Only little dicked ineffectual nothing's think they need a gun for protection"
You're insulting a lot of black people with that post. Your post could almost be considered racist. I'm not saying you necessarily are racist, but many would consider your post to be racist.
A rise in hate crimes and anti-Black vitriol sparked a 58 percent increase in Black people purchasing firearms in 2020. The spike seems to have continued.
The 7 states with the most restrictive gun laws are all in the top 11 of most mass shootings since 1982. A mass shooting is defined as 4 or more people killed.
We have 40 years of data to show that preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying a legal firearm is not the answer.
Instead, we should be profiling potential buyers of firearms by the characteristics of the vast majority of school shooters. Profiling doesn't mean that they can't buy firearms; profiling means that they would be subject to a higher level of scrutiny before being allowed to buy firearms and the type of firearms would also be restricted. Specifically, the majority of school shooters are 1) Age 25 or under (over 90% of school shooters are 25 or younger) 2) On or previously on antidepressants... about 90% in one study I saw a few years ago, or 3) From a single parent household.
As a lifetime HCP permit holder, I'd support a bill restricting the gun ownership rights of individuals meeting even one of those criteria. Specifically...
I'd support limiting firearm sales to individuals age 25 and under to bolt action rifles, 4-round pump shotguns, and revolvers with no more than 6 rounds. No semiauto rifles or handguns could be owned because their capacity can be easily increased by adding high capacity magazines.
I'd support a bill requiring anyone under 25 with a history of taking antidepressants to pass psychological testing to buy a firearm.
I'd support a bill preventing a person under age 25 from a single parent household from buying a firearm from an individual. They could only buy from a gun store after a 90 day waiting period. They could only buy a bolt action rifle, a 4-round shotgun, or revolver.
You could make a similar argument about driving licenses, where I live a disproportionate number of serious accidents involve males 17-25. Something to do with the prefrontal cortex not being fully developed yet?
No. 2 and 3 on the list for mass shootings are Florida and Texas. Texas now has unlicensed open carry. The Uvalde shooter could not have been legally detained just because she showed up near a school with a rifle and a bag full of high capacity magazines.
Also, the NY USC decision cast doubt on whether states can restrict who can purchase a firearm and much of what you propose would be struck down by the new conservative majority on the supreme court.
I'm not an expert on Texas gun laws, but I believe the shooter could have been detained. Under Federal law, it's unlawful to carry within 1,000 feet of a school, unless you have a CCW permit or are authorized as law enforcement or similar.
Also, my state (TN, a very red state like Texas) has a "with intent to do harm" clause in its laws that would allow a person hanging out near a school with firearms to be detained until their intent could be determined.
One little known fact about the Uvalde shooting is that the door the shooter used was supposed to be locked. It was PROPPED OPEN by a teacher for some unknown reason. If the teacher had followed protocol, the shooter would not have been able to get into the school... or at least not through that door.
No. 2 and 3 on the list for mass shootings are Florida and Texas. Texas now has unlicensed open carry. The Uvalde shooter could not have been legally detained just because she showed up near a school with a rifle and a bag full of high capacity magazines.
Also, the NY USC decision cast doubt on whether states can restrict who can purchase a firearm and much of what you propose would be struck down by the new conservative majority on the supreme court.
I'm not an expert on Texas gun laws, but I believe the shooter could have been detained. Under Federal law, it's unlawful to carry within 1,000 feet of a school, unless you have a CCW permit or are authorized as law enforcement or similar.
Also, my state (TN, a very red state like Texas) has a "with intent to do harm" clause in its laws that would allow a person hanging out near a school with firearms to be detained until their intent could be determined.
One little known fact about the Uvalde shooting is that the door the shooter used was supposed to be locked. It was PROPPED OPEN by a teacher for some unknown reason. If the teacher had followed protocol, the shooter would not have been able to get into the school... or at least not through that door.
Later investigations showed the teacher had the door propped open, but did shut it after hearing the shots outside. However, the door failed to lock.
The shooter could have been taken down outside as he was firing his weapon outside the school, according to 911 calls.
Recent investigation revealed the door to the classroom wasn’t even locked and that the police even had a breaching device on hand. They also had a ballistic shield, yet still waited over an hour to go in. There could have, and should have, been many lives saved if police had responded appropriately.
That is the law. At least six (6) Supreme Court justices know how to read English. Liberals go home DEVASTATED.
Yup, and in America a person who decides he wants to blow away all his co-workers tomorrow, or kill his spouse with whom he is engaged in a contentious divorce, can easily and quickly get a gun to do it.
As a lawyer, I understand precedent and the meaning of the SCOTUS ruling. But it is worth noting that the language of the Second Amendment is not clear, and several decades ago the general consensus among legal experts was that the Second Amendment was not as broad as the SCOTUS now says that it is.
I'm not saying you necessarily are racist, but many would consider your post to be racist.
No, many would not.
I don't think you have been keeping up with how perceptive Americans are to racist comments. We no longer just check to see if someone is wearing a white hood and yelling specific racial epithets. Americans now understand racism can be indirect.
More and more black people feel they need guns for personal and home security. See the links below. The poster you are defending called them all "little dicked ineffectual nothing's." I don't see how you consider that comment to be anything other than racist in light of the known facts.
"All black people pretty much, we need guns to protect ourselves."
What does it take for Black Americans to feel safe right now?For some, it’s owning a gun. Even if that’s not something they may have ever wanted to do. In th...
I don't think you have been keeping up with how perceptive Americans are to racist comments. We no longer just check to see if someone is wearing a white hood and yelling specific racial epithets. Americans now understand racism can be indirect.
The post wasn’t racial and blacks don’t have a higher percentage of gun ownership. So, no, “many” are not as obtuse as you are trying to pretend.
Eh, maybe, kind of, a little bit. They could have been clearer on the Second Amendment, I suppose. No one is perfect. But the US founding fathers still did some incredible, ground-breaking things with respect to freedom, civil rights, enlightenment, ordered liberty (e.g., First , Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendments).
Compare the founding fathers of the US to the founding fathers of some sh!thole countries like, for example, Russia, Argentina, Libya, South Africa, Honduras, New Zealand or Iran. Those founding fathers (they seem to get new FFs all the time), seem to always botch everything. Terrible founding fathers in a lot of countries. Atrocious FFs.
Uh....the founding fathers owned slaves and women were not allowed to vote. They didn't do a damn thing about civil rights.
That is the law. At least six (6) Supreme Court justices know how to read English. Liberals go home DEVASTATED.
Yup, and in America a person who decides he wants to blow away all his co-workers tomorrow, or kill his spouse with whom he is engaged in a contentious divorce, can easily and quickly get a gun to do it.
As a lawyer, I understand precedent and the meaning of the SCOTUS ruling. But it is worth noting that the language of the Second Amendment is not clear, and several decades ago the general consensus among legal experts was that the Second Amendment was not as broad as the SCOTUS now says that it is.
So we can just say “general consensus” now with no proof?
“Since 1911, the state of New York has required individuals who would like to carry a concealed weapon in public to show a need to do so for the purpose of self defense and to require a license. More than a century later, the United States supreme court has chosen to strike down New York’s long-established authority to protect its citizens.” Advertisement Biden added: “As the late [conservative] Justice [Antonin] Scalia recognized, the second amendment is not absolute. For centuries, states have regulated who may purchase or possess weapons, the types of weapons they may use and the places they may carry those weapons. The courts have upheld these regulations. “I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety. Lives are on the line.”
I don't think you have been keeping up with how perceptive Americans are to racist comments. We no longer just check to see if someone is wearing a white hood and yelling specific racial epithets. Americans now understand racism can be indirect.
The post wasn’t racial and blacks don’t have a higher percentage of gun ownership. So, no, “many” are not as obtuse as you are trying to pretend.
I'm not sure you are correct about gun ownership percentages, and I'm not sure they matter. And as I pointed out to you, a post have to reference race to be racist.
The poster you are defending called all black people who own guns for personal and home security "little dicked ineffectual nothing's."
I'm 63, I've never had to defend myself in any way ever. No one has ever randomly broken into my house.
If no one carried guns, no one would need a gun for protection.
Your post reminds me of a joke told in Economics 101 back in 1975. Three people (a chemist, a physicist and an economist) were stranded on an island with only a can of beans. They were discussing the best way to open the can. The chemist said if we put it out in the sun, the can will heat up and there will be a chemical reaction and the can will explode and open. The physicist said it would be better to drop the can from a decent height and the force of the can hitting the ground would cause the sides of the can to move outward until the can opened. Naturally the economist disagreed and offered a solution. The economist said, "Let's assume we have a can opener..."
The post wasn’t racial and blacks don’t have a higher percentage of gun ownership. So, no, “many” are not as obtuse as you are trying to pretend.
I'm not sure you are correct about gun ownership percentages, and I'm not sure they matter. And as I pointed out to you, a post have to reference race to be racist.
The poster you are defending called all black people who own guns for personal and home security "little dicked ineffectual nothing's."
He called ALL people who own guns for personal and home security "little dicked ineffectual nothing's". And that "all" doesn't include a higher preponderance of blacks. How long are you going to try to continue this silly charade?
