The Second Amendment continues to be a divisive issue. Those who wish to eliminate the right to bear arms continue to engage in indirect tactics, knowing that the majority of Americans are not favorably inclined to start dissembling portions of the Bill of Rights.
Cities across the nations continue to use a plethora of questionable regulations to discourage exercising this particular freedom. The reason given for their actions, the prevention of violence, has been disproven in numerous studies.
A Crime Prevention Research Center Report notes that “Every place that has banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.”
The Gun Laws site reports:“An example of how stricter gun control laws did not aid in lowering crime rates is Washington D.C. In 1976, D.C. adopted what was to be considered one of the few extremely restrictive gun control policies in the country. The murder rate since the time of new gun control policy rose 134%. Yet another example is New York City, which also implemented similarly stringent gun laws as D.C. had similar results.
“In the early 1970s, about 19 % of homicides involved pistols, and shortly after the new laws were in place, this number rose to about 50%. Furthermore, the restriction of firearms allowed for only 28,000 lawfully possessed or acquired firearms, yet law enforcement estimations had the number at 1.3 million illegal handguns in the city. Conversely, states with fewer restrictions such as New Hampshire and Vermont, have proven to the safest of all the states, with Vermont ranking in at 49th in crime and 47th in murders.”
Devoid of either popular support or statistical justification, anti-Second Amendment advocates seek back door approaches to accomplish their goals. An example is Hillary Clinton’s campaign position of opening up gun manufacturers to law suits based on the misuse of their products. According to her website :
“Hillary believes the gun industry must be held accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns. Hillary will lead the charge to repeal the so-called ‘Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,’ a dangerous law that prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.”
These viagra pill cost tend to work quicker than other generic erectile dysfunction medications, and they can start working just 15 minutes after consumption. Some psychological causes of ED are: – Anxiety Depression Guilt Relationship problems Stress Sexual Sexual grief Fear of sexual failure Low self confidence Low self esteem Medical causes of ED High blood pressure Diabetes – Complexities encounter owing to intense blood sugar cheap tadalafil uk levels. About 6,400,000 Prescription had been filled in U.S for Sildenafil in Nov 1998, dispensing 500,000,000 tablets world wide.mastercard cialis – Effective and viagra.Buy cheap viagra from Shoppharmarx.com. amerikabulteni.com is the best medicine for ED treatment. super cialis canada I guess the apple does not fall too far from the effort free, painless exercise that most service providers advertise.
Clearly, the Clinton concept is designed to increase the legal vulnerability of the gun industry so overwhelming that it would either have to cease operations or price their products out of reach for most customers. The latter goal, according to Americans for Tax Reform, conforms with a 1993 push by Ms. Clinton to impose a $1,000 per gun excise tax. The placement of a prohibitively high tax on the exercise of a Constitutional Right raises a dangerous legal precedent.
The same can be said for the concept of imposing legal liability on manufacturers for the misuse of their products. The National Interest asks: “Could you imagine being a business owner; selling a legal, functional product; and being sued every time an individual who buys your product uses it to commit a crime? Should a rope manufacturer be liable when someone is hanged by that rope? Should a knife manufacturer be liable when someone is stabbed? Could a restaurant be sued when someone eats its perfectly safe food but dies of a heart attack or diabetic shock?”
New York City provides a salient example. New York Magazine reports that “the number of slashings and stabbings in 2016 is up 20 percent compared to the same period of time last year. During a press conference Monday afternoon, Police Commissioner William Bratton said the sharp increase in felony assaults committed this year is thanks to a spike in the number of slashings and stabbings — 899 had occurred by the end of March, DNA Inforeports. ‘Make no mistake about it; stabbings and slashings aren’t going away,” Bratton said.”
Should the Big Apple now ban pointed eating utensils? Should steak knife manufacturers be held to a strict liability standard?
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) states: “The Second Amendment is one of the most important rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The operative text states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms…shall not be infringed.” In spite of the clarity of this amendment, we have seen repeated, consistent, and sustained attacks on this right and efforts across the spectrum to “infringe” on this individual right. The founders intended the Second Amendment to function as a citizen check against overreach in the event that the government started to take away civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution…With the attack on personal gun-ownership, the Second Amendment, and our God-given rights, the Obama-Biden Administration has been relentless in their pursuit of taking guns away from law-abiding Americans.
“This President and the anti-gun lobby continue to ignore the fact that violence is driven by a number of different factors, and that experience has shown gun control does not curb violent acts…inhibiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights is nothing more than window dressing. One needs to look no further than the states with the toughest restrictions on firearms to see that they are the ones consistently ranking the highest in violent crime. When you limit an individual’s ability to lawfully purchase or carry firearms you are allowing only those with the intent to break the law to have weapons…the Obama Administration has taken unprecedented steps to bypass Congress and infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. On January 5, 2016 the president announced a new wave of forthcoming executive actions on gun control. The announcement of this likely unconstitutional executive order will likely violate the separation of powers and likely create a de facto law without the consent of Congress that attempts to prosecute American citizens under new mandates that have already been rejected by Congress.”