are priceless. And clueless. Lol
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?