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.

(CBS DC)   Time to reset that clock. UPDATE: Shooting suspect confirmed dead. Link to police briefing in article   (washington.cbslocal.com) divider line 569
    More: News, clocks, Howard County  
•       •       •

11763 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2014 at 12:45 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-25 03:16:21 PM  

Purdue_Pete: [Days since last shooting.jpg]


Since when is a double homicide a "mass shooting"?
 
2014-01-25 03:16:50 PM  

ontariolightning: Why is posing animals with weapons acceptable?
I don't understand. It shows a real lack of respect. Like you think guns are toys or props.


*points to nose*
 
2014-01-25 03:18:01 PM  

Bane of Broone: stonelotus: Bane of Broone: stonelotus: Gwendolyn: She safe. Thank god.

does that mean she's home in bed?  because if she's not, I'm pretty sure a random shooter is as close to the bottom of the list of causes of harm one can experience on any given day as you can get.

Wow....

I know, right?  It's really mind-blowing when you think about it.

When you are in the same building the odds become slightly more than random. Carry on though. Callous disregard for life is necessary to for you to shrug and say "No biggie."


you hang onto your manufactured outrage real tight now, ya hear?
 
2014-01-25 03:18:17 PM  

ontariolightning: Why is posing animals with weapons acceptable?
I don't understand. It shows a real lack of respect. Like you think guns are toys or props.



Oh get over yourself.

I didn't even pose him with it....he decided to hop onto the chair and photobomb.

And no, I don't consider it a toy or a prop.
 
2014-01-25 03:19:43 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Where did I mention anything about barrel length? You have me mixed up with Cameron.


You: These are the types of people making gun laws. Don't know jack shiat about them, but they know they are going to make a law against them. NY's SAFE Act is one of the most retarded acts of gun control ever made (and confiscation is beginning in NYC because of it already), and is nothing more than a pompous asshole governor's grandstanding and whoring out the Newtown incident. "Hey, let's outlaw a firearm that is used in less than 2% of gun crimes in the nation, and pass it in the middle of the night before the unlicensed can even review it!". That sounds totally like an honest-to-goodness, on-the-level, cares-what-the-public-thinks law, right there. I hope Cuomo drowns in a shallow puddle.


Cameron mentioned 30" barrels being illegal in NY. You went on a rant about NY's gun laws. At least tacitly (in reality, not at all tacitly), you were agreeing that 30" barrels were illegal in NY. They are not. Ergo, you don't know about the law either.
 
2014-01-25 03:20:20 PM  

The_Sponge: ontariolightning: Why is posing animals with weapons acceptable?
I don't understand. It shows a real lack of respect. Like you think guns are toys or props.


Oh get over yourself.

I didn't even pose him with it....he decided to hop onto the chair and photobomb.

And no, I don't consider it a toy or a prop.


You told me you don't leave your guns lying around the house. But now you say you do. 
Figures.
 
2014-01-25 03:23:04 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: Dr Jack Badofsky: Where did I mention anything about barrel length? You have me mixed up with Cameron.

You: These are the types of people making gun laws. Don't know jack shiat about them, but they know they are going to make a law against them. NY's SAFE Act is one of the most retarded acts of gun control ever made (and confiscation is beginning in NYC because of it already), and is nothing more than a pompous asshole governor's grandstanding and whoring out the Newtown incident. "Hey, let's outlaw a firearm that is used in less than 2% of gun crimes in the nation, and pass it in the middle of the night before the unlicensed can even review it!". That sounds totally like an honest-to-goodness, on-the-level, cares-what-the-public-thinks law, right there. I hope Cuomo drowns in a shallow puddle.


Cameron mentioned 30" barrels being illegal in NY. You went on a rant about NY's gun laws. At least tacitly (in reality, not at all tacitly), you were agreeing that 30" barrels were illegal in NY. They are not. Ergo, you don't know about the law either.


You're really reaching on that one, pal.

1. Just because I didn't take the time to correct it in reply does not mean I accept it as fact, and

2. I was not the one claiming to know everything about guns, I was pointing out that the people all outraged and 'legislatey" are the ones who understand them the least.  Sorry you felt the need to jump to conclusions.
 
2014-01-25 03:23:06 PM  

YouAreItNoTagBacks: Kensey: cameroncrazy1984: High-capacity magazines are neither vital for hunting nor self-defense.

Pop quiz: how many hits are required to be fired to be certain of taking down a single assailant?  Two assailants?  Three?  Not total shots fired including misses, I'm just talking about rounds that fully penetrate the bad guy.

Is this really how you see your life?


I actually don't own or carry anything right now.  But if I ever did feel the pressing need, I wouldn't want the law to prevent me from taking effective action in that regard.  Seven- and ten-round limits are ludicrous because that may not be enough to stop even ONE person, even if every round is on-target.

The idea is to think about this stuff ahead of time so you don't have to worry about it all the time.
 
2014-01-25 03:28:07 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: You're really reaching on that one, pal.

1. Just because I didn't take the time to correct it in reply does not mean I accept it as fact, and

2. I was not the one claiming to know everything about guns, I was pointing out that the people all outraged and 'legislatey" are the ones who understand them the least. Sorry you felt the need to jump to conclusions.


Or maybe, the next time you feel the urge to spew some spittle-flecked screed, you should take the time to make a cogent, germane argument.
 
2014-01-25 03:28:09 PM  

ontariolightning: The_Sponge: ontariolightning: Why is posing animals with weapons acceptable?
I don't understand. It shows a real lack of respect. Like you think guns are toys or props.


Oh get over yourself.

I didn't even pose him with it....he decided to hop onto the chair and photobomb.

And no, I don't consider it a toy or a prop.

You told me you don't leave your guns lying around the house. But now you say you do. 
Figures.


I took it out from the safe....snapped a picture....and placed it back it the safe.

I never said I left them around the house....why can you not understand that?

Stop making things up.
 
2014-01-25 03:28:26 PM  

ontariolightning: Why is posing animals with weapons acceptable?
I don't understand. It shows a real lack of respect. Like you think guns are toys or props.



imageshack.com
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2014-01-25 03:29:39 PM  
Do you still consider this a scary assault weapon even though its not black?
lh4.googleusercontent.com

Good thing this isnt an assault weapon not scary stock on it. Much higher caliber though.
lh4.googleusercontent.com

This ones scary please close your eyes for the firearms sensitive.

lh3.googleusercontent.com

This is not a registered assault weapon in my state of CT.
img.fark.net

lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh4.googleusercontent.com
Nothing scarier than an AK
lh4.googleusercontent.com

All these weapons function the same. Even the pistols. None are more or less dangerous than others. Because none are true assault rifles,
 
2014-01-25 03:29:51 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: Dr Jack Badofsky: You're really reaching on that one, pal.

1. Just because I didn't take the time to correct it in reply does not mean I accept it as fact, and

2. I was not the one claiming to know everything about guns, I was pointing out that the people all outraged and 'legislatey" are the ones who understand them the least. Sorry you felt the need to jump to conclusions.

Or maybe, the next time you feel the urge to spew some spittle-flecked screed, you should take the time to make a cogent, germane argument.


No, you were just jumping to conclusions.  Do try to wrap your head around that.
 
2014-01-25 03:31:22 PM  

super_grass: cameroncrazy1984: super_grass: No, it's not a strawman.

Don't you just feel the burning urge to remind people in every gun thread that this could have been a classroom full of children? Don't you think about all the ways that you can massacre innocents in intricate scenarios with all the weapons that the government is too lazy to ban or restrict from you?

Nope.

Like I said. Strawman.

Hey. You might be afraid to confront these gun nuts, but I'm not.

When I see people with large firearms, I see potential massacres in the making. No, I don't buy the whole law abiding citizen bullshiat either. Whenever I have a thought about high capacity containers or high powered rifles I think about how easy it would be for me to turn a crowd of people into hamburger or act out that scene from Schindler's list if I wanted to.

That is why there is no place for assault rifles in the civilized world.


I can write you a psychiatry referral for your problems, if you like
 
2014-01-25 03:33:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: StreetlightInTheGhetto: I live in Michigan.  Overwhelming majority of my male relatives hunt.  Of the lot of us, two own businesses in Detroit, one works in the city full time, three periodically, two are in school.  (4 of those 8 own guns, that I'm aware of anyway.  2 have concealed permits but don't carry 24/7.)

Last discussion that came up at Thanksgiving... everyone is for some of those common sense measures (read: universal background checks, maybe limits on weapons you really don't need if you're actually buying for hunting or self-defense).

I'm *pretty* sure my family doesn't have a masochistic streak and everyone didn't agree knowing that their guns (and venison and pheasant and duck) would be taken away if it was ever put in place.

This is one of the reasons I like living in the north. Our gun owners are generally reasonable, they are OK with background checks and the like, and they don't hoard guns and ammunition like the apocalypse is coming.


Maybe it's a proximity to Canada thing.

Granted, we still have plenty of idiots (Michigan militia didn't form in a vacuum).  But vast majority of gun owners I know are the go to the woods/drink beer/shoot food + maybe carry when traveling to dicier areas variety.
 
2014-01-25 03:33:48 PM  

ontariolightning: Why is posing animals with weapons acceptable?
I don't understand. It shows a real lack of respect. Like you think guns are toys or props.


img176.exs.cx
crow202.org

Dude, he is just protecting himself.  What do you expect a cat to do?
 
2014-01-25 03:33:53 PM  

Alonjar: Which clock are we resetting now?


The upscale mall shooting with multiple deaths + gunman suicide clock.

With so many clocks, it's understandable to select the wrong one by mistake.  But it can be easy to select the right clock if you just remember this simple mnemonic device.

LANDER

Location/Area + Number of Deaths + End Result

Don't embarrass yourself by needlessly resetting the wrong clock again.
 
2014-01-25 03:35:28 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: But vast majority of gun owners I know are the go to the woods/drink beer/shoot food + maybe carry when traveling to dicier areas variety.


They sound responsible.
 
2014-01-25 03:36:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: What justifies such a limitation, and how would existing magazines in excess of such a capacity be addressed? How would police departments be convinced to replace all of their magazines?

Because the 2nd amendment doesn't necessarily forbid high-capacity magazine restrictions, and restrictions of this type can often limit the damage that a mass shooter can do in a short amount of time. High-capacity magazines are neither vital for hunting nor self-defense. Police departments would be convinced to replace theirs if it is illegal for them to own them.

Dimensio: What justifies such an imposition?

As with any luxury or vice item, vice taxes would provide for a source of revenue and limit the number of such items in the marketplace, thus allowing for fewer assault and full-automatic weapons in public hands.


Automatic weapons have been used exactly twice in crime since the nfa was established. Stop spouting crap. Automatic weapons are not used in crime. Gangbangers are not committing crime with 30k rifles.
 
2014-01-25 03:37:41 PM  
peace
 
2014-01-25 03:38:53 PM  

SRD: Do you still consider this a scary assault weapon even though its not black?
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 850x637]

Good thing this isnt an assault weapon not scary stock on it. Much higher caliber though.
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 850x637]

This ones scary please close your eyes for the firearms sensitive.

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 850x637]

This is not a registered assault weapon in my state of CT.
[img.fark.net image 850x637]

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 850x639]
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 850x639]
Nothing scarier than an AK
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 604x453]

All these weapons function the same. Even the pistols. None are more or less dangerous than others. Because none are true assault rifles,


Do you need a weapon that can fire 154 shots in less than 5 minutes?  30 per minute?  1 every 2 seconds?
 
2014-01-25 03:40:48 PM  

justtray: Kensey: cameroncrazy1984: The_Sponge: cameroncrazy1984: What's wrong with registration?


It can lead to confiscation.....just ask owners of SKS sporter rifles who had them taken away in California.

Specifically due to the fact that they were registered? Or due to the fact that these people registered illegal weapons?

As near as I can tell, California passed a law banning certain types of firearms but under the then-current interpretation of California law, owners of existing ones were allowed to keep them but they were required to be registered.  Later the interpretation changed and the registered owners were ordered to surrender them.

Essentially the same thing has happened in other states and localities over the years.  Gun owners asserting registration can lead to confiscation are not doing so without reason.

Exactly 0 guns were confiscated. The SKS thing is nothing more than a gun nut lie. Go read the actual history of it. It was a subclass of SKS with either removable or non mag. They had been already banned by 1991 and nothing that was grandfathered in was ever deemed illegal.


So I looked into it more, and it appears that registration was held open beyond the legally-mandated window and applied only to detachable-mag "Sporter" SKS types.  The late registrations were later declared invalid and those registrants told to surrender or otherwise dispose.  There are stories and rumors about one or another guy who supposedly had a letter saying his detachable-mag SKS was not covered by the law and later demanded to be surrendered or disposed, but nothing concrete I could find.

But there have been other instances of registration lists used to confiscate weapons newly made illegal, so the general point still stands.
 
2014-01-25 03:42:37 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: SRD: Do you still consider this a scary assault weapon even though its not black?
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 850x637]

Good thing this isnt an assault weapon not scary stock on it. Much higher caliber though.
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 850x637]

This ones scary please close your eyes for the firearms sensitive.

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 850x637]

This is not a registered assault weapon in my state of CT.
[img.fark.net image 850x637]

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 850x639]
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 850x639]
Nothing scarier than an AK
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 604x453]

All these weapons function the same. Even the pistols. None are more or less dangerous than others. Because none are true assault rifles,

Do you need a weapon that can fire 154 shots in less than 5 minutes?  30 per minute?  1 every 2 seconds?


Do you need a computer, or a TV, or a cup of coffee?
 
2014-01-25 03:43:11 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Do you need a weapon that can fire 154 shots in less than 5 minutes?  30 per minute?  1 every 2 seconds?


Do you need an internet that can transmit your thoughts over the world in milliseconds?

Enumerated rights are not predicated on need.
 
2014-01-25 03:43:24 PM  

MFAWG: Gwendolyn: She safe. Thank god.

And that's the most important thing.

Well, that and making sure as many people as possible have as many guns as they want because America.


Sounds like the shooter was just following the Vice Presidents advice and picked up a shot gun.

Also, the fact that it is just 2 dead plus shooter seems like targeted killings.
 
2014-01-25 03:44:27 PM  

Fark It: StreetlightInTheGhetto: But vast majority of gun owners I know are the go to the woods/drink beer/shoot food + maybe carry when traveling to dicier areas variety.

They sound responsible.


Did I say get blackout drunk and fall out of tree stands and mistake humans for deer and shoot at 'em?  No.  Grab some watered down silliness like Labatt Blue Light and chill out over long periods of time in the woods and hopefully bring home some meat, yes.  Same thing we do when we go fishing (which I do join in - haven't hooked anyone in the eye yet).
 
2014-01-25 03:45:40 PM  
Why does everyone keep saying it happened at the food court? TFA has stated it happened at Zumiez the whole time.

Need more information to come out, but I'm a little surprised this dude made it far into the mall with a shotgun. Of course, there's always that weirdo who wears a trench coat to the mall, but I always had security on my ass when I tried that.

/never brought a shotgun
 
2014-01-25 03:46:14 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Do you need a weapon that can fire 154 shots in less than 5 minutes? 30 per minute? 1 every 2 seconds?


Do you need be able to petition the Government to redress *every* grievance? Peaceably assemble with *all* your friends? Freely exercise *your* religion?
 
2014-01-25 03:46:33 PM  

Kensey: So I looked into it more, and it appears that registration was held open beyond the legally-mandated window and applied only to detachable-mag "Sporter" SKS types.  The late registrations were later declared invalid and those registrants told to surrender or otherwise dispose.  There are stories and rumors about one or another guy who supposedly had a letter saying his detachable-mag SKS was not covered by the law and later demanded to be surrendered or disposed, but nothing concrete I could find.

But there have been other instances of registration lists used to confiscate weapons newly made illegal, so the general point still stands.


Dude, just ignore this troll.  Notice how many folks have responded to him in this thread?  That is for very good reason. Just typically best to color him in a color that best resembles puke as this exemplifies what he usually posts and then watch in amusement when he cannot get a response out of anyone.
 
2014-01-25 03:48:23 PM  

HeadLever: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Do you need a weapon that can fire 154 shots in less than 5 minutes?  30 per minute?  1 every 2 seconds?

Do you need an internet that can transmit your thoughts over the world in milliseconds?

Enumerated rights are not predicated on need.


We have freedom of speech.  I can still be prosecuted by the state for yelling fire in a crowded theater with the intent to cause a riot.
 
2014-01-25 03:51:16 PM  
Have we identified the model and caliber? All I care about
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2014-01-25 03:51:27 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: SRD: Do you still consider this a scary assault weapon even though its not black?
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 850x637]

Good thing this isnt an assault weapon not scary stock on it. Much higher caliber though.
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 850x637]

This ones scary please close your eyes for the firearms sensitive.

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 850x637]

This is not a registered assault weapon in my state of CT.
[img.fark.net image 850x637]

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 850x639]
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 850x639]
Nothing scarier than an AK
[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 604x453]

All these weapons function the same. Even the pistols. None are more or less dangerous than others. Because none are true assault rifles,

Do you need a weapon that can fire 154 shots in less than 5 minutes?  30 per minute?  1 every 2 seconds?


Rights aren't defines by need. Also every firearm in those pics rifle or pistol save for a couple have the same rate of fire. All semi auto guns have the same rate of fire. What you are saying is all guns should be banned. Semi auto guns are over 100 years old almost all guns are semi auto.
 
2014-01-25 03:53:05 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: I can still be prosecuted by the state for yelling fire in a crowded theater with the intent to cause a riot.


True, but that is not an arbitrary and capricious limitation.  Limiting an enumerated right to 'need' is.
 
2014-01-25 03:53:30 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: We have freedom of speech. I can still be prosecuted by the state for yelling fire in a crowded theater with the intent to cause a riot.


So, the mere act of possessing a weapon is the same as trying to incite a riot?
 
2014-01-25 03:54:52 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: HeadLever: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Do you need a weapon that can fire 154 shots in less than 5 minutes?  30 per minute?  1 every 2 seconds?

Do you need an internet that can transmit your thoughts over the world in milliseconds?

Enumerated rights are not predicated on need.

We have freedom of speech.  I can still be prosecuted by the state for yelling fire in a crowded theater with the intent to cause a riot.


You have freedom of speech up to the point where you injure someone with that speech, which 'yelling fire in a crowded theater with the intent to cause a riot'does. At which point you are prosecuted for the harm caused.

Similarly, you should most definitely have freedom of ownership of firearms up to the point where you injure someone with that firearm, at which point you should be prosecuted for the harm caused, if not in self defense.

How is that so hard to understand?
 
2014-01-25 03:55:08 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: We have freedom of speech. I can still be prosecuted by the state for yelling fire in a crowded theater with the intent to cause a riot.


You can yell, "Fire!" if there's an actual fire. And you can be prosecuted for taking a gun into a courthouse.

There are "Time, Place and Manner Restrictions" placed on just about all of our Rights. Magazine and rate of fire limits and restrictions on how scary a gun can look are neither.
 
2014-01-25 03:55:29 PM  
EXCUSE ME


HAS SOMEONE ALREADY TURNED THIS IN TO A RETARDED GUN THREAD YET BY BABBLING ABOUT AR-15S AND HAVE AR-15 OWNERS TAKEN THE BAIT

IF SO THEN I AM NOT NEEDED HERE
.
.
.
.
.
.

GOOD DAY



                                                                                                                                                                                                             teh wild pigs will get you!!!!
 
2014-01-25 03:56:38 PM  

mschwenk: Do you need a computer, or a TV, or a cup of coffee?


I'm seriously asking.  What purpose is there, other than "it's fun to shoot at stuff (fair enough)" or "because I want it", or preparing for some attack in which you'll surely be lauded as a hero?  When so much damage can be done by those who pick "shoot other people" as a reason, why can't you accomplish whatever purpose you have with something else?  That might be a bit slower?  So that way someone with a nefarious purpose (not any of you, of course, you're all sane and responsible) might kill just a few less people before the cops show up?  Or have to reload a bit more often, providing a chance to stop him (or I guess her)?

I was in college after 9/11.  We had multiple labs delayed and one facility closed entirely because of tightened security.  Yep, the professors definitely had the right to access the materials they needed to do the research they were doing.  But because a dumbass could do real damage, they worked within the new system, had backup labs prepared, etc.

Could a asshole intent on hurting other humans still obtain those materials or their equivalents from other places?  Yeah.  But it would take a lot more effort for something nowhere near as damaging.
 
2014-01-25 03:58:03 PM  

SRD: Rights aren't defines by need. Also every firearm in those pics rifle or pistol save for a couple have the same rate of fire. All semi auto guns have the same rate of fire. What you are saying is all guns should be banned. Semi auto guns are over 100 years old almost all guns are semi auto.


NO I AM NOT.  But I'm glad this is obviously actually a discussion and you don't have your knee jerk reactions already lined up ready to go.
 
2014-01-25 04:01:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The_Sponge: cameroncrazy1984: Sounds like Glock will have to manufacture a new magazine, then.


Nope....because Congress is not interested in passing ridiculous gun laws....like the ones you are suggesting.

Ridiculous? NY State passed a very similar gun law (actually, it went further than the one I suggested by banning certain types of features on certain weapons) and it was recently upheld as Constitutional. Doesn't seem so ridiculous to me.


And I bet he'd REALLY hate my own modest proposal (which, unlike some of the NRA's fantasies, is actually backed up with historical context re gun laws in Revolutionary-era America).  (Yes, kids--time to trot out GPD's proposal for a model Modern Well-Regulated Militia Amendment.)

Pretty much most gun policy seems to be centered around two primary assumptions:

1) (anti-gun) The "Well-regulated militia" in the Constitution is the National Guard and nobody has any business having shooty-things unless they are law enforcement.

2) (hyper-pro-gun) GAWD AND THOMAS JEFFERSON INTENDED US TO HAVE AN ARSENAL GODDAMNIT IN CASE THE GOVERNMENT GOES ROGUE AND WE HAS TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBURTY.

Rather more accurate is Option 3 which NOBODY ever mentions EVAR:

3) The US Army did not exist in peacetime and law enforcement as we know it now did not exist at the time (and would not exist until the 1840s), hence the only way to put down a domestic insurrection or even a criminal gang (much less incursions from First Nations and the like)...was, quite literally, calling up a posse (the "unorganised militia" in question).

3a) The part nobody ever, EVER mentions--this was in fact a neutering of an older provision in the Articles of Confederation (the "First Constitution" that had the US organised in a very European Union-esque confederacy of what amounted to thirteen distinct and separate countries with a currency union and a common defense and foreign policy) that not only mandated that every competent adult male be explicitly trained in the use of firearms at regular intervals but explicitly required the state governments to maintain armories and staff to train men to serve in the state guard should they need to be called up in an emergency.

(Yes, the original policy of the US re the "right to keep and bear arms" from roughly 1779 to 1791 or so was pretty much the same as Switzerland's national defense force; every male was considered a member of his state's (canton's, in the case of Switzerland) defense force, was required to undergo two weeks of mandatory weapons training, and was required to keep weapons issued by the state/canton armory up until the youngest male in the household hit 40 and aged out of the national militia.)

3b) Because the concepts of "state police with shooty weapons" (much less "city police") and "permanent standing armed forces" were Not Yet A Thing during Madison's time, and pretty much everyone assumed that short of frank war with France or the UK or Spain that any war or insurrection to be fought would be either in the form of armed gangs or First Nations uprisings...well, the writers pretty much instantly assumed that anything short of Frank National Emergency status would be handled by calling up the "unorganised militia" to start up a posse.  In other words, that whole section should be read as "Since we will need to start up a posse now and again, folks should be allowed to have guns" (as opposed to the Articles of Confederation's "Everyone is a member of their state Army Reserves, and the state must give mandatory military weapons training and maintain a stocked arsenal in case the goddamn Redcoats start marching through from Canada or the Western Confederacy starts getting really pissy about the land we stole").

3c) The "Well regulated militia" bit pretty much is a giveaway (especially in conjunction with the old Articles of Confederation version) that it was assumed by the Founding Fathers that people would be getting regular firearms training--basically the Revolutionary War Era version of CCW and Home Defense courses, provided courtesy of the governor of your state.  The concept was far less "Every goddamn yahoo with a gun" and more "We're actually going to teach the guys how NOT to shoot their own peckers off and how to properly point the gun and fire it at the OTHER guy, and also make sure his damn musket that's been in his family since 1589 isn't going to blow the hell up in his face when he tries to fire it".

"Well regulated" in this case meant "Properly trained"--translated to modern English, "A properly trained state defense force being necessary to public safety, people shall be allowed to keep and bear arms for home defense and state defense (and, we assume, the state will keep on training them how to do this without killing themselves)".

3d) Another data point towards "unregulated militia" meaning "draftable individuals with explicit firearms training" are the Militia Acts of 1792 and particularly the Second Militia Act of 1792 (arguably the first law calling for an explicit draft, and the second act passed after full ratification of the present Constitution).  It would probably be termed an "unfunded mandate for a Swiss-style state defense force" nowadays; the law called for every man between 18 and 45 years old to be required to purchase a gun and appropriate ammunition (down to specifying the type of weapon and ammo that had to be purchased and maintained at all times) and were required to report twice a year for military training.  (Some groups--notably, Congressmen and transportation workers such as ferrymen and stagecoach drivers that were considered essential for national defense--were exempt; otherwise, the law applied for every man in the US able to hold a firearm.)  Basically for a time we went back to the old Articles of Confederation-era standard, if by an act of Congress this time and not a Constitutional amendment.

The Militia Acts of 1792 are notable because it's one of those rare times it's very easy to tell the whole intent of the Founding Fathers towards the Second Amendment--they intended there to be an emergency quickly-musterable state defense force in the event that Shiat Happened and an army couldn't get there in time or was too small of a situation for a full-on army.  (The Acts were passed due to the US Army having its arse handed to it by the Western Confederacy (a rather large NATO-of-the-18th-century group of First Nations) in St. Clair's Defeat.)
tl;dr version: Madison never quite anticipated the invention of police departments or permanent armed forces, and people all assumed the state guards would keep going (they do still exist, both in the form of the National Guard and a few non-National Guard state militias in places like Texas and Alaska--and in the more traditional sense of men having to register for Selective Service)--what unfortunately changed is that pretty much the old mechanism where training was MANDATORY went away roughly in 1795 (when the Second Militia Act expired).

The "failure to define what was meant as a well-regulated militia" bug is an easy enough bugfix, and could be done very, very easily in keeping with the spirit of the Founding Fathers:

a) Define "unorganised militia" explicitly as persons who have received training in the use of weapons for defense after an appropriate training period.

b) Establish a national training program for use of firearms and require persons who wish to own a firearm to receive specific training including safety training and target training and to be certified by a trainer as being capable of safe use of a firearm.  (There is already precedent for this in two separate programs--CCW courses and hunter safety courses; pretty much all states have required mandatory hunter safety courses for anyone younger than about thirty to get a hunting license for gun season, and some have expanded this to bow and crossbow hunting too.  In essence, we're expanding the training programs for CCW and/or hunter safety courses to all firearms use, with an additional psychological screening component and vision check--depression that is controlled would not be disqualifying, whilst severe/profound mental illness would; correctable vision issues would be fine, folks who require prismatic lenses to drive might have more issues :D.  (This is also the current definition for whether or not someone is considered 4-F on mental health and visual/physical issues, as an aside.))  Provisions can even be made for persons who have passed a hunter safety course or a CCW course or similar training course to be grandfathered in.  Persons shall be required to retrain and recertify on a regular basis.

(As an aside--I personally am unaware of any successful legal challenges, or even attempts at legal challenges, to CCW laws and hunter safety courses.  The closest I've seen to legal challenges is where states have been reluctant to issue CCW permits when reciprocity agreements exist.This is true even though pretty much all CCW courses and hunter safety courses cost money, and is still applicable even in states where "right to hunt" laws exist.)

There's even some explicit precedent for a federal gun marksmanship program aimed at civilians.  Up until 1996 (when the program was privatised at the hands of the First GOP-Controlled Congress of No) there was a program operated by the US Army (the Civilian Marksmanship Program) that explicitly gave training in safe use of firearms including mil-spec weapons.  The program is still federally chartered to this day (in a public-private relationship not unlike the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) and is probably the closest spiritual successor to the old state guard training programs from the time of the Founding Fathers.

c) Explicitly note that firearms sales shall only be made to persons who are eligible to be members of the unorganised militia under law (that is, mentally competent persons whom have completed a firearms safety course of some sort) and that documentation that the person has completed a firearms safety and training course must be provided to complete a sale.  Further mandate that states may not prohibit a person who has successfully completed a federally approved firearms safety course from owning a firearm unless a major disqualifying condition occurs such as diagnosis of severe/profound mental illness.

d) In the event that a major disqualifying condition becomes apparent between certification testing periods (such as loss of vision, severe/profound mental illness or intellectual disability, other severe physical handicap that renders use of a firearm unsafe even with assistive technology, domestic violence conviction, or other federally disqualifying condition) then the firearms will be confiscated to be held in trust and permit denied until such time as a hearing can be held whether it is likely the person can be sufficiently trained in the safe use of firearms.  If it is likely that the disqualifying condition is permanent or relapsing to such a point as to render their use or possession of firearms unsafe the weapons will be sold at fair market price to an authorised firearms sales agent and the person shall receive full compensation, or may alternatively sell their weapons to a person who successfully has completed a federally approved firearms safety course.

e) Amend the Constitution appropriately with said bugfix (easiest way to get things through).  Others have noted that theoretically the goal could also be done with a favourable Congress and a mere amendment of the Militia Acts; the reason I propose amending the Constitution itself is to head off any attempt to sue in the Supreme Court by the GOA type nutters (who tend to disagree with even stuff like gun serial number registration and mandatory background checks, much less mandatory weapons training as a condition of owning and using a firearm) and to minimize the risk of a sympathetic Supreme Court accidentally-on-purpose doing away with mandatory firearms training (which is really the whole point of this exercise).  Kind of hard for them to biatch too much if it's explicitly noted in the Constitution, rather than in an act of Congress.

In the case of kids, I'd be tempted to include:

f) Graduated firearms permits for younguns (this actually exists now at least for hunting and there is a youth program for the Civilian Marksmanship Program)--kids not allowed to use a firearm without adult supervision and adult ability to control the weapon until they hit the age where hunter safety courses are available; kid must complete firearms safety course to be allowed to have firearms.  (Again, similar to what is in place now for hunter safety and nobody has yet sued over the whole issue of kids needing hunter safety courses.  Hell, in areas where hunting is common it's not all that unusual to see schools offering said hunter safety courses! :D)

Pretty much the only people who would be unhappy are the Gun Owners of America types who even think background checks for gun sales are condensed evil.  The NRA et al would be grousy at first but would end up happy (as they could make money from firearms training courses including adaptive firearms training for persons with disabilities--the NRA actually tends to run most of the hunter safety courses nationwide and a goodly chunk of the CCW training courses as well).  People wanting to keep weapons out of the hands of the excessively violent and severely mentally ill (and folks who literally can't see to shoot straight) would be happy.  Derpy history geeks like me would be happy (as we'd actually have a well-regulated unorganised militia for the first time since 1796 :D).  If we can make the training cheap or free with subsidy, even folks worried re the poor and/or folks worried re the constitutionality of charging for a Firearms Safety Training Cert will be happy (though I'd argue anyone who can afford a handgun could afford training courses, and certainly so with long-guns and shotguns).
 
2014-01-25 04:02:25 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: mschwenk: Do you need a computer, or a TV, or a cup of coffee?

I'm seriously asking.  What purpose is there, other than "it's fun to shoot at stuff (fair enough)" or "because I want it", or preparing for some attack in which you'll surely be lauded as a hero?  When so much damage can be done by those who pick "shoot other people" as a reason, why can't you accomplish whatever purpose you have with something else?  That might be a bit slower?


All semi-auto weapons and all double-action revolvers have the same rate of fire: as fast as you can pull the trigger.
 
2014-01-25 04:08:15 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: mschwenk: Do you need a computer, or a TV, or a cup of coffee?

I'm seriously asking.  What purpose is there, other than "it's fun to shoot at stuff (fair enough)" or "because I want it", or preparing for some attack in which you'll surely be lauded as a hero?  When so much damage can be done by those who pick "shoot other people" as a reason, why can't you accomplish whatever purpose you have with something else?  That might be a bit slower?  So that way someone with a nefarious purpose (not any of you, of course, you're all sane and responsible) might kill just a few less people before the cops show up?  Or have to reload a bit more often, providing a chance to stop him (or I guess her)?

I was in college after 9/11.  We had multiple labs delayed and one facility closed entirely because of tightened security.  Yep, the professors definitely had the right to access the materials they needed to do the research they were doing.  But because a dumbass could do real damage, they worked within the new system, had backup labs prepared, etc.

Could a asshole intent on hurting other humans still obtain those materials or their equivalents from other places?  Yeah.  But it would take a lot more effort for something nowhere near as damaging.


My wife and I defended ourselves with our firearms when three armed men broke into our home.  Feel free to never pick up a firearm.

Fark you if you try to make that decision for me or anyone else.
 
2014-01-25 04:08:48 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: I'm seriously asking.


if you want to know the benefits of a semi-auto?  It is mostly the fact that the rifle is reloaded for you instead of you manually doing it yourself.

That might be a bit slower?

Not always
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2014-01-25 04:08:55 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: SRD: Rights aren't defines by need. Also every firearm in those pics rifle or pistol save for a couple have the same rate of fire. All semi auto guns have the same rate of fire. What you are saying is all guns should be banned. Semi auto guns are over 100 years old almost all guns are semi auto.

NO I AM NOT.  But I'm glad this is obviously actually a discussion and you don't have your knee jerk reactions already lined up ready to go.


I apologize then. I honestly thought that's what you were  getting act. I acting normally don't go for knee jerk reaction.  What I'm trying to say is almost all firearms have the same rate of fire. They are all equal. Only a true assault rifle is full auto. We are already limited in any military weapons we can buy. An ar15 is closer to putting a spoiler on a honda. Might make it look faster but it's still a regular honda. A ar15 shares more in common with a semi auto hunting rifle than a true m4 select fire. Looks are the same function is different.
.find_in_page{background-color:#ffff00 !important;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:visible !important;}.findysel{background-color:#ff9632 !important;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:visible !important;}
 
2014-01-25 04:09:39 PM  

croesius: 3 ≠ Mass


Right. It's 4, according to the FBI.
 
2014-01-25 04:13:13 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: I'm seriously asking.  What purpose is there, other than "it's fun to shoot at stuff (fair enough)" or "because I want it", or preparing for some attack in which you'll surely be lauded as a hero?  When so much damage can be done by those who pick "shoot other people" as a reason, why can't you accomplish whatever purpose you have with something else?


The same could be applied to alcohol.

One of my neighbors ran over and killed another of my neighbors last week because he was drunk. He was drunk only because it was fun. It didn't get a Fark newsflash. He was driving because he went to a bar to drink alcohol instead of drinking it at home, but nobody panics about public alcohol consumption in establishments you have to drive to.

Alcohol does much, much more damage than firearms in this country. It just doesn't make the news every time a drunk kills someone, or him/herself. It just doesn't make for scary movie or TV plots that Americans will watch endlessly on TV to scare themselves.

It's scary to you because you want to be scared by it.
 
2014-01-25 04:13:22 PM  
another presser
 
2014-01-25 04:18:19 PM  

Prey4reign: Katie98_KT: Prey4reign: Katie98_KT: Prey4reign: Gwendolyn: My kid is on a date at the AMC theater there right now. Sooo I'm freaking out quite a bit.

1.  Glad to hear your daughter is safe.
2.  I can think about 999 things I'd do if it were my daughter at that mall but posting to Fark about the situation isn't one of them.

Columbia mall is close enough, and related enough to the DC area to have high ranking government, foreign government, and various defense/security people (or at least their kids) who would regularly be at the mall on a saturday. There's no way the mall isn't locked down tighter than Ft Knox right now.

What did your response have to do with my comment?

Getting on the internet to find out what's going on is about the only thing she CAN do. Besides drink I guess.

I'm sorry, I missed the post where she said: "OMG, my kid is at that mall.  Can anyone please inform me what the hell is happening."  Instead we got a post that the kid was there and she was freaking a little.  Let's see what else could she done?  How about calling the police or 911 asking what was going on?  How's about calling her daughter on the cell phone?  How's about staying glued to the local radio broadcast (they must have had non-stop coverage of this event)?  How's about hopping in the car and get as close to the mall as possible to maybe ask a cop what's happening and what's the best thing to do to find out how your daughter is doing?  Like I say, any number of things to do, including drinking or taking a Xanax, but posting to Fark hardly qualifies as anything other than attention whoring.


christ what an asshole
 
2014-01-25 04:19:20 PM  

Great Porn Dragon: Establish a national training program for use of firearms and require persons who wish to own a firearm to receive specific training including safety training and target training and to be certified by a trainer as being capable of safe use of a firearm.


No gun-rights supporter I know opposes training in principle as a good thing and something a smart gun owner will obtain.  The concern lies in the idea that training requirements could be raised to unrealistic levels, for example requiring gun owners to qualify as Expert in military shooting tests (I actually see anti-gun types trot this kind of thing out a lot, "well if you want a gun, just pass our 'simple little test', haw haw haw!").  There is also the point that self-defense typically happens at arm's length and does not involve actually firing the weapon, meaning you don't even have to be able to hit the broad side of a barn to effectively and safely defend yourself.

It's the same issue with broadening the mental-illness disqualification -- nobody wants crazies allowed to own guns (except some of the crazies), but there's concern that requirements could be written or interpreted to disqualify anyone on common prescription meds like Paxil or who have ever had a diagnosis of depression or PTSD from owning a gun, which would lead to a lot of otherwise-responsible people avoiding beneficial treatment instead of seeking it.  A formal declaration of mental incompetence can be abused but it's generally a reliable indicator that you're a good ways off the farm.
 
2014-01-25 04:20:53 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: HeadLever: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Do you need a weapon that can fire 154 shots in less than 5 minutes?  30 per minute?  1 every 2 seconds?

Do you need an internet that can transmit your thoughts over the world in milliseconds?

Enumerated rights are not predicated on need.

We have freedom of speech.  I can still be prosecuted by the state for yelling fire in a crowded theater with the intent to cause a riot.


The 2nd amendment analogy to this is being prosecuted for murdering someone with their firearm. We have that in place already.
 
Displayed 50 of 569 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report