the truth of gun rights during the founding era

What does it matter?  All the Founding Fathers were Nazi, racist, slave owners anyway, who didn't care for human rights.... who cares what they thought, right? even though they were smart enough to leave wording vague enough for the ability of different interpretations to in order for the Constitution to last through the future, but keeping our basic rights intact.  No one in this day and age would be smart enough to write something in that manner. 

We have gained a lot of knowledge in math and sciences, which contributing to major innovation in the past few hundred years, but we have lost the ability to think intellectually, and put things on paper that will last for years to come. No one is thinking about the consequences of the decisions we make now and how they may backfire in the future.  

For instance: Being lenient on how we identify ourselves sexually (it is binary, be one or the other) and choosing our own gender at 3 years old, no one understand sexuality at that age.  Soon, we will be identifying as animals, and bestiality will be legal and common place, then we will be marrying people to animals, or people will be identifying at different ages.....  This is the future of what we are becoming.  It may sound far fetched to us now, but it will not the further radical we become and further into the future we are. 

My name is DBlaze, he, him, his...them, theirs, we, mine, guys. 

This is whole introduction thing above is ridiculous, we should not have to walk on eggshells because a pronoun hurt someone's feelings.  Get over it, and get over yourself.   Sorry for the rant. 

some inconvenient truths about pandering to anti 2a people

you can now buy a stripped ar lower, it's called the Beto it's being heavily advertised all over the internet and it's not expensive

There's a lot of facebook memes, pictures of the "debate" with a caption that reads something like "All I heard was buy more guns" (or ammo)

then the comments are basically people feeling they need to buy before a coming ban.

This type of reaction cause shortages and increased sales driven by the greatest gun salesman of all time.  If you want less guns, stop driving sales?

it's funny to read some of the old posts about the Democrats "aren't coming for your guns" or they don't want to ban guns etc  I don't think anyone really believed that b.s.  If they did they should really feel stupid now for having done so.

This rhetoric will drive technology as I've said so many times in the past.  There are videos of people making a mold of a lower and casting it in a resin.  It does work but certain doesn't last as long as aluminum.  But then again some suicidal murderer obviously isn't thinking long term.  People have also cast lowers from melted down aluminum cans.  Talk about a way to recycle lol

D.I.Y. has been growing in popularity especially with better 3d printers and cnc machines, quality is increasing and prices are dropping.  Resin printers are pretty amazing.  So how fast to we want to drive this technology/market?  It's going to happen.  People are going to print their own gun parts, it's just a matter of time.  Do you want it sooner or later?

My favorite one is the shotgun shell zip gun made from hardware pipes.

that's is very old school haha, where there is a will, there is a way.

so do you think one hundred percent of people who are denied a gun through gun control will run out and get one illegally?

I think 100% of people who will do anything to get a gun, will.

but let me ask you this do you think criminals first try to get a gun legally, then when denied buy one illegally?

what are the criteria/reasons someone would be denied a gun through a background check?  do you know?

i dont know if most people try legal first then illegal or which way it works. but some people who are denied a gun legally won't get one illegally. when they dont have a gun and go off on their wife, she might survive when she otherwise wouldn't. 

why does it matter if people who are persistent will get a gun, when there's all those people who won't get one because of gun control, thus saving lives?

is your only point that gun control isn't as effective as people would like? 

I'm sure that's true, and?  how many guns illegally owned and obtained are actually used in a crime?

where domestic violence leads to murder what are the stats of methods used?

of the murders with a firearm, how many of those were obtained legally or attempted to be obtained legally?

of these murderers what criminal history is there, if one at all?

women are five times more likely to die in domestic violence if her partner has a gun. i dont know all those questions you asked, but it's common sense to think if some people dont have a gun when they go off, there is less likely for a death to occur. that's what all the gun control evidence suggests. plus you are getting too hung up on this example. think of any altercation with a gun, then think of it without a gun. common sense here. 

plus you didn't answer the question of why it matters that some people who are intent on getting a gun will get one, when there's all the people who won't.  is your point just that gun control isn't as effective as people would like? if so, so what? gun control is still effective, if you at all believe in science. 

if there were less murders when there was no background checks, restrictions and you could mail order guns, but now there are multiple times more laws and more murders you say guns are the problem?

how is this determined?  do they ask the murders, hey if you didn't have a gun would you have still killed them?  explain the science.  explain how anyone would know, but if it weren't for the gun, x wouldn't have been done/killed.

your first sentence is indecipherable. 

it would be easy to measure the likelihood of women dying with guns present. look at a group of women who were attacked when the partner had a gun, then look at a group when there was no gun. what are the death rate differences? 

oh I see every encounter like that is the same, same background, history, demographic etc yup sure thing  apples and acorns.  I'll bet I've seen the study you are talking about, it wasn't well done at all, there are far too many variables.  A person who has the will to murder isn't necessarily stopped because they lack a gun and there is no way to prove they didn't murder because they didn't have a gun.

your constant argument is guns = bad,  less guns, more laws = good

pre nics, bans multiple of laws < murders than post nics, bans multiple of additional laws

honestly I don't understand your confusion but I'll try to make it as simple as possible

once upon a time you could mail order a gun and there were NO background checks or many of the thousands of laws we have now.  At that time period the murder rate was much lower than today.  It was much much easier to get a gun back then and yet the murder rate was much much lower, it's much much more difficult/restrictive to get a gun now a days and yet the murder rate is much much higher, comprehend?

you have no reason to think the study had bad methodology. if they had truly randomized groups, then a difference in the death rate wouldn't be just coincidence. you especially have no room to talk since you haven't seen the study. 

you are incorrect in how you characterize the gun situation. over the last few decades, the amount of people owning guns has gone down, while the rate of murder has also gone down. i would think the amount of gun control has gone up, as you said. 

so basically, you had no basis to talk about anything that you did..... you were just pulling shit out of your ass

ok sure thing