Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Criminals don't care about gun laws   (usatoday.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, camden, New Jersey, gun laws, Camden County, Second Amendment Foundation, gun regulation, America's Most Wanted, firearms dealer  
•       •       •

8152 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2013 at 9:27 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



453 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-07-08 08:10:57 AM  
Look how well the work in Chicago.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-08 08:28:58 AM  
Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.
 
2013-07-08 08:30:59 AM  

vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.


We don't need MORE laws against robbing banks. It's already illegal enough.
 
2013-07-08 09:03:04 AM  
Serial killers just ignore laws against murder. Obviously, the problem is that we have too many laws against murder.
 
2013-07-08 09:04:50 AM  

vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.


Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.
 
2013-07-08 09:06:06 AM  

vernonFL: Serial killers just ignore laws against murder. Obviously, the problem is that we have too many laws against murder.


BTK used a steak knife and curtains.

You can still buy curtains and steak knives at the same time without background checks.
 
2013-07-08 09:16:24 AM  
See the war on drugs for how to not only enact draconian ineffective laws, but how to double down on them despite the abysmal and total failure of said laws.
 
2013-07-08 09:28:52 AM  
Jesus forgives, so laws are completely unnecessary.
 
2013-07-08 09:29:04 AM  
Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.
 
2013-07-08 09:29:38 AM  
"But no law stopped him from becoming a teenage drug dealer who could easily acquire, and use, his weapon of choice "

So do we stop passing drug laws too since they don't seem to care about them either?
 
2013-07-08 09:29:39 AM  

dittybopper: I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.


Watch out! They're storming into your house and into your gun cabinet to take all your guns away!!! Might as well shot your dog before they do!
 
2013-07-08 09:29:58 AM  

doglover: vernonFL: Serial killers just ignore laws against murder. Obviously, the problem is that we have too many laws against murder.

BTK used a steak knife and curtains.

You can still buy curtains and steak knives at the same time without background checks.


Curtains and steak knives have uses besides causing death. Guns do not. See the difference?
 
2013-07-08 09:30:32 AM  

Aarontology: See the war on drugs for how to not only enact draconian ineffective laws, but how to double down on them despite the abysmal and total failure of said laws.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-08 09:30:47 AM  

Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.


Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.
 
2013-07-08 09:31:04 AM  

doglover: BTK used a steak knife and curtains.


If ugly curtains were illegal, the people who owned my house before me would have been executed.
 
2013-07-08 09:31:45 AM  

monoski: "But no law stopped him from becoming a teenage drug dealer who could easily acquire, and use, his weapon of choice "

So do we stop passing drug laws too since they don't seem to care about them either?


yes
 
2013-07-08 09:31:56 AM  
We need to make the gun laws lawier.
 
2013-07-08 09:31:59 AM  

Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.


a truly Great Janitor need only a mop and broom to right all wrongs. Son, I am disappoint.
 
2013-07-08 09:32:15 AM  

monoski: "But no law stopped him from becoming a teenage drug dealer who could easily acquire, and use, his weapon of choice "

So do we stop passing drug laws too since they don't seem to care about them either?


Yes
 
2013-07-08 09:32:22 AM  
(NicCage-YouDontSay.jpg)
 
2013-07-08 09:32:30 AM  

CapeFearCadaver: dittybopper: I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

Watch out! They're storming into your house and into your gun cabinet to take all your guns away!!! Might as well shot your dog before they do!


English isn't your first language, is it?
 
2013-07-08 09:33:45 AM  
Ah I think I just realized why this crap happens. In the article, the kid said he saw his cousins go to prison and when they got out they were surrounded by girls. So we just need to teach women to respect themselves and not date sleezeballs who have been to prison. If they don't get girls then it won't be "cool" to be a criminal.

Not saying it is a realistic solution, but better than restrictive gun laws that protect no one.
 
2013-07-08 09:33:52 AM  

This text is now purple: doglover: BTK used a steak knife and curtains.

If ugly curtains were illegal, the people who owned my house before me would have been executed.


Only Executed? The previous owner of my house would have been Shot, Stabbed, Beheaded, Drawn and Quartered.
 
2013-07-08 09:34:41 AM  

MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.


conservatism isn't about being rational, dude.
 
2013-07-08 09:34:53 AM  

hailin: So we just need to teach women to respect themselves and not date sleezeballs who have been to prison.


Stomping out gun violence may be easier.
 
2013-07-08 09:34:56 AM  

s2s2s2


We need to make the gun laws lawier.


lawl
 
2013-07-08 09:35:21 AM  
Those girls find dudes who've been to prison hot? What the fark is that all about? I get the bad boy concept but not the "I want a man who will never go anywhere in life and is prone to violence."
 
2013-07-08 09:36:07 AM  

MFAWG: Guns do not


Cartman, you're not gonna fool the judges so stop trying to get into the Special Olympics.
 
2013-07-08 09:36:10 AM  
I think its a good rule of thumb to not move into any neighborhood with public murals. Seems like they are most prominent in places like camden, belfast, etc.
 
2013-07-08 09:36:11 AM  

MFAWG: Jesus forgives, so laws are completely unnecessary.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-08 09:36:45 AM  

browntimmy: Those girls find dudes who've been to prison hot? What the fark is that all about? I get the bad boy concept but not the "I want a man who will never go anywhere in life and is prone to violence."


Daddy. Issues.
 
2013-07-08 09:36:46 AM  

dittybopper: CapeFearCadaver: dittybopper: I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

Watch out! They're storming into your house and into your gun cabinet to take all your guns away!!! Might as well shot your dog before they do!

English isn't your first language, is it?


My grammar is impeccable.

/gun owner, CCW carrier
 
2013-07-08 09:37:04 AM  
Yeah great, compare a wealthy suburban school massacre perpetrated by a lunatic who stole his weapons from a "responsible" gun owner with a long term crime riddled ghetto steeped in poverty and a lack of education, because they share the same problems and should look at similar solutions.
 
2013-07-08 09:37:32 AM  

browntimmy: Those girls find dudes who've been to prison hot? What the fark is that all about? I get the bad boy concept but not the "I want a man who will never go anywhere in life and is prone to violence."


they don't talk in English here's an exmaple of their conversation:

"if i gay then you gay"
"lets gay!"  fark fark fark
 
2013-07-08 09:37:45 AM  

browntimmy: Those girls find dudes who've been to prison hot? What the fark is that all about? I get the bad boy concept but not the "I want a man who will never go anywhere in life and is prone to violence."


low self esteem
 
2013-07-08 09:37:49 AM  
Wow, someone had the cojones to write a "The Emperor has no clothes" article on gun laws.

I am sure her tenure at USA Today will be short.
 
2013-07-08 09:37:54 AM  

monoski: "But no law stopped him from becoming a teenage drug dealer who could easily acquire, and use, his weapon of choice "

So do we stop passing drug laws too since they don't seem to care about them either?


Not a very good example for you to pick since the drug war has been an utter failure. Legalizing and redirecting the enforcement money into treatment programs is what a smart country would do.
 
2013-07-08 09:38:14 AM  
It always makes me laugh that they ban this gun or that gun, or make it 20 times harder for a law abiding person who has common sense to get a good weapon for either self defense, hunting, or target shooting. After all those poor kids were killed by that asshole with the AR-15, all the gun hating libtards said "WE must do something to ban these guns, or make it much harder for people to get them. We must keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people."

Durrrrrrrrr

/The guy who killed all those kids? The guns weren't his. They belonged to his mother, who was a valid non crazy weapon owner. He killed her and stole her guns. Banning guns, or making it hard for honest law abiding people to get them does nothing, beyond your knee jerk reaction. He STOLE THEM. Make all the stupid moranic laws you want, criminals and crazy people don't give a fark. Jesus, get a farking brain and stop making new laws that the criminals ignore, or make it harder for honest people to defend themselves. Get a brain morans.
 
2013-07-08 09:39:00 AM  
Wait, so what you're saying is that we have to treat the DISEASE of crime and violence, rather than a single symptom? Has anyone told the news media this?
 
2013-07-08 09:39:21 AM  
They can make all the farking laws they want. If they don't enforce them then what farking good are they? You have armed robbers and murderers getting out early and walking the streets while some pot head sits in jail over a bag of weed.
 
2013-07-08 09:40:25 AM  

vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.


Look, 2 posts in, and we have someone who did not RTFA...

"I wanted to shoot people because that's what I saw growing up," said Baker, 20, a Camden native who spent four years in jail after being involved in several shootings. "When I was younger, I would see my boys and cousins going into jail and when they got out, all the girls wanted them. So, I wanted to go to jail. I wanted to be like America's Most Wanted. I wanted my name to be known on the streets."
 
2013-07-08 09:40:49 AM  
MFAWG
2013-07-08 09:30:47 AM


Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer. They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.
Straw man
You only wear a seat belt because you plan on running down preschoolers and are terrified you'll get hurt when doing so, right?
 
2013-07-08 09:41:29 AM  
Selective gun laws in localities don't work? Well hello captain obvious.

To make gun laws work, it has to be done nationally unless you have the power to search everybody and everything coming in and out of your locality. Gun regulation is a national problem - like it is in other countries.
 
2013-07-08 09:41:29 AM  

dittybopper: CapeFearCadaver: dittybopper: I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

Watch out! They're storming into your house and into your gun cabinet to take all your guns away!!! Might as well shot your dog before they do!

English isn't your first language, is it?


Snark is.
 
2013-07-08 09:41:30 AM  

abhorrent1: They can make all the farking laws they want. If they don't enforce them then what farking good are they? You have armed robbers and murderers getting out early and walking the streets while some pot head sits in jail over a bag of weed.


maybe the robbers and murderers understood what they did was wrong, while the pot head is like "i sell weed i hate government down with drug laws"
 
2013-07-08 09:42:24 AM  

OnlyM3: You only wear a seat belt because you plan on running down preschoolers and are terrified you'll get hurt when doing so, right?


Not preschoolers you heartless bastard. I have a conscience.

So I run over old folks at retirement homes, they are practically dead anyway.
 
2013-07-08 09:43:00 AM  

Mikey1969: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Look, 2 posts in, and we have someone who did not RTFA...

"I wanted to shoot people because that's what I saw growing up," said Baker, 20, a Camden native who spent four years in jail after being involved in several shootings. "When I was younger, I would see my boys and cousins going into jail and when they got out, all the girls wanted them. So, I wanted to go to jail. I wanted to be like America's Most Wanted. I wanted my name to be known on the streets."


I too want to give up a large portion of my life and freedom so I can bang the trashiest of ghetto trash
 
2013-07-08 09:43:23 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: It always makes me laugh that they ban this gun or that gun, or make it 20 times harder for a law abiding person who has common sense to get a good weapon for either self defense, hunting, or target shooting. After all those poor kids were killed by that asshole with the AR-15, all the gun hating libtards said "WE must do something to ban these guns, or make it much harder for people to get them. We must keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people."

Durrrrrrrrr

/The guy who killed all those kids? The guns weren't his. They belonged to his mother, who was a valid non crazy weapon owner. He killed her and stole her guns. Banning guns, or making it hard for honest law abiding people to get them does nothing, beyond your knee jerk reaction. He STOLE THEM. Make all the stupid moranic laws you want, criminals and crazy people don't give a fark. Jesus, get a farking brain and stop making new laws that the criminals ignore, or make it harder for honest people to defend themselves. Get a brain morans.


Funny thing is the gun shop the Lanza guns were purchased from was just busted for selling guns illegally. The fine is amazingly hefty too.
 
2013-07-08 09:44:07 AM  
4+ week old article. Nice going, everyone involved.
 
2013-07-08 09:44:15 AM  

StaleCoffee: Yeah great, compare a wealthy suburban school massacre perpetrated by a lunatic who stole his weapons from a "responsible" gun owner with a long term crime riddled ghetto steeped in poverty and a lack of education, because they share the same problems and should look at similar solutions.


Your criticism is appropriate. Gun ban advocacy groups recognize the difference, which is why they differentiate between such incidents rather than grouping all deaths resulting from firearm use, regardless of context and including all suicides, as "gun deaths" and advocating unreasonable restrictions based upon that single figure.
 
2013-07-08 09:44:30 AM  
More people are killed by drunk drivers every year than are killed by guns. I don't see anyone banning cars or trucks. The farking politicians are quick to jump on their soapbox, screaming about gun control, and banning this or that magazine, gun, or attachment. Blaming the farking tool the guy used is moranic. The gun didn't go on a rampage and murder people, the person did. There have been cases where a drunk has killed multiple people with his car, and i have yet to see any car bans. How can you justify taking a gun away, when cars kill more than guns do? Ah, because a car is NEEDED. We don't need guns to protect ourselves. I'm sure if criminals who totally respect gun laws knew that we had none, they would totally not take advantage of that for profit. Hell, they would probably be happy to hand them over and never touch one again. Let's make a law that everyone has to hand in their firearms, and see how that works out.
 
2013-07-08 09:45:08 AM  
I always hear about those damned lax gun laws. What they don't say is; it would be illegal to sell a New Jersy resident a pistol in Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania would have to abide by the rules in New Jersy if they wished to sell a rifle to a New Jersey resident. If I remember right; it's part of the interstate commerce thingy.

That leads me to the conclude one of two things; either there is 1) a source outside of all legal channels (read robbery) or 2) there is a epidemic of straw buys
 
2013-07-08 09:45:59 AM  

OnlyM3: MFAWG
2013-07-08 09:30:47 AM


Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer. They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.Straw man
You only wear a seat belt because you plan on running down preschoolers and are terrified you'll get hurt when doing so, right?


Cars are used for the sole purpose of lethal defense by the average car owner?
 
2013-07-08 09:46:43 AM  

the_foo: monoski: "But no law stopped him from becoming a teenage drug dealer who could easily acquire, and use, his weapon of choice "

So do we stop passing drug laws too since they don't seem to care about them either?

Not a very good example for you to pick since the drug war has been an utter failure. Legalizing and redirecting the enforcement money into treatment programs is what a smart country would do.


Honestly, it was more of a troll than my opinion. I feel most of our approach to both problems have been more knee-jerk, ill-conceived reactions.
 
2013-07-08 09:46:45 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Let's make a law that everyone has to hand in their firearms, and see how that works out.


Because that's exactly what's going on...
 
2013-07-08 09:46:50 AM  

hailin: Ah I think I just realized why this crap happens. In the article, the kid said he saw his cousins go to prison and when they got out they were surrounded by girls. So we just need to teach women to respect themselves and not date sleezeballs who have been to prison. If they don't get girls then it won't be "cool" to be a criminal.

Not saying it is a realistic solution, but better than restrictive gun laws that protect no one.


Well, young girls are generally attracted to "bad boys" and are only interested in the nice guys after they don't want to have sex anymore and are ragged out from the 100 longhairs they have allowed to root around inside them.

/amidoingitright?
 
2013-07-08 09:48:03 AM  

dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.


Correct.  Now, where can I get my hands on a functional howitzer and rounds of ammo.  For home defense of course.  It's just an inanimate object so I should totally be allowed to have one.

/or as many as I choose for that matter.
 
2013-07-08 09:48:37 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: hailin: Ah I think I just realized why this crap happens. In the article, the kid said he saw his cousins go to prison and when they got out they were surrounded by girls. So we just need to teach women to respect themselves and not date sleezeballs who have been to prison. If they don't get girls then it won't be "cool" to be a criminal.

Not saying it is a realistic solution, but better than restrictive gun laws that protect no one.

Well, young girls are generally attracted to "bad boys" and are only interested in the nice guys after they don't want to have sex anymore and are ragged out from the 100 longhairs they have allowed to root around inside them.

/amidoingitright?


I guess, you're getting a couple bites.
 
2013-07-08 09:49:18 AM  

CapeFearCadaver: Bit'O'Gristle: Let's make a law that everyone has to hand in their firearms, and see how that works out.

Because that's exactly what's going on...


You are correct. The notion that any elected official would even desire to say "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in" is preposterous.
 
2013-07-08 09:49:41 AM  

Dimensio: StaleCoffee: Yeah great, compare a wealthy suburban school massacre perpetrated by a lunatic who stole his weapons from a "responsible" gun owner with a long term crime riddled ghetto steeped in poverty and a lack of education, because they share the same problems and should look at similar solutions.

Your criticism is appropriate. Gun ban advocacy groups recognize the difference, which is why they differentiate between such incidents rather than grouping all deaths resulting from firearm use, regardless of context and including all suicides, as "gun deaths" and advocating unreasonable restrictions based upon that single figure.


It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.
 
2013-07-08 09:50:06 AM  

iserlohn: Selective gun laws in localities don't work? Well hello captain obvious.

To make gun laws work, it has to be done nationally unless you have the power to search everybody and everything coming in and out of your locality. Gun regulation is a national problem - like it is in other countries.


Spoiler: Its an international problem and national laws will fail.
 People buy guns because they want them, not because the government allows it.  Where you have crime and a society that idolizes murderers, you will have violence and that violence will include firearms or any weapon available.

Putting technology back in Pandora's box isn't a solution.

In the US if you set aside suicides (in countries with strict gun laws people hang themselves or jump off ledges at equally high rates) and drug related crimes (a black market we've made particularly profitable), you end up with a murder rate that's not much different from the rest of the world.

The solution, for us, is dealing with the drug war and wealth inequity.
No international arm twisting or magic arms ban needed.  We just have to face reality and make an honest attempt to fix our problems.
 
2013-07-08 09:50:13 AM  

CapeFearCadaver: Bit'O'Gristle: Let's make a law that everyone has to hand in their firearms, and see how that works out.

Because that's exactly what's going on...


But it WILL happen.... boogity boogity!
 
2013-07-08 09:51:17 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Look how well the work in Chicago.


Indeed, how well the work
 
2013-07-08 09:52:45 AM  
So it looks like there's 2, maybe 3 separate issues.
1) People with dangerous mental illnesses obtaining weapons - Why not force prospective buyers to pass a recent mental health screen before purchasing?
2) Violence related to poverty - More generous social programs and education funding.
3) Suicide - Temporary firearm bans and confiscation?
 
2013-07-08 09:53:37 AM  
Or we need to find some way to counteract the current culture of "violence is the solution to all problems."  Kids in your yard?  Shoot them.  Guy cut you off in traffic?  Shoot him.  Caught your girlfriend cheating?  Shoot them.  Feeling depressed?  Shoot a bunch of people, then yourself.

I don't advocate gun control because it's trying to fix a symptom rather than the problem, but the number of people who shout "You can't take my guns otherwise I won't be able to _____" is indicative of the bigger cultural problem of dependency on violent solutions.
 
2013-07-08 09:54:39 AM  

chuggernaught: Correct. Now, where can I get my hands on a functional howitzer and rounds of ammo. For home defense of course. It's just an inanimate object so I should totally be allowed to have one.

/or as many as I choose for that matter.


Congratulations on giving Ditty another chance to show off his cannon.

/We can have more artillery regulation once someone actually uses a field piece in a crime.
 
2013-07-08 09:54:46 AM  

OnlyM3: MFAWG
2013-07-08 09:30:47 AM


Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer. They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.Straw man
You only wear a seat belt because you plan on running down preschoolers and are terrified you'll get hurt when doing so, right?


The difference is unless you live in a dangerous area the chances of you needing a gun are less than needing a helmet in case you trip and hit your head. I propose anyone who thinks they need to be carrying at all times should also be wearing a helmet and some kind of utility built equipped with first aid and a fire extinguisher.
 
2013-07-08 09:55:17 AM  

John Buck 41: 4+ week old article. Nice going, everyone involved.


Has anything changed in the past 4 weeks re gun laws or American culture as it relates to violence?
 
2013-07-08 09:56:00 AM  

MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.


It's not because I'm terrified of everything.  It's because I know that there are bad guys out there who carry guns.  There are people who there who don't give a shiat about anyone but themselves, and use guns as tools to take what doesn't belong to them.  These people don't give a damn about gun laws.  Hell, they probably support any gun law that makes it difficult for those to obey the laws to defend themselves.
 
2013-07-08 09:56:03 AM  

browntimmy: OnlyM3: MFAWG
2013-07-08 09:30:47 AM


Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer. They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.Straw man
You only wear a seat belt because you plan on running down preschoolers and are terrified you'll get hurt when doing so, right?

The difference is unless you live in a dangerous area the chances of you needing a gun are less than needing a helmet in case you trip and hit your head. I propose anyone who thinks they need to be carrying at all times should also be wearing a helmet and some kind of utility built equipped with first aid and a fire extinguisher.


that should be "utility belt"
 
2013-07-08 09:56:59 AM  

Dimensio: StaleCoffee: Yeah great, compare a wealthy suburban school massacre perpetrated by a lunatic who stole his weapons from a "responsible" gun owner with a long term crime riddled ghetto steeped in poverty and a lack of education, because they share the same problems and should look at similar solutions.

Your criticism is appropriate. Gun ban advocacy groups recognize the difference, which is why they differentiate between such incidents rather than grouping all deaths resulting from firearm use, regardless of context and including all suicides, as "gun deaths" and advocating unreasonable restrictions based upon that single figure.


Well done!

/I saw what you did there
 
2013-07-08 09:57:38 AM  

StaleCoffee


It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.


That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.
 
2013-07-08 09:57:47 AM  

dletter: CapeFearCadaver: Bit'O'Gristle: Let's make a law that everyone has to hand in their firearms, and see how that works out.

Because that's exactly what's going on...

But it WILL happen.... boogity boogity!


That's why I don't like registration; it's just too easily abused. If I remember correctly; we had an article on fark that made that point extreamly well. Basically; a town started a "Pit Bull registry", for the children. Before they were done; they sent police officers to confiscate said dogs from the owners that had registered them.
 
2013-07-08 09:58:22 AM  

thecpt: Bit'O'Gristle: It always makes me laugh that they ban this gun or that gun, or make it 20 times harder for a law abiding person who has common sense to get a good weapon for either self defense, hunting, or target shooting. After all those poor kids were killed by that asshole with the AR-15, all the gun hating libtards said "WE must do something to ban these guns, or make it much harder for people to get them. We must keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people."

Durrrrrrrrr

/The guy who killed all those kids? The guns weren't his. They belonged to his mother, who was a valid non crazy weapon owner. He killed her and stole her guns. Banning guns, or making it hard for honest law abiding people to get them does nothing, beyond your knee jerk reaction. He STOLE THEM. Make all the stupid moranic laws you want, criminals and crazy people don't give a fark. Jesus, get a farking brain and stop making new laws that the criminals ignore, or make it harder for honest people to defend themselves. Get a brain morans.

Funny thing is the gun shop the Lanza guns were purchased from was just busted for selling guns illegally. The fine is amazingly hefty too.


How responsible of a gun owner was she if she kept firearms in the house with a kid with obvious mental health issues?
 
2013-07-08 09:59:35 AM  

KrispyKritter: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

a truly Great Janitor need only a mop and broom to right all wrongs. Son, I am disappoint.


My broom is custom built, based on the design of the cane sword.  However, a range weapon is always nice.
 
2013-07-08 09:59:38 AM  

StaleCoffee: OnlyM3: MFAWG
2013-07-08 09:30:47 AM


Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer. They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.Straw man
You only wear a seat belt because you plan on running down preschoolers and are terrified you'll get hurt when doing so, right?

Cars are used for the sole purpose of lethal defense by the average car owner?


That was my takeaway from every time I've ever encountered a driver with an Ohio plate.
 
2013-07-08 10:06:32 AM  
Well! I guess that ends that argument
 
2013-07-08 10:07:29 AM  
Thanks for admitting that the NRA are criminals.
 
2013-07-08 10:07:46 AM  
I enjoy how the irony is lost on the "everyone has a gun so I need a gun" crowd.
 
2013-07-08 10:09:45 AM  
Should have performed a DUH Test....
 
2013-07-08 10:11:22 AM  

UNC_Samurai: thecpt: Bit'O'Gristle: It always makes me laugh that they ban this gun or that gun, or make it 20 times harder for a law abiding person who has common sense to get a good weapon for either self defense, hunting, or target shooting. After all those poor kids were killed by that asshole with the AR-15, all the gun hating libtards said "WE must do something to ban these guns, or make it much harder for people to get them. We must keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people."

Durrrrrrrrr

/The guy who killed all those kids? The guns weren't his. They belonged to his mother, who was a valid non crazy weapon owner. He killed her and stole her guns. Banning guns, or making it hard for honest law abiding people to get them does nothing, beyond your knee jerk reaction. He STOLE THEM. Make all the stupid moranic laws you want, criminals and crazy people don't give a fark. Jesus, get a farking brain and stop making new laws that the criminals ignore, or make it harder for honest people to defend themselves. Get a brain morans.

Funny thing is the gun shop the Lanza guns were purchased from was just busted for selling guns illegally. The fine is amazingly hefty too.

How responsible of a gun owner was she if she kept firearms in the house with a kid with obvious mental health issues?


Oh that wasn't my point. I don't think I could speculate on that. Plus moms can't make a rational emotionless decision like "my kid might be more likely to kill people." I just think it is kind of disturbing that the legally purchased firearms did that damage, and there were illegal firearms sold on top of all that.
 
2013-07-08 10:14:25 AM  

CapeFearCadaver: dittybopper: CapeFearCadaver: dittybopper: I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

Watch out! They're storming into your house and into your gun cabinet to take all your guns away!!! Might as well shot your dog before they do!

English isn't your first language, is it?

My grammar is impeccable.

/gun owner, CCW carrier


You're having some problems with tense.  "Shot" is past tense, and we're way past tents.  We're living in bungalows now, this being the Mechanical Age of course.
 
2013-07-08 10:15:05 AM  

chuggernaught: Correct.  Now, where can I get my hands on a functional howitzer and rounds of ammo.  For home defense of course.  It's just an inanimate object so I should totally be allowed to have one.

/or as many as I choose for that matter.


Howitzer for Sale!

Here's a few more

They aren't illegal to own or operate, you just need to have your paperwork in order.
 
2013-07-08 10:15:30 AM  

doglover: MFAWG: Guns do not

Cartman, you're not gonna fool the judges so stop trying to get into the Special Olympics.


Do they have another use? Please enlighten me.

Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead.
 
2013-07-08 10:16:53 AM  

dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.


"I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control." - George L. Roman

It's basic economics, if there is a demand they will be suppliers.  Gun control rests on the idea that government can actually CONTROL guns.  It can't, it can only make an example here and there while making really bad people rich because they were the only ones who were brave enough to disobey the law and sell the things. Oh, and then the bad people are going to kill good people by accident during disputes over distribution rights.

Just like alcohol, just like pot, or coke or crack or heroin or five gallon tolliet tanks or fark all else.
 
2013-07-08 10:17:02 AM  
The important point in this article is the call for a more holistic approach to crime in areas with high levels of violent crimes. Kids who live in the worst areas of the country do not have people that they look up to who haven't been in jail, or who aren't criminals. A great step to take in working toward a solution would be to invest in education, and recruit great teachers for areas like Camden. Then, instead of having primarily drug dealers and violent criminals as role models, kids might start looking up to their teachers as a mentor, and see a way out of the cycle of crime and failure. I support tougher gun laws, but that cannot be the only thing that happens if we truly do wan to find a solution that works. We really need to get to the core of the problem.
 
2013-07-08 10:19:28 AM  

monoski: So do we stop passing drug laws too since they don't seem to care about them either?


Yes.
 
2013-07-08 10:20:52 AM  
see if we get rid of drug laws, then we'd have a secular society.  "illegal" would then be equivalent to "morally wrong".  and it's bad to mix religion and state
 
2013-07-08 10:21:20 AM  
MFAWG: Drivers ED Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead Plowing through farmers markets.

Redcato ad absurdium returned.
 
2013-07-08 10:23:19 AM  
I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Camden is completely broke and laid off half its police force.

It's the result of that ugly spiral wherein school and police funding are tied to local taxes.  Smaller tax base, worse services.  Worse services, fewer responsible adults.  Fewer responsible adults, smaller tax base.

It either needs a bailout from New Jersey or for someone to bulldoze the whole place (or for Philadelphia to turn into New York II and for people to try to gentrify it, but good luck with that in the next 30 years).
 
2013-07-08 10:24:02 AM  

PanicMan: John Buck 41: 4+ week old article. Nice going, everyone involved.

Has anything changed in the past 4 weeks re gun laws or American culture as it relates to violence?


Illinois governor and shameless liar Pat Quinn used an amendatory veto to alter the recently passed concealed weapons permit law into uselessness while citing the crime rates of Chicago, which imposes very strict restrictions upon civilian firearm possession, as justification.
 
2013-07-08 10:24:05 AM  

UNC_Samurai: How responsible of a gun owner was she if she kept firearms in the house with a kid with obvious mental health issues?


So she loses her rights through no fault of her own?

Also, while he may have had mental issues, I have yet to hear that he had violent tendencies from any source.  *THAT* might be a problem, but again, she shouldn't have lost any rights because of that.

Also, the shooter was an adult.  He was 19 years old at the time, not a 'kid' in the legal sense of the term.  In addition, we don't really know if she had the guns locked up and he just managed to steal the key or figure out the combination.  She had an actual gun safe, so for all we know at this point they may have been locked up.

He *PLANNED* the shootings ahead of time, and if he kept his plans to himself, there is essentially nothing anyone could have done.  Connecticut had fairly strict gun laws at the time, and they were followed by his mother.  All the guns she had were legally owned, and she had to get background checks on all of them.

Of course, no laws will ever close the "steal the guns and shoot the owner in the face with them" loophole.
 
2013-07-08 10:27:02 AM  

monoski: "But no law stopped him from becoming a teenage drug dealer who could easily acquire, and use, his weapon of choice "

So do we stop passing drug laws too since they don't seem to care about them either?


Yes.
 
2013-07-08 10:28:46 AM  

MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.


Being prepared is not walking around terrified of everything. Do you consider having insurance to mean that you are terrified of everything?
 
2013-07-08 10:29:04 AM  
www.everythingaction.com
 
2013-07-08 10:30:33 AM  

Dimensio: PanicMan: John Buck 41: 4+ week old article. Nice going, everyone involved.

Has anything changed in the past 4 weeks re gun laws or American culture as it relates to violence?

Illinois governor and shameless liar Pat Quinn used an amendatory veto to alter the recently passed concealed weapons permit law into uselessness while citing the crime rates of Chicago, which imposes very strict restrictions upon civilian firearm possession, as justification.


Tomorrow's thread on the override vote is gonna be EPIC!
 
2013-07-08 10:30:40 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

conservatism isn't about being rational, dude.


Actually, it is.
 
2013-07-08 10:31:13 AM  

Click Click D'oh: chuggernaught: Correct.  Now, where can I get my hands on a functional howitzer and rounds of ammo.  For home defense of course.  It's just an inanimate object so I should totally be allowed to have one.

/or as many as I choose for that matter.

Howitzer for Sale!

Here's a few more

They aren't illegal to own or operate, you just need to have your paperwork in order.


Actually, if you go with muzzleloading artillery, you don't need any paperwork.  I have a modest 76mm mortar that I shoot on very rare occasions.
 
2013-07-08 10:31:25 AM  

Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.


That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.


This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.
 
2013-07-08 10:31:45 AM  

MFAWG: doglover: MFAWG: Guns do not

Cartman, you're not gonna fool the judges so stop trying to get into the Special Olympics.

Do they have another use? Please enlighten me.

Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead.


Learning how to type is really just practicing to get better at posting stupid analogies on Fark.
 
2013-07-08 10:32:24 AM  

happydude45: Jon iz teh kewl: MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

conservatism isn't about being rational, dude.

Actually, it is.


well if u knew that everyone had the same soul as u you wouldn't need to act like we're separate
 
2013-07-08 10:33:24 AM  

Jarhead_h: dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

"I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control." - George L. Roman

It's basic economics, if there is a demand they will be suppliers.  Gun control rests on the idea that government can actually CONTROL guns.  It can't, it can only make an example here and there while making really bad people rich because they were the only ones who were brave enough to disobey the law and sell the things. Oh, and then the bad people are going to kill good people by accident during disputes over distribution rights.

Just like alcohol, just like pot, or coke or crack or heroin or five gallon tolliet tanks or fark all else.


Yep.

And guns aren't that hard to make:  They are a 600 year old technology, and even to this very day they are being made by hand in countries with very restrictive gun laws.

You can go down to your local Lowes or Home Depot and buy pretty much every thing you need to start cranking out primitive, but effective, home-made guns.
 
2013-07-08 10:35:15 AM  
Well no shiat
 
2013-07-08 10:35:27 AM  

Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Drivers ED Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead Plowing through farmers markets.

Redcato ad absurdium returned.


Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?
 
2013-07-08 10:36:35 AM  

vanbiber874: The important point in this article is the call for a more holistic approach to crime in areas with high levels of violent crimes. Kids who live in the worst areas of the country do not have people that they look up to who haven't been in jail, or who aren't criminals. A great step to take in working toward a solution would be to invest in education, and recruit great teachers for areas like Camden. Then, instead of having primarily drug dealers and violent criminals as role models, kids might start looking up to their teachers as a mentor, and see a way out of the cycle of crime and failure. I support tougher gun laws, but that cannot be the only thing that happens if we truly do wan to find a solution that works. We really need to get to the core of the problem.


Hold on there smart guy(or girl), gun debates get clicks.

We've effectively thinned the herd of able and intelligent people who want to teach for a living by trimming down pay and benefits for decades.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you. Schools keep hiring $100k plus/yr administrators and not teachers. It's an absurd public school problem.
 
2013-07-08 10:38:25 AM  

MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.


Not as much as it must suck to have gunphobia
 
2013-07-08 10:38:56 AM  

scotty425: Dimensio: PanicMan: John Buck 41: 4+ week old article. Nice going, everyone involved.

Has anything changed in the past 4 weeks re gun laws or American culture as it relates to violence?

Illinois governor and shameless liar Pat Quinn used an amendatory veto to alter the recently passed concealed weapons permit law into uselessness while citing the crime rates of Chicago, which imposes very strict restrictions upon civilian firearm possession, as justification.

Tomorrow's thread on the override vote is gonna be EPIC!


I have not been anticipating any discussion of the vote; previous news regarding the matter (the governor's delay in addressing the bill and his eventual amendatory veto) did not, to my knowledge, reach Fark's Main or Politics pages.
 
2013-07-08 10:39:08 AM  

thecpt: vanbiber874: The important point in this article is the call for a more holistic approach to crime in areas with high levels of violent crimes. Kids who live in the worst areas of the country do not have people that they look up to who haven't been in jail, or who aren't criminals. A great step to take in working toward a solution would be to invest in education, and recruit great teachers for areas like Camden. Then, instead of having primarily drug dealers and violent criminals as role models, kids might start looking up to their teachers as a mentor, and see a way out of the cycle of crime and failure. I support tougher gun laws, but that cannot be the only thing that happens if we truly do wan to find a solution that works. We really need to get to the core of the problem.

Hold on there smart guy(or girl), gun debates get clicks.

We've effectively thinned the herd of able and intelligent people who want to teach for a living by trimming down pay and benefits for decades.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you. Schools keep hiring $100k plus/yr administrators and not teachers. It's an absurd public school problem.


Can I get a super size serving of this?
 
2013-07-08 10:40:22 AM  
i need guns to protect me from other people
*shoots someone in defence*

oh shiat i killed someone i can't live with myself
 
2013-07-08 10:40:30 AM  

dittybopper: Click Click D'oh: chuggernaught: Correct.  Now, where can I get my hands on a functional howitzer and rounds of ammo.  For home defense of course.  It's just an inanimate object so I should totally be allowed to have one.

/or as many as I choose for that matter.

Howitzer for Sale!

Here's a few more

They aren't illegal to own or operate, you just need to have your paperwork in order.

Actually, if you go with muzzleloading artillery, you don't need any paperwork.  I have a modest 76mm mortar that I shoot on very rare occasions.


You should refrain from advertising your ownership of such a device, lest gun control advocacy groups demand the closing of the "muzzle-loader loophole".
 
2013-07-08 10:42:24 AM  
Next to PA. Damn borders.
 
2013-07-08 10:43:21 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: More people are killed by drunk drivers every year than are killed by guns.


That is total BS. In 2010, there were 31,328 gun deaths, and 32,885 automobile fatalities. Do you really believe that every single automobile fatality is caused by a drunk driver?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exce ed -traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

I don't see anyone banning cars or trucks.

No, you don't. Instead you see concerted government action to make cars safer, often over the vociferous objections of the automobile manufacturers.

You also see increasingly harsh penalties for people who are convicted of DUI, regardless of whether they actually caused a car accident or not.

The farking politicians are quick to jump on their soapbox, screaming about gun control, and banning this or that magazine, gun, or attachment. Blaming the farking tool the guy used is moranic.

Yes, there are people with an irrational fear of guns, just like there are people with an irrational fear of crime. You are more likely to be murdered by someone in your own home than a random person on the street, and your likelihood of dying by gun dramatically increases if you have one in your home.

With cars, we can work to make the safer. But how do you do that with guns? How do you make something designed to kill people safer? One way is to make sure it is stored safely so that irresponsible people can't get ahold of it, but most gun advocates are firmly against any requirements on how guns are stored.

The gun didn't go on a rampage and murder people, the person did. There have been cases where a drunk has killed multiple people with his car, and i have yet to see any car bans.

Right, but once again you see lots of increasing pressure to prevent drink driving.

Reasonable gun control advocates aren't calling for gun BANS, they want to make sure that guns don't get into the hands of criminals, which means the distribution is controlled, not eliminated.

How can you justify taking a gun away, when cars kill more than guns do?

I don't, and neither do most gun control advocates. Again, I don't want to take away your gun(s), I want to make sure that:

1) It's either on your person or stored safety where kids and burglars can't easily get it.
2) Gun owners know how to operate their weapon safely and legally
3) Criminals can't easily buy guns

Ah, because a car is NEEDED. We don't need guns to protect ourselves. I'm sure if criminals who totally respect gun laws knew that we had none, they would totally not take advantage of that for profit. Hell, they would probably be happy to hand them over and never touch one again. Let's make a law that everyone has to hand in their firearms, and see how that works out.

Nah, let's not. Let's just set up a strawman that nobody is arguing for, pretend that's what gun control advocates want, and then argue against it.
 
2013-07-08 10:43:39 AM  

MFAWG: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Drivers ED Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead Plowing through farmers markets.

Redcato ad absurdium returned.

Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?



Most things that people do for fun are pointless: golfing serves no purpose but to put a ball in a tiny cup.  Football serves no purpose but to carry a ball to one end of a long field.  Sailing serves no purpose but to take you around the water slowly.

Gun ownership (for, say, target-shooting) serves no purpose but to put little holes in a piece of paper.

...yet, of all those pointless activities, guess which one is a constitutionally-protected right?
 
2013-07-08 10:45:02 AM  

Click Click D'oh: chuggernaught: Correct.  Now, where can I get my hands on a functional howitzer and rounds of ammo.  For home defense of course.  It's just an inanimate object so I should totally be allowed to have one.

/or as many as I choose for that matter.

Howitzer for Sale!

Here's a few more

They aren't illegal to own or operate, you just need to have your paperwork in order.


That's great. Let's do the same for smaller calibers too.
 
2013-07-08 10:45:53 AM  

vpb: Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.


Came here to say this.

The exact same thing could be said about ANY criminal activity.
 
2013-07-08 10:46:41 AM  

jshine: MFAWG: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Drivers ED Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead Plowing through farmers markets.

Redcato ad absurdium returned.

Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?


Most things that people do for fun are pointless: golfing serves no purpose but to put a ball in a tiny cup.  Football serves no purpose but to carry a ball to one end of a long field.  Sailing serves no purpose but to take you around the water slowly.

Gun ownership (for, say, target-shooting) serves no purpose but to put little holes in a piece of paper.

...yet, of all those pointless activities, guess which one is a constitutionally-protected right?


yeah that's right we don't go around hitting people with golf clubs.  so only a grade A moran would shoot someone with a gun
 
2013-07-08 10:47:27 AM  

dittybopper: Actually, if you go with muzzleloading artillery, you don't need any paperwork.  I have a modest 76mm mortar that I shoot on very rare occasions.


Feral cat hunting?
 
2013-07-08 10:48:37 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: jshine: MFAWG: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Drivers ED Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead Plowing through farmers markets.

Redcato ad absurdium returned.

Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?


Most things that people do for fun are pointless: golfing serves no purpose but to put a ball in a tiny cup.  Football serves no purpose but to carry a ball to one end of a long field.  Sailing serves no purpose but to take you around the water slowly.

Gun ownership (for, say, target-shooting) serves no purpose but to put little holes in a piece of paper.

...yet, of all those pointless activities, guess which one is a constitutionally-protected right?

yeah that's right we don't go around hitting people with golf clubs.   so only a grade A moran would shoot someone with a gun



In general (outside of war or other extreme circumstances) that's true.
 
2013-07-08 10:49:30 AM  

MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?


The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?
 
2013-07-08 10:49:53 AM  

neomunk: Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.


Englebert Slaptyback:

 That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

neomonk: This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.


This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.
 
2013-07-08 10:52:37 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: yeah that's right we don't go around hitting people with golf clubs.


Oh really?  Might want to ask Jack about that.
 
2013-07-08 10:53:04 AM  
By definition "criminals" don't care about laws in general.  So what's your point subby?
 
2013-07-08 10:53:21 AM  

Zasteva: neomunk: Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.


Englebert Slaptyback: That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

neomonk: This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.

This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.


So long as Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Mr. Wayne LaPierre and Mr. Ted Nugent are involved in the discussion, intelligent discourse and reasoned proposals are not possible.
 
2013-07-08 10:55:28 AM  

Zasteva: neomunk: Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.


Englebert Slaptyback: That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

neomonk: This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.

This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.



Ideally it would be nice to have a reasonable discussion, yet as long as there is any faction that is determined to "ban", there will be a (somewhat reasonable) fear that any specific regulation is the thin end of the wedge.

The abortion debate illustrates the effect, with some states passing incrementally more restrictive laws year by year with the ultimate goal of making abortion de facto impossible (or at least impractical), though they may be Constitutionally unable to legislate it out of existence entirely.

The fact that many of the pro-gun crowd are probably also among the anti-abortion crowd wouldn't help the situation -- they are all too familiar with the tactic.
 
2013-07-08 10:55:48 AM  

monoski: "But no law stopped him from becoming a teenage drug dealer who could easily acquire, and use, his weapon of choice "

So do we stop passing drug laws too since they don't seem to care about them either?


Yes!
 
2013-07-08 10:56:11 AM  

Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?


That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in quite a few weeks. Did you really type that in and think "Wow, that will get him to realize his statement was absurd!!"?

Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?
 
2013-07-08 10:56:56 AM  

Dimensio: PanicMan: John Buck 41: 4+ week old article. Nice going, everyone involved.

Has anything changed in the past 4 weeks re gun laws or American culture as it relates to violence?

Illinois governor and shameless liar Pat Quinn used an amendatory veto to alter the recently passed concealed weapons permit law into uselessness while citing the crime rates of Chicago, which imposes very strict restrictions upon civilian firearm possession, as justification.


THIS.  Meanwhile, over the weekend in Chicago - 9 dead, dozens wounded.  But it's ALL because they don't have a proper CC law in place.  Right.  Now pull the other one.  Friggin' idiot.  And not just Quinn.  The lot of you who think you can legislate the ghetto mentality out of existence.  Everybody likes to make fun of "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", but it's true.  Or were you expecting all the gang-bangers to voluntarily surrender their weapons should firearms become illegal?
 
2013-07-08 10:57:18 AM  

MFAWG: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Drivers ED Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead Plowing through farmers markets.

Redcato ad absurdium returned.

Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?


Actually, they're just designed to shoot projectiles.  If they were designed to kill, every time someone massacred nothing but a paper target at the range, you could sue the manufacturer for a faulty product.

That said, the .223/5.56mm NATO round in an M-16/AR-15 is designed to wound, and not kill.
 
2013-07-08 10:57:58 AM  

Zasteva: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in quite a few weeks. Did you really type that in and think "Wow, that will get him to realize his statement was absurd!!"?

Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?


So, we arm cops so they can kill people?
 
2013-07-08 10:58:00 AM  

Dimensio: scotty425: Dimensio: PanicMan: John Buck 41: 4+ week old article. Nice going, everyone involved.

Has anything changed in the past 4 weeks re gun laws or American culture as it relates to violence?

Illinois governor and shameless liar Pat Quinn used an amendatory veto to alter the recently passed concealed weapons permit law into uselessness while citing the crime rates of Chicago, which imposes very strict restrictions upon civilian firearm possession, as justification.

Tomorrow's thread on the override vote is gonna be EPIC!

I have not been anticipating any discussion of the vote; previous news regarding the matter (the governor's delay in addressing the bill and his eventual amendatory veto) did not, to my knowledge, reach Fark's Main or Politics pages.


Nope, it didn't make Fark before, but it might tomorrow. Tuesday both chambers of the Illinois General assembly will hold a vote to override Quinn's amendatory veto. Illinois is the last state prohibiting the carrying of firearms for self defense, a prohibition that was struck down by the 7th Circuit Court. July 9 is the deadline to have a law in place allowing concealed carry. If no law is in place and barring an appeal by Lisa Madigan to the SC, one of two things will happen, either "constitutional carry" or in Illinois' case FOID carry will be the rule or each county and home rule community will set their own laws. IMHO, the veto will be overridden and H183 will become law.
 
2013-07-08 11:02:01 AM  

scotty425: Dimensio: scotty425: Dimensio: PanicMan: John Buck 41: 4+ week old article. Nice going, everyone involved.

Has anything changed in the past 4 weeks re gun laws or American culture as it relates to violence?

Illinois governor and shameless liar Pat Quinn used an amendatory veto to alter the recently passed concealed weapons permit law into uselessness while citing the crime rates of Chicago, which imposes very strict restrictions upon civilian firearm possession, as justification.

Tomorrow's thread on the override vote is gonna be EPIC!

I have not been anticipating any discussion of the vote; previous news regarding the matter (the governor's delay in addressing the bill and his eventual amendatory veto) did not, to my knowledge, reach Fark's Main or Politics pages.

Nope, it didn't make Fark before, but it might tomorrow. Tuesday both chambers of the Illinois General assembly will hold a vote to override Quinn's amendatory veto. Illinois is the last state prohibiting the carrying of firearms for self defense, a prohibition that was struck down by the 7th Circuit Court. July 9 is the deadline to have a law in place allowing concealed carry. If no law is in place and barring an appeal by Lisa Madigan to the SC, one of two things will happen, either "constitutional carry" or in Illinois' case FOID carry will be the rule or each county and home rule community will set their own laws. IMHO, the veto will be overridden and H183 will become law.


Truly, violent times are ahead for the state of Illinois. Less than six months after "shall-issue" concealed weapons permits were first issued in Wisconsin, a concealed weapons permit holder in the state shot another individual at an Aldi's grocery store over a simple disagreement*.

*The shooter disagreed with the victim's plan to commit armed robbery.
 
2013-07-08 11:02:19 AM  

BgJonson79: Zasteva: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in quite a few weeks. Did you really type that in and think "Wow, that will get him to realize his statement was absurd!!"?

Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

So, we arm cops so they can kill people?


Yes.

And we give them non-lethal alternatives like tazers so they can choose a lesser alternative.
 
2013-07-08 11:03:05 AM  

Zasteva


This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.


Disclaimer: I am not a firearm enthusiast in in the "gun nut" sense. For me it is not a lifestyle and I will not join the NRA, though I currently own eleven firearms of widely varying configurations, calibers, and ages.

To be candid I see the current process as being a very small inconvenience, or not really inconvenient at all. I complete a form and the guy behind the counter makes a five-minute phone call and I'm all set. However, I understand that my experience is not universal. I like the idea of background checks for all purchases. I do not see it as a slippery slope to "they're gonna takes our gunz!!".

Anyway, some gun owners are rational and reasonable people and would be happy to engage in respectful discussion. However, we are drowned out by the Shouty McYellsalot types on both sides.
 
2013-07-08 11:03:41 AM  

Zasteva: Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?


No, the are both equally absurd and both patently false.  Guns are not designed and used solely to kill people, and training people to shoot firearms isn't training people to be an army of ninja assassins.  That's what Redacto ad Absurdium means.


Zasteva: Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?


If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?
 
2013-07-08 11:05:00 AM  

Zasteva: BgJonson79: Zasteva: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in quite a few weeks. Did you really type that in and think "Wow, that will get him to realize his statement was absurd!!"?

Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

So, we arm cops so they can kill people?

Yes.

And we give them non-lethal alternatives like tazers so they can choose a lesser alternative.


EVERY armed cop has a taser?  Are you sure about that?
 
2013-07-08 11:07:12 AM  

Zasteva: neomunk: Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.


Englebert Slaptyback: That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

neomonk: This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.

This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.


To act like that people that want to ban all guns outright have more than ZERO influence on any policy decision or debate on gun control is disingenuous.
 The debate has been for the last at least 30 years:

1) Looking at reasonable policies to reduce gun deaths.  That involve things like researching different options, looking at what places like Canada do, and universal background checks etc...
vs.
2) No restrictions or tracking of any kind (and therefore no research on options) on firearm purchases, carrying laws and weapon types.

What happens is that gun nuts act like a reasonable discussion on universal background checks (or the like) is equivalent to confiscating all firearms.


Plus, every discussion with gun nuts degenerates to them obsessing over the definition of every type or words to describe firearms.
 
2013-07-08 11:08:00 AM  

monoski: So do we stop passing drug laws too since they don't seem to care about them either?


Yes.
 
2013-07-08 11:08:19 AM  

Englebert Slaptyback: Zasteva

This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.


Englebert Slaptyback:Disclaimer: I am not a firearm enthusiast in in the "gun nut" sense. For me it is not a lifestyle and I will not join the NRA, though I currently own eleven firearms of widely varying configurations, calibers, and ages.

To be candid I see the current process as being a very small inconvenience, or not really inconvenient at all. I complete a form and the guy behind the counter makes a five-minute phone call and I'm all set. However, I understand that my experience is not universal. I like the idea of background checks for all purchases. I do not see it as a slippery slope to "they're gonna takes our gunz!!".

Anyway, some gun owners are rational and reasonable people and would be happy to engage in respectful discussion. However, we are drowned out by the Shouty McYellsalot types on both sides.


Nice to hear from you! I've had discussion with a few other people like yourself and generally it's pretty easy to agree on some principles, and even a lot of specific ways to do things to implement those principles. So all is not lost, we just need to find a way for reasonable people to be heard over the Shouty McYellsalots of the world!
 
2013-07-08 11:09:35 AM  

Aldon: Zasteva: neomunk: Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.


Englebert Slaptyback: That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

neomonk: This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.

This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.

To act like that people that want to ban all guns outright have more than ZERO influence on any policy decision or debate on gun control is disingenuous.
 The debate has been for the last at least 30 years:

1) Looking at reasonable policies to reduce gun deaths.  That involve things like researching different options, looking at what places like Canada do, and universal background checks etc...
vs.
2) No restrictions or tracking of any kind (and therefore no research on options) on firearm purchases, carrying laws and weapon types.

What happens is that gun nuts act like a reasonable discussion on universal background checks (or the like) is equivalent to confiscating all firearms.


Plus, every discussion with gun nuts degenerates to them obsessing over the definition of every type or words to describe firearms.


Isn't an enumerated right something worth obsessing over?  I don't see a lot of people trying to get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...
 
2013-07-08 11:10:49 AM  

Itstoearly: MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

Not as much as it must suck to have gunphobia


I own 3, and feel no need to carry any of them all the time, even though I have a CCW permit.
 
2013-07-08 11:11:43 AM  

MFAWG: Itstoearly: MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

Not as much as it must suck to have gunphobia

I own 3, and feel no need to carry any of them all the time, even though I have a CCW permit.


I'm sorry you have to get permission from your state to exercise an enumerated right.
 
2013-07-08 11:12:03 AM  
It's almost as if crime, gun or otherwise, is a social, economic, and cultural issue, not a gun issue. But nah, that can't be true. We all know it is the guns fault that people commit violent acts, not the people being brought up in a culture that promotes violent crime as the only way to get ahead.
 
2013-07-08 11:12:35 AM  

Tom_Slick: This text is now purple: doglover: BTK used a steak knife and curtains.

If ugly curtains were illegal, the people who owned my house before me would have been executed.

Only Executed? The previous owner of my house would have been Shot, Stabbed, Beheaded, Drawn and Quartered.


Ahh. The notorious "Brazilian Referee".
 
2013-07-08 11:13:11 AM  

Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?


We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make cars safer and we continue to do more every year.  Including tracking and limiting their use in a variety of ways.

Wouldn't it be insane not to?
 
2013-07-08 11:13:24 AM  

arentol: It's almost as if crime, gun or otherwise, is a social, economic, and cultural issue, not a gun issue. But nah, that can't be true. We all know it is the guns fault that people commit violent acts, not the people being brought up in a culture that promotes violent crime as the only way to get ahead.


I have been assured that crime is the result of two factors:

1) The absence of concealed carry.
2) The continued presence of collapsing stocks, pistol grips and threaded barrels on firearms.
 
2013-07-08 11:14:24 AM  

Aldon: Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make cars safer and we continue to do more every year.  Including tracking and limiting their use in a variety of ways.

Wouldn't it be insane not to?


Cars are normally used in public.I'd argue more than 99%, but I have no real stats.

One does not have to use a gun in public.
 
2013-07-08 11:17:16 AM  

Aldon: Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make cars safer and we continue to do more every year.  Including tracking and limiting their use in a variety of ways.

Wouldn't it be insane not to?


An appropriate analog to the restrictions proposed by some gun control advocacy organizations is a ban on rear spoilers, hood scoops and chrome exhaust tips, and a specific ban on all Honda Civics, Toyota Corollas, Caterpillar D9s and Mitsubishi Lancers.

To reassure automobile owners that the proposal is not a total car ban, certain models will be explicitly not affected by legislation, such as the BMW 3-series, the Ford Edsel, the Sopwith Camel and the Cadillac Escalade.
 
2013-07-08 11:17:35 AM  
It must suck to live in these places.

Sure, I get paid poorly compared to others in my field who live in other States.
But, there is very little violent crime here and no one bats an eye if I take a couple handguns to the range with my S.O and shoot off a couple hundred rounds for the fun of it.

Me:
sakonnetriveroutfitters.com

Her:
www.smith-wesson.com
 
2013-07-08 11:17:37 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Zasteva: Seriously, you think the idea that  guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Click Click D'oh: No, the are both equally absurd and both patently false.  Guns are not designed and used solely to kill people, and training people to shoot firearms isn't training people to be an army of ninja assassins.  That's what Redacto ad Absurdium means.

You understand that the meaning changes when you add words like "solely". I never said solely and I agree that's patently false.


Guns are designed and used to kill people. A subset of guns are designed primarily for other purposes (shotguns leap to mind), though that overwhelming majority (perhaps all) that are designed for other purposes will work to kill people too.

Zasteva: Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

Click Click D'oh:
 If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

Safety glass, bumpers, collapsing unibody frames that absorb the impact of collisions, safety belts, airbags, ABS, dynamic traction and stability control, and, in the near future we can expect to see things like automatic collision avoidance and eventually self-driving cars that take car out of human hands altogether.

Your turn!
 
2013-07-08 11:19:08 AM  

BgJonson79: Isn't an enumerated right something worth obsessing over? I don't see a lot of people trying to get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...


Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general. It is disingenuous to suggest that is what is happening.


The Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and every human and constitutional right) has responsibility and reasonable restrictions associated with it why not the Second Amendment? That is what people are asking for who are on the other side of the debate.


I don't see why the Second Amendment should be treated differently than every other amendment or right.
 
2013-07-08 11:19:20 AM  

BgJonson79: EVERY armed cop has a taser? Are you sure about that?


It's nearly the case in some jurisdictions, but not all. I think the taser is standard kit in Florida.
 
2013-07-08 11:19:29 AM  

BgJonson79: MFAWG: Itstoearly: MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

Not as much as it must suck to have gunphobia

I own 3, and feel no need to carry any of them all the time, even though I have a CCW permit.

I'm sorry you have to get permission from your state to exercise an enumerated right.


Concealed carry is an enumerated right?

Show me. Wyatt Earp was on the wrong side of the carry issue?
 
2013-07-08 11:20:57 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: More people are killed by drunk drivers every year than are killed by guns. I don't see anyone banning cars or trucks


No, they simply rendered the Fourth Amendment a nullity with DWI roadblocks.
 
2013-07-08 11:21:12 AM  
Aldon:We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make Guns  cars safer and we continue to do more every year.


People who have no knowledge of firearms laws and safety innovations should not participate in a debate about the same.  They can be easily identified, as they are the ones that think there aren't enough laws or gun safety innovations.
 
2013-07-08 11:22:05 AM  

Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?


Oh, and that's not to mention all the things we do to make sure that the humans who drive cars are responsible, like requiring safety and operations training, licensing, rules and regulations on how and where cars are used, prohibitions against operating while under the influence, careful tracking of ownership, and revocation of licenses for people who break the rules.

Shall we keep playing?
 
2013-07-08 11:22:09 AM  

dittybopper: UNC_Samurai: How responsible of a gun owner was she if she kept firearms in the house with a kid with obvious mental health issues?

So she loses her rights through no fault of her own?


I'm not saying she shouldn't have a right to own a gun.  But when you have a dependent with a developmental disorder, perhaps it's better to store your firearms somewhere other than the house.  Why can't we require people in that situation to store dangerous weapons off-site?

Also, while he may have had mental issues, I have yet to hear that he had violent tendencies from any source.  *THAT* might be a problem, but again, she shouldn't have lost any rights because of that.

When you are the caretaker for someone like that, you have to accept certain responsibilities.

Also, the shooter was an adult.  He was 19 years old at the time, not a 'kid' in the legal sense of the term.

Semantics.  I'll drop "kid" and add "dependent".  Either way, he can't function without a caretaker.

In addition, we don't really know if she had the guns locked up and he just managed to steal the key or figure out the combination.  She had an actual gun safe, so for all we know at this point they may have been locked up.

And if he still was able to access the firearms, through coercion or subterfuge, then we have a failure in the system.

He *PLANNED* the shootings ahead of time, and if he kept his plans to himself, there is essentially nothing anyone could have done.  Connecticut had fairly strict gun laws at the time, and they were followed by his mother.  All the guns she had were legally owned, and she had to get background checks on all of them.

This is why I think we need to strengthen both the background checks and the state of mental health diagnosis.  Violence isn't exactly a rarity with people with autism; and he had been diagnosed with SID and had some anger issues.  Maybe the background check should include "are you caretaking for any dependents with mental disabilities, developmental disabilities, or are prone to violent tendencies?

Of course, no laws will ever close the "steal the guns and shoot the owner in the face with them" loophole.

Laws are never going to be perfect, but what people are asking for is a better refinement and improvements to those laws.  Firearms ownership is an incredible responsibility, and the consequences of negligence can obviously be widespread.  Dismissing it as a freak incident we can do nothing about - as well as an argument about rights as a blanket defense - is disingenuous.  In this case, there was a form of negligence, and a lot of innocent people were killed as a consequence.  And there are steps we can take to minimize future incidents, but too often we can't discuss those because somehow any attempt to use public policy to ensure people are responsible with dangerous tools is seen as an infringement on their rights.
 
2013-07-08 11:23:42 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Aldon:We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make Guns  cars safer and we continue to do more every year.


People who have no knowledge of firearms laws and safety innovations should not participate in a debate about the same.  They can be easily identified, as they are the ones that think there aren't enough laws or gun safety innovations.


Could we not mandate biometric locks be installed on all firearms? Such a requirement would guarantee that a firearm would never be stolen and used against its owner. As such technology is obviously infallible, imposing such a requirement would cause no harm at all.

Police, of course, would be exempt from such a requirement, because police are themselves infallible.
 
2013-07-08 11:23:54 AM  

Aldon: Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make cars safer and we continue to do more every year.  Including tracking and limiting their use in a variety of ways.

Wouldn't it be insane not to?


The regulations on cars used on private property are almost nil.

As an example, dragsters and indy cars are amazingly non-street legal.
 
2013-07-08 11:25:41 AM  

Aldon: BgJonson79: Isn't an enumerated right something worth obsessing over? I don't see a lot of people trying to get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...

Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general. It is disingenuous to suggest that is what is happening.


The Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and every human and constitutional right) has responsibility and reasonable restrictions associated with it why not the Second Amendment? That is what people are asking for who are on the other side of the debate.


I don't see why the Second Amendment should be treated differently than every other amendment or right.


What restrictions are there for the Fourth and Fifth?
 
2013-07-08 11:26:18 AM  

MFAWG: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Drivers ED Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead Plowing through farmers markets.

Redcato ad absurdium returned.

Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?


Killing things isn't always wrong.
 
2013-07-08 11:26:20 AM  

MFAWG: BgJonson79: MFAWG: Itstoearly: MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

Not as much as it must suck to have gunphobia

I own 3, and feel no need to carry any of them all the time, even though I have a CCW permit.

I'm sorry you have to get permission from your state to exercise an enumerated right.

Concealed carry is an enumerated right?

Show me. Wyatt Earp was on the wrong side of the carry issue?


Isn't that bearing arms?
 
2013-07-08 11:26:21 AM  

tekmo: No, they simply rendered the Fourth Amendment a nullity with DWI roadblocks.


But I've been assured that the 2nd amendment protects the rest of the amendments so this can't possibly be true.
 
2013-07-08 11:26:37 AM  

Itstoearly: MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

Not as much as it must suck to have gunphobia


Yeah, why in the world would you be afraid of something that can kill you (accidentally or on purpose) by just squeezing a trigger. I thought the whole purpose of law-abiding citizens owning guns was to kill bad guys with guns, so...doesn't that make you just as afraid of guns? You are just dealing with it by counting on being able to draw your faster (and hoping that the other guy really is a bad guy).
 
2013-07-08 11:27:13 AM  
This is what the left actually believes...

i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-08 11:27:20 AM  

Aldon: Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general.


The Senate chair of the Intelligence Committee has little influence on policy or politics?
 
2013-07-08 11:27:35 AM  

Zasteva


Nice to hear from you! I've had discussion with a few other people like yourself and generally it's pretty easy to agree on some principles, and even a lot of specific ways to do things to implement those principles. So all is not lost, we just need to find a way for reasonable people to be heard over the Shouty McYellsalots of the world!


*tips hat*

The funny/strange aspect of all this is that the odds of any sort of significant change seem to be quite low. No Shouty types want to budge on their positions (again, on both sides) and the factions basically cancel each other out. It's like a tug-of-war between two identical vehicles: the individual drivers may be different but there won't be enough movement to constitute a win unless there is a catastrophic change on one side or the other.
 
2013-07-08 11:27:37 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Laws are never going to be perfect, but what people are asking for is a better refinement and improvements to those laws.


Isn't that pretty much the definition of a slippery slope?
 
2013-07-08 11:27:52 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Aldon:We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make Guns  cars safer and we continue to do more every year.

People who have no knowledge of firearms laws and safety innovations should not participate in a debate about the same.  They can be easily identified, as they are the ones that think there aren't enough laws or gun safety innovations.


The proper thing to do with uninformed people is to educate them, not dismiss them from the discussion. So please, educate us on all the things that have been done to make guns safer.

And, regarding enough laws -- I think the problem isn't quantity of laws, it the content. In some cases the laws are overburdensome and ineffective, and those laws should be removed. In other cases they are insufficient. If you like we can discuss specifics, which will be less fun that trying to prove how stupid each other is, but possibly more productive. It's up to you, I'll go either way.
 
2013-07-08 11:28:39 AM  

This text is now purple: Aldon: Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general.

The Senate chair of the Intelligence Committee has little influence on policy or politics?


The governor of New York State has little influence on policy or politics?
 
2013-07-08 11:29:57 AM  
If everybody had their own personal force field guns would be obsolete.
 
2013-07-08 11:30:52 AM  
Hmmm. Camden, New Jersey an economic desert, a microcosm of what the USA will be like in the next 10 years.
 
2013-07-08 11:30:57 AM  

Zasteva: You understand that the meaning changes when you add words like "solely". I never said solely and I agree that's patently false.


No, you didn't, but the person who started that line of reasoning did:  "Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you" ... and now you are carrying the torch for him.  Unless you wish to distinguish your argument from his?

Zasteva: Cars Guns are designed and used to kill people. A subset of Cars guns are designed primarily for other purposes (School buses shotguns leap to mind), though that overwhelming majority (perhaps all) that are designed for other purposes will work to kill people too.

Continuing with the absurdity...  Sometimes it can be a royal pain to scrape the toddlers off my Chargers push bumper.  The back seat is for spectators.  Any rumor that my Charger is for designed for non-lethal intents is simply false.

Zasteva: Safety glass, bumpers, collapsing unibody frames that absorb the impact of collisions, safety belts, airbags, ABS, dynamic traction and stability control, and, in the near future we can expect to see things like automatic collision avoidance and eventually self-driving cars that take car out of human hands altogether.

Your turn!


Trigger safeties, thumb safeties, transfer bars, cross bar safeties, firing pin blocks, drop safe design, chamber pressure testing , SAAMI standards, trigger locks, hammer locks, magazine well locks, integrated action locks, cable locks, safe storage laws...

You were saying?
 
2013-07-08 11:31:24 AM  

MFAWG: BgJonson79: MFAWG: Itstoearly: MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer.  They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

Not as much as it must suck to have gunphobia

I own 3, and feel no need to carry any of them all the time, even though I have a CCW permit.

I'm sorry you have to get permission from your state to exercise an enumerated right.

Concealed carry is an enumerated right?

Show me. Wyatt Earp was on the wrong side of the carry issue?


I wouldn't say so, but as far as the issue has been pushed in the courts, a complete blanket ban on concealed carry is unconstitutional. I imagine we will find out shortly if SCOTUS deems it worth debating over.

Wyatt Earp was also far more of a vigilante than most people know (for a good reason though).
 
2013-07-08 11:31:29 AM  

pjbreeze: Hmmm. Camden, New Jersey an economic desert, a microcosm of what the USA will be like in the next 10 years.


Why do you say that?
 
2013-07-08 11:31:56 AM  
DimensioBgJonson79

Ask Click D'oh why he brought up cars.  I'm just reacting to what he said.
 
2013-07-08 11:32:24 AM  

Zasteva: Shall we keep playing?


How many of those things are required for the ownership and operation of a car on private property?  None.  Oh, well.. yes.  Let's keep playing.
 
2013-07-08 11:32:57 AM  

This text is now purple: The regulations on cars used on private property are almost nil.


That's a common misconception. You are likely to be arrested for and convicted of DUI if the police find you sitting in the driver's seat of your car with the keys in your hand, even if you are in the driveway of your own house (your personal private property).

You can be given a fine for not having insurance on a car that's sitting on blocks in your back yard, completely incapable of being operated, unless you've turned in the tags.

Don't mistake difficulty of enforcement for lack of regulation.
 
2013-07-08 11:34:04 AM  

Click Click D'oh: How many of those things are required for the ownership and operation of a car on private property? None. Oh, well.. yes. Let's keep playing.


How many people exclusively operate firearms on private property?  Unless you've got 10+ acres you're probably not shooting in your yard.
 
2013-07-08 11:37:39 AM  

Zasteva: This text is now purple: The regulations on cars used on private property are almost nil.

That's a common misconception. You are likely to be arrested for and convicted of DUI if the police find you sitting in the driver's seat of your car with the keys in your hand, even if you are in the driveway of your own house (your personal private property).

You can be given a fine for not having insurance on a car that's sitting on blocks in your back yard, completely incapable of being operated, unless you've turned in the tags.

Don't mistake difficulty of enforcement for lack of regulation.


My state doesn't require insurance (or sales or income tax), and I'm not sure what probable cause the police would have to talk to you sitting in your car in your driveway...
 
2013-07-08 11:38:12 AM  

Zasteva: Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

Oh, and that's not to mention all the things we do to make sure that the humans who drive cars are responsible, like requiring safety and operations training, licensing, rules and regulations on how and where cars are used, prohibitions against operating while under the influence, careful tracking of ownership, and revocation of licenses for people who break the rules.

Shall we keep playing?


Sure. Vehicles are used largely in the public domain within normal usage. Therefore, there are a set of conditions of which you must meet in order to operate said machinery in public.

Firearms are largely used in private environments, unless utilized for a crime. Where utilized publicly, concealed carry, there are indeed a set of conditions that also need to be met; which include safety courses, shooting schools, registration, and license. (some or all depending on municipality)

Want to get serious about what requires training? I would wager that shiatty parenting results in the death of more people than all the rest of these petty arguments all combined. Bad parenting results in the death and injury of self, death and injury or others, illegal activities, cost to the public, cost to the individual, etc. etc. Get back to me when PARENTING requires even the least modicum of training, safety, and/or license to participate in.
 
2013-07-08 11:38:33 AM  

Aldon: DimensioBgJonson79

Ask Click D'oh why he brought up cars.  I'm just reacting to what he said.


The thing about a Redacto Ad Absurdum argument is that it's absurd.  It's not supposed to be respect for being correct.  It's whole point is to demonstrate insanely flawed logic.  Cars are introduced to demonstrate that the same absurd and illogical arguments about firearms can be applied equally to any other item that can be misused to cause harm.
 
2013-07-08 11:38:53 AM  

This text is now purple: Aldon: Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make cars safer and we continue to do more every year.  Including tracking and limiting their use in a variety of ways.

Wouldn't it be insane not to?

The regulations on cars used on private property are almost nil.

As an example, dragsters and indy cars are amazingly non-street legal.


Your point is lost to me here... are you saying you think firearms should be limited to only private property?
 
2013-07-08 11:39:37 AM  

you have pee hands: How many people exclusively operate firearms on private property?  Unless you've got 10+ acres you're probably not shooting in your yard.


Care to demonstrate where anyone here is advocating the restriction free operation of firearms on public property?
 
2013-07-08 11:41:09 AM  
2/5 pistols on that table were Hi-Points, with the bottom left one possibly one as well; I am not surprised.

/Also, there's no such thing as a "magazine clip".
 
2013-07-08 11:41:38 AM  

Zasteva: The proper thing to do with uninformed people is to educate them, not dismiss them from the discussion.


The proper thing for respectable people to do is educate themselves before entering into the discussion.
 
2013-07-08 11:42:08 AM  

FuzedBox: 2/5 pistols on that table were Hi-Points, with the bottom left one possibly one as well; I am not surprised.

/Also, there's no such thing as a "magazine clip".


Isn't that the internal part of the magazine?
 
2013-07-08 11:42:54 AM  
We might as well not have any laws at all, since criminals don't follow them anyway.

/Subby is special
//very, very special
 
2013-07-08 11:43:24 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: We might as well not have any laws at all, since criminals don't follow them anyway.

/Subby is special
//very, very special


If we didn't have any laws, we wouldn't have any criminals...
 
2013-07-08 11:44:53 AM  

hailin: Ah I think I just realized why this crap happens. In the article, the kid said he saw his cousins go to prison and when they got out they were surrounded by girls. So we just need to teach women to respect themselves and not date sleezeballs who have been to prison. If they don't get girls then it won't be "cool" to be a criminal.

Not saying it is a realistic solution, but better than restrictive gun laws that protect no one.


Yeah, let's not go the route where we treat half the population like small children, mmmmkay?
 
2013-07-08 11:44:58 AM  

Aldon: Your point is lost to me here... are you saying you think firearms should be limited to only private property?


They mostly are already. Homes are private property as are a lot of firing ranges. If you want to carry in public most states require a training and certification program just like a driver's license.
 
2013-07-08 11:49:58 AM  
Guns don't kill people...bullets do.
 
2013-07-08 11:50:59 AM  
Gun Debate:

In this corner, those that would like to see the US follow North Korea
In this other corner, those that would like to see the US follow Somalia

About 90% of the middle? Just want less crime and increased sense of safety.
Good luck with that as the reasonable middle class collapses and we're left with those desperate to make money by any means possible; both the poor and the rich.
 
2013-07-08 11:52:05 AM  

BgJonson79: Aldon: BgJonson79: Isn't an enumerated right something worth obsessing over? I don't see a lot of people trying to get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...

Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general. It is disingenuous to suggest that is what is happening.


The Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and every human and constitutional right) has responsibility and reasonable restrictions associated with it why not the Second Amendment? That is what people are asking for who are on the other side of the debate.


I don't see why the Second Amendment should be treated differently than every other amendment or right.

What restrictions are there for the Fourth and Fifth?


Just some quick examples, there are many more (probably can just google it):

Fourth amendment: Have you heard of the NSA spying debate going on since at least 2002?  George W. Bush's administration thought he didn't even have to go though the FISA court to listen into phone conversations.  It is not applicable in international airports etc....

Fifth Amendment: Have you heard of "enhanced interrogation" (torture)?  The right does not extend to civil court.  You can be required to give incriminating evidence for federal tax purposes...etc...

These are just a few things I can think of off the top of my head.  There have literally been volumes dedicated to this stuff.
 
2013-07-08 11:52:58 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Zasteva: You understand that the meaning changes when you add words like "solely". I never said solely and I agree that's patently false.

Click Click D'oh: No, you didn't, but the person who started that line of reasoning did:  "Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you" ... and now you are carrying the torch for him.  Unless you wish to distinguish your argument from his?


Remember that he included target practice as training for killing things, so put that under the umbrella of ultimate purpose.

If the only intent for a firearm design is target practice, then why use a lethal design? Why not less dangerous design -- a pellet gun, or a paintball gun. While those are both able to kill someone under the wrong circumstances, they are clearly not designed to kill.

Guns were initially designed and used for warfare. As they became cheaper and more available they gradually started being used for hunting. I'll pretty much guarantee you that nobody in 1890 would argue that a gun was not intended to kill things.

Second rule of firearm safety -- never point it at anyone you don't intend to kill.

Click Click D'oh:Zasteva: Cars Guns are designed and used to kill people. A subset of Cars guns are designed primarily for other purposes (School buses shotguns leap to mind), though that overwhelming majority (perhaps all) that are designed for other purposes will work to kill people too.

Right. That's why they called the first cars "horseless carriages", because the word "carriage" means "highly effective method of killing people", not "way to carry people or goods from place to place".

Click Click D'oh: Continuing with the absurdity...  Sometimes it can be a royal pain to scrape the toddlers off my Chargers push bumper.  The back seat is for spectators.  Any rumor that my Charger is for designed for non-lethal intents is simply false.

Yes, you are very good at writing absurd things. Now try writing some true things. Here's an example:

My brother's AK-47 and my best friend's .45 are designed to kill people. Any rumor that they are designed for non-lethal intents is simply false. 

Zasteva: Safety glass, bumpers, collapsing unibody frames that absorb the impact of collisions, safety belts, airbags, ABS, dynamic traction and stability control, and, in the near future we can expect to see things like automatic collision avoidance and eventually self-driving cars that take car out of human hands altogether.

Your turn!

Click Click D'oh:
 Trigger safeties, thumb safeties, transfer bars, cross bar safeties, firing pin blocks, drop safe design, chamber pressure testing , SAAMI standards, trigger locks, hammer locks, magazine well locks, integrated action locks, cable locks, safe storage laws...

You were saying?


All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.
 
2013-07-08 11:53:01 AM  
1. There is no law in existence that will prevent 100% of the problems associated with said law, but that doesn't mean we stop having laws.
2. Can SOME deaths be prevented by stricter gun laws? The answer to that question is a resounding YES. In particular, accidental deaths (particularly to children) in homes where guns are kept would be reduced significantly. One-time mass shootings from otherwise non-offenders would also go down. So the question would be... How many preventable deaths is too many before we pass even the tiniest measure?
3. Drug and gang-related crime is not necessarily the sort of criminal that new gun laws would even be targeting. Yes, they can in fact obtain a gun on the black market. The laws in question are aimed more at the "school shooter" type, which has typically obtained firearms through perfectly legal means.
 
2013-07-08 11:56:03 AM  

Click Click D'oh: Zasteva: The proper thing to do with uninformed people is to educate them, not dismiss them from the discussion.

The proper thing for respectable people to do is educate themselves before entering into the discussion.


And yet you continue to compare cars to guns as if that's something an informed and intellectually honest person would do.
 
2013-07-08 11:57:29 AM  
There are a few simple things we could do in this country today, with very little legislative effort and without infringing on anyone's rights.

1. We could start actually prosecuting prohibited possessors who try to buy guns from licensed dealers and fail their background checks. As it is, they get told "no sale" and 99.9% of them get to just walk away with zero consequences.

2. We could start teaching safety and proper gun handling in public schools. There are people out there who have never been told things as simple as to treat all guns as loaded, to keep their fingers off of triggers until they're ready to shoot, or to never point a gun at anything they don't want to destroy. Covering the basic safety rules and some simple instruction on things like how to safely unload a gun could save plenty of lives, but some people react to this the way fundies do about non-abstinence-only sex-ed.

It's telling that nobody on the anti-gun side of the debate has advocated for anything like these changes.
 
2013-07-08 11:58:01 AM  
Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them. 
Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.
 
2013-07-08 11:58:55 AM  

arentol: It's almost as if crime, gun or otherwise, is a social, economic, and cultural issue, not a gun issue. But nah, that can't be true. We all know it is the guns fault that people commit violent acts, not the people being brought up in a culture that promotes violent crime as the only way to get ahead.


It's an issue of causal order. No, guns don't make people violent. But, they do tend to make people more effective at doing violence.
 
2013-07-08 11:59:05 AM  
Which is why you regulate the manufacture of said guns, not the possession.
 
2013-07-08 12:00:01 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: It always makes me laugh that they ban this gun or that gun, or make it 20 times harder for a law abiding person who has common sense to get a good weapon for either self defense, hunting, or target shooting. After all those poor kids were killed by that asshole with the AR-15, all the gun hating libtards said "WE must do something to ban these guns, or make it much harder for people to get them. We must keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people."

Durrrrrrrrr

/The guy who killed all those kids? The guns weren't his. They belonged to his mother, who was a valid non crazy weapon owner. He killed her and stole her guns. Banning guns, or making it hard for honest law abiding people to get them does nothing, beyond your knee jerk reaction. He STOLE THEM. Make all the stupid moranic laws you want, criminals and crazy people don't give a fark. Jesus, get a farking brain and stop making new laws that the criminals ignore, or make it harder for honest people to defend themselves. Get a brain morans.


He didn't break into a house or gun shop and steal someone's guns. He collected the guns that were already within his own home and used them. I guess that, technically, you can say he stole them, but it's certainly not comparable to the first situation. If the guns weren't already in his own home, he would not have had the same access to them. It is unlikely he'd have broken into a gun shop.
 
2013-07-08 12:01:48 PM  
I would really like to live in the world of the left, because it would be a wonderful place. The only problem with living in the world of the left is that it does not exist nor could it ever exist without removing economics from reality and replacing the profit motivation for working. Firearm laws will never have the effect the left thinks, because the firearms the criminals use for the most part are not obtained through the same means an average person would obtain one. The firearm is not the problem anyway the problem is poverty and lack of prospects, because as long as ones basic needs plus a little bit more are met they tend for the most part not to turn to crime. Placing people on a system that allows for them to barely live without employment and produce offspring without good education and parental guidance is only going to increase the problem.
 
2013-07-08 12:01:51 PM  

This text is now purple: Aldon: Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate {all} firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general.

The Senate chair of the Intelligence Committee has little influence on policy or politics?


Please give any example of eliminating or confiscating all firearms even being debated in a federal level.

Anyone suggesting such things are immediately marginalized and removed from the debate.

As far as I know neither Fienstein or Bloomburg has brought up anything in the federal level even for debate that would eliminate and/or confiscate all firearms.

Again, to suggest that is part of the debate is a lie.
 
2013-07-08 12:02:22 PM  

Zasteva: Remember that he included target practice as training for killing things, so put that under the umbrella of ultimate purpose.

If the only intent for a firearm design is target practice, then why use a lethal design? Why not less dangerous design -- a pellet gun, or a paintball gun. While those are both able to kill someone under the wrong circumstances, they are clearly not designed to kill.

Guns were initially designed and used for warfare. As they became cheaper and more available they gradually started being used for hunting. I'll pretty much guarantee you that nobody in 1890 would argue that a gun was not intended to kill things.


So, you do agree with him then that "firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things "... So why bother pretending you didn't?

Zasteva: Second rule of Car firearm safety -- never point it at anyone you don't intend to kill.


To be fair though, sometimes I have to swerve a bit to get the little ones....

Zasteva: Right. That's why they called the first cars "horseless carriages", because the word "carriage" means "highly effective method of killing people"



HISTORY!


www.biblepicturegallery.com

Zasteva: My brother's AK-47 and my best friend's .45 are designed to kill people. Any rumor that they are designed for non-lethal intents is simply false.


I seriously doubt your brother has an AK-47.  A semi-automatic clone, probably, but a true AK, most unlikely.  Savage Model Mark I G, any rumor that they are designed for lethal intents is simply false.  Unless you've recently heard of a rampage shooting with a single shot bolt action rifle?

Zasteva: So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person?


Absolutely not.  Any more than you are in support of putting a boot on your car and unplugging the battery every time your car isn't in use.
 
2013-07-08 12:02:34 PM  

Alphakronik: Which is why you regulate the manufacture of said guns, not the possession.


How would you regulate the manufacture of said guns, if different than what is done now?
 
2013-07-08 12:03:02 PM  

Zasteva: And yet you continue to compare cars to guns as if that's something an informed and intellectually honest person would do.


Only as a demonstration of absurdity.
 
2013-07-08 12:05:12 PM  

JesseL: 2. We could start teaching safety and proper gun handling in public schools. There are people out there who have never been told things as simple as to treat all guns as loaded, to keep their fingers off of triggers until they're ready to shoot, or to never point a gun at anything they don't want to destroy. Covering the basic safety rules and some simple instruction on things like how to safely unload a gun could save plenty of lives, but some people react to this the way fundies do about non-abstinence-only sex-ed.


We did and still do, to a lesser extent than was done before (mostly due to the knee jerk irrational fear that brought about zero tolerance).  We had a rifle team when I was in school.  Kept a .22 in the trunk of my car.
 
2013-07-08 12:07:12 PM  

BHShaman: Zasteva: Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

Oh, and that's not to mention all the things we do to make sure that the humans who drive cars are responsible, like requiring safety and operations training, licensing, rules and regulations on how and where cars are used, prohibitions against operating while under the influence, careful tracking of ownership, and revocation of licenses for people who break the rules.

Shall we keep playing?

BHShaman: Sure. Vehicles are used largely in the public domain within normal usage. Therefore, there are a set of conditions of which you must meet in order to operate said machinery in public.


Agreed.

Firearms are largely used in private environments, unless utilized for a crime. Where utilized publicly, concealed carry, there are indeed a set of conditions that also need to be met; which include safety courses, shooting schools, registration, and license. (some or all depending on municipality)

I am pretty okay with the concealed carry rules in my state (Virginia). Most of my problems with existing laws come from lack of background checks for private purchases and lack of safe storage requirements for weapons not being carried by the owner (open or concealed).

Want to get serious about what requires training? I would wager that shiatty parenting results in the death of more people than all the rest of these petty arguments all combined. Bad parenting results in the death and injury of self, death and injury or others, illegal activities, cost to the public, cost to the individual, etc. etc. Get back to me when PARENTING requires even the least modicum of training, safety, and/or license to participate in.

In one sense I agree with you, but there are specific problems that make this unworkable. First, how do you decided what proper parenting is? Second, what enforcement mechanisms do you use to prevent people who having gotten proper training/licensing from having children anyway? Forced abortions? Forced sterilization? Forcibly implanted birth control? We have enough trouble getting conservatives to agree to school lunch programs, which are some of the most cost effect measures ever for improving education performance for disadvantaged kids. Imagine the uproar if we start having the state tell people how they have to raise their kids or forcing birth control on them.
 
2013-07-08 12:08:07 PM  
Dimensio:
Truly, violent times are ahead for the state of Illinois. Less than six months after "shall-issue" concealed weapons permits were first issued in Wisconsin, a concealed weapons permit holder in the state shot another individual at an Aldi's grocery store over a simple disagreement*.

*The shooter disagreed with the victim's plan to commit armed robbery.


H183 has been described as the perfect compromise, no one likes it. Like most compromises it has good and bad points.
The good:
State preemption on concealed carry laws. In other words, One State, one law. If you are legal in Cairo, you are legal in Chicago(theoretically).
Partial preemption on other gun laws. Lt Gov. Simon encouraged home rule communities to pass assault weapons bans before the 10 day window after H183 becomes law expires. Such bans already on the books stay in place but no new bans at local level, State level only.
Shall issue permits
Restaurant carry if food is 51% or greater than alcohol sales.
Parking lots of prohibited areas are Safe Harbors which allow you to store your gun in your vehicle with protection against brandishing charges while removing your gun.

The bad:
16 hours of training as opposed to the 8 to 12 required by other states. One original proposal required 40 hours.
$150 license fee
No reciprocity, although non resident permits at $300 will be available
Restrictive in places permitted for carry, no carry on public or mass transportation or waiting areas for such transportation.
Another background check. If you have a FOID card, you've already been through a background check.

It will be at least a year before the first permits will be issued. It will take 20 years to improve the bill to being less restrictive and a constant fight to prevent it from becoming more restrictive.
 
2013-07-08 12:10:02 PM  
But are Earl and Randy OK?
 
2013-07-08 12:10:26 PM  

scotty425: Dimensio:
Truly, violent times are ahead for the state of Illinois. Less than six months after "shall-issue" concealed weapons permits were first issued in Wisconsin, a concealed weapons permit holder in the state shot another individual at an Aldi's grocery store over a simple disagreement*.

*The shooter disagreed with the victim's plan to commit armed robbery.

H183 has been described as the perfect compromise, no one likes it. Like most compromises it has good and bad points.
The good:
State preemption on concealed carry laws. In other words, One State, one law. If you are legal in Cairo, you are legal in Chicago(theoretically).
Partial preemption on other gun laws. Lt Gov. Simon encouraged home rule communities to pass assault weapons bans before the 10 day window after H183 becomes law expires. Such bans already on the books stay in place but no new bans at local level, State level only.
Shall issue permits
Restaurant carry if food is 51% or greater than alcohol sales.
Parking lots of prohibited areas are Safe Harbors which allow you to store your gun in your vehicle with protection against brandishing charges while removing your gun.

The bad:
16 hours of training as opposed to the 8 to 12 required by other states. One original proposal required 40 hours.
$150 license fee
No reciprocity, although non resident permits at $300 will be available
Restrictive in places permitted for carry, no carry on public or mass transportation or waiting areas for such transportation.
Another background check. If you have a FOID card, you've already been through a background check.

It will be at least a year before the first permits will be issued. It will take 20 years to improve the bill to being less restrictive and a constant fight to prevent it from becoming more restrictive.


I'd stick the lack of repealing the rather onerous Chicago registration process in the bad part as well, but, like you said, a good compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
 
2013-07-08 12:10:52 PM  

redmid17: Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.

redmid17: Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.


Hmm... I have you farkied as a d*ckhead from another thread where you referred to a 15 year old rape victim as a "stripper". So your judgement is questionable at best.
 
2013-07-08 12:17:12 PM  

Click Click D'oh: JesseL: 2. We could start teaching safety and proper gun handling in public schools. There are people out there who have never been told things as simple as to treat all guns as loaded, to keep their fingers off of triggers until they're ready to shoot, or to never point a gun at anything they don't want to destroy. Covering the basic safety rules and some simple instruction on things like how to safely unload a gun could save plenty of lives, but some people react to this the way fundies do about non-abstinence-only sex-ed.

We did and still do, to a lesser extent than was done before (mostly due to the knee jerk irrational fear that brought about zero tolerance).  We had a rifle team when I was in school.  Kept a .22 in the trunk of my car.


Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.
 
2013-07-08 12:20:36 PM  

Zasteva: redmid17: Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.

redmid17: Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.

Hmm... I have you farkied as a d*ckhead from another thread where you referred to a 15 year old rape victim as a "stripper". So your judgement is questionable at best.


Erm I'd love to see that. Unless I wast posting in a blackout and being sarcastic, I don't really see that happening. However given your lack of knowledge about gun laws, it's not surprising you're questioning me. DC v Heller specifically addressed these storage requirements and struck them down as unconstitutional.


"Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

/just looked up the thread
//was being a drunk sarcastic asshole. certainly none of those on fark
 
2013-07-08 12:21:03 PM  

dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.


Well said.
 
2013-07-08 12:21:34 PM  

redmid17: scotty425: Dimensio:
Truly, violent times are ahead for the state of Illinois. Less than six months after "shall-issue" concealed weapons permits were first issued in Wisconsin, a concealed weapons permit holder in the state shot another individual at an Aldi's grocery store over a simple disagreement*.

*The shooter disagreed with the victim's plan to commit armed robbery.

H183 has been described as the perfect compromise, no one likes it. Like most compromises it has good and bad points.
The good:
State preemption on concealed carry laws. In other words, One State, one law. If you are legal in Cairo, you are legal in Chicago(theoretically).
Partial preemption on other gun laws. Lt Gov. Simon encouraged home rule communities to pass assault weapons bans before the 10 day window after H183 becomes law expires. Such bans already on the books stay in place but no new bans at local level, State level only.
Shall issue permits
Restaurant carry if food is 51% or greater than alcohol sales.
Parking lots of prohibited areas are Safe Harbors which allow you to store your gun in your vehicle with protection against brandishing charges while removing your gun.

The bad:
16 hours of training as opposed to the 8 to 12 required by other states. One original proposal required 40 hours.
$150 license fee
No reciprocity, although non resident permits at $300 will be available
Restrictive in places permitted for carry, no carry on public or mass transportation or waiting areas for such transportation.
Another background check. If you have a FOID card, you've already been through a background check.

It will be at least a year before the first permits will be issued. It will take 20 years to improve the bill to being less restrictive and a constant fight to prevent it from becoming more restrictive.

I'd stick the lack of repealing the rather onerous Chicago registration process in the bad part as well, but, like you said, a good compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.


True, but if I were to list ALL of the bad parts, I'd still be typing!
 
2013-07-08 12:24:24 PM  

vanbiber874: Click Click D'oh: JesseL: 2. We could start teaching safety and proper gun handling in public schools. There are people out there who have never been told things as simple as to treat all guns as loaded, to keep their fingers off of triggers until they're ready to shoot, or to never point a gun at anything they don't want to destroy. Covering the basic safety rules and some simple instruction on things like how to safely unload a gun could save plenty of lives, but some people react to this the way fundies do about non-abstinence-only sex-ed.

We did and still do, to a lesser extent than was done before (mostly due to the knee jerk irrational fear that brought about zero tolerance).  We had a rifle team when I was in school.  Kept a .22 in the trunk of my car.

Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.


You can't make schools safe from gun violence (or any other kind of violence) by fiat. Reread the headline for this thread.

You can reduce the number of kids accidentally killed by guns by demystifying them and teaching how to handle them safely.

You are an example of exactly the kind of anti-gun, abstinence only asshats who are responsible for people no knowing better than to point "unloaded" guns at their friends.
 
2013-07-08 12:25:10 PM  

redmid17: Alphakronik: Which is why you regulate the manufacture of said guns, not the possession.

How would you regulate the manufacture of said guns, if different than what is done now?


Safety locks (child proof), built in finger print readers, hell...they even have a camera setup that can be built in under the barrel now that can identify a human target from anything else!

Unfortunately, the NRA has held a firm stance against manufacture regulations for a long time now.  You can also regulate the gunpowder that is used to manuf. bullets, in the same way that we regulated explosive fertilizer after the OK City bombing.
 
2013-07-08 12:27:51 PM  

scotty425: The bad:
16 hours of training as opposed to the 8 to 12 required by other states. One original proposal required 40 hours.


I am unclear how even 40 hours is bad to take ownership of a murderin' tool.
 
2013-07-08 12:28:48 PM  

Aldon: This text is now purple: Aldon: Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate {all} firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general.

The Senate chair of the Intelligence Committee has little influence on policy or politics?

Please give any example of eliminating or confiscating all firearms even being debated in a federal level.

Anyone suggesting such things are immediately marginalized and removed from the debate.

As far as I know neither Fienstein or Bloomburg has brought up anything in the federal level even for debate that would eliminate and/or confiscate all firearms.

Again, to suggest that is part of the debate is a lie.


The problem is that no one proposes confiscation, per se, but everything up to confiscation, and 'soft' confiscation, like being unable to transfer or inherit whole classes of firearms.  To Feinstein and Bloomberg, the compromise is in allowing those filthy gun owners to keep their guns, provided they jump through the right bureaucratic hoops and pay the necessary, largely punitive fees.

And then there's California....

Anybody who is in the middle or doesn't understand why gun owners as a group oppose more restrictive gun laws need look no further than what's already on the books in CA and what's coming down in the future.
 
2013-07-08 12:29:05 PM  
Firearms.

In the hands of an emotional person a tool to harm others.

In the hands of a responsible person nothing more than a means to make holes in inanimate objects and perhaps help reduce local fauna population frequently no longer kept in check by predators. Because, well, few people really want cougars/mountain lions/bears in their back yards.

Many concessions have already been made by the owners for public safety. We don't sell them via mail any more. We restrict the types of mechanisms available. We limit the minimum and maximum sizes of the weapon as well as the energy value of the projectile.

some scream for fewer firearms, ignoring that most deaths in the past century have been by established governments against their own people. Including in first and second world nations. Some how we are 'better' than this without clear enumeration of 'how'. This would be considered poor risk management if it was a business.

As time and technology move forward energy levels available to the average joe will continue to increase. Not in firearms, but in normal day-to-day appliances.  Nothing can realisticly be done to prevent this short of denying technological progression. Should we perhaps not be more focused on how to make better people before we find ourselves stuck with a populace too risk adverse to tolerate threat and too incompetent to safely manage the tools at hand?

Because that seems to be where we are headed. And it isn't gov's job to shape society. Society should shape gov. Go be the best person you can. Stop acting like you dieing is a tragedy unique in human history. We are all going to do it. Stop acting so constantly terrified of all of it. And for crying out loud, have some standards. If you can't trust yourself with a pack of matches and 5 gallons of gas when you are pissed off; or a firearm under same then FIX Yourself. Stop tolerating those who can't manage to pull it together to that utterly basic level. It has to be a social pressure to do so; it can't be gov driven. If its gov driven you end up with all sorts of nasty side effects and morality whoring.
 
2013-07-08 12:29:05 PM  

manimal2878: dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

Well said.


Very well said. I want a Tommy gun. And a full-auto AK. And a full-auto SKS. And a full auto M-16. And a 40mm gun. There should be no laws against the possession of inanimate objects. I'm gonna build be a snuke.
 
2013-07-08 12:30:07 PM  

Alphakronik: redmid17: Alphakronik: Which is why you regulate the manufacture of said guns, not the possession.

How would you regulate the manufacture of said guns, if different than what is done now?

Safety locks (child proof), built in finger print readers, hell...they even have a camera setup that can be built in under the barrel now that can identify a human target from anything else!


Please inform me when such technology is reliable and inexpensive, and when legislators proposing a mandate upon such technology do not include any exemption for law enforcement.


Unfortunately, the NRA has held a firm stance against manufacture regulations for a long time now.  You can also regulate the gunpowder that is used to manuf. bullets, in the same way that we regulated explosive fertilizer after the OK City bombing.

What specific regulation upon gunpowder do you recommend?
 
2013-07-08 12:30:24 PM  

Fark It: Anybody who is in the middle or doesn't understand why gun owners as a group oppose more restrictive gun laws need look no further than what's already on the books in CA and what's coming down in the future.


I moved from CA to LA about two years ago. Nothing in CA prevented me from purchasing firearms that I wanted. Nothing.
 
2013-07-08 12:31:18 PM  

Daniels: scotty425: The bad:
16 hours of training as opposed to the 8 to 12 required by other states. One original proposal required 40 hours.

I am unclear how even 40 hours is bad to take ownership of a murderin' tool.


"Murderin' tools" are not relevant to the legislation.
 
2013-07-08 12:32:13 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Zasteva: Remember that he included target practice as training for killing things, so put that under the umbrella of ultimate purpose.

If the only intent for a firearm design is target practice, then why use a lethal design? Why not less dangerous design -- a pellet gun, or a paintball gun. While those are both able to kill someone under the wrong circumstances, they are clearly not designed to kill.

Guns were initially designed and used for warfare. As they became cheaper and more available they gradually started being used for hunting. I'll pretty much guarantee you that nobody in 1890 would argue that a gun was not intended to kill things.

Click Click D'oh: So, you do agree with him then that "firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things "... So why bother pretending you didn't?


I feel like the nuance of this is lost on you, but I'll give it one more try:

"firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things" is not an absolutely true statement as written. A firearm can be used for target shooting, i.e.: a form of recreation that doesn't involve killing. It can also be used as a collector's item, valued for historical or artistic reasons. Many people own and use firearms and never kill anything with them.

To make it an absolutely true statement, I would rephrase it this way. "The primary design purpose of firearms is to kill things."

MFAWG also pointed out, quite correctly, that target practice with a firearm is practice for killing things. This seems like a reasonable position to take because otherwise we would do target shooting with non-lethal pellet guns or paintball guns (and some people do) rather than with lethal firearms.

So, as I read MFAWG's statement, I estimated the intent behind it based on the full context, and I agree with what I understand his intent to be. I don't agree with the statement exactly as written and taken out of context.

Does that make more sense to you?
 
2013-07-08 12:32:46 PM  

Fark It: The problem is that no one proposes confiscation, per se


You are mistaken.
 
2013-07-08 12:34:17 PM  
bigpete53:  I'm gonna build be a snuke.

Just use a different color scheme than orange and mute the audio system. Might try upgrading the on board computer too
 
2013-07-08 12:34:30 PM  

bigpete53: Fark It: Anybody who is in the middle or doesn't understand why gun owners as a group oppose more restrictive gun laws need look no further than what's already on the books in CA and what's coming down in the future.

I moved from CA to LA about two years ago. Nothing in CA prevented me from purchasing firearms that I wanted. Nothing.


If you wished to legally purchase a threaded barrel for a Springfield XD Compact handgun, from where would you obtain it?
 
2013-07-08 12:38:25 PM  

Dimensio: If you wished to legally purchase a threaded barrel for a Springfield XD Compact handgun, from where would you obtain it?


I have no idea, as that is not something I wanted to buy. Your reading comprehension sucks.
 
2013-07-08 12:40:41 PM  

supayoda: 1. There is no law in existence that will prevent 100% of the problems associated with said law, but that doesn't mean we stop having laws.


I agree with this, and no one is arguing for a lawless society.  When it comes to the gun debate, those who point out that gun laws don't stop criminals are saying that gun laws only effect the law abiding.  It's like saying "We know that people occasionally run red lights, so we're going to make red lights a minimum of three minutes."  That doesn't stop anyone from running a red light, just makes the temptation to run a red light more tempting because if you don't you're caught behind a three minute red light.

2. Can SOME deaths be prevented by stricter gun laws? The answer to that question is a resounding YES. In particular, accidental deaths (particularly to children) in homes where guns are kept would be reduced significantly. One-time mass shootings from otherwise non-offenders would also go down. So the question would be... How many preventable deaths is too many before we pass even the tiniest measure?

Again, these are laws that aren't addressing actual gun crimes, they effect the law abiding...mostly.  If a person was dead set on shooting up a school, he's going to make it happen.  Stricter gun laws aren't going to stop it, just piss off the gun owners even more because they're the ones paying the price.  Want to protect children in a school?  Look at protecting the school.  We protect courthouses with armed guards, we protect military bases with armed guards, why aren't we protecting schools with armed guards?  That's honestly the only way to stop a school shooting.

3. Drug and gang-related crime is not necessarily the sort of criminal that new gun laws would even be targeting. Yes, they can in fact obtain a gun on the black market. The laws in question are aimed more at the "school shooter" type, which has typically obtained firearms through perfectly legal means.

Again, why aren't we dealing with school shooter types with armed guards at the schools?  That seems to be the most logical and easiest solution.  Someone enters school property with a firearm, shoot him dead.

If your goal is to stop school shootings, then protect the schools.  If your goal is keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then yes, do background checks, but the background check shouldn't take more than 20 minutes and it should really be to see if the person is a felon or not.  That should be the entire background check.  I even support the idea that if a felon even attempts to buy a gun and the background check returns him as a felon, the buyer is to be arrested on site (we have a law on the books from the 1960s that makes it a crime for a felon to even attempt to purchase a firearm).  But I don't support extensive background checks beyond the simple "Is this person a felon?", I don't support denying firearms to those with mental illness because it's so vague.  I don't even support the mandatory waiting period for buying a gun.  All that does is push buyers from gun stores to private sellers.
 
2013-07-08 12:40:49 PM  

JesseL: vanbiber874: Click Click D'oh: JesseL: 2. We could start teaching safety and proper gun handling in public schools. There are people out there who have never been told things as simple as to treat all guns as loaded, to keep their fingers off of triggers until they're ready to shoot, or to never point a gun at anything they don't want to destroy. Covering the basic safety rules and some simple instruction on things like how to safely unload a gun could save plenty of lives, but some people react to this the way fundies do about non-abstinence-only sex-ed.

We did and still do, to a lesser extent than was done before (mostly due to the knee jerk irrational fear that brought about zero tolerance).  We had a rifle team when I was in school.  Kept a .22 in the trunk of my car.

Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.

You can't make schools safe from gun violence (or any other kind of violence) by fiat. Reread the headline for this thread.

You can reduce the number of kids accidentally killed by guns by demystifying them and teaching how to handle them safely.

You are an example of exactly the kind of anti-gun, abstinence only asshats who are responsible for people no knowing better than to point "unloaded" guns at their friends.


Wow, that got out of hand fast.

That is the first time I've been called an asshat for wanting to keep guns out of schools. The point I was making refers to the "knee jerk, irrational" part of the previous post.  Also, making "people like" me responsible for causing accidental injury/death is silly at best. I think gun safety courses would be a great place to learn about gun safety. I would like schools to stay academic.

Also, I have never stated I was "anti-gun". I think that was something you may have made up in your head. You only know my position on having guns in schools, not on gun regulation in general. Keeping guns out of schools is far from being anti-gun.
 
2013-07-08 12:41:00 PM  

manimal2878: dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

Well said.


There are also laws against owning (or highly restricting): materials to make bombs, materials to make illegal drugs, LSD, meth, cuban cigars, Castor bean plants, endagered or dangerous animals etc, etc....

Should be eliminate all those laws as well?
 
2013-07-08 12:41:33 PM  

bigpete53: Dimensio: If you wished to legally purchase a threaded barrel for a Springfield XD Compact handgun, from where would you obtain it?

I have no idea, as that is not something I wanted to buy. Your reading comprehension sucks.


I understand your position now: because you are able to purchase firearms that you desire, California's restrictions are not excessive.
 
2013-07-08 12:41:40 PM  

vanbiber874: Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.


Thank you for making my point perfectly for me as to why irrational knee jerk reactions will prevent us implementing effective firearms education at a school level every again.  There were thousands of school shooting teams across the nation that all kept firearms and ammunition in some capacity or another.  How many of those were involved in school shootings?  Zero?  Oh... so, your tirade was just an emotional knee jerk response?  K'thanks, bye,
 
2013-07-08 12:42:06 PM  

redmid17: Zasteva: redmid17: Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.

redmid17: Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.

Hmm... I have you farkied as a d*ckhead from another thread where you referred to a 15 year old rape victim as a "stripper". So your judgement is questionable at best.

Erm I'd love to see that. Unless I wast posting in a blackout and being sarcastic, I don't really see that happening. However given your lack of knowledge about gun laws, it's not surprising you're questioning me. DC v Heller specifically addressed these storage requirements and struck them down as unconstitutional.


"Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
/just looked up the thread
//was being a drunk sarcastic asshole. certainly none of those on fark


Glad to hear that. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. I'll unfarkie you (not that I expect you have any reason to care).

As from DC vs Heller, I'm aware of that. A couple of comments:

DC vs Heller referred specifically to the law requiring a trigger lock (difficult and time consuming to remove) or disassembly for storage. As cited above it prevented their lawful use in self-defense.

Instant open gun safes would not interfere with that, nor would trigger locks if there was an exception for when the person had the weapon on their person with clarification that on the nightstand or under the pillow while you sleep is "on their person".

Regardless though, I was asking whether he was personally in favor or against such requirements, not whether they were constitutional or not.
 
2013-07-08 12:42:14 PM  

Daniels: scotty425: The bad:
16 hours of training as opposed to the 8 to 12 required by other states. One original proposal required 40 hours.

I am unclear how even 40 hours is bad to take ownership of a murderin' tool.


1) The 40 hours was a proposed requirement for CCW permit, not just ownership. 3x-5x the requirement in other states is definitely an eyebrow raiser. Forty hours just to own a gun is something that would likely get struck down quite heavily in court similar to prior restraint. An enumerated right shouldn't be subject to that kind of requirement. It wouldn't go over well if someone had to do 40 hours of research to vote or 40 hours of speech training to attend a demonstration. Chicago's own permitting process is under heavy fire because it requires an hour of range training time but Chicago has a ban on all gun stores and ranges within the city limits, which in and of itself is something Chicago has already lost on multiple times but still appeals or drags their feet on implementing a fix for.
 
2013-07-08 12:42:51 PM  

bigpete53: Fark It: Anybody who is in the middle or doesn't understand why gun owners as a group oppose more restrictive gun laws need look no further than what's already on the books in CA and what's coming down in the future.

[Anecdote]


And?
 
2013-07-08 12:45:34 PM  

Fark It: bigpete53: Fark It: Anybody who is in the middle or doesn't understand why gun owners as a group oppose more restrictive gun laws need look no further than what's already on the books in CA and what's coming down in the future.

[Anecdote]

And?


His position is understandable: because he is not inconvenienced, the laws of California are not unnecessarily restrictive.

Similarly, because a heterosexual is able to marry a person of the opposite gender, and thus are not inconvenienced by same-sex marriage bans, no heterosexual can rationally oppose such bans.
 
2013-07-08 12:45:36 PM  

Dimensio: Fark It: The problem is that no one proposes confiscation, per se

You are mistaken.


Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying.  And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights.

Again, in the federal level there is no debate about this.
 
2013-07-08 12:46:32 PM  

Alphakronik: Safety locks (child proof), built in finger print readers,


The fingerprint reader in my office usually takes two or three times to get a good read, while I'm standing still.    Not so much a valuable design feature in a gun you need to shoot right now.

Alphakronik: hell...they even have a camera setup that can be built in under the barrel now that can identify a human target from anything else!


Um... wut?

Alphakronik: You can also regulate the gunpowder that is used to manuf. bullets, in the same way that we regulated explosive fertilizer after the OK City bombing.


Smokeless powder is not an explosive or a precursor to one so it can not be regulated as an explosive.
 
2013-07-08 12:48:05 PM  

Aldon: Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying.  And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights


Those goalposts, they heavy?
 
2013-07-08 12:48:58 PM  

Click Click D'oh: vanbiber874: Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.

Thank you for making my point perfectly for me as to why irrational knee jerk reactions will prevent us implementing effective firearms education at a school level every again.  There were thousands of school shooting teams across the nation that all kept firearms and ammunition in some capacity or another.  How many of those were involved in school shootings?  Zero?  Oh... so, your tirade was just an emotional knee jerk response?  K'thanks, bye,


No, my response was based on a view that I have developed over time and experience I have at schools. Based on your typos and strange phrasing, I think your response was more knee-jerk. itwasapleasurediscussingthiswithyou, bye.
 
2013-07-08 12:50:43 PM  

Fark It: Aldon: Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying.  And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights

Those goalposts, they heavy?


Haha!  Project much?

Where in that article shows someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms?
 
2013-07-08 12:52:30 PM  

Zasteva: Instant open gun safes would not interfere with that, nor would trigger locks if there was an exception for when the person had the weapon on their person with clarification that on the nightstand or under the pillow while you sleep is "on their person".


I think that SCOTUS would disagree with the former assertion differentiating between an instant open safe and a trigger lock. There is a reason why they included "or similar devices" in the opinion. They also didn't focus on difficulty of removal, just the fact it was rendered or kept inoperable. Also the latter interpretation might be troublesome for laws regulating possession and/or usage of guns. The court would also likely not be real keen on introducing another required cost to own a firearm.
 
2013-07-08 12:52:33 PM  
Zasteva:MFAWG also pointed out, quite correctly, that target practice with a firearm is practice for killing things.

The vast majority of the time, no, it's not.  If you think it is, that just confirms more for me that you have zero experience with firearms, or killing.  If you think that your average range rat with his sandbags, sighting scope and bench even in the slightest resembles anything remotely like killing, you are deluded.  Poking holes in paper is just that, poking holes in paper.

The people I actually train to practice killing with a firearm are in a whole other world that what you see at a public range.  It's not night and day or apples and oranges, it's Soccer VS Camp Lejeune.
 
2013-07-08 12:53:05 PM  
  Criminals don't care about  gun laws.

Fixed.
 
2013-07-08 12:54:09 PM  

Aldon: Fark It: Aldon: Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying.  And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights

Those goalposts, they heavy?

Haha!  Project much?

Where in that article shows someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms?


"Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Muhlbauer said.
 
2013-07-08 12:55:24 PM  

Dimensio: Aldon: Fark It: Aldon: Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying.  And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights

Those goalposts, they heavy?

Haha!  Project much?

Where in that article shows someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms?

"Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Muhlbauer said.


Doesn't count!  An elected official proposing gun confiscation isn't "someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms!"

/rolls eyes
 
2013-07-08 12:58:24 PM  

vanbiber874: No, my response was based on a view that I have developed over time and experience I have at schools. Based on your typos and strange phrasing, I think your response was more knee-jerk. itwasapleasurediscussingthiswithyou, bye.


So, what part of your school experience dictates that school shooting teams, in school firearms education and students with firearms in their car leads to school shootings?  Oh, and which school shooting(s) can be attributed to those above items?

Since you are claiming your position in based on reason and logic, that should be pretty easy to provide an answer for....
 
2013-07-08 01:00:43 PM  
What we need is more guns, everywhere.  Have them at pedestrian crossings, instead of the orange flags.  The "leave one, take one" penny dish?... scrap it and have one filled with guns.
 
2013-07-08 01:03:10 PM  
Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer. They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

MFAWG: Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.


Jon iz teh kewl: conservatism isn't about being rational, dude.


From these insightful counter-arguments I deduce that Liberalism means walking around not being terrified of everything, and not wanting to buy a gun to defend yourself, and that this is being rational.

So I'm guessing that it's slightly more difficult to be a Liberal in Camden NJ than in other places.
 
2013-07-08 01:07:37 PM  

Dimensio: Aldon: Fark It: Aldon: Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying.  And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights

Those goalposts, they heavy?

Haha!  Project much?

Where in that article shows someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms?

"Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Muhlbauer said.


I could go into that he made no proposal to confiscate weapons,but how about I just let his (Muhlbauer's) own actions prove my point.  Even just suggesting something that might be about taking some guns in one State got so much backlashMuhlbauer is backpedaling faster than the speed of sound.

http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/muhlbauer-says-gun-grabbing-commen ts -were-taken-out-of-context-audio-proves-they-werent/

If that was a real proposal (it wasn't) then it proves what I said about being marginalized if you even mention confiscation or banning all guns.

If that wasn't a real proposal then it makes sense since he never did anything but say that one sentence  (that he said was out of context) to suggest taking any guns.  No legislation, not even any debate.
 
2013-07-08 01:09:15 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Smokeless powder is not an explosive or a precursor to one so it can not be regulated as an explosive.


This is true, *BUT* you can still make bombs from it.

Having said that, you can load cartridges with black powder or BP substitute.  You'll get lower velocity for a given volume of powder, but the difference might not matter all that much in the real world, and some of the relatively common "smokeless" cartridges these days have roots in the days of BP, like the .45-70, .45 LC, .44 Magnum, .357 Magnum, etc.  Some actually were originally loaded with BP, and some are based upon cartridges that were originally loaded with BP.
 
2013-07-08 01:09:25 PM  

bigpete53: manimal2878: dittybopper: vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine.  That's not what you want, though:  You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though.  I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

Well said.

Very well said. I want a Tommy gun. And a full-auto AK. And a full-auto SKS. And a full auto M-16. And a 40mm gun. There should be no laws against the possession of inanimate objects. I'm gonna build be a snuke.


First, if you want a a Tommy Gun, full-auto AK or SKS or M16, go for it, I hope you are rich though, but it is legal to posses them.

Second, 40mm cannons and Nukes, are destructive devices, not guns. That you would even mention those as if there is a slippery slope that would allow such a thing is only a sign of your ignorance.   It takes special training to handle such things safely, the same reason you can't by TNT off the shelf in Walmart.  There is a difference between regulation and complete restriction from possession..
 
2013-07-08 01:10:23 PM  

Dimensio: I understand your position now: because you are able to purchase firearms that you desire, California's restrictions are not excessive.


What is the purpose of the threaded barrel? Why would it be banned?

You can purchase a semi-auto rifle. You can purchase a semi-auto pistol. You can purchase a semi-auto shotgun. Just because you can't modify the dang thing the way you want to doesn't mean it's excessive. It just means that you can't modify it the way you want to. If losing access to a threaded barrel is your big complaint, you're really concerned about the wrong things.
 
2013-07-08 01:13:05 PM  

Zasteva: That's a common misconception. You are likely to be arrested for and convicted of DUI if the police find you sitting in the driver's seat of your car with the keys in your hand, even if you are in the driveway of your own house (your personal private property).


He's still correct; 'almost nil' isn't the same as 'nil'.  DUI, handicapped parking spots, and 'public nuisance' in some areas are the notable exceptions.  Go out in the country where you actually have room to drive around completely on private property that you either own or have permission to use and you don't need to drive a vehicle that meets standard emissions(in many states), be registered, have plates, meet safety regulations, etc...  You personally don't need to have a driver's license.

Zasteva: You can be given a fine for not having insurance on a car that's sitting on blocks in your back yard, completely incapable of being operated, unless you've turned in the tags.


That's an administrative action - you're being fined for having a vehicle that's registered to be on the public roads without insurance.  They don't know it's up on blocks; it's your job to inform them when the status of your vehicle changes.  In other areas they simply suspend your registration.  Turn in the tags(so now it's not a road-legal vehicle) and you're good to go.

you have pee hands: How many people exclusively operate firearms on private property? Unless you've got 10+ acres you're probably not shooting in your yard.


I have plans for a 10 yard indoor basement range.  I used to live out in the country where there was no houses within 10 miles within particular sweeps.  Closest house was more than a block's worth away.  Noise concerns are an issue - but that's where relaxing the rules on firearm mufflers would be good.  After that all you have to worry about is having a good backstop(Safety first!).

Still, let's get back to the popular car example.  That you live in a city or burbs doesn't mean that you can't own and operate a non-street legal race car.  You just need to trailer it to where it'll be used.  The track is private property, though you probably don't own it yourself.  So isn't many/most ranges.

Non-Street Racer:Trailer:Track
Firearm:Case:Range
 
2013-07-08 01:13:25 PM  

Aldon: Should be eliminate all those laws as well?


Some yes, others no.  Did you have a point?
 
2013-07-08 01:14:13 PM  

Click Click D'oh: vanbiber874: No, my response was based on a view that I have developed over time and experience I have at schools. Based on your typos and strange phrasing, I think your response was more knee-jerk. itwasapleasurediscussingthiswithyou, bye.

So, what part of your school experience dictates that school shooting teams, in school firearms education and students with firearms in their car leads to school shootings?  Oh, and which school shooting(s) can be attributed to those above items?

Since you are claiming your position in based on reason and logic, that should be pretty easy to provide an answer for....


I'm assuming by school shooting teams you mean armed officers in schools.  I don't have any problem with that, the resource officer at my school is pretty cool, and has incorporated some great strategies for intruder scenarios that differ from just hiding under desks or locking yourself in a room, potentially becoming a sitting duck.

Without any research, I can't come up with a specific occurrence in which a gun in a student's car has lead to a school shooting, but the potential risk is definitely there. For example, if another student knew of that gun and wanted to commit a violent crime. That risk, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

My experience comes from being a teacher in public schools. The level of burden for properly educating students is high enough without the added responsibility of including a firearms course. The resource officers in our schools do an excellent job in educating the student and teacher population on how to handle emergency situations involving a shooter, but handling a gun should be the responsibility of the parents (if they chose to educate their child).
 
2013-07-08 01:14:28 PM  

dittybopper: some of the relatively common "smokeless" cartridges these days have roots in the days of BP, like the .45-70, .45 LC

...

I still run both of these on BP just for the woosh of it.
 
2013-07-08 01:17:20 PM  

Aldon: BgJonson79: Aldon: BgJonson79: Isn't an enumerated right something worth obsessing over? I don't see a lot of people trying to get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...

Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general. It is disingenuous to suggest that is what is happening.


The Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and every human and constitutional right) has responsibility and reasonable restrictions associated with it why not the Second Amendment? That is what people are asking for who are on the other side of the debate.


I don't see why the Second Amendment should be treated differently than every other amendment or right.

What restrictions are there for the Fourth and Fifth?

Just some quick examples, there are many more (probably can just google it):

Fourth amendment: Have you heard of the NSA spying debate going on since at least 2002?  George W. Bush's administration thought he didn't even have to go though the FISA court to listen into phone conversations.  It is not applicable in international airports etc....

Fifth Amendment: Have you heard of "enhanced interrogation" (torture)?  The right does not extend to civil court.  You can be required to give incriminating evidence for federal tax purposes...etc...

These are just a few things I can think of off the top of my head.  There have literally been volumes dedicated to this stuff.


I was under the impression that both of those are illegal...
 
2013-07-08 01:17:26 PM  

manimal2878: Second, 40mm cannons and Nukes, are destructive devices, not guns. That you would even mention those as if there is a slippery slope that would allow such a thing is only a sign of your ignorance. It takes special training to handle such things safely, the same reason you can't by TNT off the shelf in Walmart. There is a difference between regulation and complete restriction from possession..


The second amendment doesn't say "guns." It says "arms." Pretty sure those are arms. I'm pointing out how absurd it is to say that you cannot restrict rights. As for possessing full auto weapons, it is far more difficult to get one than any other type of firearm, due to pricing and licensing. The point is that there are already restrictions on the second amendment, and most everyone recognizes that they are sensible. Eventually, some of the basic things, like background checks, will become universal and we won't think twice about them. Why? Because they make sense.
 
2013-07-08 01:19:11 PM  

vanbiber874: I'm assuming by school shooting teams you mean armed officers in schools.


No, school shooting teams as in teams of student under the guidance of a coach that attend and compete in shooting events against similar teams composed of students from other schools.

These things really existed once upon a time.

How many of these were implicated in school shootings since.... Ever?

vanbiber874: ...but handling a gun should be the responsibility of the parents (if they chose to educate their child).


So, you are an advocate of home schooling then?
 
2013-07-08 01:22:09 PM  
The cardinal rule of a Fark gun thread.

1. Troll early, and troll often.
 
2013-07-08 01:22:28 PM  

bigpete53: manimal2878: Second, 40mm cannons and Nukes, are destructive devices, not guns. That you would even mention those as if there is a slippery slope that would allow such a thing is only a sign of your ignorance. It takes special training to handle such things safely, the same reason you can't by TNT off the shelf in Walmart. There is a difference between regulation and complete restriction from possession..

The second amendment doesn't say "guns." It says "arms." Pretty sure those are arms. I'm pointing out how absurd it is to say that you cannot restrict rights. As for possessing full auto weapons, it is far more difficult to get one than any other type of firearm, due to pricing and licensing. The point is that there are already restrictions on the second amendment, and most everyone recognizes that they are sensible. Eventually, some of the basic things, like background checks, will become universal and we won't think twice about them. Why? Because they make sense.


Not to get into the whole meaning of the 2nd amendment debate, but almost nobody thinks the 2nd was talking about anything other than small arms.

Of course you can restrict rights, rights come with responsibility.  I didn't say there should be no regulation, my argument is there shouldn't be any limiting the type of gun.   I think there are enough laws to serve the purpose of promoting responsible gun ownership, the actions of using a gun irresponsibly are already covered criminalized and punishable.
 
2013-07-08 01:22:51 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Zasteva:MFAWG also pointed out, quite correctly, that target practice with a firearm is practice for killing things.

The vast majority of the time, no, it's not.  If you think it is, that just confirms more for me that you have zero experience with firearms, or killing.  If you think that your average range rat with his sandbags, sighting scope and bench even in the slightest resembles anything remotely like killing, you are deluded.  Poking holes in paper is just that, poking holes in paper.


Allow me to rephrase: target practice with a firearm is practice in operating a weapon designed to kill. It improves your handling proficiency and aim.

And while your experience with firearms is clearly greater than mine if you are training people to kill with them, I do have enough experience to know that it's not just about poking holes in paper. The lethality of the firearm is part of the fascination with it. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. If a person has zero interest in operating a weapon designed to kill, then why practice with it? Why not use a non-lethal alternative that can poke holes in paper just as well?

Just for grins, let's say I take you at your word -- firearms have plenty of other purposes than killing, target shooting and collecting, for example. So how about this -- non-lethal ammunition (paint/dye-pack bullets, rubber bullets, etc) are all available to anyone but you need a special license to get lethal bullets. So we don't worry about the firearms at all, and just control the lethal ammunition.
 
2013-07-08 01:24:00 PM  

Gimli_Gloin: Wow, someone had the cojones to write a "The Emperor has no clothes" article on gun laws. II am sure her tenure at USA Today will be short.


What's amazing about the article is that it's about solving the actual problems behind gun violence. More laws won't do it, less laws won't do it, but changing the culture of violence might:

  The focus was not on gun laws but on long-standing issues that fed Baker's struggles:
  a failing education system, a dearth of jobs, and a street culture that rewards and
  even encourages criminal behavior.

Specifically, the machismo and "street cred" of being a criminal, and all of the power, cash, women, and lifestyle that goes with it.


It's apparent that most of the posters here didn't bother reading the article, so this thread has ended up being just another typical anti-gun/pro-gun thread.
 
2013-07-08 01:26:08 PM  

manimal2878: Of course you can restrict rights, rights come with responsibility. I didn't say there should be no regulation, my argument is there shouldn't be any limiting the type of gun. I think there are enough laws to serve the purpose of promoting responsible gun ownership, the actions of using a gun irresponsibly are already covered criminalized and punishable.


I walked into a gun show here in LA and purchased a handgun with no safety course required and no check other than a Fed check. I fail to see how responsible gun ownership was promoted in the transaction. Mandatory firearm safety courses would do a lot to curb theft and accidental shootings.
 
2013-07-08 01:26:24 PM  

Loadmaster: Gimli_Gloin: Wow, someone had the cojones to write a "The Emperor has no clothes" article on gun laws. II am sure her tenure at USA Today will be short.

What's amazing about the article is that it's about solving the actual problems behind gun violence. More laws won't do it, less laws won't do it, but changing the culture of violence might:

  The focus was not on gun laws but on long-standing issues that fed Baker's struggles:
  a failing education system, a dearth of jobs, and a street culture that rewards and
  even encourages criminal behavior.

Specifically, the machismo and "street cred" of being a criminal, and all of the power, cash, women, and lifestyle that goes with it.


It's apparent that most of the posters here didn't bother reading the article, so this thread has ended up being just another typical anti-gun/pro-gun thread.


verbaltoxin: The cardinal rule of a Fark gun thread.

1. Troll early, and troll often.

 
2013-07-08 01:26:58 PM  

manimal2878: Aldon: Should be eliminate all those laws as well?

Some yes, others no.  Did you have a point?


if your argument is that "criminals ignore gun laws so why have them?"  Or that laws restricting violence are good even if they are not 100% effective but laws restricting guns are bad because they restrict an inanimate object.

Those arguments don't make sense.
 
2013-07-08 01:27:06 PM  

redmid17: Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.
Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.


Well, no, they wouldn't. Hell, in Heller, Scalia explicityly said that there could still be reasonable regulations on guns. Those would qualify.

Sounds like you would support those laws if not for a gross misreading of the Constitution that makes you think they wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Congrats, you're in favor of gun control.
 
2013-07-08 01:32:32 PM  

bigpete53: I walked into a gun show here in LA and purchased a handgun with no safety course required and no check other than a Fed check. I fail to see how responsible gun ownership was promoted in the transaction. Mandatory firearm safety courses would do a lot to curb theft and accidental shootings.


Are you a felon?  Did you buy it from a gun dealer or a private person?

Was the gun stolen?  What is the irresponsible part?
 
2013-07-08 01:32:54 PM  

Zasteva: Allow me to rephrase: target practice with a firearm is practice in operating a weapon designed to kill. It improves your handling proficiency and aim.


So you finally admit that practicing with a firearm simply improves proficiency with the firearm and does nothing towards actually practicing to kill.  Took you a while to be honest with that.  I note, that you still have yet to admit that not all firearms are designed to kill.  Still working on that one then.  Don't worry, honesty will come eventually.

Zasteva: The lethality of the firearm is part of the fascination with it.


If true, explain they why the lowly .22, the least powerful of firearms, is the most common firearm?  Seems like an awful odd way of being fascinated with lethality... but finding the least lethal option...

Zasteva: If a person has zero interest in operating a weapon designed to kill, then why practice with it?


Friendly competition
Personal competition and improvement
Because it's a lot of fun for some people to have the discipline and skill necessary to make a tiny group at several hundred yards

Zasteva: Why not use a non-lethal alternative that can poke holes in paper just as well?


Because physics.

Show me a non-lethal alternative that is accurate enough to group at 100 yards.

Zasteva: So how about this -- non-lethal ammunition (paint/dye-pack bullets, rubber bullets, etc) are all available to anyone but you need a special license to get lethal bullets.


You better be prepared to give that license to anyone competing with a firearm in any type of event... because physics.

Oh, and to all other American citizens, because they do after all have the right to effective self defense.
 
2013-07-08 01:33:37 PM  

Aldon: manimal2878: Aldon: Should be eliminate all those laws as well?

Some yes, others no.  Did you have a point?

if your argument is that "criminals ignore gun laws so why have them?"  Or that laws restricting violence are good even if they are not 100% effective but laws restricting guns are bad because they restrict an inanimate object.

Those arguments don't make sense.


Could you please use complete sentence so I can understand what you are saying.
 
2013-07-08 01:34:41 PM  

Alphakronik: Safety locks (child proof), built in finger print readers, hell...they even have a camera setup that can be built in under the barrel now that can identify a human target from anything else!


That's great. And how am I supposed to rely on that for self-defense? Relying on someone's software to decide if the human I'm trying to shoot is a bad guy or a good guy? Wouldn't it be easier and more reliable to trust people have proven their reliability by being, you know, not criminals?

Unfortunately, the NRA has held a firm stance against manufacture regulations for a long time now. You can also regulate the gunpowder that is used to manuf. bullets, in the same way that we regulated explosive fertilizer after the OK City bombing.


The problem with your smart-gun idea, is that it's gonna be REALLY hard to make the bad guys use them, when they ignore the laws that say they shouldn't have guns AT ALL. How about instead of this unworkable idea, we put criminals in jail for a mandatory 5 years if they use a gun in a crime? That way, you protect society from them for 5 years at a time, and you use a punishment which is consistent and applied to the person who is actually doing something wrong.
 
2013-07-08 01:34:58 PM  

vanbiber874: Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance.


And what a raving success zero tolerance has been! Young kids getting kicked out of school for having squirt guns, making gun shapes with their fingers, and drawing pictures with guns in them--it's a wonder that anyone opposes more restrictions!
 
2013-07-08 01:35:28 PM  

cptjeff: redmid17: Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.
Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.

Well, no, they wouldn't. Hell, in Heller, Scalia explicityly said that there could still be reasonable regulations on guns. Those would qualify.

Sounds like you would support those laws if not for a gross misreading of the Constitution that makes you think they wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Congrats, you're in favor of gun control.


So something he declared distinctly unconstitutional would qualify as a reasonable restriction? Maybe I missed that part then.

Just because it's something I do personally doesn't mean it's even close as to whether or not I prefer to see it mandated. If local PD/sheriff or government were required to give safety classes and trigger/breech locks out, I might think about it.
 
2013-07-08 01:36:16 PM  

cptjeff: redmid17: Zasteva:
All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.
Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.

Well, no, they wouldn't. Hell, in Heller, Scalia explicityly said that there could still be reasonable regulations on guns. Those would qualify.

Sounds like you would support those laws if not for a gross misreading of the Constitution that makes you think they wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Congrats, you're in favor of gun control.


You might want to reread Scalia's decision.

Held:
...
  3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.
 
2013-07-08 01:40:23 PM  

Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)


Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.
 
2013-07-08 01:41:17 PM  

manimal2878: Aldon: manimal2878: Aldon: Should be eliminate all those laws as well?

Some yes, others no.  Did you have a point?

if your argument is that "criminals ignore gun laws so why have them?"  Or that laws restricting violence are good even if they are not 100% effective but laws restricting guns are bad because they restrict an inanimate object.

Those arguments don't make sense.

Could you please use complete sentence so I can understand what you are saying.{?}


Sure, as soon as you use correct punctuation and complete sentances.

/Every time.
 
2013-07-08 01:42:08 PM  

Click Click D'oh: vanbiber874: I'm assuming by school shooting teams you mean armed officers in schools.

No, school shooting teams as in teams of student under the guidance of a coach that attend and compete in shooting events against similar teams composed of students from other schools.

These things really existed once upon a time.

How many of these were implicated in school shootings since.... Ever?

vanbiber874: ...but handling a gun should be the responsibility of the parents (if they chose to educate their child).

So, you are an advocate of home schooling then?


That's a stretch to link what I said to being an advocate of home schooling. And I've noticed that attempting to respond to your comments doesn't really lead anywhere. So....

btw, you might want to rephrase to "school-sponsored shooting team" or something like that. When you say "school shooting team" it sounds confusing, to me at least.
 
2013-07-08 01:43:41 PM  

manimal2878: Are you a felon? Did you buy it from a gun dealer or a private person?

Was the gun stolen? What is the irresponsible part?


1. No.
2. gun dealer.
3. No. Brand new.
4. You said that current laws promote responsible gun ownership. Part of responsible gun ownership is understanding its operation, how to safely store it, and what to not do with it. None of those things were promoted during that sale. There was nothing irresponsible with the sale from the point of the seller or the buyer. My point is that the process of purchasing a firearm does not promote responsible gun ownership. You claim that current firearms laws promote responsible gun ownership. They do not. A mandatory safety class would promote responsible gun ownership. A training session with the seller on the operation and storage of the firearms would promote responsible gun ownership.
 
2013-07-08 01:44:58 PM  
 

Aldon: manimal2878: Aldon: manimal2878: Aldon: Should be eliminate all those laws as well?

Some yes, others no.  Did you have a point?

if your argument is that "criminals ignore gun laws so why have them?"  Or that laws restricting violence are good even if they are not 100% effective but laws restricting guns are bad because they restrict an inanimate object.

Those arguments don't make sense.

Could you please use complete sentence so I can understand what you are saying.{?}

Sure, as soon as you use correct punctuation and complete sentances.

/Every time.


Seriously?  You think this makes sense?   Are you asking me something or telling me something?
 
2013-07-08 01:46:01 PM  

jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.


This is why I currently favor repeal of the 2nd amendment. We can't have rational discourse on gun control because of it.
 
2013-07-08 01:47:15 PM  

vanbiber874: Click Click D'oh: vanbiber874: I'm assuming by school shooting teams you mean armed officers in schools.

No, school shooting teams as in teams of student under the guidance of a coach that attend and compete in shooting events against similar teams composed of students from other schools.

These things really existed once upon a time.

How many of these were implicated in school shootings since.... Ever?

vanbiber874: ...but handling a gun should be the responsibility of the parents (if they chose to educate their child).

So, you are an advocate of home schooling then?

That's a stretch to link what I said to being an advocate of home schooling. And I've noticed that attempting to respond to your comments doesn't really lead anywhere. So....

btw, you might want to rephrase to "school-sponsored shooting team" or something like that. When you say "school shooting team" it sounds confusing, to me at least.


It's not confusing at all unless you find "school marching band" or "school football team" confusing as well.
 
2013-07-08 01:48:52 PM  

vanbiber874:That's a stretch to link what I said to being an advocate of home schooling.

Okay, so let's make it more direct.  Do you think it's the responsibility of the parents to teach kids the following extra-curricular activities?  Band, orchestra, football, basketball, wrestling & Swim?

vanbiber874: btw, you might want to rephrase to "school-sponsored shooting team" or something like that. When you say "school shooting team" it sounds confusing, to me at least.


Do you call it a school-sponsored football team?
 
2013-07-08 01:49:52 PM  

bigpete53: manimal2878: Are you a felon? Did you buy it from a gun dealer or a private person?

Was the gun stolen? What is the irresponsible part?

1. No.
2. gun dealer.
3. No. Brand new.
4. You said that current laws promote responsible gun ownership. Part of responsible gun ownership is understanding its operation, how to safely store it, and what to not do with it. None of those things were promoted during that sale. There was nothing irresponsible with the sale from the point of the seller or the buyer. My point is that the process of purchasing a firearm does not promote responsible gun ownership. You claim that current firearms laws promote responsible gun ownership. They do not. A mandatory safety class would promote responsible gun ownership. A training session with the seller on the operation and storage of the firearms would promote responsible gun ownership.


 I meant that current laws promote responsibility in that most every harmful act that can be committed with a gun is already criminal.  I did not mean that the law currently teaches you not to handle your gun like a moron.

That said, I have no problem requiring a safety course before buying a gun.  I'm not totally against regulation.
 
2013-07-08 01:50:06 PM  

BgJonson79: Zasteva: BgJonson79: Zasteva: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in quite a few weeks. Did you really type that in and think "Wow, that will get him to realize his statement was absurd!!"?

Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

So, we arm cops so they can kill people?

Yes.

And we give them non-lethal alternatives like tazers so they can choose a lesser alternative.

EVERY armed cop has a taser?  Are you sure about that?


I didn't say that they do. At this point probably most do, they are pretty common.

Are you saying that the cops are given guns and then told -- remember, if you have to use your gun, shoot to wound -- try to hit their leg, don't aim for the center of mass.
 
2013-07-08 01:50:29 PM  

bigpete53: 4. You said that current laws promote responsible gun ownership. Part of responsible gun ownership is understanding its operation, how to safely store it, and what to not do with it. None of those things were promoted during that sale. There was nothing irresponsible with the sale from the point of the seller or the buyer.


Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?
 
2013-07-08 01:52:41 PM  

manimal2878: That said, I have no problem requiring a safety course before buying a gun. I'm not totally against regulation.


Cool. We agree.

Click Click D'oh: Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?


No, because you have to be licensed to drive it in public. You have to prove that you can operate a vehicle before you can legally operate one on public property.
 
2013-07-08 01:53:40 PM  

bigpete53: Dimensio: I understand your position now: because you are able to purchase firearms that you desire, California's restrictions are not excessive.

What is the purpose of the threaded barrel? Why would it be banned?


A threaded barrel is useful for attachments, such as sound suppressors. They are banned because lawmakers with no understanding of firearms believed them to appear "menacing", despite their presence not in any way enhancing the lethality of the firearms.


You can purchase a semi-auto rifle. You can purchase a semi-auto pistol. You can purchase a semi-auto shotgun. Just because you can't modify the dang thing the way you want to doesn't mean it's excessive. It just means that you can't modify it the way you want to. If losing access to a threaded barrel is your big complaint, you're really concerned about the wrong things.

If a ban upon a component, such as a threaded barrel or a pistol grip, results in no demonstrable benefit, then the ban is excessive and unnecessary. Additionally, a current proposal in California will ban the sale of all semi-automatic magazine-fed long guns.
 
2013-07-08 01:53:42 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?


If you have a drivers license it is implied you have an understanding of vehicle safety.

I've always been asked for my drivers license when I have bought a car.  I guess technically they could sell it to me without the license if I bought it in cash, didn't need insurance, and was going to load it onto a flat bed to take it off the car lot.  But I'm guessing that happens almost never.
 
2013-07-08 01:56:06 PM  
Click Click D'oh:Do you call it a school-sponsored football team?

If I say yes, can this be done? It's crazy how far this discussion has changed from the article topic.
 
2013-07-08 01:56:19 PM  

bigpete53: Click Click D'oh: Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?

No, because you have to be licensed to drive it in public. You have to prove that you can operate a vehicle before you can legally operate one on public property.


You don't have to be licensed to use it on private property. You more or less implied that everyone should have a concealed carry permit before they purchase a gun.
 
2013-07-08 01:56:39 PM  

Zasteva: jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

This is why I currently favor repeal of the 2nd amendment. We can't have rational discourse on gun control because of it.


Then you have two traits in common with same-sex marriage opponents: a hatred of civil liberties and a desire to amend the United States Constitution that will never be realised.
 
2013-07-08 01:56:51 PM  

gameshowhost: What we need is more guns, everywhere.  Have them at pedestrian crossings, instead of the orange flags.  The "leave one, take one" penny dish?... scrap it and have one filled with guns.


We had a guy steal the tip jar at a local ice cream parlor and they ran his pic from the security camera all weekend on the local news. If one of the other customers had a gun, problem solved...ps. he is on camera paying for his ice cream with the tip jar money, takes big ones to be that brazen.
 
2013-07-08 01:57:00 PM  

jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.


Oh please. Like anyone who wants to own a gun also feels a civic duty to the state or as a means to resist oppression. That argument is quite possibly the most dishonest and insulting excuse involved in this entire mess. The right to keep and bear arms has never been so simple as to own a weapon for self defense alone. Not in the United States, not in the nations or ideals on which that amendment was based, but it's been an amazing spin of politics to turn it into something so stupid as that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without restriction. You want to test your first amendment? Go start a kiddie porn site and a forum for terrorists to blow up a circus.

Some of this shiat should be common sense.
 
2013-07-08 01:57:24 PM  

bigpete53: No, because you have to be licensed to drive it in public. You have to prove that you can operate a vehicle before you can legally operate one on public property.


But is it necessary for the purchase?  You were talking about the purchase of a firearm and how these things should be necessary for the purchase.  You weren't talking about operating in public.
 
2013-07-08 01:57:31 PM  

Zasteva: jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

This is why I currently favor repeal of the 2nd amendment. We can't have rational discourse on gun control because of it.



Well, fair enough, but there's a snowball's chance in hell of that being successful within the foreseeable future.
 
2013-07-08 01:57:44 PM  

iserlohn: Selective gun laws in localities don't work? Well hello captain obvious.

To make gun laws work, it has to be done nationally unless you have the power to search everybody and everything coming in and out of your locality. Gun regulation is a national problem - like it is in other countries.


Yes, we can make laws for America, that is fine and dandy. Good luck getting Latin America to obey those laws and not seize the opportunity like they have with drugs.
 
2013-07-08 01:57:58 PM  

Zasteva: jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

This is why I currently favor repeal of the 2nd amendment. We can't have rational discourse on gun control because of it.


Do you really think that's going to change anything? Do you imagine it's even possible to repeal the second amendment through the legal channels? You'll never get it ratified by three fourths of the states and you'll never see it come up in a constitutional convention.

Most of the people opposed to your viewpoint aren't saying "well sure I agree with you, but the constitution.." and they aren't going to change their minds just because of a constitutional change. Most pro-gun people believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right which is recognized by the second amendment - not granted by it.
 
2013-07-08 01:58:39 PM  

Dimensio: Then you have two traits in common with same-sex marriage opponents: a hatred of civil liberties and a desire to amend the United States Constitution that will never be realised.


3) A latent fear of phallic objects.
 
2013-07-08 01:59:18 PM  
just make them all illegal, total ban. Then no one will have them.....like they do with drugs.
 
2013-07-08 02:00:59 PM  

StaleCoffee: jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

Oh please. Like anyone who wants to own a gun also feels a civic duty to the state or as a means to resist oppression. That argument is quite possibly the most dishonest and insulting excuse involved in this entire mess. The right to keep and bear arms has never been so simple as to own a weapon for self defense alone. Not in the United States, not in the nations or ideals on which that amendment was based, but it's been an amazing spin of politics to turn it into something so stupid as that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without restriction. You want to test your first amendment? Go start a kiddie porn site and a forum for terrorists to blow up a circus.

Some of this shiat should be common sense.



Completely unrestricted?  No, of course not -- as you point out, even the comparatively uncontroversial 1st Amendment has its limits -- but it does mean there's a (rightfully) pretty high bar to laws that restrict Constitutional rights.
 
2013-07-08 02:01:42 PM  

redmid17: bigpete53: Click Click D'oh: Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?

No, because you have to be licensed to drive it in public. You have to prove that you can operate a vehicle before you can legally operate one on public property.

You don't have to be licensed to use it on private property. You more or less implied that everyone should have a concealed carry permit before they purchase a gun.


Please explain how knowing how a firearm works, how to store it properly, and how to handle it safely equate to CCW permit.

Dimensio: A threaded barrel is useful for attachments, such as sound suppressors. They are banned because lawmakers with no understanding of firearms believed them to appear "menacing", despite their presence not in any way enhancing the lethality of the firearms.


What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?

Dimensio: If a ban upon a component, such as a threaded barrel or a pistol grip, results in no demonstrable benefit, then the ban is excessive and unnecessary. Additionally, a current proposal in California will ban the sale of all semi-automatic magazine-fed long guns.


I have no idea what the purpose of the component ban is, so I can't comment on its efficacy. I'll have to trust that you know what you're talking about in that it's not been effective in achieving its goal. My experience with California gun owners, though, is that they're fairly irrational regarding firearms laws. I trust that you are not, and perhaps that single law should be repealed.
 
2013-07-08 02:03:34 PM  

Click Click D'oh: But is it necessary for the purchase? You were talking about the purchase of a firearm and how these things should be necessary for the purchase. You weren't talking about operating in public.


No, it is not. Why? Because no one can operate it unless he has a license. Not true for firearms. If you purchase a car without a license, you still can't drive it off the lot. If you purchase a firearm without any training, you can drive to a national park and start firing.
 
2013-07-08 02:04:15 PM  

jshine: StaleCoffee: jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

Oh please. Like anyone who wants to own a gun also feels a civic duty to the state or as a means to resist oppression. That argument is quite possibly the most dishonest and insulting excuse involved in this entire mess. The right to keep and bear arms has never been so simple as to own a weapon for self defense alone. Not in the United States, not in the nations or ideals on which that amendment was based, but it's been an amazing spin of politics to turn it into something so stupid as that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without restriction. You want to test your first amendment? Go start a kiddie porn site and a forum for terrorists to blow up a circus.

Some of this shiat should be common sense.

Completely unrestricted?  No, of course not -- as you point out, even the comparatively uncontroversial 1st Amendment has its limits -- but it does mean there's a (rightfully) pretty high bar to laws that restrict Constitutional rights.


So:

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

Which is it?
 
2013-07-08 02:06:59 PM  

bigpete53: What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?


To avoid hearing damage, to avoid spooking wildlife, to improve accuracy, to avoid upsetting neighbors, and because they're fun. In most places they're considered a courtesy and they're sold without restrictions.

Thank Hollywood and moral panic for the draconian suppressor restrictions we have in the US.
 
2013-07-08 02:09:31 PM  

Zasteva: BgJonson79: Zasteva: BgJonson79: Zasteva: Click Click D'oh: MFAWG: Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship.  Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in quite a few weeks. Did you really type that in and think "Wow, that will get him to realize his statement was absurd!!"?

Seriously, you think the idea that guns are designed to kill people is more absurd than the idea of an NRA trained Boy Scout assassin army?

Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

So, we arm cops so they can kill people?

Yes.

And we give them non-lethal alternatives like tazers so they can choose a lesser alternative.

EVERY armed cop has a taser?  Are you sure about that?

I didn't say that they do. At this point probably most do, they are pretty common.

Are you saying that the cops are given guns and then told -- remember, if you have to use your gun, shoot to wound -- try to hit their leg, don't aim for the center of mass.


You said "we give them..." and not "we give SOME of them..." so I assumed all.

Also, I'm not certain, but I imagine that cops are told center mass, as it's the easiest shot.  Any officers care to comment?
 
2013-07-08 02:09:59 PM  

bigpete53: No, it is not. Why? Because no one can operate it unless he has a license. Not true for firearms. If you purchase a car without a license, you still can't drive it off the lot. If you purchase a firearm without any training, you can drive to a national park and start firing.


If you purchase a car without a license you can have it trailered to your home or to a private racetrack.

I don't believe target practice is allowed in any national park (national forests and BLM land may be okay though).

You really need to work on thinking before you type. Damned near everything you say is wrong and/or stupid.
 
2013-07-08 02:11:01 PM  

bigpete53: What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?


Common misconception.  A silencer doesn't conceal anything about using a firearm.  In most cases the shot is still around 100db.  Silencers, outside the US, are most often considered a courtesy to people around you, not a sinister device.  They are thankfully now legal for hunting here, so maybe, just maybe once the ATF processes the flood of tax stamp applications, things in the country won't sound like a world war come deer season.
 
2013-07-08 02:12:32 PM  

bigpete53: Dimensio: A threaded barrel is useful for attachments, such as sound suppressors. They are banned because lawmakers with no understanding of firearms believed them to appear "menacing", despite their presence not in any way enhancing the lethality of the firearms.

What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?


Reduction of noise pollution. Hearing protection.
 
2013-07-08 02:12:58 PM  

bigpete53: Because no one can operate it unless he has a license.


Incorrect.  Anyone can operate a vehicle on their own property without a license.

bigpete53: If you purchase a firearm without any training, you can drive to a national park and start firing.


Well you could, but the police who arrest you won't be officer friendly.
 
2013-07-08 02:13:52 PM  

JesseL: bigpete53: What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?

To avoid hearing damage, to avoid spooking wildlife, to improve accuracy, to avoid upsetting neighbors, and because they're fun. In most places they're considered a courtesy and they're sold without restrictions.

Thank Hollywood and moral panic for the draconian suppressor restrictions we have in the US.


Like I said, if you say that particular law is excessive, fine, but that's still a very minor law in the grand scheme of things.

JesseL: If you purchase a car without a license you can have it trailered to your home or to a private racetrack.


... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

JesseL: I don't believe target practice is allowed in any national park (national forests and BLM land may be okay though).


I know that BLM and National Forests are fine. Sorry for the typo.

JesseL: You really need to work on thinking before you type. Damned near everything you say is wrong and/or stupid.


You're the one arguing that one should be able to own a firearm without having to know how to use it safely. Maybe you should take your own advice.
 
2013-07-08 02:14:54 PM  

bigpete53: redmid17: bigpete53: Click Click D'oh: Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?

No, because you have to be licensed to drive it in public. You have to prove that you can operate a vehicle before you can legally operate one on public property.

You don't have to be licensed to use it on private property. You more or less implied that everyone should have a concealed carry permit before they purchase a gun.

Please explain how knowing how a firearm works, how to store it properly, and how to handle it safely equate to CCW permit.


They aren't but that's not what you initially said. You stated that you need to be licensed to purchase a car, which is false, and that the license proves you can legally operate said car on public property. How do you think junkyard operators purchase non-functioning cars? They don't drive them back to the yard. They pay a tow truck operator to tow it back or load it on a flatbed truck. You or I could walk into any junkyard or used car lot, plunk down the necessary cash, and walk out of the lot with ownership of the car transferred while arranging for someone else to move the car as needed.

Typically to exercise your 2nd amendment rights in public you need some kind of permit, CCW or hunting licenses are the two most common examples. Both usually require an education and training before they get issued. However if you are shooting on your private property, then no training or education are required to partake. Simply transporting the gun after purchase isn't indicative of anything.

bigpete53: Click Click D'oh: But is it necessary for the purchase? You were talking about the purchase of a firearm and how these things should be necessary for the purchase. You weren't talking about operating in public.

No, it is not. Why? Because no one can operate it unless he has a license. Not true for firearms. If you purchase a car without a license, you still can't drive it off the lot. If you purchase a firearm without any training, you can drive to a national park and start firing.


You can pay someone to haul a car to a national park and drive around without a license too. What;s your point?
 
2013-07-08 02:15:48 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Incorrect. Anyone can operate a vehicle on their own property without a license.


What percentage of people who drive cars don't have licenses and have never received training or been tested? It's a ludicrous argument.

What percentage of firearms owners have never been trained?
 
2013-07-08 02:18:29 PM  

redmid17: Typically to exercise your 2nd amendment rights in public you need some kind of permit, CCW or hunting licenses are the two most common examples. Both usually require an education and training before they get issued. However if you are shooting on your private property, then no training or education are required to partake. Simply transporting the gun after purchase isn't indicative of anything.


Do you support all gun owners undergoing training to understand how to operate a firearm and how to properly handle and store it prior to being able to purchase one?

If so, we are in agreement.

If not, why not?
 
2013-07-08 02:20:24 PM  

vpb: Well, that's what prisons are for.

Bank robbers don't care about laws either, that doesn't mean that we don't need laws against robbing banks.


We should have laws against robbing banks, and we should have laws against shooting people.  However we don't really want to prevent law abiding citizens from depositing their money in a bank, nor do we want to prevent law abiding citizens from being able to own a gun.
 
2013-07-08 02:20:53 PM  

StaleCoffee: jshine: StaleCoffee: jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

Oh please. Like anyone who wants to own a gun also feels a civic duty to the state or as a means to resist oppression. That argument is quite possibly the most dishonest and insulting excuse involved in this entire mess. The right to keep and bear arms has never been so simple as to own a weapon for self defense alone. Not in the United States, not in the nations or ideals on which that amendment was based, but it's been an amazing spin of politics to turn it into something so stupid as that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without restriction. You want to test your first amendment? Go start a kiddie porn site and a forum for terrorists to blow up a circus.

Some of this shiat should be common sense.

Completely unrestricted?  No, of course not -- as you point out, even the comparatively uncontroversial 1st Amendment has its limits -- but it does mean there's a (rightfully) pretty high bar to laws that restrict Constitutional rights.

So:

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

Which is it?



"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (often mis-attributed to  Oliver Wendell Holmes, but a good quote none the less).  Basically, this is why yelling "fire" in a theater or making kiddie-porn is illegal: it infringes on other peoples' rights in the process.

Similarly, using "arms" like nuclear weapons would be impossible -- even in theory -- without impacting lots of other people & violating their rights, hence the restriction.  There's no similar problem with, say, handguns.

/ and restricting the rights of duly-convicted criminals is not a problem, constitutionally-speaking -- I've got no problem keeping guns out of their hands
 
2013-07-08 02:21:27 PM  
"I wanted to shoot people because that's what I saw growing up," said Baker, 20, a Camden native who spent four years in jail after being involved in several shootings. "When I was younger, I would see my boys and cousins going into jail and when they got out, all the girls wanted them. So, I wanted to go to jail. I wanted to be like America's Most Wanted. I wanted my name to be known on the streets."

But its not a cultural problem, because thatd be racist.
 
2013-07-08 02:22:53 PM  

bigpete53: ... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?


As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed.  Now, who is going to pay me?  Are you going to require the individual too.  That's unconstitutional.  You can't make someone pay to exercise a right.  Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right.  Again, unconstitutional.  How about the state pays for it?  Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training.  Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this?  One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump?  Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases?  Separate classes for each specific firearm operation?  Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven...  Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day?

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution?  Yeah, good luck with that.
 
2013-07-08 02:23:41 PM  

bigpete53: redmid17: Typically to exercise your 2nd amendment rights in public you need some kind of permit, CCW or hunting licenses are the two most common examples. Both usually require an education and training before they get issued. However if you are shooting on your private property, then no training or education are required to partake. Simply transporting the gun after purchase isn't indicative of anything.

Do you support all gun owners undergoing training to understand how to operate a firearm and how to properly handle and store it prior to being able to purchase one?

If so, we are in agreement.

If not, why not?


If it's mandatory, then it needs to be provided for free by the local government. I make an exception for hunter's education course is in place for many reasons not related to gun safety. I grew up in and around guns, received training from family and instructors, and passed the hunter ed course all before I purchased my own gun.

I shy away from mandating it because I don't see a uniform adoption of training requirements or support from many local governments (eg Chicago which has a standing ban on ranges and stores in the city limits but require range time for legal gun ownership), and I'm not sure anything less would meet constitutional muster.
 
2013-07-08 02:24:46 PM  

bigpete53: You're the one arguing that one should be able to own a firearm without having to know how to use it safely. Maybe you should take your own advice.


I'd argue that anyone who purchases a firearm should know how to use it safely, but that the government isn't competent or trustworthy enough to make that good idea into a legal mandate covering a fundamental right.

It's all to easy for that "common sense" requirement to turn into something like the Jim Crow literacy tests for voting.

That's why I'm in favor of firearms safety classes in school and wide availability and encouragement of firearms training to the general public.

Education is really farking important, but allowing it to be turned into a weapon against the freedom of the people is a bad idea.
 
2013-07-08 02:25:03 PM  

bigpete53: What percentage of people who drive cars don't have licenses and have never received training or been tested?


In border states? Most of them.  Already lost on car out from under me because of that.
 
2013-07-08 02:31:34 PM  

Click Click D'oh: bigpete53: ... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed.  Now, who is going to pay me?  Are you going to require the individual too.  That's unconstitutional.  You can't make someone pay to exercise a right.  Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right.  Again, unconstitutional.  How about the state pays for it?  Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training.  Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Fed govt already pays for background checks. Fed govt can pay for classes. Heck, give them online. Anything is better than nothing.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this?  One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump? Yes. Basic firearms safety. How to store, handle, and operate basic firearms. Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases? No. Separate classes for each specific firearm operation? No.  Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven...  Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day? No.

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution?  Yeah, good luck with that.

So you're telling me that we can require people to get an ID to vote, but not take a 2-4 hour class to handle a deadly weapon? That makes sense.

JesseL: It's all to easy for that "common sense" requirement to turn into something like the Jim Crow literacy tests for voting.


You mean like the laws that require ID cards to vote?

JesseL: Education is really farking important, but allowing it to be turned into a weapon against the freedom of the people is a bad idea.


So we shouldn't try, right?

Click Click D'oh: In border states? Most of them. Already lost on car out from under me because of that.


51%? [citation needed]
 
2013-07-08 02:32:32 PM  

jshine: StaleCoffee: jshine: StaleCoffee: jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

Oh please. Like anyone who wants to own a gun also feels a civic duty to the state or as a means to resist oppression. That argument is quite possibly the most dishonest and insulting excuse involved in this entire mess. The right to keep and bear arms has never been so simple as to own a weapon for self defense alone. Not in the United States, not in the nations or ideals on which that amendment was based, but it's been an amazing spin of politics to turn it into something so stupid as that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without restriction. You want to test your first amendment? Go start a kiddie porn site and a forum for terrorists to blow up a circus.

Some of this shiat should be common sense.

Completely unrestricted?  No, of course not -- as you point out, even the comparatively uncontroversial 1st Amendment has its limits -- but it does mean there's a (rightfully) pretty high bar to laws that restrict Constitutional rights.

So:

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

Which is it?


"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (often mis-attributed to  Oliver Wendell Holmes, but a good quote none the less).  Basically, this is why yelling "fire" in a theater or making kiddie-porn is illegal: it infringes on other peoples' rights in ...



I wasn't asking about that. I was asking which is it: your rights do not need explanation or justification and you can exercise them for any reason, or not.

Do you feel that your initial comment was in error then?
 
2013-07-08 02:36:05 PM  

Click Click D'oh: bigpete53: What percentage of people who drive cars don't have licenses and have never received training or been tested?

In border states? Most of them.  Already lost on car out from under me because of that.


Philly is not even on the border but licenses and insurance are considered totally optional by a large segment of the population.
 
2013-07-08 02:37:05 PM  

Aldon: Your point is lost to me here... are you saying you think firearms should be limited to only private property?


A lot of gun owners state that they'd LOVE firearms  to be 'regulated' the same as cars.  Consider that you can trailer a non-street legal car over public roads all you like, assuming the trailer itself is legal.

Carrying a firearm is not the same as operating it.  Despite this, I think it reasonable to consider a 'ready to use' firearm about the same as driving a car even if you're not actually shooting it, you're carrying it with reasonable expectation you might end up using it, even if the odds are really low.

Thus, you need a CCW type permit(wording can vary) in order to carry a firearm ready for operation.  Unloaded open carry?  Same as trailering a non-street legal car.  No license?  You're restricted to carrying it unloaded, preferably cased, on public property.

vanbiber874: I'm assuming by school shooting teams you mean armed officers in schools.


Going by context it's a sports team of students, not 'armed officers'.  Remember, shooting is an Olympic Sport, so it's not necessarily out of line for a school to have a shooting team.  Going by history and the Olympics, their most likely weapon would be single shot .22lr rifles.

vanbiber874: The level of burden for properly educating students is high enough without the added responsibility of including a firearms course on safe sex or driving.


Does this still hold true?  Personally, I think that there should be a 'general safety' course in school.  SexEd may or may not make sense in it(crosses over into health/biology type classes), but driver's ed would.  I'd also cover poisons, electricity, gas, flammable chemicals, monoxide, first aid, how to fight a fire, etc...  Firearm safety would probably be 1/2-1 hour of instruction in the whole class.

bigpete53: The second amendment doesn't say "guns." It says "arms." Pretty sure those are arms


Nukes are munitions, not arms.

Back on the article:  Fix the 'thug' culture in the area, bring in effective education and job opportunities, legalize drugs so that the gangs don't have the money to obtain weapons and the incentive to use them in order to 'protect' their money-earning territories, watch the violence drop.
 
2013-07-08 02:38:45 PM  

Firethorn: Nukes are munitions, not arms.


Snuke, not nuke.

www.wnd.com
 
2013-07-08 02:40:33 PM  

Click Click D'oh: bigpete53: ... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed.  Now, who is going to pay me?  Are you going to require the individual too.  That's unconstitutional.  You can't make someone pay to exercise a right.  Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right.  Again, unconstitutional.  How about the state pays for it?  Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training.  Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this?  One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump?  Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases?  Separate classes for each specific firearm operation?  Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven...  Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day?

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution?  Yeah, good luck with that.


By this logic any weapon that isn't free is unconstitutional.
 
2013-07-08 02:41:12 PM  

bigpete53: JesseL:
It's all to easy for that "common sense" requirement to turn into something like the Jim Crow literacy tests for voting.
You mean like the laws that require ID cards to vote?


When those laws are used to prevent lawful (but undesirable for someone with an interest in disenfranchising a certain voting bloc) voters from being able to? Then yes exactly like that.

bigpete53: JesseL: Education is really farking important, but allowing it to be turned into a weapon against the freedom of the people is a bad idea.
So we shouldn't try, right?


Correct. We sure as shiat shouldn't try to hand over that power to the government.

We should make every effort to educate people about firearms safety without turning it into a prerequisite for the exercise of one of our most fundamental liberties though.

I have a hard time understanding why anyone who wants to reduce unnecessary deaths would resist widespread firearms education, but demand it a legal requisite for gun ownership if they didn't plan to use it as a way of infringing on people's rights.
 
2013-07-08 02:41:56 PM  

StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: bigpete53: ... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed.  Now, who is going to pay me?  Are you going to require the individual too.  That's unconstitutional.  You can't make someone pay to exercise a right.  Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right.  Again, unconstitutional.  How about the state pays for it?  Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training.  Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this?  One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump?  Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases?  Separate classes for each specific firearm operation?  Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven...  Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day?

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution?  Yeah, good luck with that.

By this logic any weapon that isn't free is unconstitutional.


No the government does provide you with a free printing press or materials to make a sign. Why would it do the same for guns?
 
2013-07-08 02:45:41 PM  

bigpete53: Fed govt already pays for background checks. Fed govt can pay for classes. Heck, give them online. Anything is better than nothing.


Because something that runs about $0.01 each is clearly equateable to something that runs $100 - $200 each x 300,000,000 residents....

bigpete53: Yes. Basic firearms safety. How to store, handle, and operate basic firearms.


If you think someone can be made competent and safe with a firearm in a generalized all in one class then you are either 1) deluding yourself about the expanse of the issue -or- 2) Aren't really aiming to ensure safety and competence at all but just looking for something punitive to force on gun owners.

Do you also think that a CDL should be lumped in with a general drivers ed course and could be taken online?

bigpete53: So you're telling me that we can require people to get an ID to vote, but not take a 2-4 hour class to handle a deadly weapon?


The SCOTUS seems to be doing pretty well with smacking down ID requirements for voting, none of which ever required a class anyways..

And 2-4 hours for firearms competence across all types?  Oh my...  Not that I'm (or my insurance carrier) signing off on.
 
2013-07-08 02:45:43 PM  

redmid17: StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: bigpete53: ... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed.  Now, who is going to pay me?  Are you going to require the individual too.  That's unconstitutional.  You can't make someone pay to exercise a right.  Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right.  Again, unconstitutional.  How about the state pays for it?  Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training.  Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this?  One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump?  Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases?  Separate classes for each specific firearm operation?  Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven...  Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day?

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution?  Yeah, good luck with that.

By this logic any weapon that isn't free is unconstitutional.

No the government does provide you with a free printing press or materials to make a sign. Why would it do the same for guns?


I hear that teachers also work for free and everyone has equal access to educ... HAHA sorry I couldn't finish that one.
 
2013-07-08 02:45:49 PM  
manimal2878:  Second, 40mm cannons and Nukes, are destructive devices, not guns.

My cannon is 76.2mm, and it's not consider a 'destructive device':

[insert picture of my black powder mortar here]
 
2013-07-08 02:46:46 PM  

StaleCoffee: By this logic any weapon that isn't free is unconstitutional.


You buy your firearms from the Federal Government and they are the only provider in town?  Interesting....
 
2013-07-08 02:49:08 PM  

Click Click D'oh: And 2-4 hours for firearms competence across all types?  Oh my...  Not that I'm (or my insurance carrier) signing off on.


Heh.

To be fair, though, you can learn the *GENERAL* rules of safe firearms handling that quickly, but competence with different types takes practice, and you aren't going to get that much practice in that short a time, not on all the possible different types of actions.
 
2013-07-08 02:49:27 PM  

StaleCoffee: redmid17: StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: bigpete53: ... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed.  Now, who is going to pay me?  Are you going to require the individual too.  That's unconstitutional.  You can't make someone pay to exercise a right.  Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right.  Again, unconstitutional.  How about the state pays for it?  Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training.  Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this?  One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump?  Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases?  Separate classes for each specific firearm operation?  Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven...  Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day?

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution?  Yeah, good luck with that.

By this logic any weapon that isn't free is unconstitutional.

No the government does provide you with a free printing press or materials to make a sign. Why would it do the same for guns?

I hear that teachers also work for free and everyone has equal access to educ... HAHA sorry I couldn't finish that one.


Great. That doesn't change the fact your extrapolation was pants on head retarded. If you want a free gun, you can legally manufacture your own.
 
2013-07-08 02:49:40 PM  

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: By this logic any weapon that isn't free is unconstitutional.

You buy your firearms from the Federal Government and they are the only provider in town?  Interesting....


Oh, you supply free guns to anyone? Hooray constitution.
 
2013-07-08 02:50:44 PM  

redmid17: Great. That doesn't change the fact your extrapolation was pants on head retarded. If you want a free gun, you can legally manufacture your own.


The materials to construct that free gun are free also?
 
2013-07-08 02:51:10 PM  

StaleCoffee: redmid17: Great. That doesn't change the fact your extrapolation was pants on head retarded. If you want a free gun, you can legally manufacture your own.

The materials to construct that free gun are free also?


Are you a troll or just an idiot?
 
2013-07-08 02:51:37 PM  

StaleCoffee: Oh, you supply free guns to anyone? Hooray constitution.


I don't think you understand how the Constitution works if you don't realize the difference between the government forcing you to pay to exercise a right and private citizens forcing you to pay for products they've made.
 
2013-07-08 02:53:18 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Zasteva: Allow me to rephrase: target practice with a firearm is practice in operating a weapon designed to kill. It improves your handling proficiency and aim.

So you finally admit that practicing with a firearm simply improves proficiency with the firearm and does nothing towards actually practicing to kill.


"Finally"? I made an imprecise statement, you disagreed and I rephrased and I'm "finally admitting"? WTF?

But you also overstate your case. I don't agree that it does "nothing towards actually practicing to kill". To kill with a firearm you must point the weapon and pull the trigger, and the bullet must hit somewhere that will eventually prove fatal. Target practice helps with the aiming part and even the proper pulling of the trigger part. The only think left is the intent to kill, but that's not essential, lots of people killing people with guns when they didn't intend to.

Click Click D'oh:Took you a while to be honest with that.  I note, that you still have yet to admit that not all firearms are designed to kill.  Still working on that one then.  Don't worry, honesty will come eventually.

I didn't realize you were waiting such a "confession" from me. But I thought I covered that with my earlier statement:

"Guns are designed and used to kill people. A subset of guns are designed primarily for other purposes (shotguns leap to mind), though that overwhelming majority (perhaps all) that are designed for other purposes will work to kill people too."

I know you saw that because you turned around and replaced "guns" with "cars" and spat it right back out at me. Regardless -- yes, there are rare firearms that are designed specifically for target shooting and not for killing. But as above, I'm sure they will work for killing too, in a pinch.

Zasteva: The lethality of the firearm is part of the fascination with it.

Click Click D'oh:
 If true, explain they why the lowly .22, the least powerful of firearms, is the most common firearm?  Seems like an awful odd way of being fascinated with lethality... but finding the least lethal option...

Oh right. I forgot that .22 is non-lethal. Funny, since I was just at a kids birthday party and they gave them to the kids rather than squirt guns. And yeah, it's so much better to hunt small game with .45 -- no need to even chop them up, just drop the bits right in the stew!

Zasteva: If a person has zero interest in operating a weapon designed to kill, then why practice with it?

Click Click D'oh:
 Friendly competition

I can have friendly competition with a non-lethal projectile too. This doesn't explain why I would choose to compete with the lethal vs. non-lethal.

Click Click D'oh:
 Personal competition and improvement [...]

... of one's ability to use a lethal weapon. Again, not an explanation of why I would choose the lethal over the non-lethal.

Click Click D'oh:  Because it's a lot of fun for some people to have the discipline and skill necessary to make a tiny group at several hundred yards

Yes, some do. Most people shoot at targets at much shorter ranges. Most ranges I've seen have substantially more short range target areas than 100+ yard ones.

Nevertheless, it's a good point. Most pellet guns and paint ball guns don't have that kind of accuracy at long range.

Zasteva: Why not use a non-lethal alternative that can poke holes in paper just as well?

Click Click D'oh:
 Because physics.

Click Click D'oh:
 Show me a non-lethal alternative that is accurate enough to group at 100 yards.

It's possible that you are right about this. It may be that the kinetic energy required to sent a projectile 100 yards downrange with high accuracy makes it inherently lethal. I don't know.

I'm not particular concerned about long guns anyway (I don't know anyone who's getting tight groupings with a pistol at 100 yards). They are seldom used in crimes or suicides, and they are pretty hard to conceal.

Zasteva: So how about this -- non-lethal ammunition (paint/dye-pack bullets, rubber bullets, etc) are all available to anyone but you need a special license to get lethal bullets.

Click Click D'oh:
 You better be prepared to give that license to anyone competing with a firearm in any type of event... because physics.

Not necessary. Have the firearms for that kind of target shooting be stored on range and not allowed to leave the range without the proper license. Then anyone can compete without any license or background check at all. If they get serious enough that they want to bring their own firearm then they can do the paperwork.

Click Click D'oh:  Oh, and to all other American citizens, because they do after all have the right to effective self defense.

Exactly -- killing people. That's the point -- most people want guns for hunting or self-defense (i.e.: killing).

The "oh but guns are useful for target shooting is just a smokescreen, and easily solved by allowing *anyone* to use a gun under the controlled conditions of a firing range, and make the range take responsibility for proper storage and safety conditions.
 
2013-07-08 02:53:50 PM  

StaleCoffee: redmid17: Great. That doesn't change the fact your extrapolation was pants on head retarded. If you want a free gun, you can legally manufacture your own.

The materials to construct that free gun are free also?


They are, but there's usually a fee for having your mining claim recorded.
 
2013-07-08 02:56:09 PM  

JesseL: StaleCoffee: redmid17: Great. That doesn't change the fact your extrapolation was pants on head retarded. If you want a free gun, you can legally manufacture your own.

The materials to construct that free gun are free also?

They are, but there's usually a fee for having your mining claim recorded.


You might have to pay a toll too

thumbs.anyclip.com
 
2013-07-08 02:57:26 PM  

redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: Great. That doesn't change the fact your extrapolation was pants on head retarded. If you want a free gun, you can legally manufacture your own.

The materials to construct that free gun are free also?

Are you a troll or just an idiot?


Well, lets roll back to what I commented on:

You can't make someone pay to exercise a right.

Apparently you can, but there's this amazing explanation now:

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Oh, you supply free guns to anyone? Hooray constitution.

I don't think you understand how the Constitution works if you don't realize the difference between the government forcing you to pay to exercise a right and private citizens forcing you to pay for products they've made.


So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Your statement was that you can't make someone pay to exercise a right, yet there is some kind of transaction required here.

Maybe if we want to simplify the whole thing we can just place regulations and bans on anything that isn't homemade and self-taught. We have a nice constitutionally protected right without any of that messy Talking About Things. Now we can say hooray police state!
 
2013-07-08 02:58:45 PM  

dittybopper: manimal2878:  Second, 40mm cannons and Nukes, are destructive devices, not guns.

My cannon is 76.2mm, and it's not consider a 'destructive device':

[insert picture of my black powder mortar here]


Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't the 40mm gun shoot a HE shell?  I'm betting your cannon and mortar do not do that.
 
2013-07-08 02:59:02 PM  

redmid17: JesseL: StaleCoffee: redmid17: Great. That doesn't change the fact your extrapolation was pants on head retarded. If you want a free gun, you can legally manufacture your own.

The materials to construct that free gun are free also?

They are, but there's usually a fee for having your mining claim recorded.

You might have to pay a toll too

[thumbs.anyclip.com image 480x204]


DURR why isn't that horse in the ezpass lane? Stupid cowboys.
 
2013-07-08 03:01:11 PM  

Dimensio: Zasteva: jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

This is why I currently favor repeal of the 2nd amendment. We can't have rational discourse on gun control because of it.

Then you have two traits in common with same-sex marriage opponents: a hatred of civil liberties and a desire to amend the United States Constitution that will never be realised.


Nice jab, but I actually like civil liberties just fine.

I don't really have a problem with people owning firearms, or using them for hunting or even self defense. I have a problem with the attitude exhibited by people who are unwilling to subject their ownership and use of firearms to the same kind of time, place and manner restrictions that are used for other other civil rights, such as freedom of speech or assembly, and instead insist on a right to bear arms with zero oversight or regulation.
 
2013-07-08 03:02:22 PM  

Zasteva: The only think left is the intent to kill,


If if was just as easy as point and click, the NYPD really needs to get some training from you.

Zasteva: yes, there are rare firearms that are designed specifically for target shooting and not for killing.


By rare, you mean "most" right?  Unless there have been a lot of .22 rampages lately...

Zasteva: I can have friendly competition with a non-lethal projectile too. This doesn't explain why I would choose to compete with the lethal vs. non-lethal.


I want to see your paintball guns grouping on the 1K range.

Zasteva: . Most ranges I've seen have substantially more short range target areas than 100+ yard ones.


So, the purpose of firearms and events using them is based entirely on your already limited exposure to firearms?  Ego much?

Zasteva: I don't know anyone who's getting tight groupings with a pistol at 100 yards


The last defensive pistol course I was involved in, the students were shooting eight inch steel plates at 100 yards with their handguns to build up their confidence in their equipment.  There are also silhouette shooting competitions where the participants engage steel targets at ranges longer than 100 yards with handguns.  So yes, there are long range practical shooting exercises with handguns.

Zasteva: Not necessary. Have the firearms for that kind of target shooting be stored on range and not allowed to leave the range without the proper license. Then anyone can compete without any license or background check at all. If they get serious enough that they want to bring their own firearm then they can do the paperwork.

Constitution

Zasteva: Exactly -- killing people. That's the point -- most people want guns for hunting or self-defense (i.e.: killing).


One application which negates your suggested policy suddenly equals most people want guns to kill, in your mind?   Projection much?

Zasteva: The "oh but guns are useful for target shooting is just a smokescreen, and easily solved by allowing *anyone* to use a gun under the controlled conditions of a firing range, and make the range take responsibility for proper storage and safety conditions.

Constitution.
 
2013-07-08 03:02:40 PM  

StaleCoffee: redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: Great. That doesn't change the fact your extrapolation was pants on head retarded. If you want a free gun, you can legally manufacture your own.

The materials to construct that free gun are free also?

Are you a troll or just an idiot?

Well, lets roll back to what I commented on:

You can't make someone pay to exercise a right.

Apparently you can, but there's this amazing explanation now:

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Oh, you supply free guns to anyone? Hooray constitution.

I don't think you understand how the Constitution works if you don't realize the difference between the government forcing you to pay to exercise a right and private citizens forcing you to pay for products they've made.

So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Your statement was that you can't make someone pay to exercise a right, yet there is some kind of transaction required here.

Maybe if we want to simplify the whole thing we can just place regulations and bans on anything that isn't homemade and self-taught. We have a nice constitutionally protected right without any of that messy Talking About Things. Now we can say hooray police state!


What we have got here is a failure to communicate, mostly your HS government teacher apparently. Private transactions are not equal to government action. Just stop this trolling argument. You're embarrassing yourself.
 
2013-07-08 03:06:19 PM  

StaleCoffee: So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?



Okay, let me splain this to you real slow.... If the government requires you to pay for something to exercise a right, that's unconstitutional.  See "Poll Tax".  If a private citizen requires you to pay for something, it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people, nor are people able to infringe your rights.  No private citizen could ever force another to not own a firearm.  So, the government saying that you must pay to take a class is not the same as a private citizen saying you have to pay to buy a gun from them.
 
2013-07-08 03:06:28 PM  

BgJonson79: Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

So, we arm cops so they can kill people?


Quality retort that I'll be retaining for future use.
 
2013-07-08 03:15:52 PM  

Firethorn: vanbiber874: I'm assuming by school shooting teams you mean armed officers in schools.

Going by context it's a sports team of students, not 'armed officers'.  Remember, shooting is an Olympic Sport, so it's not necessarily out of line for a school to have a shooting team.  Going by history and the Olympics, their most likely weapon would be single shot .22lr rifles.


I am not arguing whether or not shooting is a sport, but the importance of keeping public schools safe and gun free is higher than having a shooting team, just because you really really want one. 

vanbiber874: The level of burden for properly educating students is high enough without the added responsibility of including a firearms course on safe sex or driving.

Does this still hold true?  Personally, I think that there should be a 'general safety' course in school.  SexEd may or may not make sense in it(crosses over into health/biology type classes), but driver's ed would.  I'd also cover poisons, electricity, gas, flammable chemicals, monoxide, first aid, how to fight a fire, etc...  Firearm safety would probably be 1/2-1 hour of instruction in the whole class.


No, because safe sex education is different than learning how to use a gun (insert penis joke here). Just because I believe that students should not be taught how to use a gun in school doesn't mean that should hold true for other sometimes controversial subjects. People are allowed to have different opinions on different topics. Many of these safety suggestions are covered in science labs/physical education courses. That type of safety education is much different than learning how to use a deadly weapon.
 
2013-07-08 03:19:26 PM  

Zasteva: I don't really have a problem with people owning firearms, or using them for hunting or even self defense. I have a problem with the attitude exhibited by people who are unwilling to subject their ownership and use of firearms to the same kind of time, place and manner restrictions that are used for other other civil rights, such as freedom of speech or assembly, and instead insist on a right to bear arms with zero oversight or regulation.


What exactly are you required to do before you're allowed any exercise of your freedom of speech? Was there a speech class you had to take, with a test at the end before you got your license to speak?

People are already legally prohibited from firing guns off recklessly, from shooting inside city limits, from using guns to commit murder, from using them in a threatening manner, from annoying neighbors by shooting in the middle of the night, etc, etc.

Those are exactly the kind of restrictions we also have on speech. Being unable to shout fire in a crowded theater is not the same as having to get training and pass a test in order to publish a newsletter or talk politics around the water cooler.
 
2013-07-08 03:22:20 PM  
It was about more control on guns.  Not curbing violence.
 
2013-07-08 03:26:25 PM  

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?


Okay, let me splain this to you real slow.... If the government requires you to pay for something to exercise a right, that's unconstitutional.  See "Poll Tax".  If a private citizen requires you to pay for something, it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people, nor are people able to infringe your rights.  No private citizen could ever force another to not own a firearm.  So, the government saying that you must pay to take a class is not the same as a private citizen saying you have to pay to buy a gun from them.


Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.
 
2013-07-08 03:27:24 PM  

redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: Great. That doesn't change the fact your extrapolation was pants on head retarded. If you want a free gun, you can legally manufacture your own.

The materials to construct that free gun are free also?

Are you a troll or just an idiot?

Well, lets roll back to what I commented on:

You can't make someone pay to exercise a right.

Apparently you can, but there's this amazing explanation now:

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Oh, you supply free guns to anyone? Hooray constitution.

I don't think you understand how the Constitution works if you don't realize the difference between the government forcing you to pay to exercise a right and private citizens forcing you to pay for products they've made.

So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Your statement was that you can't make someone pay to exercise a right, yet there is some kind of transaction required here.

Maybe if we want to simplify the whole thing we can just place regulations and bans on anything that isn't homemade and self-taught. We have a nice constitutionally protected right without any of that messy Talking About Things. Now we can say hooray police state!

What we have got here is a failure to communicate, mostly your HS government teacher apparently. Private transactions are not equal to government action. Just stop this trolling argument. You're embarrassing yourself.


Well if you just want to drop out of the discussion and go back to looking up pictures of horsies on the net you're welcome to go do that.
 
2013-07-08 03:27:45 PM  

StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?


Okay, let me splain this to you real slow.... If the government requires you to pay for something to exercise a right, that's unconstitutional.  See "Poll Tax".  If a private citizen requires you to pay for something, it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people, nor are people able to infringe your rights.  No private citizen could ever force another to not own a firearm.  So, the government saying that you must pay to take a class is not the same as a private citizen saying you have to pay to buy a gun from them.

Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.


Which enumerated right has zero regulations? We should probably shore that one up.
 
2013-07-08 03:27:57 PM  

Pangea: BgJonson79: Okay then -- if guns aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

So, we arm cops so they can kill people?

Quality retort that I'll be retaining for future use.


No Farker has ever said that to me before, even if you ARE being sarcastic!
 
2013-07-08 03:29:05 PM  

StaleCoffee: redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: Great. That doesn't change the fact your extrapolation was pants on head retarded. If you want a free gun, you can legally manufacture your own.

The materials to construct that free gun are free also?

Are you a troll or just an idiot?

Well, lets roll back to what I commented on:

You can't make someone pay to exercise a right.

Apparently you can, but there's this amazing explanation now:

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Oh, you supply free guns to anyone? Hooray constitution.

I don't think you understand how the Constitution works if you don't realize the difference between the government forcing you to pay to exercise a right and private citizens forcing you to pay for products they've made.

So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?

Your statement was that you can't make someone pay to exercise a right, yet there is some kind of transaction required here.

Maybe if we want to simplify the whole thing we can just place regulations and bans on anything that isn't homemade and self-taught. We have a nice constitutionally protected right without any of that messy Talking About Things. Now we can say hooray police state!

What we have got here is a failure to communicate, mostly your HS government teacher apparently. Private transactions are not equal to government action. Just stop this trolling argument. You're embarrassing yourself.

Well if you just want to drop out of the discussion and go back to looking up pictures of horsies on the net you're welcome to go do that.


Do you have any substantive point or do you want to keep rambling like someone who just smoked their first joint of college after philosophy class and hit total enlightenment?
 
2013-07-08 03:29:45 PM  

redmid17: StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?


Okay, let me splain this to you real slow.... If the government requires you to pay for something to exercise a right, that's unconstitutional.  See "Poll Tax".  If a private citizen requires you to pay for something, it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people, nor are people able to infringe your rights.  No private citizen could ever force another to not own a firearm.  So, the government saying that you must pay to take a class is not the same as a private citizen saying you have to pay to buy a gun from them.

Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

Which enumerated right has zero regulations? We should probably shore that one up.


Sorry, did you want to continue? I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you.
 
2013-07-08 03:31:25 PM  

redmid17: Do you have any substantive point or do you want to keep rambling like someone who just smoked their first joint of college after philosophy class and hit total enlightenment?


Since you haven't contributed anything the last few replies other than to posture I wasn't really bothering to give you anything substantive, but if you want me to I'm sure I could think of something for you to get angry about.
 
2013-07-08 03:32:21 PM  

StaleCoffee: redmid17: StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: So explain to me the difference between goods and services here, if you're a private citizen forcing people to pay for those services in the same vein that someone forces people to pay for their goods.

If the government is not supplying free weapons, ammunition and training - hey Military folks, respect to you by the way - and requires remuneration for goods that are constitutionally protected, by what backassward logic do you somehow differentiate that from requisite training?


Okay, let me splain this to you real slow.... If the government requires you to pay for something to exercise a right, that's unconstitutional.  See "Poll Tax".  If a private citizen requires you to pay for something, it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people, nor are people able to infringe your rights.  No private citizen could ever force another to not own a firearm.  So, the government saying that you must pay to take a class is not the same as a private citizen saying you have to pay to buy a gun from them.

Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

Which enumerated right has zero regulations? We should probably shore that one up.

Sorry, did you want to continue? I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you.


The entire thread is the conversation. Try to keep up.
 
2013-07-08 03:33:38 PM  

StaleCoffee: Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.


What kind of prior restraint are we under to preemptively prevent us from creating or distributing child pornography?

Do you need a license to get on the internet? Do you have to pass a background check to buy a camera?
 
2013-07-08 03:34:20 PM  

StaleCoffee: Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?


And who is going to be arresting me and putting me in jail (infringing my rights), a private citizen or the government?
 
2013-07-08 03:35:34 PM  

redmid17: The entire thread is the conversation. Try to keep up.


I see, the guy you're responding for is trying to figure out a way to rephrase what he meant so he doesn't have to admit that just maybe it could be in error somehow and to cover for that you're waving a 26 foot epeen my way so I'll salivate at it? Wanna make out? Even though he thinks I'm an idiot I'm sure Click is more than capable of answering for himself (my comment there was sarcasm btw, except the making out part).
 
2013-07-08 03:39:21 PM  

StaleCoffee: Even though he thinks I'm an idiot I'm sure Click is more than capable of answering for himself


Sorry, first I had to figure out how the hell you were equating the government putting limits on the exercise of the First Amendment had anything to do with my statement that the Bill of Rights is not incorporated against the people...  Actually, I'm still trying to figure that one out....
 
2013-07-08 03:40:06 PM  

JesseL: StaleCoffee: Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

What kind of prior restraint are we under to preemptively prevent us from creating or distributing child pornography?

Do you need a license to get on the internet? Do you have to pass a background check to buy a camera?


Nope! Because cameras and the internet  aren't the sole purview of child porn and terror magazines any more than trucks and charcoal are solely about the dissemination and construction of firearms and ammunition. Child porn of any category, however, is illegal regardless of the medium. If you carved a picture of pedobear assaulting an infant into the stock of your rifle, though, I wonder which amendment that would fall under the protection of.
 
2013-07-08 03:41:08 PM  

StaleCoffee: jshine: StaleCoffee: jshine: StaleCoffee: jshine: Zasteva: (etc., etc., etc.)

Because Constitutional right, that's why.  A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended.  Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech.  Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

Oh please. Like anyone who wants to own a gun also feels a civic duty to the state or as a means to resist oppression. That argument is quite possibly the most dishonest and insulting excuse involved in this entire mess. The right to keep and bear arms has never been so simple as to own a weapon for self defense alone. Not in the United States, not in the nations or ideals on which that amendment was based, but it's been an amazing spin of politics to turn it into something so stupid as that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without restriction. You want to test your first amendment? Go start a kiddie porn site and a forum for terrorists to blow up a circus.

Some of this shiat should be common sense.

Completely unrestricted?  No, of course not -- as you point out, even the comparatively uncontroversial 1st Amendment has its limits -- but it does mean there's a (rightfully) pretty high bar to laws that restrict Constitutional rights.

So:

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

Which is it?


"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." (often mis-attributed to  Oliver Wendell Holmes, but a good quote none the less).  Basically, this is why yelling "fire" in a theater or making kiddie-porn is illegal: it infringes on other peoples' r ...



Don't be obtuse.
 
2013-07-08 03:41:42 PM  

StaleCoffee: redmid17: Do you have any substantive point or do you want to keep rambling like someone who just smoked their first joint of college after philosophy class and hit total enlightenment?

Since you haven't contributed anything the last few replies other than to posture I wasn't really bothering to give you anything substantive, but if you want me to I'm sure I could think of something for you to get angry about.


Look if you can't or won't understand the difference between the government not infringing on a right versus actively stifling a right, there is not much else I can do. However for one last attempt:

The 6th amendment guarantees a right to counsel in criminal cases. If you or I go to trial without a lawyer due to lack of funds, then the government is violating our sixth amendment right to counsel. If you have enough money and waive the government's offer of counsel, you are not having your right violated.

The 2nd amendment says the government will not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. If they don't provide you with a gun, you still have the right to keep and bear arms. I can gift you a shotgun and ammunition, and you have to pay no one. You still retain your right to keep and bear arms.
 
2013-07-08 03:42:08 PM  

bigpete53: Please explain how knowing how a firearm works, how to store it properly, and how to handle it safely equate to CCW permit.


Depends on the state, I think.  Illinois's proposed 40 hours of training probably covers that stuff a lot due to sheer need to fill up time compared to my permits from North Dakota, Nebraska, or Florida.  I had to demonstrate competency for handling and operation in North Dakota and Florida.  My hunter safety course handled that stuff more, to be honest.

bigpete53: What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?


How about protecting your hearing and keeping from annoying the neighbors when you target practice?  What about hunting closer to inhabited areas(still in a safe manner, of course)?

It might be news to you, but a suppressor doesn't actually silence a firearm.  They still tend to be very loud.  An awful lot of them only muffle the firearm down to around 80 decibels - just low enough you don't need hearing protection.

bigpete53: My experience with California gun owners, though, is that they're fairly irrational regarding firearms laws.


Is it possible that your definition of 'rational' doesn't match with theirs?  I mean, they're starting from a different set of assumptions, so what's rational to them might be irrational to you and vice versa.

One question of rationality:  In California .50BMG rifles are currently considered 'assault weapons', even if it's a single shot bolt action.  Do you think this is a rational law?

bigpete53: If you purchase a car without a license, you still can't drive it off the lot.


You can't drive it off the lot onto the public roads, but you can certainly drive it up onto a trailer(the dealer's lot is private property), and have your friend/employee tow it to a privately owned track/area and drive it to your heart's content.

bigpete53: You mean like the laws that require ID cards to vote?


Far, far worse actually.  Remember this?  10 minutes, 30 questions, 100% needed to pass, many questions have multiple possible answers?

One of the proposed amendments to the original Texas CCW law(it pretty much being the first of the modern CCW movement), proposed range requirements that exceeded all police standards.  It failed, but it had broad support until people started chiming in that many police wouldn't be able to pass it - any CCW'er that passed it could be considered more qualified than the police in a shooting situation.

JesseL: I have a hard time understanding why anyone who wants to reduce unnecessary deaths would resist widespread firearms education, but demand it a legal requisite for gun ownership if they didn't plan to use it as a way of infringing on people's rights.


That's the reason I want it to be a class in High School, perhaps even a bit in Elementary(don't touch!) or Jr High.

Click Click D'oh: Because something that runs about $0.01 each is clearly equateable to something that runs $100 - $200 each x 300,000,000 residents....


The call-in system takes about 5 minutes.  Operator cost alone for that is probably about $1, even before you figure on the costs of keeping the database they're using to look up.  Call it $5-20 per.

Click Click D'oh: If you think someone can be made competent and safe with a firearm in a generalized all in one class


Competent?  No.  Safe?  Probably.  Making sure they know where the bullet comes out, and what control to avoid to keep the gun from firing is sufficient in case they come across a strange firearm that they must(for some reason) handle.  Otherwise if they're purchasing the seller can(and normally does) cover the relevant operation of that particular firearm.

manimal2878: Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't the 40mm gun shoot a HE shell? I'm betting your cannon and mortar do not do that.


The payload of the artillery piece is not dependent upon the caliber.  Explosive shells exist and can be made for his weapons, and date from the 14th century.  I'll note that an explosive round WOULD count as a destructive device, with all the relevant permit requirements coming into play in that case.  But for muzzle-loading cannon, it's the shot that's regulated(when it's explosive), not the weapon.

vanbiber874: but the importance of keeping public schools safe and gun free is higher than having a shooting team


Is separating school 'safety' and 'gun free' an unintentional insight on your part?  Because in the context of school endorsed shooting sports, they are actually separate matters.

A kid smuggling in a firearm to use on another is an issue whether or not there's a shooting team.  Heck, a student attempting another harm is an issue, whether he's using a firearm, knife, or even just a school pencil.

vanbiber874: No, because safe sex education is different than learning how to use a gun (insert penis joke here).


Eh, I was approaching it more from a 'safe handling' course rather than a full 'how to use it properly' course; especially considering I was proposing an hour or less, when basic rifle qualification for the military is a 1-2 day course of nothing else(2 days right now for M-4, USAF).

vanbiber874: Many of these safety suggestions are covered in science labs/physical education courses.


Many, not all.  Not all students attend science labs in public school.  Heck, I'd go so far as to say that most don't.

vanbiber874: That type of safety education is much different than learning how to use a deadly weapon.


Not seeing it.  A car can easily be as deadly if you're a dumbass using it as a firearm can.
 
2013-07-08 03:42:40 PM  

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

And who is going to be arresting me and putting me in jail (infringing my rights), a private citizen or the government?


I honestly don't even know where that turn went, could you explain that? Not sarcasm there.

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Even though he thinks I'm an idiot I'm sure Click is more than capable of answering for himself

Sorry, first I had to figure out how the hell you were equating the government putting limits on the exercise of the First Amendment had anything to do with my statement that the Bill of Rights is not incorporated against the people...  Actually, I'm still trying to figure that one out....


Are you trying to steer this towards states rights...?
 
2013-07-08 03:43:37 PM  

jshine: Don't be obtuse.


I see, it's fine for you to make over the top comments and not defend them but if I do it, it's being obtuse.  How acute.
 
2013-07-08 03:44:00 PM  

supayoda: 2. Can SOME deaths be prevented by stricter gun laws? The answer to that question is a resounding YES. In particular, accidental deaths (particularly to children) in homes where guns are kept would be reduced significantly.



What law would you propose to prevent these accidental kid-deaths?

And a follow-up, how would you enforce such a law(s)?


I'll take my answer off the air, thank you.
 
2013-07-08 03:49:15 PM  

StaleCoffee: I wasn't asking about that. I was asking which is it: your rights do not need explanation or justification and you can exercise them for any reason, or not.

Do you feel that your initial comment was in error then?



If this was actually intended to be a serious question, not just you being willfully obtuse, then I'd reply that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms should be interpreted as broadly as possible, subject to the principle of that quote (that your rights end where other peoples rights begin).  Where that exact limit is drawn is -- in our system of divided powers -- a matter for the court system.

...but within the sphere of "arms" that can reasonably be used without obliterating parts of the community (i.e., no nukes, artillery, etc.), the right to own and use them -- by people who have not been convicted of a crime -- should be basically unrestricted.  I.e., one should not need to prove that a particular armament has a "sporting" use (or similar) to justify possessing it.
 
2013-07-08 03:49:55 PM  

StaleCoffee: JesseL: StaleCoffee: Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

What kind of prior restraint are we under to preemptively prevent us from creating or distributing child pornography?

Do you need a license to get on the internet? Do you have to pass a background check to buy a camera?

Nope! Because cameras and the internet  aren't the sole purview of child porn and terror magazines any more than trucks and charcoal are solely about the dissemination and construction of firearms and ammunition. Child porn of any category, however, is illegal regardless of the medium. If you carved a picture of pedobear assaulting an infant into the stock of your rifle, though, I wonder which amendment that would fall under the protection of.


I have seriously lost track of WTF point you're trying to make and I think perhaps you have too. Tone down the WaRGARBL, take your meds, and try again.
 
2013-07-08 03:50:55 PM  

redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: Do you have any substantive point or do you want to keep rambling like someone who just smoked their first joint of college after philosophy class and hit total enlightenment?

Since you haven't contributed anything the last few replies other than to posture I wasn't really bothering to give you anything substantive, but if you want me to I'm sure I could think of something for you to get angry about.

Look if you can't or won't understand the difference between the government not infringing on a right versus actively stifling a right, there is not much else I can do. However for one last attempt:

The 6th amendment guarantees a right to counsel in criminal cases. If you or I go to trial without a lawyer due to lack of funds, then the government is violating our sixth amendment right to counsel. If you have enough money and waive the government's offer of counsel, you are not having your right violated.

The 2nd amendment says the government will not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. If they don't provide you with a gun, you still have the right to keep and bear arms. I can gift you a shotgun and ammunition, and you have to pay no one. You still retain your right to keep and bear arms.


Honestly I think most of the problem here is that you want to feel hostile towards me because I'm Not On Your Side, despite the fact nobody has asked me outright if I support gun ownership (which I do, btw) or my general position on it.

I understand what you are saying and it makes sense. OTOH there is a cost and regulation involved there. The government is providing legal counsel, but that legal counsel is in good standing with the bar, and did not come that way free. Would you consider it stifling if the government allowed you to represent yourself but did not provide counsel? AFAIK they can force you to reimburse that counsel as well, if you are financially capable of doing so - which is the crux of this topic for me at the moment. The idea that people shouldn't have to pay anything to exercise an "enumerated right" as it were.
 
2013-07-08 03:51:47 PM  

Great Janitor: I even support the idea that if a felon even attempts to buy a gun and the background check returns him as a felon


Why can't the felon own firearms? Likewise the dishonorably discharged from the military. Sure, I get that if the person committed some violent crimes, go ahead and take away the gun rights. What about a felony tax evasion or some similar non-violent nerd-crime? How does that rate a loss of firearms rights?

Yes, I know the blanket "felons lose firearms rights" rule is already in effect, I'm just wondering what is the rationale behind it, (I suspect there isn't any).
 
2013-07-08 03:52:59 PM  

JesseL: StaleCoffee: JesseL: StaleCoffee: Well then, like I said to the guy back there, why don't you test out your first amendment right by selling some child porn?

Maybe sell a magazine that splains real slow how to asplode sommat?

See, I can understand the potential dangers of the government exercising too much control over the regulation of, well, anything - but you seem to be adamant in your refusal to understand the potential dangers of zero regulations. The irony that you are an instructor is amusing, though.

What kind of prior restraint are we under to preemptively prevent us from creating or distributing child pornography?

Do you need a license to get on the internet? Do you have to pass a background check to buy a camera?

Nope! Because cameras and the internet  aren't the sole purview of child porn and terror magazines any more than trucks and charcoal are solely about the dissemination and construction of firearms and ammunition. Child porn of any category, however, is illegal regardless of the medium. If you carved a picture of pedobear assaulting an infant into the stock of your rifle, though, I wonder which amendment that would fall under the protection of.

I have seriously lost track of WTF point you're trying to make and I think perhaps you have too. Tone down the WaRGARBL, take your meds, and try again.


IOW you think cameras and the internet are for child porn and fields and paper targets are for guns, and should be regulated equally or not at all, roger that.
 
2013-07-08 03:57:08 PM  

Firethorn: The call-in system takes about 5 minutes. Operator cost alone for that is probably about $1,


Your local FLL needs to start using the computer based system.

Firethorn: Making sure they know where the bullet comes out, and what control to avoid to keep the gun from firing is sufficient in case they come across a strange firearm that they must(for some reason) handle.


They muzzle and the trigger.  It's the same for all firearms.  No class needed.  The owners manual for any firearm covers that.

StaleCoffee: I honestly don't even know where that turn went, could you explain that? Not sarcasm there.


Hell, I don't even know where the turn came from.  You are going to have to explain how you mashed up child pron not being protected by the 1st, poll taxes and Bill of Rights not being incorporated against private citizens..

StaleCoffee: Are you trying to steer this towards states rights...?


DUFUQ?
 
2013-07-08 03:57:15 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Great Janitor: I even support the idea that if a felon even attempts to buy a gun and the background check returns him as a felon

Why can't the felon own firearms? Likewise the dishonorably discharged from the military. Sure, I get that if the person committed some violent crimes, go ahead and take away the gun rights. What about a felony tax evasion or some similar non-violent nerd-crime? How does that rate a loss of firearms rights?

Yes, I know the blanket "felons lose firearms rights" rule is already in effect, I'm just wondering what is the rationale behind it, (I suspect there isn't any).


Disenfranchisement of felons is covered under one of the amendments. I won't pretend I know it offhand but it's probably a first page google hit.
 
2013-07-08 03:57:33 PM  

neversubmit: If everybody had their own personal force field guns would be obsolete.


it is being worked on... just need the null field to end at some point.  is it a set output from the battery, or something else I'm not seeing?  Do I need to tie it into something that will sustain the charge or just use that as a grounding point?  Do you really need the entire body covered, or can we restrict coverage to the head and torso, leaving the limbs to fend for themselves?

/physics for the win
//never surrender, nothing is impossible
 
2013-07-08 04:01:19 PM  
StaleCoffee: I honestly don't even know where that turn went, could you explain that? Not sarcasm there.

Hell, I don't even know where the turn came from.  You are going to have to explain how you mashed up child pron not being protected by the 1st, poll taxes and Bill of Rights not being incorporated against private citizens..

StaleCoffee: Are you trying to steer this towards states rights...?

DUFUQ?


You brought up poll taxes and Bill of Rights not being incorporated, not I.

You made the claim that "it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people" - which I contended and provided an example of.

That you went round and round with a bunch of nonsense is your own fault, that I chose to roll along with it is mine.

I'm trying not to assume you're an asshole who just wants to be right but it's really looking that way.
 
2013-07-08 04:01:21 PM  

StaleCoffee: redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: Do you have any substantive point or do you want to keep rambling like someone who just smoked their first joint of college after philosophy class and hit total enlightenment?

Since you haven't contributed anything the last few replies other than to posture I wasn't really bothering to give you anything substantive, but if you want me to I'm sure I could think of something for you to get angry about.

Look if you can't or won't understand the difference between the government not infringing on a right versus actively stifling a right, there is not much else I can do. However for one last attempt:

The 6th amendment guarantees a right to counsel in criminal cases. If you or I go to trial without a lawyer due to lack of funds, then the government is violating our sixth amendment right to counsel. If you have enough money and waive the government's offer of counsel, you are not having your right violated.

The 2nd amendment says the government will not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. If they don't provide you with a gun, you still have the right to keep and bear arms. I can gift you a shotgun and ammunition, and you have to pay no one. You still retain your right to keep and bear arms.

Honestly I think most of the problem here is that you want to feel hostile towards me because I'm Not On Your Side, despite the fact nobody has asked me outright if I support gun ownership (which I do, btw) or my general position on it.

I understand what you are saying and it makes sense. OTOH there is a cost and regulation involved there. The government is providing legal counsel, but that legal counsel is in good standing with the bar, and did not come that way free. Would you consider it stifling if the government allowed you to represent yourself but did not provide counsel? AFAIK they can force you to reimburse that counsel as well, if you are financially capable of doing so - which is the crux of this topic for me at the moment. The ...


All of those questions are irrelevant. The government is guaranteeing you a right to counsel. If you can afford it, they will not give you a public defender. You do reimburse court system for the PD though. You can waive that right and proceed pro se if you prefer. There might be an exception for mentally ill defendants. The PD is also paid to remain in good standing with the bar. If he is disbarred, he cannot remain in his job.

The government does not guarantee you a gun to shoot, just that you can own and shoot one if you want. That's the crux of the issue. There is a reason why there is no direct reference to any scenarios where the government would provide anyone a gun. You'd have a point if the 2nd amendment said:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In military conflicts, foreign and domestic, the people shall enjoy the right to bear arms and have the assistance of the Armory.
 or something along those lines
 
2013-07-08 04:01:47 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: supayoda: 2. Can SOME deaths be prevented by stricter gun laws? The answer to that question is a resounding YES. In particular, accidental deaths (particularly to children) in homes where guns are kept would be reduced significantly.


What law would you propose to prevent these accidental kid-deaths?

And a follow-up, how would you enforce such a law(s)?


I'll take my answer off the air, thank you.


Butting in to your conversation here....

I would start with stuff that has proven to work...like the gun storage/handling laws of Canada.  I would start with some of those laws and look into how they inforce them, since they seem to work.

Here is a good place to start, a few of Canada's federal gun safety laws:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6700786_canadian-gun-storage-laws.html">htt p://www.ehow.com/list_6700786_canadian-gun-storage-laws.html

Add some of those laws with enforcement with universal background checks and it seems obvious you will save lives without taking away any guns for law abiding and sane citizens.
 
2013-07-08 04:04:40 PM  

Trance354: neversubmit: If everybody had their own personal force field guns would be obsolete.

it is being worked on... just need the null field to end at some point.  is it a set output from the battery, or something else I'm not seeing?  Do I need to tie it into something that will sustain the charge or just use that as a grounding point?  Do you really need the entire body covered, or can we restrict coverage to the head and torso, leaving the limbs to fend for themselves?

/physics for the win
//never surrender, nothing is impossible


If patent #1 is a personal force field, patent #2 is going to be a way to bypass said force field.
 
2013-07-08 04:04:55 PM  

StaleCoffee: You made the claim that "it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people" - which I contended and provided an example of.


What part of the Constitution says that you can't have child pron?

There isn't one that I know of.

The Constitution states the rights of the government, then the protected rights of the people.  The only crime laid out in the Constitution is Treason.  Later laws created the crime of child pron, the Constitution simply does not protect it.

How do you not know that?
 
2013-07-08 04:06:21 PM  

Aldon: AngryJailhouseFistfark: supayoda: 2. Can SOME deaths be prevented by stricter gun laws? The answer to that question is a resounding YES. In particular, accidental deaths (particularly to children) in homes where guns are kept would be reduced significantly.


What law would you propose to prevent these accidental kid-deaths?

And a follow-up, how would you enforce such a law(s)?


I'll take my answer off the air, thank you.

Butting in to your conversation here....

I would start with stuff that has proven to work...like the gun storage/handling laws of Canada.  I would start with some of those laws and look into how they inforce them, since they seem to work.

Here is a good place to start, a few of Canada's federal gun safety laws:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6700786_canadian-gun-storage-laws.html">htt p://www.ehow.com/list_6700786_canadian-gun-storage-laws.html

Add some of those laws with enforcement with universal background checks and it seems obvious you will save lives without taking away any guns for law abiding and sane citizens.


Gun storage requirements are largely dead for now excepting those with regards to ensuring that children and prohibited persons do not gain access to firearms through negligence. A law will have to be passed, make it up to SCOTUS, be accepted by SCOTUS, and overturn that part of DC v Heller for anything like that to stick.
 
2013-07-08 04:07:20 PM  

Firethorn: A lot of gun owners state that they'd LOVE firearms to be 'regulated' the same as cars. Consider that you can trailer a non-street legal car over public roads all you like, assuming the trailer itself is legal.

Carrying a firearm is not the same as operating it. Despite this, I think it reasonable to consider a 'ready to use' firearm about the same as driving a car even if you're not actually shooting it, you're carrying it with reasonable expectation you might end up using it, even if the odds are really low.

Thus, you need a CCW type permit(wording can vary) in order to carry a firearm ready for operation. Unloaded open carry? Same as trailering a non-street legal car. No license? You're restricted to carrying it unloaded, preferably cased, on public property.


I would love it too if firearms were regulated like cars; mandatory licenses, training, registration, and insurance as well as strictly enforced rules on selling and tracking transfered ownership...
 
2013-07-08 04:08:07 PM  

redmid17: All of those questions are irrelevant. The government is guaranteeing you a right to counsel. If you can afford it, they will not give you a public defender. You do reimburse court system for the PD though. You can waive that right and proceed pro se if you prefer. There might be an exception for mentally ill defendants. The PD is also paid to remain in good standing with the bar. If he is disbarred, he cannot remain in his job.



Yet the bottom line of this entire discussion was someone claiming the government can't force you to pay to exercise an enumerated right. I'm not arguing that the government should supply people with free guns, I'm contesting that statement.

I am absolutely well aware that you can waive that and not pay a fee, so please don't assume I'm an idiot. That's not the same as the right to legal counsel, since you also have the option to waive your right to keep and bear arms.


The government does not guarantee you a gun to shoot, just that you can own and shoot one if you want. That's the crux of the issue. There is a reason why there is no direct reference to any scenarios where the government would provide anyone a gun. You'd have a point if the 2nd amendment said:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In military conflicts, foreign and domestic, the people shall enjoy the right to bear arms and have the assistance of the Armory.

or something along those lines


You're right, that wasn't anything I was arguing against.

Question: What do you think of the use of militia against the whiskey rebellion? Not looking to trap you in something, honestly curious.
 
2013-07-08 04:08:33 PM  

Aldon: Firethorn: A lot of gun owners state that they'd LOVE firearms to be 'regulated' the same as cars. Consider that you can trailer a non-street legal car over public roads all you like, assuming the trailer itself is legal.

Carrying a firearm is not the same as operating it. Despite this, I think it reasonable to consider a 'ready to use' firearm about the same as driving a car even if you're not actually shooting it, you're carrying it with reasonable expectation you might end up using it, even if the odds are really low.

Thus, you need a CCW type permit(wording can vary) in order to carry a firearm ready for operation. Unloaded open carry? Same as trailering a non-street legal car. No license? You're restricted to carrying it unloaded, preferably cased, on public property.

I would love it too if firearms were regulated like cars; mandatory licenses, training, registration, and insurance as well as strictly enforced rules on selling and tracking transfered ownership...


All that stuff only applies if you want to operate the car on public property.
 
2013-07-08 04:09:00 PM  

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: You made the claim that "it doesn't matter because the Constitution is does not restrict the people" - which I contended and provided an example of.

What part of the Constitution says that you can't have child pron?

There isn't one that I know of.

The Constitution states the rights of the government, then the protected rights of the people.  The only crime laid out in the Constitution is Treason.  Later laws created the crime of child pron, the Constitution simply does not protect it.

How do you not know that?


Oh, you're one of those.
 
2013-07-08 04:09:11 PM  

redmid17: Gun storage requirements are largely dead for now excepting those with regards to ensuring that children and prohibited persons do not gain access to firearms through negligence. A law will have to be passed, make it up to SCOTUS, be accepted by SCOTUS, and overturn that part of DC v Heller for anything like that to stick.


If that is true, it is too bad.  Seems like sensible laws that would save lives.
 
2013-07-08 04:10:45 PM  

StaleCoffee: Yet the bottom line of this entire discussion was someone claiming the government can't force you to pay to exercise an enumerated right.


Does the court pull the public defender from the case or reverse the trial decision if you fail to pay in the future?  In what way does the government remove your right to representation if you don't pay?
 
2013-07-08 04:11:47 PM  

vanbiber874: Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.


You know they used to have...are you sitting down?...SHOOTING CLUBS IN SCHOOLS.  Students would actually carry their rifles in the open on school grounds.  And there was never a school shooting.  The guns are not to blame and all the idiotic zero-tolerance laws have done absolutely nothing to make kids safer.
 
2013-07-08 04:11:57 PM  

StaleCoffee: redmid17: All of those questions are irrelevant. The government is guaranteeing you a right to counsel. If you can afford it, they will not give you a public defender. You do reimburse court system for the PD though. You can waive that right and proceed pro se if you prefer. There might be an exception for mentally ill defendants. The PD is also paid to remain in good standing with the bar. If he is disbarred, he cannot remain in his job.


Yet the bottom line of this entire discussion was someone claiming the government can't force you to pay to exercise an enumerated right. I'm not arguing that the government should supply people with free guns, I'm contesting that statement.

I am absolutely well aware that you can waive that and not pay a fee, so please don't assume I'm an idiot. That's not the same as the right to legal counsel, since you also have the option to waive your right to keep and bear arms.


The government does not guarantee you a gun to shoot, just that you can own and shoot one if you want. That's the crux of the issue. There is a reason why there is no direct reference to any scenarios where the government would provide anyone a gun. You'd have a point if the 2nd amendment said:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In military conflicts, foreign and domestic, the people shall enjoy the right to bear arms and have the assistance of the Armory.

or something along those lines

You're right, that wasn't anything I was arguing against.

Question: What do you think of the use of militia against the whiskey rebellion? Not looking to trap you in something, honestly curious.


I understand why the farmers were pissed. They just help fight a revolution largely of taxation, and the government turns around and triple taxes them. It was a shiat law with good intentions. They shouldn't have rebelled. There was a reason why that tax got repealed and no one was convicted during that whole brouhaha though
 
2013-07-08 04:12:22 PM  

StaleCoffee: Oh, you're one of those.


Which portion of the Constitution restricts child pron?  It's okay.  You can say that it's not in there.  Don't worry, it's not a shocking revelation to the rest of us that child pron isn't in the Constitution.
 
2013-07-08 04:13:46 PM  

Firethorn: The payload of the artillery piece is not dependent upon the caliber. Explosive shells exist and can be made for his weapons, and date from the 14th century. I'll note that an explosive round WOULD count as a destructive device, with all the relevant permit requirements coming into play in that case. But for muzzle-loading cannon, it's the shot that's regulated(when it's explosive), not the weapon.


I'm pretty sure we are talking about THE 40mm gun (the bofurs). Not just anything with a 40mm bore.  I don't give a crap about muzzle loading cannons, I didn't bring those up, Dittybopper did.
 
2013-07-08 04:14:33 PM  

redmid17: All that stuff only applies if you want to operate the car on public property.


Hmmm, in order to purchase a car the sale and transfer of ownership needs to be recorded.  No matter if it is going to be functioning on private property or not (at least in California).

I would have no problem if someone can build their own car or firearm with legal parts and only have it in their property and would have heavy regulations on moving or transferring it to another person or location.
 
2013-07-08 04:18:21 PM  

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Yet the bottom line of this entire discussion was someone claiming the government can't force you to pay to exercise an enumerated right.

Does the court pull the public defender from the case or reverse the trial decision if you fail to pay in the future?  In what way does the government remove your right to representation if you don't pay?


Why not go educate yourself in regards to the topic? I know some of the basics but if you want an advanced class on what kind of trials the 6th amendment applies to and under what circumstances someone is required to reimburse their legal counsel you'd probably trust your own research more than my say so.

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Oh, you're one of those.

Which portion of the Constitution restricts child pron?  It's okay.  You can say that it's not in there.  Don't worry, it's not a shocking revelation to the rest of us that child pron isn't in the Constitution.


Do you do stand up too?
 
2013-07-08 04:19:03 PM  
Is anybody else getting the feeling that StaleCoffee may be mentally ill? So many of his (her?) posts have that style that hints at a very loose connection with reality. They remind me a bit of Jared Loughner's "'What is government if words have no meaning" rants.
 
2013-07-08 04:21:17 PM  

MFAWG: doglover: MFAWG: Guns do not
Do they have another use? Please enlighten me.
Target shooting is really just practicing getting better at making things dead.


earlier you implied that using a knife is not the same as a gun because knives are not used strictly for killing things.  Are you saying that you have a problem with all weapons?  If you do not have a problem with all weapons, and feel you have a right to defend yourself from an attacker, then what does it matter if you defend yourself with a knife, a gun, a baseball bat or anything else?

BTW I agree with you, guns are absolutely designed for killing, and target shooting is simply practice for putting holes in targets.  However I believe that if someone is going to have a gun to defend themselves then they should be practiced.
 
2013-07-08 04:24:10 PM  

Aldon: AngryJailhouseFistfark: supayoda: 2. Can SOME deaths be prevented by stricter gun laws? The answer to that question is a resounding YES. In particular, accidental deaths (particularly to children) in homes where guns are kept would be reduced significantly.


What law would you propose to prevent these accidental kid-deaths?

And a follow-up, how would you enforce such a law(s)?


I'll take my answer off the air, thank you.

Butting in to your conversation here....

I would start with stuff that has proven to work...like the gun storage/handling laws of Canada.  I would start with some of those laws and look into how they inforce them, since they seem to work.

Here is a good place to start, a few of Canada's federal gun safety laws:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6700786_canadian-gun-storage-laws.html">htt p://www.ehow.com/list_6700786_canadian-gun-storage-laws.html

Add some of those laws with enforcement with universal background checks and it seems obvious you will save lives without taking away any guns for law abiding and sane citizens.


But the follow-up question, how to enforce this? Preventing the purchase with the background check is pro-active, but short of doing house-to-house inspections to see the hardware is locked up, the only way you'd enforce this is an add-on penalty after Junior's already taken the family gun and shot up the Dairy Freeze. It is highly probably that the responsible gun-owner already has his stuff secured, thus you've got laws that are only obeyed by the people who are self-regulating in the first place and thus meaningless.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the gun violence reduced but feel-good laws backed up by Tough Talk and Resolution are a waste of my tax-payer dollar and accomplish nothing. I'm guessing the lower gun-crime rate in Canadia is a product of their socio-economic situation, (ie. less social stratification & poverty than Homeland) than a factor of the "keep it locked up" laws.
 
2013-07-08 04:25:23 PM  

redmid17: I understand why the farmers were pissed. They just help fight a revolution largely of taxation, and the government turns around and triple taxes them. It was a shiat law with good intentions. They shouldn't have rebelled. There was a reason why that tax got repealed and no one was convicted during that whole brouhaha though


I'm assuming the rest of that conversation has wound down and that Clicky has gone off to research his amendments so wrt this, I'm surprised you think they shouldn't have rebelled.  I agree but what's your reasoning? Barring jokes about what defines well regulated as concerns a militia, they had the constitutional provision and moral purpose. The legality of treason is a matter of who wins that fight really so other than allowing cooler heads to prevail so nobody got shot up why do you think so?
 
2013-07-08 04:25:50 PM  

StaleCoffee: Why not go educate yourself in regards to the topic?

I already know the answers, I just wanted to know if you did.  So try again, can the assigned counsel be pulled from the defendant if he can not pay for it?
 
2013-07-08 04:26:13 PM  

JesseL: Is anybody else getting the feeling that StaleCoffee may be mentally ill? So many of his (her?) posts have that style that hints at a very loose connection with reality. They remind me a bit of Jared Loughner's "'What is government if words have no meaning" rants.


Sorry, I've been on the soy sauce.
 
2013-07-08 04:27:01 PM  

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Why not go educate yourself in regards to the topic?
I already know the answers, I just wanted to know if you did.  So try again, can the assigned counsel be pulled from the defendant if he can not pay for it?


Oh yeah? Well I already know the answers too and wanted to know if you did, so there.
 
2013-07-08 04:31:48 PM  

Aldon: redmid17: All that stuff only applies if you want to operate the car on public property.

Hmmm, in order to purchase a car the sale and transfer of ownership needs to be recorded.  No matter if it is going to be functioning on private property or not (at least in California).

I would have no problem if someone can build their own car or firearm with legal parts and only have it in their property and would have heavy regulations on moving or transferring it to another person or location.


No it doesn't. Only if you intend to drive it on public roads does it need to be recorded. Once a car has been given salvage or junk status, you can pass it around like a village bicycle if you want.
 
2013-07-08 04:31:55 PM  

StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Why not go educate yourself in regards to the topic?
I already know the answers, I just wanted to know if you did.  So try again, can the assigned counsel be pulled from the defendant if he can not pay for it?

Oh yeah? Well I already know the answers too and wanted to know if you did, so there.


FINE I'll scroll it back up for you:

"If you can afford it, they will not give you a public defender. You do reimburse court system for the PD though. You can waive that right and proceed pro se if you prefer."
 
2013-07-08 04:34:46 PM  

StaleCoffee: Oh yeah? Well I already know the answers too and wanted to know if you did, so there.


Okay, since you really don't know, how about some more schooling.

The 6th doesn't say anything about free lawyers.  It grants the right to the assistance of legal representation.  The original understanding was that this was to prevent your lawyer from being barred from court.  Only later through the courts were free lawyers wiggled in, and they are absolutely guaranteed for people that can not financially provide their own.

So no, you paying for your lawyer in court, if you can afford one, is not the same as the government making you pay for an enumerated right.  You can after all fire your lawyer, donate all your money to charity and then be granted counsel by the court.  So no, it's still not constitutional to make a person take a class that they would have to pay for to exercise an enumerated right.

Go back to school wannabe 1L.
 
2013-07-08 04:35:12 PM  

StaleCoffee: redmid17: I understand why the farmers were pissed. They just help fight a revolution largely of taxation, and the government turns around and triple taxes them. It was a shiat law with good intentions. They shouldn't have rebelled. There was a reason why that tax got repealed and no one was convicted during that whole brouhaha though

I'm assuming the rest of that conversation has wound down and that Clicky has gone off to research his amendments so wrt this, I'm surprised you think they shouldn't have rebelled.  I agree but what's your reasoning? Barring jokes about what defines well regulated as concerns a militia, they had the constitutional provision and moral purpose. The legality of treason is a matter of who wins that fight really so other than allowing cooler heads to prevail so nobody got shot up why do you think so?


1) they were never gonna win that fight
2) there were avenues of redress they neglected to consider that came well short of harassing the "revenooer" who came into town.
 
2013-07-08 04:36:50 PM  

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Oh yeah? Well I already know the answers too and wanted to know if you did, so there.

Okay, since you really don't know, how about some more schooling.

The 6th doesn't say anything about free lawyers.  It grants the right to the assistance of legal representation.  The original understanding was that this was to prevent your lawyer from being barred from court.  Only later through the courts were free lawyers wiggled in, and they are absolutely guaranteed for people that can not financially provide their own.

So no, you paying for your lawyer in court, if you can afford one, is not the same as the government making you pay for an enumerated right.  You can after all fire your lawyer, donate all your money to charity and then be granted counsel by the court.  So no, it's still not constitutional to make a person take a class that they would have to pay for to exercise an enumerated right.

Go back to school wannabe 1L.


You do have to pay the PD. It's in the court fees. If you really want, I will dig up and redact my court paperwork from when I got pegged with a PI in college.
 
2013-07-08 04:37:07 PM  

StaleCoffee: Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Why not go educate yourself in regards to the topic?
I already know the answers, I just wanted to know if you did.  So try again, can the assigned counsel be pulled from the defendant if he can not pay for it?

Oh yeah? Well I already know the answers too and wanted to know if you did, so there.


So how about the two of you take your dick-measuring contest offline and reserve your posts for the actual dissemination of Useful Information so that the rest of us are edified and improved by the reading of the threed. Let that be your badge of honor. Let that be the standard by which you are judged, and thus, known and respected. The other Farker should not be a rival against whom you strive with your foolish antics and small-market radio show quiz questions. No, the other Farker should be the iron which sharpens your iron, and in so doing allows both of you to share your combined, collected knowings with this assembly and all boats are raised by the tide and all beards can be equally plucked and there will be reach-arounds and golden laurels presented to all and sundry.

The game of "I'm testing you" is long and tedious, like watching Abe Vigoda seducing Betty White and the two of them enjoined in sexual congress. It holds neither entertainment nor instructional value for any of us.

Feel the love; Be.....the love.

We're all in this together.
 
2013-07-08 04:38:39 PM  

bigpete53: redmid17: bigpete53: Click Click D'oh: Do you expect these things when purchasing a car too?

No, because you have to be licensed to drive it in public. You have to prove that you can operate a vehicle before you can legally operate one on public property.

You don't have to be licensed to use it on private property. You more or less implied that everyone should have a concealed carry permit before they purchase a gun.

Please explain how knowing how a firearm works, how to store it properly, and how to handle it safely equate to CCW permit.

Dimensio: A threaded barrel is useful for attachments, such as sound suppressors. They are banned because lawmakers with no understanding of firearms believed them to appear "menacing", despite their presence not in any way enhancing the lethality of the firearms.

What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?

Dimensio: If a ban upon a component, such as a threaded barrel or a pistol grip, results in no demonstrable benefit, then the ban is excessive and unnecessary. Additionally, a current proposal in California will ban the sale of all semi-automatic magazine-fed long guns.

I have no idea what the purpose of the component ban is, so I can't comment on its efficacy. I'll have to trust that you know what you're talking about in that it's not been effective in achieving its goal. My experience with California gun owners, though, is that they're fairly irrational regarding firearms laws. I trust that you are not, and perhaps that single law should be repealed.


I think what was intended by saying "lawmakers with no understanding" was that suppressors became "silencers" because of Hollywood.  The truth of the matter is that a suppressor changes the sound from ear splitting to simply something loud.  It still sounds like a gun shot, and unless the round is specifically designed to fly at subsonic speeds, the bullet still makes its own crack as it breaks the sound barrier.  To give a good approximation, a 9mm bullet fired through a suppressor is about as loud as a 12 pound vase dropped from 5 feet in the air, and allowed to shatter on a cement floor.  A suppressor might make it so the neighbors down the street cant hear you, but unless the properties are large, there is a fair chance that the next door neighbor will hear even suppressed gunfire.
 
2013-07-08 04:39:19 PM  

redmid17: You do have to pay the PD. It's in the court fees. If you really want, I will dig up and redact my court paperwork from when I got pegged with a PI in college.


Of course they bill you for it, but what if you don't pay or can't pay?

Of course, if you lost the case (which you probably did since you used a PD) they'll just add it to the list of things tacked on to your prison expenses...
 
2013-07-08 04:43:19 PM  

bigpete53: Click Click D'oh: But is it necessary for the purchase? You were talking about the purchase of a firearm and how these things should be necessary for the purchase. You weren't talking about operating in public.

No, it is not. Why? Because no one can operate it unless he has a license. Not true for firearms. If you purchase a car without a license, you still can't drive it off the lot. If you purchase a firearm without any training, you can drive to a national park and start firing.


you can tow the car to a private property and drive it all day if you wish.
 
2013-07-08 04:43:41 PM  

Click Click D'oh: redmid17: You do have to pay the PD. It's in the court fees. If you really want, I will dig up and redact my court paperwork from when I got pegged with a PI in college.

Of course they bill you for it, but what if you don't pay or can't pay?

Of course, if you lost the case (which you probably did since you used a PD) they'll just add it to the list of things tacked on to your prison expenses...


They got my BS OWI charge dropped to a misdemeanor PI charge which I got a diversion for and the charge ultimately dropped, so I consider that a win.

If you can't or won't pay the full court costs, you are most likely committing a misdemeanor and you will likely have a bench warrant issued for your arrest.
 
2013-07-08 04:45:53 PM  

redmid17: If you can't or won't pay the full court costs, you are most likely committing a misdemeanor and you will likely have a bench warrant issued for your arrest.


They would probably just deduct it from your paycheck.
 
2013-07-08 04:47:40 PM  

Click Click D'oh: StaleCoffee: Oh yeah? Well I already know the answers too and wanted to know if you did, so there.

Okay, since you really don't know, how about some more schooling.

The 6th doesn't say anything about free lawyers.  It grants the right to the assistance of legal representation.  The original understanding was that this was to prevent your lawyer from being barred from court.  Only later through the courts were free lawyers wiggled in, and they are absolutely guaranteed for people that can not financially provide their own.

So no, you paying for your lawyer in court, if you can afford one, is not the same as the government making you pay for an enumerated right.  You can after all fire your lawyer, donate all your money to charity and then be granted counsel by the court.  So no, it's still not constitutional to make a person take a class that they would have to pay for to exercise an enumerated right.

Go back to school wannabe 1L.


looooooool

It's absolutely AWESOME to watch you oversimplify the Constitution when it suits you and then see you ramp it up with the evolution of it over time in other circumstances. I mean on one hand there's the whole The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About That (I said that in a huffy-puffy kind of voice where I made my neck all fat, if I could, I kind of can't really sorry) and then on the other it's The Original Understanding About This Was Really This.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right+to+Counsel

As I can best understand it, it's there.

So you're saying that the government can't make you pay for that if you can afford it? Or are you saying that your right to legal counsel isn't a right, or that even though you are required to pay for your right to counsel, it doesn't count, because it's.. I dunno, a private attorney?

The relevant text is: "For 150 years, the Right to Counsel Clause was construed as simply granting to a defendant the right to retain a private attorney. This did not mean that an impoverished criminal defendant had the right to a court-appointed attorney without cost. "

Or are you suggesting that it's unconstitutional for the government to require said legal counsel to have been in good standing with the bar and paid, if they're retained, assuming you don't waive that? I mean you have the option to waive your right to gun ownership too.
 
2013-07-08 04:48:43 PM  

redmid17: StaleCoffee: redmid17: I understand why the farmers were pissed. They just help fight a revolution largely of taxation, and the government turns around and triple taxes them. It was a shiat law with good intentions. They shouldn't have rebelled. There was a reason why that tax got repealed and no one was convicted during that whole brouhaha though

I'm assuming the rest of that conversation has wound down and that Clicky has gone off to research his amendments so wrt this, I'm surprised you think they shouldn't have rebelled.  I agree but what's your reasoning? Barring jokes about what defines well regulated as concerns a militia, they had the constitutional provision and moral purpose. The legality of treason is a matter of who wins that fight really so other than allowing cooler heads to prevail so nobody got shot up why do you think so?

1) they were never gonna win that fight
2) there were avenues of redress they neglected to consider that came well short of harassing the "revenooer" who came into town.


Agree on both counts, so... I'll go play XCOM or something I guess.
 
2013-07-08 04:48:58 PM  

Click Click D'oh: redmid17: If you can't or won't pay the full court costs, you are most likely committing a misdemeanor and you will likely have a bench warrant issued for your arrest.

They would probably just deduct it from your paycheck.


They can garnish your wages but unless you notified them that you lack the means to pay them back (they will often work out a payment plan), they will likely arrest you and let you talk to the judge about it. Depending on what the original charge/deal was, there is a chance that the original charge might come back up and bite you in the ass.
 
2013-07-08 04:50:12 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: The game of "I'm testing you" is long and tedious, like watching Abe Vigoda seducing Betty White and the two of them enjoined in sexual congress. It holds neither entertainment nor instructional value for any of us.


I would pay real money if they did that on the back of a monster crocodile, wrapped in an American flag with the God Emperor of Mankind looking down sternly on the scene from above.
 
2013-07-08 04:55:44 PM  

StaleCoffee:  I mean on one hand there's the whole The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About That (I said that in a huffy-puffy kind of voice where I made my neck all fat, if I could, I kind of can't really sorry) and then on the other it's The Original Understanding About This Was Really This.

Really?  You're still miffed that you couldn't find a restriction on child pron in the Constitution?

StaleCoffee: So you're saying that the government can't make you pay for that if you can afford it?


That determination will be made when you indicate that you need Public Defense.  If you are actually flat out broke, then no, you won't pay for it at all.  If when they review your financial records, they may require you to reimburse what you can afford.

StaleCoffee: Or are you saying that your right to legal counsel isn't a right,


Are you even reading what I type?

And for the love of god, finish reading your link.
 
2013-07-08 04:57:39 PM  

StaleCoffee: AngryJailhouseFistfark: The game of "I'm testing you" is long and tedious, like watching Abe Vigoda seducing Betty White and the two of them enjoined in sexual congress. It holds neither entertainment nor instructional value for any of us.

I would pay real money if they did that on the back of a monster crocodile, wrapped in an American flag with the God Emperor of Mankind looking down sternly on the scene from above.



Champagne waterfall and an Andrew Lloyd Webber soundtrack?
 
2013-07-08 04:58:17 PM