Wow! I must have missed that. So you are stealth posting now? Look, you can try to be treacherous and sneaky with your posting, but when I have the time, I will eventually get back to you. Anyways, here's my response to your comments:
...Way to oversimplify the issue. You can continue to assume that two countries are identical in every regard with the exception of gun laws. It's a fallacious argument and you're willfully ignorant, or intentionally trying to mislead others by making it...
No, it isn't (oversimplified nor a fallacious argument), and if we are that different (as you believe), maybe we should be more like them since they have less gun deaths and gun violence in their societies. In actuality, we are not that different and if we were to adopt the same policies and laws, we would get the same result.
..I'm not religious at all. I do know, however, that the Bible supported the use of weapons in self defense. So, if I were a religious man, my support of gun rights would in no way be against that.
I wasn't suggesting you were. You just made reference to God and I gave my opinion. I Know what the bible says, but I still belive that God does not want us killing ourselves with guns. There are better ways to resolve conflicts than in that manner.
...Two points here. Your graphic flat out disproves your idea that so called "assault weapons" are used in tons of mass shootings. Revolvers and Shotguns are used more than "assault weapons." In addition, mass shootings are akin to freak incidents. They're
absolutely tragic when they happen, but to essentially take a proverbial dump on the 2nd amendment over such freak incidents while ignoring the broader issue is absolutely the wrong way to approach the situation...
I never said tons of mass shootings. I said they were the weapon of choice for mass shooters. In addition, they disproportionately kill more people than any other type of publicly used firearm.
...These quotes indicate otherwise: A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67] B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and
oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67] C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]...
First off, these are not the literal quotes from the Federalist papers. Secondly, most of the citations you posted were from Alexander Hamilton, who did not write the Second Amendment. That was drafted by James Madison and his intent can be seen in Federalist #10. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that there was an armed militia available to repel invasions and suppress insurrections and execute the Laws of the United States (as stated in the Constitution). It was not intended to foment rebellions (in fact it was a rebellion in Massachusetts that was led by Daniel Shays that had the Constitution and Bill of Rights written). In the same Federalist 46, which you have cited, Madison did state the the ultimate authority resided in the people, but it was intended to be in the form of elections (not rebellions).
...I own 2 Glocks, one of which being a Glock 23. Trust me, it's mostly metal. Glocks were never all plastic, no idea where you got that from. I would love to see you try to source this claim, because it is absolutely false...
Well, you can't own an all plastic one because
they were banned before they ever got manufactured for sale in the US. Let me correct myself. Back in the late 1980's there were news reports that Glock was going to make an all plastic gun (with a ceramic barrel) and
there was even a patent out for an all plastic gun, which inspired Congress to pass a ban on them.
...I'm just in denial? I have first hand experience with these things. You have videos that hardly support your claims, if at all. I'll go with my experience on this, thank you very much. If you have limited to no experience with firearms, you really are in no place to tell people what they can and can't use. I and others have refuted your outrageous claims on "deadly assault weapon features." There is really nothing more to be said here..
The camera doesn't lie (in this case), and you... I can only trust you as far as I can throw you (and that's a tough thing to do on the Internet). I have shown how deadly these so called sporting rifles can be and that is why they call out those features in the laws around the country. This is based on empirical data and not just one man's experience with his firearms. If there were no truth to it there would be no laws against it right now. Yeah, there is nothing more to be said about this and I am glad you agree.
...Where in the article does it say that a registry prevented the crime?..
Read the article again. It said that the gun that the suspects had was reported stolen. If they determined that it had to be registered with the police. Although possession of an illegal firearm is a crime the fact that they were able to apprehend the criminals and the weapon means that any future crime was prevented, and this was due to the fact that the weapon was registered.
...There really isn't. Major government agencies have already concluded that the last AWB didn't work. I don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp...
That's just a talking point. Once again it all depends on what you are measuring. It did affect overall crimes with assault weapons, and it was not necessarily intended to have the same result with overall violent crimes (something that is driven my more factors than just assault weapons). The agencies you are talking about have only stated the facts about violent crimes but if you look at the data, it definitely shows that crimes committed with assault weapons did go down.
...There are plenty of historical instances where major polling companies were way off. In addition, given the level of ignorance I've seen from people in general with regards to guns, most of which not being their fault due to the media misinformation that has been going on, it's no surprise that people have been railroaded into believing gun control actually works.
Certainly there are outliers and there is bad polling, but when several outlets come up with the same result and with 95% confidence, it more than likely is the case (and in this case) that people (and as well as most NRA members) want some positive and comprehensive gun control legislation.
