I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.
Instead of addressing whether the banned items are “dangerous and unusual,” Bevis changes the criterion to say that “Assault-weapons and high-capacity magazines regulations are not ‘unusual,’” because eight states ban them. Since 42 states don’t, that sounds kind of unusual.
Newly released survey data from the federal government shows that of the nearly 1.6 million households in the Seattle area in 2021, about 171,600 — almost 11% — were either thinking about or planning to move to a different place in the next 12 months.
Among the 15 largest metro areas, Seattle had the second-highest percentage of people considering or planning to move away, just a fraction behind Dallas — the two metros were effectively tied at 11%. The Riverside, California, area had the third-highest percentage, with about 10% of households planning or contemplating moving away within the year.
I wonder why that is. Could it be related to things like Mug Me Street and Washington State’s oppressive gun laws?
Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?
The response was:
The question of whether restricting access to handheld weapons has ever made the average person safer is a complex one. There are many factors that can influence the answer to this question, including the specific type of weapon being restricted, the context in which the restriction is being implemented, and the effectiveness of the enforcement of the restriction.
I hope this helps answer your question. Let me know if you have any other questions or if there is anything else I can help you with.
I find it interesting I did not mention firearms at all and it made it about firearms.
More importantly, by saying “science suggests that guns do not make us safer” is a demonstrating its bias. It is answering a different from which was asked. I asked if banning weapons made society safer. It responded with, essentially, “having weapons doesn’t make people safer”. Which leads to, “there is no harm from banning weapons”.
Kurzweil has also said he believes we will be able to “advance human life expectancy” by “more than a year every year and I think we can get there by the end of this decade”.
In an earlier book, IIRC, Kurzweil claimed we would reach this point by 2024. I hope the goalpost isn’t moved too much further. It is a very tough problem but there are some very promising results in rats and other lower life forms.
As uplifting as this is in a global sort of way, I always think of Eric when this comes up and I get a bit sad.
ATF has been known for its institutional abuse of power throughout history. Now, more than ever, the agency is being weaponized as a means to punish peaceable gun owners and drive small businesses out of the marketplace by inventing creative statutory interpretations surpassing the agency’s authority and scrutinizing federal firearms licensees every actions in a ‘gotcha’ manner.
With the directives from the Biden Administration a simple mistake such as transposing a digit or placing required information in the wrong field results in license revocation, rather than a warning, under the guise of a ‘willful violation’ of the Gun Control Act. This overbearing approach does nothing to support the government’s interest in compliance and destroys livelihoods over innocent mistakes.
A government regulatory agency for firearms is directly constitutionally prohibited. Alcohol and tobacco regulations is prohibited indirectly because there is no enumerated power which allow it. It will take a lot more litigation but that is a possible, and the correct, outcome of the Buren decision. With the current demonstrations of institutional abuse of power they should be moved to the top of the list of people who should be prosecuted.
If I had my way, ATF would be the name of a convenience store or a church.
No. This dimwit has things “completely upside down”.The courts are implementing gun law reform. What part of “shall not be infringed” doesn’t he understand? Granted, he still thinks the 2nd Amendment protects the right of states to have a militia. But in the Heller decision all nine SCOTUS justices agreed (only five agreed with the entire decision) that it protects an individual right.
If he were an actual “legal scholar” he would have read and understood the Heller decision.
I would like to suggest he wear a head mounted GoPro when he “forcefully takes away everyone’s firearms”. Then we could enjoy some popcorn while watching the video. It would be a very small bowl of popcorn, but the video would be entertaining.
No matter how frequently they demonstrate Markley’s Law I still marvel at their ability to see an ordinary gun and think “penis”. Their brains really have some messed up wiring. I wonder if shock therapy or a lobotomy would help. Or was it something like that which caused the damage to begin with?–Joe]