States with strict gun laws found to ...

States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths

There are 5075 comments on the Reuters story from Mar 7, 2013, titled States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths. In it, Reuters reports that:

States that have more laws restricting gun ownership have lower rates of death from shootings, both suicides and homicides, a study by researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University found.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#5650 Jun 27, 2013
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>If.. You don't want you're comments taken apart don't make them? Simple really, but then you're the little boy whose comments always are wrong.
Exactly.

So......."You're" comments?

You ARE "comments"?

It should be YOUR, DUMBASS.

Go back to grade school English, little teabagger.

Must have went to one them fine Chicago private schools.

Taught you some good lernin'.

Poor teabagger.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5651 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
The 2nd Amendment did not become outdated as a result of jet aircraft, RPGs, or tanks. It became outdated as a result of standing armies, the National Guard, and police and sherriff's forces, not to mention the FBI, which protect us from attack from abroad and crime and insurrection here at home.

'A well regulated Militia no longer being necessary to the security of a free State, the 2nd Amendment right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall hereby be repealed.'

Let's vote!:)
Oh, you mean the same standing army, National Guard, and government agencies that would enforce the tyranny of the government that pays them?
Yeah, that makes sense! Priceless!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5652 Jun 27, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>DC v Heller;

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

Repeated for emphasize;

"...the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Nicely done!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5653 Jun 27, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>if you want to piss off the gun grabbers the District of Columbia v Hellers is meaningless and is a deflection because District of Columbia v Heller SCOTUS case dealt with Washington DC which is a Federal Enclave and is not a state which is why the Ruling had no affect on rest of the US on rights of Federal Enclaves dealing with the US constitution, and the case you want to drive into the gun grabbers or the Anti 2nd amendment loons head is the 2010 SCOTUS case of McDonald v Chicago which pretained to the states and is what incorporated the 2nd amendment down to state and local level.

McDonald v. Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas. The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments. It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.

Amendment II

Right to keep and bear arms

This right has been incorporated against the states.

See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
Actually, anytime you mark US Citizen on a government document, application , or questionnaire, you are stating you are subject to the law of DC. Most people do not realize that.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5654 Jun 27, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>How about the Declaration of Indepedence? I think it makes the point on the intent of what those that forsook all they had to engage in a battle for liberty:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.(Today's SCOTUS)

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.(EPA, IRS, DHS and the list goes on. BTW, translate eat out substances as TAXES)

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.(No suppose to have a standing army that was what militias were for)

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.(Using soldiers/DRONES against the People)

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:(UN and World Court come to mind)

These libbies are so hell bent on America's destruction and too damn blind by emotions to see it.
Great point!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5655 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>More strawmen and lies. Borrrrrinnnngggg...
I see. So, the second amendment only applies to the tools of the time, but the rest of them apply to all the new tools that have come about during the last 222 years?
You can't even believe the crap you post!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5656 Jun 27, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>O' simple-minded one, maybe you should learn to read closely before you respond and embarrass yourself... yet again.

Read this, as clear reason (which alien to your mind) behind my backing of armed bodies of people:

"History (within the last 100 years alone) has proven the right of the people to keep and bear arms is logical; too bad many other groups of citizens in other countries didn't use that right, since they were disarmed and then enslaved, slaughtered and/or invaded by tyrannical governments."

-

Now you're truly showing your ignorance. It's only hurting you though; so, keep going... if that's your fetish.:-)
A few examples:

1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Christian Armenians rounded up and exterminated.

1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, 20+ million dissidents rounded up and murdered.

1935: China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20+ million political dissidents rounded up and exterminated.

1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others rounded up and exterminated.

1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1981-1984, 100,000 Mayan Indians rounded up and exterminated.

1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians rounded up and exterminated.

1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people rounded up and exterminated.

In the 20th Century more than 56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated by people using gun control.
FormerParatroope r

Orlando, FL

#5657 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
What parts of the Constitutuion do cars, electricity, computers and indoor plumbing negate, exactly?:)
The 1st Amendment was thought of when we had pamphlets, few newspapers, no electronic media. News spread by the speech of the tecnology. Electricity, computers, newspaper, magazine delivery by automobile.
And as far as indoor plumbing, toilet paper had yet to be invented, but paper sure came in handy after digesting the news in the outdoor office.:).
Point is simple. A lot of technology we use today in the exercise of many rights and even the conduct of government with these technologies were not available then. Yet we adapt, and for a longtime we were able to keep our rights safe. There is more erosion now because of technology, but do we just say heck with it and give up?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5658 Jun 27, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
O' simple-minded one, maybe you should learn to read closely before you respond and embarrass yourself... yet again.
Read this, as clear reason (which alien to your mind) behind my backing of armed bodies of people:
"History (within the last 100 years alone) has proven the right of the people to keep and bear arms is logical; too bad many other groups of citizens in other countries didn't use that right, since they were disarmed and then enslaved, slaughtered and/or invaded by tyrannical governments."
-
Now you're truly showing your ignorance. It's only hurting you though; so, keep going... if that's your fetish.:-)
I have to think you post on the principle of the roomful of monkeys with typewriters...if you post enough words, a few of them will turn out to be true, or have meaning.

There's no other explanation for your verbal diarrhea...LOL

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5659 Jun 27, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1st Amendment was thought of when we had pamphlets, few newspapers, no electronic media. News spread by the speech of the tecnology. Electricity, computers, newspaper, magazine delivery by automobile.
And as far as indoor plumbing, toilet paper had yet to be invented, but paper sure came in handy after digesting the news in the outdoor office.:).
Point is simple. A lot of technology we use today in the exercise of many rights and even the conduct of government with these technologies were not available then. Yet we adapt, and for a longtime we were able to keep our rights safe. There is more erosion now because of technology, but do we just say heck with it and give up?
Another idiot who mistakenly thinks I was making an argument based solely on technology....do you only read EACH OTHERS' posts, or what?

LOL

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5660 Jun 27, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I thought so but I know the Pseudo Liberals intentionally avoid Mcdonald v Chicago SCOTUS case ruling because they know it pretains to the States where as the District of Columbia v Heller SCOTUS case pretains to Federal Enclaves only which is why the Pseudo Liberals focus on that SCOTUS ruling of District of Columbia v Heller because the Pseudo Liberals know it means nothing to the States is what I was getting at.
Maybe if you say "pseudo liberals' enough it'll start to mean something, huh? LOL

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5661 Jun 27, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean the same standing army, National Guard, and government agencies that would enforce the tyranny of the government that pays them?
Yeah, that makes sense! Priceless!
You see government as a tyrant because you're a fascist by nature yourself. I see government as a democratic institution created by our Founders and representing their values through the Constitution.

Oddly, your own fetish for the Founders leads you to hate their government. wonder how that happened?:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5662 Jun 27, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
A few examples:
1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Christian Armenians rounded up and exterminated.
1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, 20+ million dissidents rounded up and murdered.
1935: China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20+ million political dissidents rounded up and exterminated.
1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others rounded up and exterminated.
1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1981-1984, 100,000 Mayan Indians rounded up and exterminated.
1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians rounded up and exterminated.
1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people rounded up and exterminated.
In the 20th Century more than 56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated by people using gun control.
Same ol' NRA talking points, mostly inaccurate or plain dishonest. I guess you and your buddies get off on 'em though, huh?
FormerParatroope r

Orlando, FL

#5663 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Of course, by REINTERPRETING the 2nd Amendment to include MODERN firearms, you gunners are doing exactly what most Righties complain about when it comes to Liberals - that they see the Constitution as a document which can be interpreted in changing ways based on changing times.
Heh
I don't see where it changes what the Founders meant. A firearm is a firearm, whether it is a matchlock, flintlick, percussion, smooth barrel, rifled barreled, revolver, semi automatic, tube fed, bolt action, fixed magazine, detachable magazine or in the case of the M1 Garand, clip fed.

We petition the government on electronic media, laws are written on computers, Presidents speak on radio, television and the internet. No one claims that these advances are re interpreting the Constitution. Yet when it comes to the 2A you seem to feel it is re interpetatation to include modern firearms.

There are liberals who feel that the storage and monitoring of electronic transmissions by the Government is a violation of privacy. Many Conservatives, Constitutionalists and others who have no political party believe the same. Is that reinterpation since electronic communication did not exist in 1776?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5664 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Another idiot who mistakenly thinks I was making an argument based solely on technology....do you only read EACH OTHERS' posts, or what?
LOL
Don't you remember what you post...?

LOL

Your earlier post #5585 was based purely on the technology of arms!!

YOU said quote..."The 2nd Amendment involves arms available at the time, and is now outdated."

You stayed with that until I posted the USSC thoughts from DC v Heller about your argument "bordering on the frivolous".

They also said that the individual right to keep and bear arms was UNCONNECTED to militia service.

So quit your lying BS...you ignorant, POS, "frustrated control freak"...blow it out your own arse.
FormerParatroope r

Orlando, FL

#5665 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Another idiot who mistakenly thinks I was making an argument based solely on technology....do you only read EACH OTHERS' posts, or what?
LOL
I read your post. Did I call you a name or infer a lack of intelligence? Civility is how a debate is conducted between adults.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5666 Jun 27, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you remember what you post...?
LOL
Your earlier post #5585 was based purely on the technology of arms!!
YOU said quote..."The 2nd Amendment involves arms available at the time, and is now outdated."
You stayed with that until I posted the USSC thoughts from DC v Heller about your argument "bordering on the frivolous".
They also said that the individual right to keep and bear arms was UNCONNECTED to militia service.
So quit your lying BS...you ignorant, POS, "frustrated control freak"...blow it out your own arse.
Stupidly, you misinterpreted my post to mean that BECAUSE of the change in technology the 2nd was outdated.

No, that's not what I meant, simpleton.

It's outdated for other reasons I've mentioned. My comment was based on a previous post by one of the gun-nuts here, which had to do with whether modern technology was acceptable under the 2nd amendment and if so, what kinds.

Really, TRY to keep up. It makes you look like less of an idiot, y'know? ;)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5667 Jun 27, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
I read your post. Did I call you a name or infer a lack of intelligence? Civility is how a debate is conducted between adults.
When you get that point across to the other gun thugs here, I may begin to pay attention. I'm hardly going to disarm myself while being fired on, to use a metaphor you may be able to grasp...:)
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#5668 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
You see government as a tyrant because you're a fascist by nature yourself. I see government as a democratic institution created by our Founders and representing their values through the Constitution.
Oddly, your own fetish for the Founders leads you to hate their government. wonder how that happened?:)
"I see government as a democratic institution created by our Founders and representing their values through the Constitution."

AND yet...here you are NOT showing any support of that very Constitution and wanting to tear it down.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5669 Jun 27, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
I read your post. Did I call you a name or infer a lack of intelligence? Civility is how a debate is conducted between adults.
One place to start would be Marauder's infantile habit of calling me and everyone else who disagrees with him a "frustrated control freak." It's the epitome of simple-minded name-calling.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min RoxLo 1,522,638
News The jig is up: Hysteria over illegal immigratio... 1 min Peace in USA 2
News Racism motivated Trump voters more than authori... 3 min Lawrence Wolf 338
News Under Trump, ICE arrests soar for migrants with... 3 min southern at heart 238
News Donald Trump on first 100 days: It's a differen... 4 min Dee Dee dee 11
News White House refuses to hand over documents to F... 7 min Cronies Ballroom 64
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 9 min just the facts 5,596
News Attorney General doesn't realize Hawaii is a state 1 hr 07 Mustang 341
News Americans have rendered their verdict on the fi... 1 hr Trump your President 115
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Great dance duo 265,313
News This is why the first 100 days is a 'ridiculous... 13 hr Trump your President 52
More from around the web