Answers to U.S. gun violence in communities, not Washington: experts

Answers to U.S. gun violence in communities, not Washington: experts

Yeah, we tried that. And the Republican answer was to create a individual's right to bear arms.

The problem is that the pro-gun people see ANY study of gun violence or ANY gun safety measures [no matter how sensible or life saving] as one step to gun confiscation.

Truth is Joe,

I do want to confiscate their guns.

Well, not really. I just want to confiscate any guns they have that can in any way carry more than 10 rounds, and can fire automatically. Further, I want to take away their ability to carry a handgun anywhere in my city.

Black SabbathJan. 27, 2016 - 07:40AM JST "Answers to U.S. gun violence in communities, not Washington: experts" Yeah, we tried that. And the Republican answer was to create a individual's right to bear arms.

The Republicans did this in 1791?

D.C. v Heller. (2008)

And the Republican answer was to create a individual's right to bear arms.

The 2nd amendment has always set out the individual's right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has ruled on this and agreed. Are you going to cherry pick Supreme Court rulings or will you admit that your side needs to create a new amendment to overrule the 2nd?

I do want to confiscate their guns.

And who do you expect to do the confiscating? Certainly not yourself, I can bet that much. If you think deporting 11 million illegal immigrants is unrealistic, try confiscating half a billion firearms.

and can fire automatically

Automatic weapons are very difficult to legally acquire and their use in crime is virtually non-existent. Same can be said of semi-automatic rifles, considering that 90%+ of gun crime is committed with handguns.

The 2nd amendment has always set out the individual's right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has ruled on this and agreed. Are you going to cherry pick Supreme Court rulings or will you admit that your side needs to create a new amendment to overrule the 2nd

The 2nd Amendment, written in 1791. The D.C. --Heller decision, in 2008.

That's some serious back the future stuff you got going on there, pal.

No, the truth of the matter is a mere generation and a half ago, conservative justices on the Supreme Court thought the notion of an individual right to bear arms a silly notion. You can believe whatever you wish. But that don'gt make it the truth.

Gun fanatics lured movement conservatives, beginning in the 1970s, to see things their way. It has been amoungst the most radical change in how we understand the constitution since in the past 50 years.

No, the truth of the matter is a mere generation and a half ago, conservative justices on the Supreme Court thought the notion of an individual right to bear arms a silly notion. You can believe whatever you wish. But that don'gt make it the truth.

Again, hilarious of you to cherry-pick Supreme Court decisions like this, as if the opinion of previous Supreme Court justices is at all relevant to the modern law. You know I could turn this around on you and say that a mere generation and a half ago, liberal justices on the Supreme Court thought the concept of same sex marriage to be a silly notion. You sound like a bigot to me. The people want same sex marriage, legalized drugs, and the right to bear arms. Liberal fascists like you need to get with the times. It's 2016 - and you're on the wrong side of history.

Washington DC has very high amounts of gun crime, so it makes perfect sense that these politicians are choosing to do nothing about it. These same politicians also control the financials of Washington D.C. -so if anyone was to do anything about gun crime in their own city it is the politicians of Washington DC.

Yes, local efforts are very important but to make a real difference for everyone and anyone living anywhere in the United States it is up to Washington to help remedy and hopefully cure a seeming uncurable disease which is only getting worse with no 'end' in sight. An America, without its epidemic of gun violence, would be a truly wonderful place to live. Unfortunately, this may only be a dream.

Gun control must begin at the national level, yes, in Washington. The current piecemeal approach hasn't worked very well. Some places have strict gun controls and other places do not. The result is that the gun death rate in the U.S. is at epidemic proportions. Here in Japan we have very strict gun control. Yet we also have a hunting culture. A person here has to prove he or she needs a gun and that he or she is qualified to handle it without hurting anyone or themselves. That was be reasonable in the U.S, as well as national law.

There is no answer. American culture is violent. Thugs and gangs rule inner cities. People behind the wheel are aggressive, impolite and become enraged at the drop of a hat. Hollywood fuels the fire with violence heaped on violence. The relentless drumbeat of war and idolization of the military adds to the socialization of gun violence.

Let's face it, America loves its gun battles and it isn't going to end.

...as if the opinion of previous Supreme Court justices is at all relevant to the modern law.

Kinda is, actually, as long as their rulings remain standing. That's why you can no longer engage in human chattel. Legal opinion does reflect existing social mores, though - just ask non-natural born citizen Ted Cruz (in his particular case, at least).

"Answers to U.S. gun violence in communities, not Washington: experts"

Got it. And in which communities are there the highest amount of recorded gun violence? Answer: the places where there's the strictest gun control laws, that's where. It's a fact.

And which party runs said highest gun crime areas? Invariably, it's politicians from the anti-gun/pro-gun restrictions Democratic Party who are running the show. And way, way up on top of the pile, towering over all others by presiding over the worst multi-year spate of non-stop gun violence in his city's history, is the self-proclaimed "Godfather" of Chicago, Barack Obama's former Chief of Staff and Best Buddy, Mayor "Rahm-bo" Emanual!

You can't handle the truth!

Black Sabbath - The 2nd Amendment, written in 1791. The D.C. --Heller decision, in 2008.

No, the truth of the matter is a mere generation and a half ago, conservative justices on the Supreme Court thought the notion of an individual right to bear arms a silly notion. You can believe whatever you wish. But that don'gt make it the truth.

The U.S. Bill of (individual) Rights was created in September of 1789. The U.S. Bill of (individual) Rights was ratified December 15, 1791. All ten Amendments in the BOR are rights of an individual, while the U.S. Constitution defines the government.

In the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, the court held that the Second Amendment does protect an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.