Gun Control 2023 (V) - ATF Shenanigans, States Fight Back!

[Undemocacy]

We’re Americans. We have 141 guns for every person.

what do you mean "guns," they're called freedom tubes.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Australia’s firearms homicide rate was more or less entirely unchanged by the National Firearms Agreement, in fact it actually spiked after it became law before then returning to the same decades long trend it had been on before it was passed in the first place. Pointing to Australia as an example of gun control reducing violence doesn’t really work because it was both a non-violent place to begin with and because the numbers don’t support the assertion that it actually did anything.

here is a graph of fire arm homicides in Australia https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/comp ... gun_deaths

The NFA was first implemented in 1996 (however it was amended in 2017 before the small spike you seem to have been referring to), and if you look on the graph you will see that in following years the number of firearm homicides nearly halved.
link a site that states when it was first published and some extra details, https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/drugs-and-firearms/firearms

If that isn't evidence that gun control works, I don't know what is.

The decline wasn’t because of the NFA, your graph in the first link excludes a bunch of important data. The rate had already been falling since the 1960s with only the occasional spike here and there, we could certainly argue about if the NFA helped that trend continue but it was already going down regardless. I’m very familiar with all these numbers, I have a couple massive posts on the topic if you want me to go dig them up and quote them.

[Bayerischer Faschistenstaat]

We’re Americans. We have 141 guns for every person.

what do you mean "guns," they're called freedom tubes.

My bad, did you mean the screeching Eagle 47 with the extended mag, 12x zoom scope, and a suppressor?

[Undemocacy]

here is a graph of fire arm homicides in Australia https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/comp ... gun_deaths

The NFA was first implemented in 1996 (however it was amended in 2017 before the small spike you seem to have been referring to), and if you look on the graph you will see that in following years the number of firearm homicides nearly halved.
link a site that states when it was first published and some extra details, https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/drugs-and-firearms/firearms

If that isn't evidence that gun control works, I don't know what is.

The decline wasn’t because of the NFA, your graph in the first link excludes a bunch of important data. The rate had already been falling since the 1960s with only the occasional spike here and there, we could certainly argue about if the NFA helped that trend continue but it was already going down regardless. I’m very familiar with all these numbers, I have a couple massive posts on the topic if you want me to go dig them up and quote them.

Fun fact! There was smaller scale gun control legislation implemented at a state level prior to the NFA (including federal pressure to implement legislature similat to that in the NFA), which could explain the slow fall in gun homicides prior to the NFA's implementation.
However the fact that the rate of decrease in the rate of gun homicides increased significantly after the NFA's implementation is evidence that it likely contributed significantly to that change.
Also, It's late where I live, so I'm going to sleep.

[San Lumen]

I understand perfectly well. I asked you to provide evidence of red flag laws being abused.

That's not what I said.l said if a judge strikes down the law the Governor should call them out by name and say they clearly don't care about the people and would rather rule in favor of a minority that wants no gun laws at all.

This is clearly what we want for society - political strong arming of the judiciary.

Not at all what I said.

[Tarsonis]

This is clearly what we want for society - political strong arming of the judiciary.

Not at all what I said.

That is exactly what you said, the fact that it wouldn't amount to jack squat is irrelevant.

[San Lumen]

Not at all what I said.

That is exactly what you said, the fact that it wouldn't amount to jack squat is irrelevant.

No it isn’t. I don’t see what’s wrong with criticizing a judges decision or are they exempt from any scrutiny?

[Grinning Dragon]

That is exactly what you said, the fact that it wouldn't amount to jack squat is irrelevant.

No it isn’t. I don’t see what’s wrong with criticizing a judges decision or are they exempt from any scrutiny?

Yes you did.

I understand perfectly well. I asked you to provide evidence of red flag laws being abused.

That's not what I said.l said if a judge strikes down the law the Governor should call them out by name and say they clearly don't care about the people and would rather rule in favor of a minority that wants no gun laws at all.

The underlined is an emotional strong arm.
Are you under the impression that rulings should ignore constitutional enumerated protections?

[Grinning Dragon]

Nevada Governor Keeps Word, Vetoes 3 Dem. Gun Control Measures

As noted in a press release from Lombardo’s office Wednesday, Gov. Lombardo explained, “I will not support legislation that infringes on the constitutional rights of Nevadans. As I stated in my letters, much of the legislation I vetoed today is in direct conflict with legal precedent and established constitutional protections. Therefore, I cannot support them.”

[Tarsonis]

That is exactly what you said, the fact that it wouldn't amount to jack squat is irrelevant.

No it isn’t. I don’t see what’s wrong with criticizing a judges decision or are they exempt from any scrutiny?

There's a difference between public scrutiny and the Governor publically lambasting the judiciary for "not siding with the majority of voters.". The Judiciary doesn't exist to do the will of the voters, that's the legislatures job. The judiciary steps in when the legislature breaks the law.

[Tarsonis]

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/05/nevada-governor-keeps-word-vetoes-3-dem-gun-control-measures/Nevada Governor Keeps Word, Vetoes 3 Dem. Gun Control Measures

As noted in a press release from Lombardo’s office Wednesday, Gov. Lombardo explained, “I will not support legislation that infringes on the constitutional rights of Nevadans. As I stated in my letters, much of the legislation I vetoed today is in direct conflict with legal precedent and established constitutional protections. Therefore, I cannot support them.”

Link's broken, but nice to see a Governor put politics aside and stand up for the rule of law. I should buy a lottery ticket

[Grinning Dragon]

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/05/nevada-governor-keeps-word-vetoes-3-dem-gun-control-measures/Nevada Governor Keeps Word, Vetoes 3 Dem. Gun Control Measures

Link's broken, but nice to see a Governor put politics aside and stand up for the rule of law. I should buy a lottery ticket

Fixed.
https://www.ammoland.com/2023/05/nevada ... -measures/

Speaking of which. Here in Louisiana, there has been enough pressure from the voters to get the legislature to take back up the permitless carry ver.2.0 and is on the move again.
Those opposed to it keep bringing up the "training" which is nothing more than a money maker for police depts. What isn't really being pushed is the fact that here in Louisiana one can open carry willy nilly. So the push back against concealed permitless carry seems illogical.

[Galloism]

Australia’s firearms homicide rate was more or less entirely unchanged by the National Firearms Agreement, in fact it actually spiked after it became law before then returning to the same decades long trend it had been on before it was passed in the first place. Pointing to Australia as an example of gun control reducing violence doesn’t really work because it was both a non-violent place to begin with and because the numbers don’t support the assertion that it actually did anything.

here is a graph of fire arm homicides in Australia https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/comp ... gun_deaths

The NFA was first implemented in 1996 (however it was amended in 2017 before the small spike you seem to have been referring to), and if you look on the graph you will see that in following years the number of firearm homicides nearly halved.
link a site that states when it was first published and some extra details, https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/drugs-and-firearms/firearms

If that isn't evidence that gun control works, I don't know what is.

Boy, that graph really helps prove WRA’s point. It was on the decline before, and maintained about the same decline after, leaving the trendline basically unchanged.

[San Lumen]

No it isn’t. I don’t see what’s wrong with criticizing a judges decision or are they exempt from any scrutiny?

Yes you did.

I understand perfectly well. I asked you to provide evidence of red flag laws being abused.

That's not what I said.l said if a judge strikes down the law the Governor should call them out by name and say they clearly don't care about the people and would rather rule in favor of a minority that wants no gun laws at all.

The underlined is an emotional strong arm.
Are you under the impression that rulings should ignore constitutional enumerated protections?

You want zero gun laws whatsoever. Only a very small minority wants that so yes if a judge strikes down this common sense law in Minnesota they should be lambasted. Threatened? No.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yes you did.


The underlined is an emotional strong arm.
Are you under the impression that rulings should ignore constitutional enumerated protections?

You want zero gun laws whatsoever. Only a very small minority wants that so yes if a judge strikes down this common sense law in Minnesota they should be lambasted. Threatened? No.

If the law infringes upon an established state or federal constitutional right it doesn't matter what a minority/majority wants and the judge can only rule according to the enumerated constitutional law.

[Galloism]

You want zero gun laws whatsoever. Only a very small minority wants that so yes if a judge strikes down this common sense law in Minnesota they should be lambasted. Threatened? No.

If the law infringes upon an established state or federal constitutional right it doesn't matter what a minority/majority wants and the judge can only rule according the enumerated constitutional law.

Well, we would hope that anyway. It’s how it’s supposed to work.

[Tarsonis]

Yes you did.


The underlined is an emotional strong arm.
Are you under the impression that rulings should ignore constitutional enumerated protections?

You want zero gun laws whatsoever. Only a very small minority wants that so yes if a judge strikes down this common sense law in Minnesota they should be lambasted. Threatened? No.

"Common sense law". There's a contradiction in terms if I've ever heard one

[Stellar Colonies]

'Common sense' is such an arbitrary metric to use.

[Galloism]

'Common sense' is such an arbitrary metric to use.

Common sense would be great if only it were common.

[San Lumen]

You want zero gun laws whatsoever. Only a very small minority wants that so yes if a judge strikes down this common sense law in Minnesota they should be lambasted. Threatened? No.

If the law infringes upon an established state or federal constitutional right it doesn't matter what a minority/majority wants and the judge can only rule according to the enumerated constitutional law.

when you get what you want of zero gun laws whatsoever don't send thoughts and prayers. The blood will be on your hands because of attitudes like yours.

[Des-Bal]

when you get what you want of zero gun laws whatsoever don't send thoughts and prayers. The blood will be on your hands because of attitudes like yours.

Lumen's right we should absolve murderers.

[American Legionaries]

If the law infringes upon an established state or federal constitutional right it doesn't matter what a minority/majority wants and the judge can only rule according to the enumerated constitutional law.

when you get what you want of zero gun laws whatsoever don't send thoughts and prayers. The blood will be on your hands because of attitudes like yours.

When Lumen wants to prohibit thought and prayer too...

[San Lumen]

when you get what you want of zero gun laws whatsoever don't send thoughts and prayers. The blood will be on your hands because of attitudes like yours.

When Lumen wants to prohibit thought and prayer too...

Did not say that. You want to do it go ahead but its meaningless when your opposed to any and all gun laws.

[Juansonia]

If the law infringes upon an established state or federal constitutional right it doesn't matter what a minority/majority wants and the judge can only rule according to the enumerated constitutional law.

when you get what you want of zero gun laws whatsoever don't send thoughts and prayers. The blood will be on your hands because of attitudes like yours.

Shut the fuck up with this "blood will be on your hands" bullshit. Even if I wanted a gun ban in the United States, I would respect the law of the land enough that I'd repeal the Second Amendment instead of infringing upon the constitution (an act of treason).

It doesn't matter if an action has majority or even unanimous support. If it violates the constitution, implementing it is an open act of rebellion against the United States.

[Galloism]

When Lumen wants to prohibit thought and prayer too...

Did not say that. You want to do it go ahead but its meaningless when your opposed to any and all gun laws.

I mean, gun laws are like voting laws. They should be viewed with inherent suspicion, as we are both talking about a fundamental right, and history is replete with people making them to target specific groups of “undesirables” - African Americans, Irish, American Indians, Catholics at points, and especially targeted at the poor.

Which, incidentally, is still typically how they are used today.

Not all gun laws are illegitimate, but given the importance of the right and the extreme level of historical fuckery, you should approach any proposal with extreme skepticism.