As usual, you're not addressing the point.
YOU CLAIM that the reason (or part of the reason) that the Republicans are in power is because of their stance on gun control laws.

But what the VOTERS SAW was a Republican politician who ran on a platform of INCREASED gun control.

The fact that he hasn't followed up on it is just an example of a politician not following through on his political promises to the voters...
... But if you want to talk about WHY the voters voted for a candidate based on his gun control policy, then you have to admit that he was running on an INCREASED gun control policy and THAT is what the voters wanted.

As usual, you lose again troll...

No gun hater you are just mad because America is waking up to the lies the gun haters have chanted for the last 60 years on gun control.
Gun haters want to ban the right to bear arms simply because they do not like guns.
Gun haters will use any lie and incident to achieve this.

The president sure did.
And if you actually could name any of the other republicans who were voted in because of "gun policy", we could check their position on it as well.

But of course that's yet another question you won't answer, and your claim has been shown up and you refuse to see it.


WHICH CANDIDATES did they supposedly vote out / vote in?

You've made an assumption that you have no facts on. No clue on. Looking at the most obvious "vote" of the president and his promised policies, the public voted for a president who wants MORE RESTRICTIVE POLICIES.
But you stick to your assumption because it's all you have.
In the end, that's all your arguments truly are. Assumptions stacked upon assumptions.


Honestly? I've heard people make such asanine claims before and I don't get it.
Even if the public was 99.9% gun loving crazy, I would still have my opinion as it is.
Even if the public were 99.9% gun "hating" crazy, you would still have your opinion as it is.

Do you actually know anybody (beyond politicians) who will change their opinion on the subject based on what they think the general public is thinking?

Your whole claim here is stupid and mindless and baseless.
People with any intelligence at all don't change their position on gun control just because they think other people think something different.

I don't present these polls to try and change anybody's mind.
That claim, in and of itself, is just plain stupid!
We both know you are not going to change your mind regardless of the evidence.
So who exactly am I supposedly trying to get to "buy it" when I present these facts?

I present these facts as refutation of your claims.
Not because I think anybody will be swayed by popular opinion...

Well gun hater you must or you would not be spewing the gun hater lies.

And with that, little troll, you just argued yourself out of the arena with your tail between your legs.
You have 'successfully' dropped every point of argument and fact shown to you, and your last response is to blindly claim my statements as "lies" with no actual proof or substantiation of your claim.

And in the end, your parting shot was itself rather stupid and mundane.
I just EXPLICITLY STATED that I don't believe what you claim, yet you ignore those statements and claim I must believe it anyways...

And why?
Because you can't comprehend me not believing the way you believe I do, even though I explicitly stated my motivation...
You ignore my stated motivation, in favor of sticking to something that reaffirms your beliefs which you seem incapable of questioning...
There seems to be a lot in this world that you blindly claim must be one way because you haven't the capacity to comprehend it being another way...

Well gun hater it is clear you just want to try another way to ban the right to bear arms.

And this just epitomizes my point.
I don't believe that all guns should be banned.

You have nothing of worth for a discussion troll.
Good-bye.

Well gun hater this is what all gun haters chant. The only problem is after they ban the guns they want, the gun haters start going after the other guns.
A list of gun the gun haters claimed they only want to ban this gun.
First it was the cheap Saturday night special.
Then came the semi auto handguns.
The came the street sweeper shotgun.
Then came the evil assault weapons.
Then came the evil sniper rifles.
Then came the evil 50 cal sniper rifle.
With the first gun, the so called Saturday night special the gun haters chanted this is the only gun they want to ban. As you can see people, oh wait the gun haters claim no one reads these post. As you can see gun haters the list for the one kind of guns the gun haters want to ban just keeps on growing.
I have come to the conclusion that the one gun the gun haters want to ban is whatever gun you have.

It seems that this debate has not amounted to much of anything, except name-calling, and a whole bunch of nothing else. So lets take a breath, and discuss the issue. One the one hand we have those that are interpreting the Second Amendment to mean that the only individuals that can own weapons are members of the militia, which in this day and age mean members of the National Guard.

There are a couple of reasons why this is incorrect. The Second Amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Upon the initial reading of this one may assume that the amendment discusses the needs of the State and the Militia. However, the powers that are given to the state are delegated to the states in Article IV, while the powers denied the state are outline in Article I Section 10. Quite interestingly, Article I Section 10 (3) denies the State to keep Troops unless authorized by Congress. If this is the case, then the States cannot have a Militia, without approval of Congress, to wit, then amendment to protect the right of the State's Militia to bear arms is not necessary. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are those that all citizens have that government cannot restrict, therefore, since the State's cannot have Troops without consent of the government, and the Bill of Rights guarantee the rights that the government cannot restrict, the only correct intrepretation of the Second Amendment would be that this is a right guaranteed to the people and not the State.

Why the Miller decision has been accurately quoted in reference to the opinion issued by Justice McReynolds, there are some missing elements. Miller was arrested for transporting a weapon interstate under the National Firearms Act of 1934. A district court overturned said conviction based on the assumption that the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. In the Supreme Court ruling McReynolds held that the act did not violate the Second Amendment because a "sawed-off" shotgun was not a weapon routinely used by the militia. It is interesting to note that in arguing to the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling of the district court the United States argues that the Second Amendment does not grant to the people the right to keep and bear arms, but merely recognizes the prior existence of that right and prohibits its infringement by Congress.
Which is exactly what the Court had held in 1876 in United States v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542.

Since the Court did not address the issue of the right to bear arms, but rather whether the weapon in question met the definition of arms in the amendment, Miller does not address the individual right to keep and bear arms, but rather whether the government can restrict certain types of weapons without infringing on the rights of the people.

It is also interesting to note, that the Constitution did not recognize the keeping of the standing armies. Instead it wished to rely upon the Militia. Even today, the United States has a Militia. It is provide for in 10 U.S. Code Section 13.

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

So even if the assertion that it only the militia can keep and bear arms, it would seem that all men ages 17 - 45 can keep arms. Furthermore, one could argue that the Assault Weapons Ban was unconsitutional because this act bans the very weapons that individuals would need to be a well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free State. I believe that someone had earlier argued this point.

Considering what the Miller decision did rule, the Cruikshank, and the U.S. Code, it would seem that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is not in question.

So it would seem the right the individual to keep and bear arms is not guaranteed by the Constitution as many of you have argued. It is in fact a right that was guaranteed prior to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights prohibits its infringement.

Since gun control was mentioned I believe that it is interesting to not that the city with the most restrictive gun laws, Washington D.C., has now been named the Murder Capital of the Country on more than one occassion. The District of Columbia and the 17 States that do not have right to carry laws have an 81% higher violent crime rate. If the mere presence of guns equates to more violence, then explain how someplace like Modoc County in California where 1 in 29 people owns a gun has only had 1 gun death per year from 1993 - 2002. Shouldn't the opposite be true???

The argument has been made that the violence in DC is due to the readily availability of guns in Maryland and Virginia. Well that just goes to prove a point. While the law-abiding citizens do not own guns, those who break the law get them in Maryland and Virginia. They have a name for people who break the law, it is criminal. Gun control does not keep the guns from the people who commit crimes, but rather from those who wish to protect themselves and follow the laws.

A Pew Center poll found that on average, 3.6 million crimes per year are prevented by private citizens who own firearms. Many times these incidents are not reported because a shot was never fired, and the criminal withdrew only upon seeing the weapon. Guns save lives. Month after month one can read in newspapers how someone foiled a robbery, mugging or other crime by having possessed a weapon.

While I grant that the government does have the right to restrict the ownership of certain weapons, it does not have the right to prevent the people from protecting their most important right, that is the right to life.

dmk

Here is a link to a web site with a article on gun hater catch phrases.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/10/15/...e_jfreeman.htm

In this article it addresses the issue of what people claiming to be pro right to bear arms then they turn around and say things like but some guns need to be banned.