Es99...

I posted:

The Democrats, and The Left, are on the losing side. Regarding peoples wants and wishes.

Your response:

They also happen to be on the side of the American majority when it comes to gun control. If they are losing its because special interest groups such as the NRA want them to.

Again. You are incorrect.

A majority of Americans oppose banning assault weapons for the first time in more than 20 years of ABC News/Washington Post polls,

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-doubts-stopping-lone/story?id=35778846

Just another incorrect belief (wishful thinking) on your part.

BTW: My stating Inconvenient Facts. As opposed to Wishful Thinking. Doesn't mean acceptance.

(source)

Es99 is correct, sorry Clyde, the wishful thinking is on your part.

Also:

Washington Post wrote:

And even where support dropped between 2013 and 2015, clear majorities remained. People who supported an assault weapons ban fell from 69 percent to 63 percent. Banning large-capacity ammunition magazines went from 68.4 to 59.9 percent.

“The big picture shows Americans support these policies,” Barry said.

They just don’t support gun control in the abstract.

(source)

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Just watched a report about that militia in America on a BBC 4 program was called " world news

Looks like you spoke to soon a militia has form in some town in America protesting about guns .

So long as it doesn't effect us mite be good entertainment :-)

---

Just watched a report about that militia in America on a BBC 4 program was called " world news

Looks like you spoke to soon a militia has form in some town in America protesting about guns .

So long as it doesn't effect us mite be good entertainment :-)

For the people featured in the report it's a miracle that they are even able to use a gun . Must of taken hours of surgery to cut away the "webbing" between their fingers so they could get their finger on the trigger

This New Yorker article would disagree with you. And that a more substansive reason to ban people from having guns would be all people with a violent background including all those that have not been convicted but investigated for aggressive behavior.

Is There a Link Between Mental Health and Gun Violence?

As to the New Yorker, is anyone who commits suicide by murder not mentally ill? Perhaps time to revisit mental illness if someone doesn't think so.

---

I do believe we are seeing the first crack in HIPPA.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-gun-control-rule-mental-illness-217340

While the 1993 Brady law prohibits gun ownership by individuals who have been involuntarily committed, found incompetent to stand trial or otherwise deemed by a court to be a danger to themselves or others, federal health care privacy rules prohibited doctors and other providers from sharing information without the consent of their patients.

Under the rule, which takes effect next month, for the first time health providers can disclose the information to the background check system without legal repercussions.
...
Since the Newtown shootings, the number of mental health records submitted to the FBI system has tripled to more than 3 million records, according to an analysis by Everytown for Gun Safety, a group promoting an end to gun violence. The FBI system resulted in more than 6,000 denials of firearm purchases because of mental health criteria.

---

bobby...

You fail to understand the foundation of my answer.

As far as I can tell the foundation is one poll in over 20 years about the regulation of "assault weapons"?

Gun Control, has been dismissed by the American People. This Dismissal of Gun Control, AKA: attempted Gun Confiscation. Or severe restriction regarding 2nd Amendment Freedoms. Must be understood by those having a belief in Left Wing Dogma.

Some necessary,and Limited Gun Restrictions are, of course, understood by the same people.

'The People' appear to be much more sophisticated and intelligent, regarding this matter, than The Left.

What evidence do you have that, when polled, interviewees had the same understanding as you regarding the terms "gun control" vs "gun restrictions"?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

This New Yorker article would disagree with you. And that a more substansive reason to ban people from having guns would be all people with a violent background including all those that have not been convicted but investigated for aggressive behavior.

Is There a Link Between Mental Health and Gun Violence?

As to the New Yorker, is anyone who commits suicide by murder not mentally ill? Perhaps time to revisit mental illness if someone doesn't think so.

A Permit-to-Purchase (PTP) law, where a potential purchaser can be refused a permit to buy a gun, was enacted in Connecticut, while a similar law was rescinded in Missouri. This study estimated a 15.4 percent reduction in firearm suicide rates and a 9.2 percent reduction in overall suicide rates associated with Connecticut’s PTP law. Missouri’s PTP law repeal was associated with a 17.6 percent increase in firearm suicide rates and a 16.3 percent increase in overall suicide rates.

(source)
Do you believe that rates of mental illness are influenced by whether a state has a PTP law?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Do you believe that rates of mental illness are influenced by whether a state has a PTP law?

The Definition of Mental Illness, is fluid.

Will all Mental Illnesses, be used as an excuse to deny Individuals their Freedoms?

If not... Which ones?

Who, in a Medical Field, where there are many disparate opinions... Decides?

Most importantly... Who appoints The Deciders?

Politicians? Ideologues? Corrupt Power? Who?

Since Power and wannabe Controllers, tend to use a mental illness diagnosis as opposition to their Power, Ideology, Dogma, and their Mentally Ill need to Control.

We must, for the sake of our freedoms. Be very, very, very, careful.

It's not at all clear the suicides were reduced as a result of people being denied a PTP, it could be that the process of having to apply for a permit created a sufficient delay for the individual concerned to rethink their intended course of action.

WRT Gary's earlier comment "Finally if you look at the real numbers you will find that gun death by suicide is the only category which is going up. If some nut blows his own brains out to society as a whole that is not a terrible outcome. It is only if the nut decides to take others with him that society has a negative outcome. Perhaps the solution is to legalize suicide, go to the pharmacy and get your suicide pill."

John Donne wrote:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bobby, as global warming is real, isn't one less nut on the planet, from a carbon belching highly industrialized country, a plus to the rest? So John Donne is correct, just not in the way you expected. Never mind the entire premise of the Darwin awards.

---

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God define the Unalienable Rights, the first three of which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I would hold that allowing large numbers of the population to own and carry guns is against these three Unalienable Rights.

Oregon militia threatens showdown with US agents at wildlife refuge

I have a few questions about this.

1) Wild life refuge? Really?
2) Is it really ok to defend your right to burn down public land with assault weapons?
3) What would the reaction be if these people were black or muslim?

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/01/07/infighting-over-oregon-militia-takeover-reveals-deep-divisions-among-%E2%80%98patriots%E2%80%99

Conspiracist radio host Alex Jones took that speculation to the next level, claiming on his daily show that the Oregon standoff was actually the work of agents provocateur who had supposedly swindled the Bundys into taking this course of action.

“Guaranteed provocateurs are showing up and other things are happening, the whole Soros group is saying, ‘Here are our white terrorists, here are our cowboy-hat wearing terrorists,’ it gives them the backdrop they need, they want to start a civil war,” he told his national audience.

He went on: “Ladies and gentlemen, don’t let Obama be successful when it comes to starting civil unrest and riots in this country. They will use that as a civil emergency to bring in a type of soft martial law.”

---

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God define the Unalienable Rights, the first three of which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I would hold that allowing large numbers of the population to own and carry guns is against these three Unalienable Rights.

WinterKnight...

Doesn't matter what you, or I believe.

The Individual Right to Possess Firearms. Is now Settled Constitutional Law.

The only Lawful and Constitutional 'Solution'. Is to either Amend, or Revoke, the 2nd Amendment.

Hi Clyde,

I am not disagreeing with you, but merely extending your remark with a few of my own.

Very true... under the Constitution. But... good luck getting 2/3rds of the members of each house of Congress to agree to propose the Amendment, followed by 3/4ths of the State Governments to ratify it... The process was designed to be very difficult for a reason.

The Unalienable Rights (granted by Nature and Nature's God) of which WinterKnight quotes is not from the US Constitution, but instead from the Declaration of Independence, not that it matters.

These rights are not given to us by some old piece of paper or even the idea of the words written on them.

These rights are ours by virtue that we exist and CANNOT be signed away.

As Descartes said in his Discourse on the Method (1637),

je pense, donc je suis

We think, therefore we exist...
We exist, therefore we have these Unalienable Rights.

Life... We have the right to our lives, and the right, even the duty, to defend our lives by any means necessary.

Liberty...
The OED wrote:

The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s behaviour or political views

The pursuit of happiness...
Free use of ourselves and our property in a way that brings us happiness.

WinterKnight is incorrect in his statement. But then, it is an understandable error...

WinterKnight is apparently confusing the phrase 'security of person' present in several other declarations of human rights. 'Security of person' does not mean 'freedom from being killed by someone else'. It means 'freedom to kill someone else that is trying to kill you'.

You want to disarm the People of Texas?

Those wishing to disarm the State of Texas, raise your hand.
Those wishing to disarm all citizens of the USA, raise your hand.

Those wishing to love a tool, please speak with the Lt. Governor of Texas. I for one love pencils and spoons.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

A tool? Pencils and spoons?

Can you say something that makes sense?

The first step to another disastrous genocidal maniac is to take away the means of the people to protect against another genocidal maniac.
How about reading something that makes sense from the *governor* of Texas?

http://gov.texas.gov/files/press-office/Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf

So, you wish to have the Governor speak and not the Lieutenant Governor?
What do you not understand?
See about 2 minutes in to the video.
Do you deny cars, hammers, pencils and spoons are tools? (Do you have trouble seeing why I have chosen to include these particular examples?) Do you deny that a gun is a tool?
DO YOU LOVE YOUR TOOLS?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State. (Note: We are 50 states, not one state.)

Unnecessary, Congress does not do it and has no authority to do so.
Reality check, there are no longer any activities that occur wholly within one State. Heck an e-mail you send to the next town over very likely runs through several states and possibly the international border. Not even farming as the farmer very likely got the seed from another state, the tractor from another, the diesel to run it from another. Don't even think of all the states that get involved in the manufacture of the chemicals in a hunk of plastic! Then there is that pencil and paper used to write the order down! We are no longer a horse driven cart society.

II. Require Congress to balance its budget. (A broke nation is a failed nation.)

Screw a balanced budget, just set the debt ceiling at hard limit percentage of GDP. Give them a little wiggle room or the "budget" will be worse vapor ware than what we have now. After all for a "budget" they can invent any revenue figure they want knowing full well it is fiction high on acid. GDP is a lot harder to play with.

III. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law. (That's always been unconstitutional.)

They don't. Law is published in the United States Code. Agencies publish in the Code of Federal Regulations. There is a difference between law and regulation.

IV. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law. (That's also always been unconstitutional.)

Federal law in the areas that the constitution delegates to the federal government trump all state/local law. Same for regulations. That is what the constitution says and means. If not, then go back to the Articles of Confederation and see how well that works out!

V. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. (This would send a strong message to the SCOTUS that they are *not* the final say in supporting a dictator on his way to fundamentally changing our governing system.)

It already exists, just is 3/4 of states.

VI. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. (No more 5/4 decisions which fundamentally change this nation because of a currently stacked court.)

And no law at any level can take effect until SCOTUS reaches a 7/2 or better decision.

VII. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. (Re-affirms the 10th amendment in this day and age.)

Won't change a thing. Now repeal the commerce clause and the 14th amendment and you will get your change, oh and then Obama really will be a dictator!

VIII. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds. (The ruling class is *not* above the law.)

They do now. Just very few State A/G's would survive the instantaneous recall effort for wasting the state's funds.

IX. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation. (Again, the ruling class is *not* above the law.)

Already exists but it is 3/4's.

---

bobby...

Understand I did not specifically refer to the PTP Laws. Just Gun Restriction Laws in general. It does appear that repeal of PTP Laws, correlated with an increase in Gun Homicides. There may be other factors involved, of course.

PTP Laws, or a 'Cool Down' period, may be in everyone's best interest.

But... Any restriction, regarding a present Fundamental Right. Must be done very carefully, and lawfully. Not as a pretext to advance a Gun Confiscation Agenda.

The American Culture, which includes 200,000,000 guns. Will, as is its prerogative, given to them by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". Defend Their Rights, against any Illegal and Unconstitutional attempt to abrogate them.

Since Individual Ownership of Guns, is now a Settled Constitutional Right:

Should the Gun Confiscation people wish to win. They will have to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

BTW: Defending your Rights. Given to you by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". Also applies to the 1st, 5th, and all other Constitutional Amendments.

Defending your Rights, given to you by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". Also applies to the entire Constitution of the United States of America.

bobby...

Disagree?

Probably.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Those wishing to disarm the State of Texas, raise your hand.
Those wishing to disarm all citizens of the USA, raise your hand.

There being no raised hands, the measure fails.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Those wishing to disarm the State of Texas, raise your hand.
Those wishing to disarm all citizens of the USA, raise your hand.

There being no raised hands, the measure fails.

Wasn't a relevant question to what was proposed, so no wonder there are no raised hands.