Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doesn’t that have something to do with illegal search and seizure? It’s like guilty until proven innocent…
 
It is a common misconception that the military runs around with everyone on full automatic.
Click to expand...
True enough FirstFiveEighth.

That is why I implied their rifles have a switch to go from semi-auto to a three-shot full-auto burst.
instead of the switch for a three shot full-auto burst
Click to expand...
 
Cathoholic: The more this discussion goes on, the better you look. So, you should appreciate the attention being called to your intelligent statements by the comments that somehow criticize your comments.
As the topic tracking shows, most readers don’t comment, or rate comments. Most readers just read without interacting, and those are the people to keep in mind as you comment.
Good job!
 
I wonder why the Leftist media fails to report all the African-American victims of gun murders in Chicago.
Chicago has been a testing ground for gun control for decades. The city put a ban on handgun ownership in place in 1982 and the Tribune reported that the next 10 years witnessed a “41 percent” jump in murders, “compared with an 18 percent rise in the entire United States.” And why shouldn’t such a ban lead to an increase in murder? After all, when bans are enacted, only the criminals remain armed.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...cago-passes-600-homicides-2nd-time-two-years/
 
Last edited:
Maybe the government could take similar action to violent mass shootings in schools, places of worship, shopping malls, concerts and such, similar to what the CDC did with contaminated lettuce fast and prompt like. Fine job.
 
Another step towards totalitarian government. The internet history of law-abiding gun-owners is none of the government’s business.
 
Doesn’t the Second Amendment specify gun owners must reflect politically correct sentiments?
 
You sure about that? Blacks are more likely to be shot than whites? Or is that just your own preconceptions about police.

This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force –officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.
Click to expand...
 
No, you rarely come out and say anything outright. You just said, “Of course the two men shot and killed were black”. The clear insinuation is that they were shot because they were black. Or were you just dropping a random factoid for our amusement?

It was a tragic situation but the police are correct. Shots were fired in the mall. Police officers rush to the scene, see a man with a gun, shoot him. They assumed he was the threat because HE WAS HOLDING A GUN. Not because he was black. If you want to get into racial profiling, you assertion still doesn’t make sense because the majority of mass shooters are white.
 
Yes I was just speaking generally using you comment. Although FYI three round burst is being phased out for full auto. 🙂
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
You sure about that? Blacks are more likely to be shot than whites? Or is that just your own preconceptions about police.
Click to expand...
Your link only gives the abstract, so I could not see what “contextual factors” were taken into account and how they were applied. But the FBI data disagrees with your premise:

www.vox.com

There are huge racial disparities in how US police use force

Black people are more likely to be shot and killed by police than their white peers.
www.vox.com www.vox.com
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
You just said, “Of course the two men shot and killed were black”. The clear insinuation is that they were shot because they were black.
Click to expand...
In post #149, LeafByNiggle had spoken, 12 days ago, to the actual clear implication of my post. I suppose that some things do not do not go without saying. Bu when in doubt about someone’s meaning, it is better to ask rather than assume the worst.
 
Last edited:
Inisfallen said:
40.png
JonNC:
The fact that a citizen owns a firearm is none of the government’s business.
Click to expand...
Even if that citizen is a convicted felon, or a domestic abuser, or psychotic?
Click to expand...
I think you know what I mean, as you’ve seen my posts on the topic for a while.
To take away someone’s constitutionally protected individual rights, any of them, should require adjudication. A convicted felon, someone adjudicated to have a mental illnesses that cause them to be a threat to themselves or others, someone adjudicated to have committed domestic violence, someone adjudicated to have made credible threats of violence. There may be others who could fit the category.
The no-fly list is not, in and of itself, adjudication. A mere accusation is not adjudication.
Due process is required.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top