In another classic case of blaming the instrument instead of the user, you’re ignoring the fact that the homicides were committed mostly by residents of Newark. I found no evidence that the murders were committed by people from outside the city or state. The guns wouldn’t come in if there wasn’t a demand.
In addition, one has to compare the homicide rate in Newark to the rate in New York City, which is virtually next door to Newark. In 2017 the Newark rate was more than eight times higher than the rate in NYC. It was more than three times higher than the rate in Jersey City. Since the gun laws are similar or identical to those in Newark, and the influx of guns is also similar, your attempt at diversion falls flat on its face.
So Cory’s track record still sucks.
Why should I compare the U.S. rate to a cherry-picked selection of countries as you recommend? More important, why should I compare only firearm-related homicides? Don’t the others count?
Great Britain’s homicide rate has gone up while the U.S. homicide rate has declined. While the U.S. rate has risen in the past few years, it has risen in comparison to 2014, which had the lowest rate in more than 50 years.
How about if I compare the U.S. homicide rate to that of Russia. Russia certainly isn’t some third-world country and it has extremely strict gun laws. Yet its homicide rate is far higher than the U.S. rate.
In fact, according to the most recent available data, the U.S. homicide rate is lower than any non-island nations in the Western Hemisphere other than Canada and Chile.
A gun is a fire-arm. It is an arm and its ownership is protected by the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Second Amendment does not define or limit the number or types of arms to which it refers.
In U.S. v. Miller, a Supreme Court decision that gun control advocates love to misunderstand, Justice James McReynolds wrote the court’s opinion.Far from being a statement that the Second Amendment protects only firearms owned and retained by the National Guard, the McReynolds opinion indicates that the Second Amendment protects the right of every able-bodied male at least 18 years of age and under 45 to own and keep a M-16 or an equivalent selective-fire rifle chambered for the standard militia rifle round. It would also protect the right to own and keep a 9mm semi-automatic pistol with a high-capacity magazine, and a FN M249 belt-fed Squad Automatic Weapon.
The seizure of guns during Katrina was during a period of martial law declared by state officials. As required by law, the guns were returned to their lawful owners where possible. Louisiana state laws have since been changed to prohibit such seizures.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez recently ruled that California’s confiscatory ban on high-capacity magazines was unconstitutional because of violations of both the Second and Fifth Amendments. The Fifth Amendment violation was that the state was taking legally acquired and possessed property without just compensation, which is in conflict with the amendment’s prohibitions of such action. Judge Benitez’s ruling affects only the Ninth Judicial District but both the plaintiffs and the state can be counted on to pursue the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. Since the case has national implications, in part because of New Jersey’s similar ban, the chances are good for the court to grant certiorari and, given the current makeup of the court, more likely to uphold Benitez’s ruling. This would mean that confiscatory bans on firearms would require the payment of just compensation. Just compensation is based on fair market value.
One of the attractions of the current raft of proposed gun control laws and plans like Cory Booker’s is the fact they require no sacrifice on the part of anyone but gun owners. I wonder how popular bans would be if gun control advocates and their supporters learned that they would be paying gun owners.
So, the question remains: Is Cory’s Plan the result of ignorance or the ploy of a politician making promise he can’t possibly keep?
This is almost entirely factual; there are only a couple of personal opinions in my reply and some of those have been checked with authorities on the Second Amendment and an attorney who has successfully argued gun cases before the Supreme Court.
The only dishonesty here is yours and perhaps Cory Booker’s. You are lying to yourself and I am pretty sure Cory is lying to you, as well.