Null



NolaAuTiger

Verified Member
  • Content count

    662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

NolaAuTiger last won the day on February 20

NolaAuTiger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

186 Sterling

About NolaAuTiger

  • Rank
    Booster
  1. I suppose Military Grade functioning assault rifles
  2. Seriously? The dude probably had a pistol - what do you expect he should’ve done? Funny how no one on the left talks about how many Americans own an AR-15. It’s almost like 99% of said owners don’t use their ARs to kill people. Yet becuase of the 1%, they should all be taken away.
  3. He likes to play devil’s advocate
  4. You are right because you use common sense. Titan is clueless about this issue. Though, like usual, he would claim to be an expert most likely.
  5. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/ Quit brining up Australia. You don't know what you're talking about. Because such plans are ineffective here, Titan. The posted article below is separate than the one above. Read both. Have Obama and Clinton thought about how exactly this would work in the U.S.? If one takes the low-end number of guns confiscated in Australia, 650,000, then that works out to about one-fifth to one-third of guns turned over in Australia. There are about 310 million guns in circulation in the U.S., so the same proportion would work out to 60-105 million guns being confiscated. The left loves to mock the idea of rounding up 11 million illegal aliens, so how can they say that and yet claim it's possible for that many guns to be turned over? Data shows that the gun buyback program didn't result in lower gun homicides and suicides, as Mark Wright in National Review points out using two studies: Researchers at the University of Melbourne concluded in a 2008 study, "Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths." A 2007 study published in the British Journal of Criminology determined, "The gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia." The gun homicide rate was already low in Australia and was falling prior to the Port Arthur shooting. The study did acknowledge that the gun buyback did result in lower firearm suicides and accidental firearm deaths. However, the researchers note that there was an initial spike in non-firearm suicides for the next couple of years, followed by a decline. This led the researchers to conclude that "suicide rates in Australia were highly influenced by other societal changes, confounding the ability to discern any effect on firearm suicides" after the buyback program. On the lower accidental firearms death rate, the researchers point out that "over the time period investigated, there was a relatively small number of accidental deaths per annum, with substantial variability" which means the lower accidental firearms death rate "should be approached with caution." In a written testimony to the Australian parliament, Lott noted that after Australia's gun buyback, the gun levels in Australia rose to the point where by 2010, there were as many guns in circulation as there were before the gun buyback. Lott wrote that if under the logic of gun control advocates, gun deaths would have decreased at first and then increased as guns came back into circulation. But that is not what happened. "The rate of firearm suicides was falling at about the same rate after the buyback as they were before hand. After the buyback, there was no sudden drop and then an increase," Lott wrote. "But it isn’t just firearm suicides that fell after the buyback -- non-firearm suicides fell by virtually the same about as firearm suicides. That fits in with exist research and implies that something else is driving down suicides."
  6. Sorry for the long hiatus

    Awesome
  7. *when liberals accuse Trump of being like Hitler, and but then they want him to have all of our guns..... Thank god our founders created a living document to protect us against radicals such as yourselves Aslo, see the link I posted for Titan to read below
  8. A buy back program? Seriously? Describe that buy back program and the procedural and substantive requirements that would have to be met. If you had an ounce of competence you would see how implausible it is.
  9. Bull. It is a fact. SCOTUS has defined the scope of the second amendment. What loofas proposes would require an amendment to limit its present judicially defined scope. We live in a Common Law country. SCOTUS interpretation matters, yours does not. Now go read Heller and start to learn something.
  10. No. Read carefully. It’s the basis of the legisalation that is the concern. Sweeping reactionary-regulation based off of a single event is unwise. There could be a reasonable basis to ban bump stocks so long as it isn’t one event
  11. Brilliant! Let's (instead of using the term "government" because I'm assuming taxpayers would be the ones footing the bill for your atrocious proposal) buy back all of their drugs too while we're at it! Then maybe we can buy back business licenses granted to fast-food corporations because uhh heart disease.
  12. Let's just hope he doesn't actually posses such a dubious ideology.
  13. Read what he proposed. The 2nd Amendment's scope as it stands, reflected in SCOTUS jurisprudence and authoritative legal doctrine, would have to be amended. This is not to say that the 2nd Amendment is an unlimited right at this very moment - in fact, Scalia explicitly stated so in his monumental Heller opinion, with whom Robert, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas joined. .