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.

(CNN)   Good news: if you sold an assault rifle in the past year then you made a nice profit. Bad news: if you bought an assault rifle in the past year then you're a sucker   (money.cnn.com) divider line 723
    More: Obvious, assault weapons, Wedbush Securities, assault rifles, Sandy Hook, Thunder, Falls Church  
•       •       •

9750 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 3:13 PM (16 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-10 11:43:25 PM

R.A.Danny: Everything after this is utter nonsense. The only trust is in a jury, the only way to take away rights is via due process. Not some cop that people think is nice.


You've already been deprived of your liberty by having to show up to court when you are accused of a crime. How is it any different than appealing the decision of your local sheriff?
 
2014-04-10 11:44:30 PM

ox45tallboy: One person doesn't get to say for certain - you still have an appeals process


This is the exact issue. An appeals process is bullshiat once your rights have been trampled. We are on to civil penalties at this point.
 
2014-04-10 11:45:58 PM

ox45tallboy: I really don't think allowing drug dealers to have unfettered access to firearms will reduce gun violence.


Rereading my post, I think I missed part of my thought process and merged a couple things together.  I should probably state that I see a big difference between a weed grower/distributor that has a piece because of potential robbers/attackers, and dealers that are part of organized gangs that also engage in offensive violence.  Subtle distinction, I know.  A dealer that has managed to operate for some time without attracting the cops(remember that guns tend to be loud) may be a more subtle operator, 'probably' less violent than most.

A lot of the reason why drug dealers are violent is 'turf' protection.  Hell, I view gangs as having a lot in common with primitive tribes, and that includes the ways they wage war.  End the war on drugs, legalize them, and the need for violence drops through the floor.

And I don't care about gun violence, I care about violence in general.

ox45tallboy: In that case, it's the sheriff who keeps the other guys off his turf.


He can't always be there.

ox45tallboy: Number one, you do not have an inherent, god-given right to tote a pistol around you everywhere you want in this country just because you were born here.


Certainly not, legal immigrants have the right to just as much as I do!

You have to jump through some hoops first. There is already an application process in place. And allowing the local sheriff the right to veto your application does not mean it's over, it means you can go through the appeals process where the sheriff produces his evidence as to why you should not be allowed to tote a gun around on his turf.

Then why not just route the applications through the appeal authority? Though it might still work better than may-issue where there isn't an appeal authority, such as California, NYC, etc....

Lastly, only the second to last was close to what I was looking for.  Personally I think we need to end that trend - stop the war on drugs, treat addiction as a medical issue, change our prisons from warehouses to reform centers.

I was looking for something more like this:
www.lao.ca.gov

Or even this, but I'm too tired to index these against population growth at the moment.
 
2014-04-10 11:46:44 PM

HeadLever: Yep, but those are have been (mostly) deemed to be reasonable restrictions based upon convicted felons not being able to own guns, mentally unstable not being able to own guns, etc.  Complete infringement on this right will not pass judicial muster for obvious reasons.


How is allowing a sheriff to show just cause on why a particular person should not be allowed to carry a gun "complete infringement on this right"?

What?
 
2014-04-10 11:47:21 PM

HeadLever: R.A.Danny: We're just being trolled. No one is that obtuse on accident.

Yeah, you are probably correct.  Should have known at 'position of trust'.


How would you describe the office of Sheriff?
 
2014-04-10 11:48:42 PM

R.A.Danny: You're a circular mess. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are speaking hypothetically of some type of nirvana where your wishes are constitutionally sound (and I am talking more about due process than bearing arms here) but they are not. Not even close. Of course you're going to ask me why I feel this way, but we have already made our points both vociferously and eloquently and you have become tiresome to deal with. Go ahead and jump up and down and yell "I win, I win!", you have outlasted my patience.


Um... okay.
 
2014-04-10 11:51:45 PM

R.A.Danny: ox45tallboy: One person doesn't get to say for certain - you still have an appeals process

This is the exact issue. An appeals process is bullshiat once your rights have been trampled. We are on to civil penalties at this point.


Well, we know where each other stand. You believe that the person charged with the safety of the community should have zero say in who can and cannot carry a loaded weapon around the people he is charged with keeping safe. I believe he should have the ability to veto a CCW permit, under the condition that his veto can be appealed and the burden of proof is on the sheriff to show why he denied the permit.
 
2014-04-10 11:52:21 PM

ox45tallboy: The part where the victims of gun violence don't get to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.


So you need to depriving citizens of the right to bear arms without due process in order to preserve the rights of others to bear the 2nd amendment rights?

Lol, troll, troll, troll your boat...
 
2014-04-10 11:54:08 PM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Please show me evidence documenting that criminals are widely being granted ccws and that this is a serious problem worthy of restricting the rights of others. Shall issue has been abused countless times in the past to deny people their rights. A few random cases of criminals being caught with ccws does not pass muster for massive trespasses on people's rights. Would you be ok with your local sheriff approving your right to free speech? To vote? You don't think those two things have caused a lot of death and carnage?

I didn't say that criminals were "widely being granted" CCW. Once again, you're responding to something I never said. Please read what I actually say and respond to that. I am not going to defend what you are arguing, because I never said it.

I stated that "shall issue" is not a Good Thing. I was asked to provide examples of why this was a Bad Thing. I stated a few circumstances in which it would be prudent for law enforcement to deny a permit. I was ridiculed. I answered with citations of that exact thing occurring. I was told that that is a very rare occurrence, to which I reply, "Yes! It is indeed very rare! That's exactly what I'm saying - there are certain times when it is in society's best interests to deny someone a permit to tote a gun around!" I never once said that there circumstances would occur on a regular basis. I said that when they do occur, the sheriff's hands are tied and he must allow someone he knows to be dangerous to carry a gun in the community he is charged with keeping safe.


If criminals aren't widely being granted ccw permits than it's a non-issue and you have no point. If a sheriff "knows" someone is a dangerous individual then he should do his job, collect evidence, and have him imprisoned in order to remove said danger from society. This legislation you're proposing would do little to keep a truly dangerous individual from obtaining a firearm. What you are doing is making the ccw process for law abiding citizens to be at the whim of government officials and their prejudices where denials can be met with expensive and lengthy appeals that have no guarantee of a good outcome. Raise the barrier of entry as high as you can. Your agenda is very transparent and it scares me that people like you can advocate for such disgusting social injustices with a straight face.
 
2014-04-10 11:55:28 PM

ox45tallboy: How is allowing a sheriff to show just cause on why a particular person should not be allowed to carry a gun "complete infringement on this right"?


Contrary to how you see the Constitution, the sheriff is not the final say on who gets to decide if someone maintains their enumerated rights.  That duty is reserved to a jury of peers or possibly a judge (depending upon circumstances).
 
2014-04-10 11:55:33 PM

ox45tallboy: HeadLever: By depriving folks that you consider 'dangerous' of their enumerated rights.  To wit:

Nope.

By giving someone in a position of trust, the person charged with keeping the peace in their community, the authority to veto a gun application, *I* am somehow depriving someone of their enumerated rights?

Never mind the fact that plenty of jurisdictions had firearms regulations throughout American history?

HeadLever: That is direct affront of due process rights.  Unless the courts say that the folks are a known danger and convict them of some crime, their rights should be preserved.

Due process is the appeals process where the sheriff must show evidence that this person does not need to have access to a firearm.

Still not seeing where I am depriving anyone of their enumerated rights here.


It's not a right if I need to ask for permission.
 
2014-04-10 11:57:10 PM

ox45tallboy: How would you describe the office of Sheriff?


Defiantly not an office that gets to divvy up who gets to keep their Constitutional rights.
 
2014-04-10 11:59:25 PM

Firethorn: And I don't care about gun violence, I care about violence in general.


I care about violence in general as well, but I do stop and ask myself - which kind of violence is more likely to end in death?

Firethorn: He can't always be there.


Now we're just getting into farce. I gave an example of one type of person the sheriff might not want to have a CCW, specifically a drug dealer he tolerates because he's not as bad as other drug dealers might be. I'm sure you could nitpick it to death, but you're not going to get very far saying that there are never any people in a community that might pass a background check but still have no business owning a gun.

Firethorn: Certainly not, legal immigrants have the right to just as much as I do!


Even the legal immigrants have to jump through the hoops just like everyone else.

Firethorn: Then why not just route the applications through the appeal authority? Though it might still work better than may-issue where there isn't an appeal authority, such as California, NYC, etc....


Two reasons:

1. The sheriff or police chief is the person most likely to have persona knowledge of the individual in question if he does present a risk, as well as easy access to the records showing why this is the case.
2. The sheriff will likely be approving 99.9% of applications.

Firethorn: Lastly, only the second to last was close to what I was looking for.  Personally I think we need to end that trend - stop the war on drugs, treat addiction as a medical issue, change our prisons from warehouses to reform centers.


Yeah, I am with you on that one.
 
2014-04-11 12:03:00 AM

ox45tallboy: Firethorn: And I don't care about gun violence, I care about violence in general.

I care about violence in general as well, but I do stop and ask myself - which kind of violence is more likely to end in death?

Firethorn: He can't always be there.

Now we're just getting into farce. I gave an example of one type of person the sheriff might not want to have a CCW, specifically a drug dealer he tolerates because he's not as bad as other drug dealers might be. I'm sure you could nitpick it to death, but you're not going to get very far saying that there are never any people in a community that might pass a background check but still have no business owning a gun.

Firethorn: Certainly not, legal immigrants have the right to just as much as I do!

Even the legal immigrants have to jump through the hoops just like everyone else.

Firethorn: Then why not just route the applications through the appeal authority? Though it might still work better than may-issue where there isn't an appeal authority, such as California, NYC, etc....

Two reasons:

1. The sheriff or police chief is the person most likely to have persona knowledge of the individual in question if he does present a risk, as well as easy access to the records showing why this is the case.
2. The sheriff will likely be approving 99.9% of applications.

Firethorn: Lastly, only the second to last was close to what I was looking for.  Personally I think we need to end that trend - stop the war on drugs, treat addiction as a medical issue, change our prisons from warehouses to reform centers.

Yeah, I am with you on that one.


Your anecdotes are dumb and you should feel bad. What the hell kind of sheriff allows a drug dealer to operate in his jurisdiction but has serious issues allowing him to get a ccw because he's dangerous. Do you have any experience with law enforcement?
 
2014-04-11 12:04:25 AM

HeadLever: ox45tallboy: How is allowing a sheriff to show just cause on why a particular person should not be allowed to carry a gun "complete infringement on this right"?

Contrary to how you see the Constitution, the sheriff is not the final say on who gets to decide if someone maintains their enumerated rights.  That duty is reserved to a jury of peers or possibly a judge (depending upon circumstances).


EXACTLY!!!!

That's what I've been saying!

If people would read what I'm saying instead of knee-jerk reactioning "OMG he doesn't believe exactly like I do on guns he must be a bad person unconstitutional unAmerican bad guy troll", then life might be a lot less stressful for people.
 
2014-04-11 12:05:32 AM

Doom MD: Your anecdotes are dumb and you should feel bad. What the hell kind of sheriff allows a drug dealer to operate in his jurisdiction but has serious issues allowing him to get a ccw because he's dangerous. Do you have any experience with law enforcement?


LARF.

Yes.
 
2014-04-11 12:06:31 AM
To sum up in this thread: tallboy wants to get guns off the street by buying up gun store inventories, nationalizing the American firearm industry, passing laws limiting the number of guns produced a year, and allow sheriffs the right to suspend the rights of undesirables while allowing a lengthy and expensive appeals process where a judge can do the same. According to tallboy, this will make society better.

Am I missing anything? I really don't even need to explain how retarded this all sounds. It basically speaks for itself.
 
2014-04-11 12:07:52 AM

Doom MD: Your anecdotes are dumb and you should feel bad. What the hell kind of sheriff allows a drug dealer to operate in his jurisdiction but has serious issues allowing him to get a ccw because he's dangerous. Do you have any experience with law enforcement?


Sure, attack my anecdotes all you want. I've still not seen a good response to anything I've proposed, just knee-jerk reactions to things I never even said.
 
2014-04-11 12:09:46 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Your anecdotes are dumb and you should feel bad. What the hell kind of sheriff allows a drug dealer to operate in his jurisdiction but has serious issues allowing him to get a ccw because he's dangerous. Do you have any experience with law enforcement?

Sure, attack my anecdotes all you want. I've still not seen a good response to anything I've proposed, just knee-jerk reactions to things I never even said.


I haven't seen a good response from you in this entire thread. Like a prior poster said, you're basically making word salad.
 
2014-04-11 12:17:02 AM
Once again, a sheriff is not going to personally know the people applying for the permit in any appreciable number. It's a complete non sequitur to this discussion unless the person lives in a county of hundreds.
 
2014-04-11 12:18:44 AM

ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Your anecdotes are dumb and you should feel bad. What the hell kind of sheriff allows a drug dealer to operate in his jurisdiction but has serious issues allowing him to get a ccw because he's dangerous. Do you have any experience with law enforcement?

Sure, attack my anecdotes all you want. I've still not seen a good response to anything I've proposed, just knee-jerk reactions to things I never even said.


Your anecdotes are worthless. It's not been a problem in any of the 30+ at will states on any measurable level
 
2014-04-11 12:20:46 AM

redmid17: ox45tallboy: Doom MD: Your anecdotes are dumb and you should feel bad. What the hell kind of sheriff allows a drug dealer to operate in his jurisdiction but has serious issues allowing him to get a ccw because he's dangerous. Do you have any experience with law enforcement?

Sure, attack my anecdotes all you want. I've still not seen a good response to anything I've proposed, just knee-jerk reactions to things I never even said.

Your anecdotes are worthless. It's not been a problem in any of the 30+ at will states on any measurable level


Sorry at will = shall issue
 
2014-04-11 01:15:18 AM

Firethorn: demaL-demaL-yeH: Firethorn: It's a bit complicated and requires a lot of statistics, but multiple studies have shown that gun control laws are ineffective at stopping crime, at least in the states.

Nothing you cited contains the actual data and is peer-reviewed, and the first two links go to the same "study", which cites Gary farking Kleck and the NRA-ILA as authoritative sources, and, well, I can't characterize it as "cherry-picking and massaging" the statistics, since pulverizing and sintering comes closer.  Do I even have to point out the funding sources?
When real  epidemiologists and statisticians look at it, the results (which include actual data, and account for factors like population density) say otherwise.

First link:  Doesn't cover whether increased gun control does anything.  Includes illegal ownership of guns.  I'm more interested in overall homicide rate than firearm homicide rate(want to know substitution effect)
Second: The 83k defines 'used a firearm' to mean they actually SHOT the firearm.
Third:  What caught my eye is that in '96 27% refused and it had jumped up to 35% in '99. Still looking at overall ownership and not laws.
Fourth:  Not really concerned with Suicide(Japan, land of no guns, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world), and again, merely looks at firearm ownership
Fifth: Let's see, defines 'children' as under 20, most were 15-19, 1994, I wonder how much of that was gang activity?


You really are reaching up your fourth point of contact.

Firethorn: Law Enforcement says restrictions ineffective


Wow, that sounds definitive. Not. The "poll" was sent to 400,000 people, of whom 15,000 selected themselves to answer it.
Quoting your own link: "While not scientifically conducted"
But I really like this gem: "The Major Cities Chiefs Association, a professional association of police executives representing the largest U.S. and Canadian cities, adopted a platform in January that supports an assault weapons ban and bills that prevent gun trafficking and record keeping of ammunition purchases."

Firethorn: MIT '94,


Gun Control Legislation Ineffective In Reducing Crime
By Michael K. Chung
Opinion Editor

Firethorn:
ineffective

EDITORIAL: Learning from the D.C. handgun ban

Firethorn: Chicago


Dean Chambers? Mr. Unskewed Polls? Really?


Firethorn: Washington DC


From your link: "gun laws are, to some extent, undercut by weaker gun laws of surrounding jurisdictions"

Still batting 1.000.
/I'm impressed. And not in the good way.
 
Displayed 23 of 723 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report