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  
•       •       •

11756 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2014 at 12:45 PM (34 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 10:41:45 PM

Great Porn Dragon: And as I've tried to note before...my proposal (at least how I'd propose it, anyways) would be two-pronged:


First prong: magic fairy dust
Second prong: unicorn enforcement squads

You're not going to change the Constitution. It isn't going to happen. Whoever proposes eliminating the Second Amendment will be surrendering all their party's power in government. You are also not going to reverse the case law history on the subject.

Saying you're going to solve a problem through magical powers means you're don't have the means to solve the problem.
 
2014-01-25 11:03:10 PM
 
2014-01-25 11:23:12 PM

Daedalus27: mudesi: America, you are a sick, farked up country.  You take this kind of daily gun violence like it's something that's normal.  Every other civilized country in the world doesn't have this shiat happen nearly so often as you.  And that's a serious understatement.  It hardly happens at all in other countries.  Just in you, America.

So go on, tell me how having some sensible gun laws "takes away freedom".  I'll be sitting here, counting the seconds until the next time this happens in your stupid assed, farked up country.


Here is the thing, the US has a population 314m or so people.  The US also has a history of private firearms ownership and enshrined that in as a basic tenant of governance.  Therefore there is a proliferation of weapons unlike most other countries.  These conditions make it highly unlikely that these incidents would occur in other countries because there simply isn't the foundation present.  As such it doesn't take much for a horrible incident to galvanize the public to take away a right that the people haven't really had a cultural experience with.

You also have to combine these factors with the fact that the USA is saturated with media so almost every small incident as well as the large incidents are heavily publicized.  Three people dying in a murder suicide sparked this thread but I would bet there were several other incidents around the world of the same nature (maybe not with a firearm) that we just don't hear about because it is a local story that doesn't expand beyond the local market. Not to trivialize it, but a pervasive national and international media looking for stories is going to grab gun incidents before other things because they are ready made to kill time and sensationalize things.  If it bleeds, it leads is a time honored tradition in media.

This isn't to say that gun violence isn't an issue.  It is a horrible tragedy when these incidents happen. However, if you magically stopped all further gun sales in the US today and ord ...


Jesus Christ.  Quit making goddamn excuses.  Your country is farked up, period.  You know how many gun deaths happen in Japan every single year?  in France?  In the UK?  in Canada?  And in Switzerland, they love guns nearly as much if not more, yet they don't have nearly the amount of carnage.  (Take a guess why.  Go ahead:  Guess.  Hint:  THEY HAVE SANE GUN LAWS)

Stop putting history and population into it.  It's not the farking media. It's your stupid farking lax gun laws that are the problem. Own it.
 
2014-01-25 11:24:25 PM

Great Porn Dragon: Errk: (tl;dr comment redacted to save the electrons.  WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE ELECTRONS)

Cliff's Notes version for people who can't be arsed to read a post with some historical context and who tend to find the average Skrillex song overly complex in its lyrical content:

The US Constitution specifies a "well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment, and the Founding Fathers actually had some ideas on what was meant by "well regulated" that don't quite match up with some gun lobbyists' definitions.  (Basically, back then cops and standing armies didn't exist, so they expected people to be explicitly trained in a State Army of sorts to be called up in case the NDNs or the British came a-knocking.)

My proposal, in a nutshell--Let's specifically pass some laws (or a Constitutional amendment, even better) to specify what is meant by "well regulated", seeing as the Founding Fathers (like all too much of us) assumed what was meant and it's generally made an ass of you, me, and the United States in general.

My proposal for "well regulated": Make people take some solid gun safety and handling courses (like Hunter Safety Courses or CCW training--yes, I'm proposing expanding CCW training courses for EVERYONE) to legally have a firearm.  (Maybe even CCW courses for handguns, and Hunter Safety courses for longarms.)  Take the test every two years to keep said weapon.  Part of the "test" involves mandatory background checks to make sure you've not been convicted of a violent felony (and prohibited from gun ownership) or Baker Acted in the past two years, and some physical checkup requirements to make sure that you can actually see to shoot and to control a gun...basically what the Armed Forces uses to make sure you aren't 4-F, aside from the checking for flat feet and weight limits.

This actually gets back to what the Founding Fathers were really going after, which was more like how Switzerland is now without the unfunded mandate of handing an AR-15 to every US male between 18-45 who isn't severely visually impaired and hasn't been declared mentally incompetent. :D


I'm ok with this if I get unrestricted access to nfa items
 
2014-01-25 11:25:07 PM

lordjupiter: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/mall-in-columbia-on-lockdown-amid - reports-of-shooter/2014/01/25/4b3e8fb2-85e2-11e3-b85b-b305db87fb90_sto ry.html?tid=pm_pop

Improvised explosives reportedly found with the shooter.  Mall being searched.


Anyone else find it odd that only 1 of the 4 people in that photo look distraught?
 
2014-01-25 11:27:28 PM

mudesi: America, you are a sick, farked up country.  You take this kind of daily gun violence like it's something that's normal.  Every other civilized country in the world doesn't have this shiat happen nearly so often as you.  And that's a serious understatement.  It hardly happens at all in other countries.  Just in you, America.

So go on, tell me how having some sensible gun laws "takes away freedom".  I'll be sitting here, counting the seconds until the next time this happens in your stupid assed, farked up country.


You mad, bro?
 
2014-01-25 11:28:26 PM

Doom MD: I'm ok with this if I get unrestricted access to nfa items


I could live with it if we had that, repeal of the Hughes Amendment, and the invalidation of all local gun control laws, plus national concealed carry reciprocity (like in the Czech Republic).  And I'm not OK with restricting the rights of people with disabilities or the elderly.  As long as you are of sound mind you should be able to own whatever you want.  And a waiver of any and all license and training fees for people who meet certain income thresholds.

And make cops jump through the same hoops for personal weapons and off-duty carry.
 
2014-01-25 11:41:58 PM

Pichu0102: storm16: Pichu0102: Criminals' guns don't spawn from a void, you know.

They don't. But taking away  law abiding citizens' guns will not have any significant impact on criminals' guns. Criminal elements are not going to turn in their guns just because the government says to. That will be less successful than gun buy-back programs.

Guns already in the wild are already there. I'm proposing a situation where existing guns are destroyed or fail more than new guns are produced, thus diminishing supply over time, and making them harder for random criminals to get ahold of, for instance, in gangs or similar organized crime where the guns are disposable as the people who are to receive them are, in the eyes of who gets them.


You can make an ak47 out of a shovel. Google it.
 
2014-01-26 12:18:11 AM

mudesi: Daedalus27: mudesi: America, you are a sick, farked up country.  You take this kind of daily gun violence like it's something that's normal.  Every other civilized country in the world doesn't have this shiat happen nearly so often as you.  And that's a serious understatement.  It hardly happens at all in other countries.  Just in you, America.

So go on, tell me how having some sensible gun laws "takes away freedom".  I'll be sitting here, counting the seconds until the next time this happens in your stupid assed, farked up country.


Here is the thing, the US has a population 314m or so people.  The US also has a history of private firearms ownership and enshrined that in as a basic tenant of governance.  Therefore there is a proliferation of weapons unlike most other countries.  These conditions make it highly unlikely that these incidents would occur in other countries because there simply isn't the foundation present.  As such it doesn't take much for a horrible incident to galvanize the public to take away a right that the people haven't really had a cultural experience with.

You also have to combine these factors with the fact that the USA is saturated with media so almost every small incident as well as the large incidents are heavily publicized.  Three people dying in a murder suicide sparked this thread but I would bet there were several other incidents around the world of the same nature (maybe not with a firearm) that we just don't hear about because it is a local story that doesn't expand beyond the local market. Not to trivialize it, but a pervasive national and international media looking for stories is going to grab gun incidents before other things because they are ready made to kill time and sensationalize things.  If it bleeds, it leads is a time honored tradition in media.

This isn't to say that gun violence isn't an issue.  It is a horrible tragedy when these incidents happen. However, if you magically stopped all further gun sales in the US t ...


You don't seem to understand the US and as such are making value judgments based upon your limited inputs.  You feel guns are evil and should be eliminated.  I am telling you that it is impossible based upon our history and makeup even if you wanted to outlaw them. Banning them overnight would not make the hundreds of millions of guns disappear.  In fact, it would probably make the situation worse by criminalizing responsible owners who would be driven underground.  You have to be realistic in your remedies and right now your screaming guns are evil contributes nothing to the debate or potential solutions.

Furthermore your discounting the impact of media shows your simplistic understanding of the issue.  You mostly hear about the bad stories like the shooting today.  Guess what, despite what the media wants you to believe, gun violence is way down. and has been trending that way for years.  Furthermore you don't hear about many of the cases where firearms prevent crime or save victims because the story doesn't make for good TV.  So your being force fed the idea that the US is somehow a shooting gallery when in reality, these events while occasionally occurring are an outlying event.

How many firearms does Japan have in private hands before restrictions were on them, how about France, or the UK.   Canadian gun laws are closer to many US states so why the difference there?  Switzerland is a small rather homogenous nation with its own long history with weapons that has a high suicide rate with firearms. It isn't all about gun laws, it is about numbers, culture, and other factors.  One of the larger issues that seems to be a regular trait in mass shootings is mental illness which is completely unrelated to firearms (except for the fact that the accessability of weapons allows for action on their behaviors).  Why does Brazil have a high gun violence rate or South Africa?  Is it lax gun laws or something else?   Shouting a list and pointing at one factor on a specific rate going down contributes little when other factors may be playing a bigger role.

I am not saying I like gun violence.  But demonizing a weapon and saying there is one solution that fits all nations is rather short sighted.  However if you want to spout your opinion, you can do so. However I feel it is far too simplistic and doesn't understand the finer points of the US and the specific issues faced when discussing gun laws.
 
2014-01-26 12:33:40 AM

mudesi: Daedalus27: mudesi: America, you are a sick, farked up country.  You take this kind of daily gun violence like it's something that's normal.  Every other civilized country in the world doesn't have this shiat happen nearly so often as you.  And that's a serious understatement.  It hardly happens at all in other countries.  Just in you, America.

So go on, tell me how having some sensible gun laws "takes away freedom".  I'll be sitting here, counting the seconds until the next time this happens in your stupid assed, farked up country.


Here is the thing, the US has a population 314m or so people.  The US also has a history of private firearms ownership and enshrined that in as a basic tenant of governance.  Therefore there is a proliferation of weapons unlike most other countries.  These conditions make it highly unlikely that these incidents would occur in other countries because there simply isn't the foundation present.  As such it doesn't take much for a horrible incident to galvanize the public to take away a right that the people haven't really had a cultural experience with.

You also have to combine these factors with the fact that the USA is saturated with media so almost every small incident as well as the large incidents are heavily publicized.  Three people dying in a murder suicide sparked this thread but I would bet there were several other incidents around the world of the same nature (maybe not with a firearm) that we just don't hear about because it is a local story that doesn't expand beyond the local market. Not to trivialize it, but a pervasive national and international media looking for stories is going to grab gun incidents before other things because they are ready made to kill time and sensationalize things.  If it bleeds, it leads is a time honored tradition in media.

This isn't to say that gun violence isn't an issue.  It is a horrible tragedy when these incidents happen. However, if you magically stopped all further gun sales in the US today and ord ...

Jesus Christ.  Quit making goddamn excuses.  Your country is farked up, period.  You know how many gun deaths happen in Japan every single year?  in France?  In the UK?  in Canada?  And in Switzerland, they love guns nearly as much if not more, yet they don't have nearly the amount of carnage.  (Take a guess why.  Go ahead:  Guess.  Hint:  THEY HAVE SANE GUN LAWS)

Stop putting history and population into it.  It's not the farking media. It's your stupid farking lax gun laws that are the problem. Own it.


Somebody call the whaaaaaambulance
 
2014-01-26 01:01:25 AM

Doom MD: mudesi: Daedalus27: mudesi: America, you are a sick, farked up country.  You take this kind of daily gun violence like it's something that's normal.  Every other civilized country in the world doesn't have this shiat happen nearly so often as you.  And that's a serious understatement.  It hardly happens at all in other countries.  Just in you, America.

So go on, tell me how having some sensible gun laws "takes away freedom".  I'll be sitting here, counting the seconds until the next time this happens in your stupid assed, farked up country.


Here is the thing, the US has a population 314m or so people.  The US also has a history of private firearms ownership and enshrined that in as a basic tenant of governance.  Therefore there is a proliferation of weapons unlike most other countries.  These conditions make it highly unlikely that these incidents would occur in other countries because there simply isn't the foundation present.  As such it doesn't take much for a horrible incident to galvanize the public to take away a right that the people haven't really had a cultural experience with.

You also have to combine these factors with the fact that the USA is saturated with media so almost every small incident as well as the large incidents are heavily publicized.  Three people dying in a murder suicide sparked this thread but I would bet there were several other incidents around the world of the same nature (maybe not with a firearm) that we just don't hear about because it is a local story that doesn't expand beyond the local market. Not to trivialize it, but a pervasive national and international media looking for stories is going to grab gun incidents before other things because they are ready made to kill time and sensationalize things.  If it bleeds, it leads is a time honored tradition in media.

This isn't to say that gun violence isn't an issue.  It is a horrible tragedy when these incidents happen. However, if you magically stopped all further gun sales in ...


Rob Ford's Fark handle is mudesi?
 
2014-01-26 02:28:24 AM
Phew, that was close. I saw "Jaws" there in 1975.
 
2014-01-26 03:13:40 AM

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

There have? Then why have they never been posted.

The only thing even remotely close was Hurricane Katrina. And that was deemed a disaster time or some shiat.

Recently, there's that one and also the incident in High River, Alberta, where the RCMP pretty openly went around collecting guns so they could keep them locked up after the town was flooded.  As I recall there was some pretty nasty stuff going on in the segregated South where registration laws were used to find out which blacks had guns and take them away (or take them away for being unregistered if they were discovered otherwise).


So in other words, no ones guns have ever been confiscated due to registration. Period.
 
2014-01-26 03:27:41 AM

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

There have? Then why have they never been posted.

The only thing even remotely close was Hurricane Katrina. And that was deemed a disaster time or some shiat.

Recently, there's that one and also the incident in High River, Alberta, where the RCMP pretty openly went around collecting guns so they could keep them locked up after the town was flooded.  As I recall there was some pretty nasty stuff going on in the segregated South where registration laws were used to find out which blacks had guns and take them away (or take them away for being unregistered if they were discovered otherwise).

So in other words, no ones guns have ever been confiscated due to registration. Period.


It appears the confiscation in High River was assisted by the Canadian gun registry, and confiscation of blacks' guns was the whole point of Jim Crow registration laws, so...
 
2014-01-26 10:20:38 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Great Porn Dragon: And as I've tried to note before...my proposal (at least how I'd propose it, anyways) would be two-pronged:

First prong: magic fairy dust
Second prong: unicorn enforcement squads

You're not going to change the Constitution. It isn't going to happen. Whoever proposes eliminating the Second Amendment will be surrendering all their party's power in government. You are also not going to reverse the case law history on the subject.

Saying you're going to solve a problem through magical powers means you're don't have the means to solve the problem.


a) It wouldn't be eliminating the Second Amendment--it would be passing an Amendment simply specifying what was meant by "Unorganized Militia" that takes into historical context what the Founding Fathers intended.

Pretty much every bit of historical context before, during, and after the ratification of the Bill of Rights in Constitution 2.0 (the one we're using now) points to the following:

i) The Founding Fathers never intended a standing army in the US in peacetime in the first place.  (Hell, there's actually a good argument to be made that the existence of the United States Armed Forces in its present form is unconstitutional as hell, seeing as we've not had a formal declaration of war since 1941.)  The original intent was for the US Armed Forces to be called up in time of war, and otherwise not to even exist save for a barebones framework with the actual work of "Homeland Defense" done by state armies called up by the governor in times of crisis.

tl;dr version: Pretty much the Founding Fathers actually intended the Armed Forces to be the National Guard with the option of the governor calling up the Civilian Reserves in case of invasion.

ii) The original intent (as evident from Article VI in the Articles of Confederation, the drafts for the Articles of Confederation AND the present Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves, and every Militia Act passed before the Civil War authorising formation of an army in the first place) was that--in essence--every able-bodied man was to be considered a de facto member of the state army (now the National Guard and various state militias) and would be required, a la Switzerland, to have specified arms AND specific training in how to use them.  This also assumed the person was able-bodied--i.e. not insane, not sufficiently physically impaired that they could not handle a weapon, etc.  My proposal pretty much re-institutes the whole "training and examination" requirement to own a weapon; the Founding Fathers never intended people to own guns without SOME training in their use.

(Of note, the states DID tend to do yearly training and specification of weapons to be used in the home up to a point shortly after the War of 1812.  Police did not exist in the US in any form until the 1840s, and the modern army as we know it did not even start to evolve until the Civil War and various ethnic cleansing actions against First Nations.)

iii) Even a lot of your NRA types actually tend to agree that mandatory gun training of SOME sort would be a Good Thing.  The problem between 1791 and now is that--unfortunately--pretty much the state-level training apparatus that used to be there has essentially disappeared with a very few exceptions (marksmanship training for youth that is still entirely optional, CCW courses, and the Hunter Safety Courses that are now mandatory for getting a hunting license in most states are the closest equivalents outside the National Guard).

b) In regards to "enforcement"...well, Constitutionally you can put the little line "Congress shall enforce this by appropriate legislation" like we do in every other single farking amendment to the Constitution.  As for enforcement when a state does Something Dumb...well, how do we smack the fark down anyone else found to be violating the Constitution?  You sue the farkers in the Supreme Court.  That's how voting rights got established for non-white people of non-NDN descent, it started the ball rolling for Congress to pass acts allowing citizenship for people of NDN descent and secured actual VOTING rights for people of NDN descent (it took a lawsuit by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Nations to secure voting rights because North Carolina was STILL refusing them citizenship rights as of 1940), it got interracial marriage legalised, it got being gay essentially legalised in a goodly chunk of the south, it got DOMA overturned, and there's an even shot in the next few years that laws against same-sex marriage will also be found unconstitutional.  Nobody said freedom was an easy thing; sometimes, unfortunately, it does involve lawyers.

(I'll also note that, in general, the Supreme Court--even in its more "liberal" periods--has had a practice of smacking down overly oppressive gun laws.  They did recently rule that Washington, DC and Chicago can't ban handguns outright and Chicago can't deny CCW permits.  I'd expect the situation in Las Vegas et al to eventually be turned over in the courts, too.)

c) I'd be very reluctant to say "Never say never" in the case of Constitutional amendments.  I've admitted (very frankly) that the proposal I submit hasn't got a hope in hell in the present climate (where we have essentially a Civil Cold War between two different factions in the US and people starting to take bets on when it's going to go hot)--hell, we can't even get funding bills passed in Congress thanks to the Civil Cold War.  I would also hope that at some point things DO get better, though, and--especially if a ten-year passage limit is NOT put on the amendment--there's always time for it to pass, if not now, later.

(To put it in understandable terms--the amendment that prevents raises or cuts in Congressional salaries until the next Congressional session was originally one of twelve amendments submitted in the batch that included the Bill of Rights.  Aforementioned amendment finally passed in the late 80s after a bit of fury at Congressmen voting themselves pay raises.)

d) In relation to this, there is actually a method aside from state legislatures to approve a constitutional amendment (which was, interestingly enough, used to revoke Prohibition)--in an approval process that was (apparently) unique, the 21st Amendment was in fact actually passed by "yes" votes from state conventions, not state legislatures, in what amounted to essentially a mini-Constitutional Convention.  One could (in theory) also use this route to PROPOSE amendments, but this has never been tested (due to concerns that extremists could hijack a Constitutional Convention--and yes, there is precedent for this; the Second Constitution (the present one) actually resulted from a hijacked ConCon originally meant to discuss amendments to the Articles of Confederation).

e) The wording I have in my head, in case people are curious (and want to do any legal bugfixes):

The Unorganized Militia Training Amendment

Section 1: The intent being for a well regulated militia, the unorganized militia of the United States shall be defined as those persons who are seen as fit of mind and body to bear arms and who have received specific training in the proper use, storage and transportation of arms.

Section 2: Fit of mind and body shall be defined as a person who is physically capable of bearing arms and whom has not been involuntarily committed within the past two years to a hospital for mental illness and who has not otherwise been ruled mentally incompetent by a court.

Section 3: The states shall provide training courses to persons wishing to become a part of the unorganized militia of the United States and shall be prohibited from placing undue barriers or restrictions on persons wishing to do other than the restrictions stipulated in Sections 1 and 2.  The states shall use a standard training curriculum as established by Congress, and shall administer proficiency tests based on these training courses to be repeated every two years.

Section 4: Until such point as a training curriculum is passed by Congress, state Concealed Carry Weapons permit training and licensing shall be seen as legally equivalent for the use of handguns, and Hunter Safety Courses administered for purposes of hunting licenses shall be seen as legally equivalent for the use of long guns.

Section 5: Effective one year from the date of passage, sale or transfer of firearms shall be prohibited to a person not showing documentation that they have completed a training course as stipulated in Section 3 within the past two years.

Section 6: Effective one year from the date of passage, a person whom is found to have a disqualifying condition (such as loss of sight, loss of limbs such as to prevent safe handling of a firearm even with assistance aids, or mental illness or incapacity to the point a court has ruled them mentally incompetent) shall be required to place existing arms in trust with the state government, and the state government shall be required to hold these arms in bond.  If a further adjucation by the court shows such impairment is likely to be of a permanent or ongoing basis, the arms shall be either given or sold to a trusted associate of the person with a disqualifying position or shall be sold by the state at current market price with proceeds to go as compensation to the person with a disqualifying position.

Section 7: States and municipalities are hereby prohibited from passing further restrictions on arms ownership other than those described in this amendment, with exception of laws prohibiting concealed carry in areas where business owners have prohibited concealed arms.

Section 8: Congress shall have power to enforce this law by appropriate legislation.
 
2014-01-26 10:25:18 AM

Doom MD: I'm ok with this if I get unrestricted access to nfa items


I can't promise "unrestricted", but I can say this could actually open up the possibility--"You can have NFA items if you have had the appropriate training on how to use them, marksmanship training on how to use them effectively, and have the ability and training to store them properly when not in use."

Bonus: As part of your training exam every two years you get to fire the things to show off :D

(Hell, the Swiss have NFA items in their home by federal requirement because every able-bodied man is considered to be part of their canton guard.  They also have some strict requirements for storage--gun safes and some specifications on how to safely store ammo, for one--but with proper training and exam to make sure the guy with the gun isn't about to go full-on Falling Down they seem to do OK. :D)
 
2014-01-26 10:31:45 AM

Fark It: Doom MD: I'm ok with this if I get unrestricted access to nfa items

I could live with it if we had that, repeal of the Hughes Amendment, and the invalidation of all local gun control laws, plus national concealed carry reciprocity (like in the Czech Republic).  And I'm not OK with restricting the rights of people with disabilities or the elderly.  As long as you are of sound mind you should be able to own whatever you want.  And a waiver of any and all license and training fees for people who meet certain income thresholds.

And make cops jump through the same hoops for personal weapons and off-duty carry.


Actually agreed on about 95% of this (no offense, I really don't think you should have a gun if you're blind or you can't fire a gun even with an assistive stand or have been on a mental ward in the past two years due to being Baker Acted or have severe Alzheimer's)--specified that in the "model amendment" above.  (Only thing I missed was subsidizing of low-cost or no-cost exams and training, but that's an easy enough bugfix.)

Basically the guidelines I'm going by with "are you too bad off to have a gun?" are roughly the same as "Can you safely ride a bike or drive a car?"  There are--sadly--points with the elderly where physical and/or mental decline is such where it's NOT safe for them to drive a car, and there ARE points where it's not safe for them to have a gun.  If someone is so bad off they can no longer drive or balance a checkbook and get lost on the way to the grocery, I really don't think I trust them with the shotgun anymore at that point, no offense. :D
 
2014-01-26 11:24:40 AM

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

There have? Then why have they never been posted.

The only thing even remotely close was Hurricane Katrina. And that was deemed a disaster time or some shiat.

Recently, there's that one and also the incident in High River, Alberta, where the RCMP pretty openly went around collecting guns so they could keep them locked up after the town was flooded.  As I recall there was some pretty nasty stuff going on in the segregated South where registration laws were used to find out which blacks had guns and take them away (or take them away for being unregistered if they were discovered otherwise).

So in other words, no ones guns have ever been confiscated due to registration. Period.

It appears the confiscation in High River was assisted by the Canadiangun registry, and confiscation of blacks' guns was the whole point of Jim Crow registration laws, so...


End of debate.
 
2014-01-26 02:55:25 PM

bluejeansonfire: And what kind of reasoning is that? "Oh come on, only 2 people were brutally shot dead. Only 2. Why are you getting upset?" What the fark is wrong with people to think that?


Statistically in the next two months, 2 children will die drowning in 5 gallon buckets. Do we really need 5 gallon buckets. Is that acceptable?*  "What the fark is wrong with people to think that?" (Oh... because that would affect you. Unacceptable)

Why not lower the speed limit to 21, and raise the drinking age to 55? Think of all the lives we'll save! Tens of thousands... if not more. What... you don't want to do that? "What the fark is wrong with people to think that?" (Oh... because that would affect you. Unacceptable)

Lets ban air travel. People die. Planes are potential terrorist targets. We could save lives! Why wouldn't you agree to that? "What the fark is wrong with people to think that?" (Oh... because that would affect you. Unacceptable)

I live in what might be considered a "gun friendly" state. I am in my forties and I only know two people who were victims of gun violence. A neighbor who killed himself years ago. The other was me, when the store I worked at was robbed. I was not allowed to be armed by my employer. I don't think it might have helped in this situation, but I would've liked to have had the option available.

I doubt that the robber had legally purchased the gun, had a carry permit or paid any attention to the no firearms signs on the door. He also seemed to disregard the no shooting at people, no robbing stores etc. But I'm sure that more laws would've stopped him in his tracks!

I have no interest in restricting the rights of honest citizens. I have every interest in applying currently existing laws to people who break the law. Including those who try to buy a firearm from an FFL dealer and are rejected. The government is supposed to follow up on that... they do not. Not one person has been arrested for attempting to buy a firearm, by falsifying their form, when they know they shouldn't. Not one.

For the record, I'd like to see it made easy to run a background check for maybe 5-10 dollars through an FFL dealer. I would do it. Go in to a dealer, pawn shop, whatever... you and the purchaser. Pay a reasonable fee and that's that. Transfer it with a simple bill of sale and no worries. But that's it.

/*Get 5 one gallon buckets and save a life or two.
//*If it saves just one child's life, isn't it worth trying?
 
Displayed 19 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