DaveO Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Orlando:. 50 dead, 53 injured. A mother fucker with an assault weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted June 12, 2016 Author Share Posted June 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, DaveO said: Orlando:. 50 dead, 53 injured. A mother fucker with an assault weapon. "Florida Nightclub Massacre is Deadliest Mass Shooting in U.S. History" by Hassani Gitens and Helen Kwong on nbcnews.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcandohio Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 No words. The sorrow is too heavy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 If there's no evidence, the problem can't exist. Right? "The U.S. Has a Mass Shooting Epidemic, but No Government Database on Gun Violence Exists" on npr.org I am ashamed of our country's stance on guns. The perpetrator legally bought a freakin' AR-15 (the civilian version of an M16) despite having been investigated by the FBI twice. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Here's the latest entry on the NRA's blog: https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/6/let-the-games-begin-june-targets/ No mention of Orlando yet. And here's their explanation of why the AR-15 is so wonderful: https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/1/why-the-ar15-is-americas-most-popular-rifle/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveO Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Its been some years since I've opened my big yap about guns. Frustrating situation. Plus the sides are at such amazing opposites. But this one: 50 dead, 53 injured. possibly some of the injured might die. All killed with an automatic weapon. That makes mass killing easy and quick. So disgusting. So horrible. I went to twitter and followed an old friend. I don't tweet much or go to twitter much. I'm just not there. This person has evolved into a vigorous defender of the 2nd amendment and become amazingly political tied in with all that conversation. (at least so far as I can tell). Maybe he isn't as pro and outspoken to the extremes as others. I wouldn't know. I don't follow those conversations. But I followed what he tweeted and retweeted relevant to this shooting. Holy shit. Its as if we are on different planets and of completely different races with every thinking component being night and day opposites. That stark. I go to the political side of this stuff...the laws and lack of laws that can protect citizens and limit access to killing firearms. Simply common sense stuff. They are all completely blocked. There was an effort to push through some controls following the horrendous tragedy in the Connecticut elementary school. The political effort failed. Little teensy innocent kids were mass murdered. Polls showed enormous and overwhelming public response to some controls. It failed politically (on the national level). That was 3 and 1/2 years ago. Since then there really hasn't been a big effort in Congress to control guns in some ways. NO EFFORT. Lots of gun murders between now and then. And it has come to this tragedy. The public commentary is roughly the same between the sides. Its beyond tragic. Our nation is one freaking cauldron of anger and craziness. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted June 13, 2016 Author Share Posted June 13, 2016 47 minutes ago, DaveO said: Its been some years since I've opened my big yap about guns. Frustrating situation. Plus the sides are at such amazing opposites. But this one: 50 dead, 53 injured. possibly some of the injured might die. All killed with an automatic weapon. That makes mass killing easy and quick. So disgusting. So horrible. In all seriousness, why not hand grenades? I remember about thirty years ago, I saw a column by Art Buchwald called, "Let's Get Land Mines Legalized." It was supposed to be sarcastic, but I fail to see the sarcasm - go here for Archie Bunker on TV talking about arming all the passengers on airplanes. Also a comic use of sarcasm, but it's very similar to what Wayne LaPierre is arguing for. There is very little difference between assault rifles and the next step up. And the hackneyed argument, "It isn't the guns; it's the people who use them" could just as easily apply to flamethrowers, rocket launchers, etc. After all, if you're going to take out a tyrannical government, why not do it right? See, the problem here is that I'm throwing out very rational arguments, and you can't rationalize with morons. Think we don't already have a tyrannical government? Try not paying your taxes. See what happens. The federal government will show up at your door, and haul you off to jail, and there's not a damned thing your precious gun collection can do to stop them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bart Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 On 6/13/2016 at 6:10 PM, DonRocks said: There is very little difference between assault rifles and the next step up. And the hackneyed argument, "It isn't the guns; it's the people who use them" could just as easily apply to flamethrowers, rocket launchers, etc. After all, if you're going to take out a tyrannical government, why not do it right? Here's what a crazy man on a rampage with a gun looked like when the 2nd Amendment was written: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Horoscope Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 The people who say "Trust me to carry a concealed gun and I will cover you if a shooter comes after you in a crowd," are often the same people who tell us "Don't trust our duly elected president because he's maybe one week away from staging a military overthrow of our country and establishing himself as a dictator." NO THANKS. I trust the President more than you. The majority of people in this country do not trust YOU with your concealed weapon in a crowd, thank you. Who elected YOU our protector? You might be a great danger to us in many ways, thank you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bart Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 1 hour ago, MC Horoscope said: The people who say "Trust me to carry a concealed gun and I will cover you if a shooter comes after you in a crowd," are often the same people who tell us "Don't trust our duly elected president because he's maybe one week away from staging a military overthrow of our country and establishing himself as a dictator." NO THANKS. I trust the President more than you. The majority of people in this country do not trust YOU with your concealed weapon in a crowd, thank you. Who elected YOU our protector? You might be a great danger to us in many ways, thank you. (I may have already told this story upthread. If so, forgive me) When people make that argument that more armed people would keep us safer and prevent these kind of things, I think of the incident that happened in a Costco in Chantilly (I think) a few years ago. A crazy woman was in there swinging a knife around and threatening people so the police were called. They came in and did their thing and two people ended up getting shot. One was the woman with the knife and the other was a cop. Both were shot by cops. These were professional gun users who do regular target practice and who are trained to act rationally in tense situations, and they shot the wrong person. And it was in a Costco! Those places are lit up better than operating rooms! The idea that regular Joes with concealed weapons taking action in movie theaters or clubs or damn near anywhere else will make us safer is beyond logic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktmoomau Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 While I think it is easy to see what people post here, online and other social media and think we have REALLY stark contrasts on what we think is the law and what it says, I think when you talk to people about specifics and what could be the laws you start to see people come together, maybe not everyone, but a majority. Maybe not on everything, every issue, but I think we it is easy to label someone, but miss the nuances. For instance I grew up on a beef and dairy farm in Western Maryland, we had some other animals too. There are coyotes, wolves, bears etc and we needed to protect our farm. My family still hunts for turkeys and deer. I think most americans can agree that those types of guns are acceptable. I don't mind people having handguns for sport or fun. I do mind when they have them unlocked in their home around children (try calling the police even where this is illegal and see what they say about whether they are going to come enforce that law, that is fun), or after there has been a valid protective order issued for their spouse, or without an adequate waiting period, being carried in most public areas, etc. When you talk about specifics on registration- how it might work, who would have to register, who could get that information, etc more people come together- as you can see in polls. I think you can have laws about how we maintain and sell guns within the limits of the constitution. Unfortunately, I don't think the current constitution allows to prohibit certain types of guns, but that doesn't mean I am against changing that. I think an in-depth dialogue with people shows that even if we disagree the vast majority of people can listen and find some common ground. The uncommon ground that is tricky, especially with all the NRA money, more people need to be single issue voters on gun control, as well. I think that if you register and regulate and enforce the laws that can be valid, you do make leaps in being able to crackdown on illegal use. I know people with mental health issues that I don't really think should have access to a gun that do, I know people who have tried to commit suicide or successfully committed suicide with their own weapons, which is sad. I can understand people who live in rural areas, miles from a neighbor who also have a very different view on the subject than me, but living in a city, practicing family law, I see a lot of things that leave me really concerned that I think it would be very practical to change and would have minimal effect on others. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 The good guy with a gun myth... "Tactical Experts Destroy the NRA's Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy" by Joshua Holland on thenation.com Over the past couple of years, when I'm in a crowd, I wonder how many people are carrying. I'm not sure I want to know. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is totally irrelevant today. An AR-15 resembles a single-shot musket like a Tesla resembles a Model T. It's absolute bullshit that the 2nd is held up as some sort of divine gift that can't even be questioned. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktmoomau Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Interesting op-ed article: "Lessons of Hiroshima and Orlando" by Thomas L. Friedman on nytimes.com 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bart Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 "The greatest threat to our homeland security today is the National Rifle Association, a front group for the firearms industry that derails gun-safety measures and perversely profits with each new mass shooting." Jan 31, 2013 - "The NRA vs. America" by Tim Dickinson on rollingstone.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted June 21, 2016 Author Share Posted June 21, 2016 "Senate Rejects Gun Control Background Check Measures" by Jordain Carney on thehill.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted June 23, 2016 Author Share Posted June 23, 2016 "5 Mistakes Great Concealed Carriers Never Make" by Michael Jenkins on concealednation.org It isn't the great ones I'm worried about. I think of "owning a gun" pretty much the same way I think of "driving a car." Do you think I want to take your car away from you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 A sliver of hope that not everyone gets to play with guns: "Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban for Those Convicted of Domestic Violence" by Michele Gorman on newsweek.com 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 The NRA has a new ad! They aren't addressing gun violence. Instead they offer some misdirection. The NRA News - what does this have to do with guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted July 9, 2016 Author Share Posted July 9, 2016 It Is Time For The 2nd Amendment To Be Repealed, And For Gun Ownership To Be A Privilege, Not A Right For a long time now, I've been thinking there's a direct correlation between easy gun access - not only to the Dallas police-shooting tragedy - but also to police being on-edge whenever they make *any* traffic stops (this is, of course, separate from any race issues which obviously exist, but I've had *plenty* of police be nervous when they pulled *me* over for traffic stops). Why? Because they think I might be packing heat - it's the only possible reason. Add to that fear an inherent mistrust of people of color, i.e., "racism," and you've got a volatile witches' brew. It isn't *just* racism that's resulting in all of these police shootings of black-Americans; it's racism *plus* a fear of being shot. This is not, obviously, an "excuse" for police having a double-standard for black-Americans, but I believe it to be the truth. "The Horrific, Predictable Result of a Widely Armed Citizenry" by Adam Gopnik on newyorker.com From the article: "It requires no apology for unjustified police violence to point out that, in a heavily armed country, the police officer who thinks that a suspect is armed is likelier to panic than when he can be fairly confident that the suspect is not." --- Changing issues just a bit, think about the "tyrannical government" argument the NRA always uses as an excuse for gun rights. A police state, targeting black Americans, *is* a tyrannical government, so the NRA got exactly what it has been arguing for with the Dallas police shootings, right? "The Silence and Violence of the N.R.A." by Evan Osnos on newyorker.com --- I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and I am not a political person in general. However, there is one - and only one - issue that I feel compelled to speak out about, loudly, clearly, and unequivocally: It's time for the Second Amendment to be rescinded, and if that isn't feasible, it needs to be eviscerated by any means necessary. Gun ownership in the United States should not be a right; it should be a privilege, just like driving a car if not even more strictly regulated. All guns should have a serial number which is stored in a national database, along with the guns' ownership histories, with no grandfather clause for current owners. It should be illegal to own a gun without first passing two tests: a field test, and a written test, both of which should be required on a regular basis. Any gun owner not reporting and registering every gun they own should have their guns confiscated, by force if necessary, with the possible exception of antiques and collectibles, and with appropriate compensation for current owners. All gun sales should be required to be reported in an interactive, real-time database, and guns should be heavily taxed, regularly inspected, and require large amounts of liability insurance. Assault weapons should be made illegal for private ownership with few if any exceptions. It's time to stop the charade about protection from a tyrannical government - if you think we don't already have a tyrannical government, try not paying your federal income taxes: Do it for long enough, and agents from the federal government will show up at your residence, arrest you, and forcibly take you away - and your guns won't be able to do anything to prevent it from happening. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Senator Chris Murphy (D) speaking on the Senate floor about the "good guy with a gun myth". "Sen. Chris Murphy Takes Apart the NRA's 'Good Guy with a Gun Lie" on mediamatters.org The stats he reviewed: " Like the study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed that a gun in your house doesn’t make you less likely to be killed, it isn’t even risk neutral, having a gun in your home actually increases your chance of getting killed by a gun by anywhere from 40 percent to 170 percent. Or how about the study in the American Journal of Epidemiology that showed that people living in a house with a gun are 90 percent more likely to die from a homicide than people who live in a house without a gun? Or what about the study from the Violence Policy Center that instances of guns being used in self-defense are so rare that on average there are 44 criminal homicides with guns for every time a gun is used for protection in a justifiable homicide? Or how about one more from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center which showed that in states and communities with greater gun availability, gun homicide rates were higher, not lower, than communities and states with lower gun availability. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 The Onion at its satirical best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 On 7/13/2016 at 5:22 PM, Al Dente said: Senator Chris Murphy (D) speaking on the Senate floor about the "good guy with a gun myth". "Sen. Chris Murphy Takes Apart the NRA's 'Good Guy with a Gun Lie" on mediamatters.org The stats he reviewed: " Like the study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed that a gun in your house doesn’t make you less likely to be killed, it isn’t even risk neutral, having a gun in your home actually increases your chance of getting killed by a gun by anywhere from 40 percent to 170 percent. Or how about the study in the American Journal of Epidemiology that showed that people living in a house with a gun are 90 percent more likely to die from a homicide than people who live in a house without a gun? Or what about the study from the Violence Policy Center that instances of guns being used in self-defense are so rare that on average there are 44 criminal homicides with guns for every time a gun is used for protection in a justifiable homicide? Or how about one more from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center which showed that in states and communities with greater gun availability, gun homicide rates were higher, not lower, than communities and states with lower gun availability. " I saw this video a couple days ago that reminded me of the "Good Guy with a Gun" argument. Have a look (there's nothing graphic to see in the video, so rest easy and be assured that the girl gets freed unharmed): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted August 4, 2016 Author Share Posted August 4, 2016 "50 Years after Texas College Shooting, 'Campus-Carry' Becomes Law" by Jason Slotkin on npr.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 This is insane: Missouri: The Shoot-Me State - New York Times " The law will let citizens carry concealed weapons in public without a state gun permit, criminal background check or firearms training. It strips local law enforcement of its current authority to deny firearms to those guilty of domestic violence and to other high-risk individuals. And it establishes a dangerous “stand your ground” standard that will allow gun owners to shoot and claim self-defense based on their own sense of feeling threatened. " Why, why, why, why? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted September 16, 2016 Author Share Posted September 16, 2016 4 hours ago, Al Dente said: Why, why, why, why? Lobbying and spineless, corrupt politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldman Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 4 hours ago, DonRocks said: Lobbying and spineless, corrupt politicians. Well but it's also the fact that millions upon millions of our fellow Americans want their weapons readily at hand, either because they are fearful or so that they can have a better chance of living out their fantasies of killing somebody for a reason they believe is right. I have my opinion about why they want that - i.e., fear of the "other," generated by politicians who exploit perceived differences into fear/hatred in order to be elected/re-elected and to divide the non-elite - but it's not "corrupt politicians" so much as "awful politicians stirring up hatred" or "eh, human nature is to hate the 'other' and to want deadly power, 'twas always thus" - take your pick. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmer john Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 ...or maybe they actually need to shoot something occasionally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 A response to the insanity in Missouri from a US Senate candidate: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted December 3, 2016 Author Share Posted December 3, 2016 In a time of relative quiet, all the indignation has completely died down. This is exactly why nothing ever gets done - people have knee-jerk reactions, and then they stop caring in a week. The parents at Sandy Hook Elementary School haven't forgotten, however, even though we're going on *four years*. I wonder how many people even remember the number of 6-year-old children who were murdered that day: 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted June 17, 2017 Author Share Posted June 17, 2017 "Ted Nugent Once Said 'Obama Should Suck on My Machine Gun.' Now He Wants To Tone Down 'the Hateful Rhetoric'" by Herman Wong on washingtonpost.com I wish no pain and suffering on anyone - that said, there is a concept known as "acceptable collateral damage," and this tweet stands as written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovehockey Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Rep. Mo Brooks, not long after being shot at: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 The honorable Steve King in WaPo last week: Anger about his own colleagues being attacked was evident in the words of Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who, in suit and tie, stopped by the crime scene to pray, was viscerally angry about his own colleagues being attacked. “America has been divided,” he said, “and the center of America is disappearing, and the violence is appearing in the streets, and it’s coming from the left.” King did indicate it was impossible to separate the hyperpartisan climate in Washington — especially people protesting President Trump — with Republican members of Congress being gunned down at a baseball scrimmage. “The divisions within the country, people that can’t accept the results of the election that are determined to try to take this country down, take this organization down,” King said. “This city was filled up with demonstrations the day after the inauguration, where you couldn’t drive down the streets.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted June 18, 2017 Author Share Posted June 18, 2017 On 6/18/2017 at 3:48 PM, lovehockey said: Rep. Mo Brooks, not long after being shot at: Here's something nobody has ever been able to answer for me: * The 18th amendment (prohibiting alcohol) took effect on Jan 16, 1920. * The 21st amendment (repealing the 18th amendment) took effect on Dec 5, 1933. For nearly 14 years, prohibition was every bit as much "the law of the land" as the 2nd amendment. Someone answer me: Why would it be any "less patriotic" to fight for the repeal of the 2nd amendment in 2019, than to fight for the repeal of the 18th amendment in 1925? Both were absolute law, and both had exactly the same weight. So, was someone who wanted the 18th amendment rescinded in 1925 "unpatriotic?" --------- The U.S. Constitution stated, in crystal-clear terms (refer to Article 1, Section 2), that a vote cast by a Negro only counted for 60% of a vote cast by a Caucasian. Was it "unpatriotic" to want that law overturned? Well, I guess a whole lot of people in the American South thought it was - perhaps because they built their wealth, literally, with the blood, sweat, and tears of the enslaved Negro. "The Three-Fifths Clause of the United States Constitution (1787)" on blackpast.org --------- Let's not even go into 245+ years of Slavery (1619-1865), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Plessy v. Ferguson, etc. --------- I invite every single person in the world to debate me on whether my wanting the 2nd Amendment repealed makes me "unpatriotic." --------- Acceptable collateral damage, and the way things have gone up until now, this society is going to need a hell of a lot more of it, in order for fewer innocent people to be harmed. Was John Brown mentally unstable? I suspect he was; he was also absolutely correct. Please remember this post fifty years from now - I find it so ironic that it won't be the guns themselves that repeal the 2nd amendment; it will be the targets of those guns. And I find it even more ironic that the real purpose of the 2nd amendment - defense against a tyrannical government - is going to be *exactly* what brings it down. The reason it hasn't happened yet is because the tyrannical government doesn't yet realize that, yes, *they* are the tyrannical government. --------- At this point, I would usually say, "For the record, I am not against gun ownership," but instead, I'll just say, "Fuck you." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted October 3, 2017 Author Share Posted October 3, 2017 On 6/18/2017 at 4:27 PM, DonRocks said: I find it so ironic that it won't be the guns themselves that repeal the 2nd amendment; it will be the targets of those guns. "Country Music Guitarist and Vegas Shooting Survivor Says He's Reversed His Gun Control Stance" by Luchina Fisher on abcnews.go.com Good for you, Caleb Keeter - the thing that saddens me is that people might not change their positions until they're victims in events like this - if only they would just open up their minds and think instead, this wouldn't need to happen. So many people will read this and think, "Rockwell's a totalitarian who would come for our guns," and that is false. The solution begins with: * Every single gun being registered with a serial number and owner. * A gun-owner's permit, just like the ones people have for owning a car. * A shooter's license, just like a driver's license, that demonstrates people have passed a rudimentary written and field test. The above three items are already applicable to automobiles, so this is a proven model that works. I'll let the politicians debate about taxes, penalties, etc. - I think these three things alone would go a long way; unfortunately, given the number of guns outstanding, there can be no grandfather clause - these must apply to guns already in private possession, and that's going to be a sticky wicket. However, even if they were only applied going forward, that would at least solve the problem in the long term, i.e., several decades after the laws were enacted. Waiting fifty years may seem unacceptable, but at least our children and grandchildren would begin to see the benefits of such a program. --- "House To Vote on Gun Silencer Legislation This Week" by Gabrielle Levy on usnews.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Horoscope Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 I really think the SCOTUS decision on this was a sort of revenge for abortion. The complaint was that there is no right to privacy stated directly in the Constitution, so Roe v Wade "found" a right that just isn't there. In a similar fashion SCOTUS has "found" an individual right to arms where there is none. The Constitution clearly says it's about militias. IMO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 NRA Contributions to Congress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted October 3, 2017 Author Share Posted October 3, 2017 3 hours ago, MC Horoscope said: I really think the SCOTUS decision on this was a sort of revenge for abortion. The complaint was that there is no right to privacy stated directly in the Constitution, so Roe v Wade "found" a right that just isn't there. In a similar fashion SCOTUS has "found" an individual right to arms where there is none. The Constitution clearly says it's about militias. IMO I don't know if the two are Related, but the two are related. People shouldn't feel comfortable until abortion is declared safe and legal by the Legislative Branch, because there *is* no explicit "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and that ruling will always be in jeopardy. One thing so many people don't understand is how you can hate that ruling, and still be pro-choice (because as soon as you say you hate that ruling, all words that follow are a jumble of noise). By any means necessary, I guess, but whoever authored the 14th Amendment could have used courses in both Logic and English Composition. 39 minutes ago, Al Dente said: NRA Contributions to Congress Color me cynical, but I suspect you can add at least one zero to the end of that dollar amount. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Slater Posted October 4, 2017 Share Posted October 4, 2017 When the second amendment was written, guns held exactly one bullet. How is there equivalency with machine guns? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted October 4, 2017 Share Posted October 4, 2017 While driving home past NRA headquarters on 66 yesterday, I saw their one and only statement on the Las Vegas shootings. Their flag was flying at half mast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtureck Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 On 10/3/2017 at 8:05 PM, Mark Slater said: When the second amendment was written, guns held exactly one bullet. How is there equivalency with machine guns? And when the 1st amendment was written, the press was pretty much just that...a few guys with a printing press. Should the press, as it exists now with a 24 hour cable news cycle and the internet, still be allowed their freedom? Surely the founding fathers never envisioned the 21st century media. That's the danger of going the "that's not what the founding fathers meant" route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted October 6, 2017 Author Share Posted October 6, 2017 8 hours ago, mtureck said: That's the danger of going the "that's not what the founding fathers meant" route. Fair point, but playing devil's advocate: If you don't go that route (either "original intent," or "original understanding") then what route do you take, and why? I'm a firm believer that the Legislative Branch exists to make laws, and the Judicial Branch exists to settle disputes based on what is written. I want to know exactly (or as closely as possible) whether or not I'm breaking the law at any given moment, and the only way for that to happen is to have it spelled out in writing. I believe that a reasonable person should know what is, and isn't, the law, and you shouldn't need to memorize arcane court cases to know what's legal and illegal. Quite frankly, I'm not thrilled that my 12-year-old was bombarded by violence and pornography - all in the name of the 1st Amendment which I find to be an incredibly bogus concept. I think the real problem is a permanent stalemate in the Legislative Branch, so people try to find other ways to get things done (active Judicial branch, Executive orders, lobbyist bribes resulting in cramming bills with unrelated pork, etc.) 8 hours ago, mtureck said: And when the 1st amendment was written, the press was pretty much just that...a few guys with a printing press. Should the press, as it exists now with a 24 hour cable news cycle and the internet, still be allowed their freedom? Surely the founding fathers never envisioned the 21st century media. mtureck, I assume you're drawing a parallel with "muskets vs. AK47s" and "printing presses vs. internet" - if so, it's a legitimate parallel, and one which must be respected (how many teens committed suicide in 1789 because they were slut-shamed across the world?) On the other hand, where does it stop? I remember a column by Art Buchwald - perhaps 30-40 years ago - entitled "Let's Get Land Mines Legalized." I sincerely believe the NRA has *finally* come up against a situation that they can't defend - i.e., bump-stock devices - due to the time-sensitive nature of them needing to get some kind of statement out, and the impossibility of a PR victory using their traditional stances. My guess is that they feel it's a small concession to make, and that they're willing to concede this immaterial battle in order to keep winning the war. After Sandy Hook, I thought there was *nothing* they wouldn't have the gall to propose; keeping bump-stock devices legal seems relatively tame compared to their downright-evil "let's arm our teachers" idea. --- This has nothing whatsoever to do with mtureck, who has *always* been a model of intelligence and thoughtfulness. To all gun sissies proposing violence: I'M STILL HERE, I'm smarter and more educated than 99.9999% of you, and the only way you're going to shut me up is to kill me. So, where's the bullet in my head, pussies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Last week they were for a ban on bump-stocks, and now they're back on message. "NRA Opposes Outright US Ban on Gun Devices Used by the Las Vegas Killer" on cnbc.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted October 9, 2017 Author Share Posted October 9, 2017 13 minutes ago, Al Dente said: Last week they were for a ban on bump-stocks, and now they're back on message. "NRA Opposes Outright US Ban on Gun Devices Used by the Las Vegas Killer" on cnbc.com Just like a company announcing bad financial news on a Friday afternoon at 5 PM. Nothing unexpected here, I suppose. In the long term (months, years), they're only hurting themselves - I'm almost *glad* they aren't backing down. They'll be looked at with the same derision as the KKK in fifty years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted October 11, 2017 Author Share Posted October 11, 2017 "NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre Won't Commit To Backing Bump Stock Bill, Tells ATF To 'Do Its Job'" by Emily Tilett on cbsnews.com [I so desperately want to make one, single exception to the "no personal attacks" rule - I won't do it, yet, but I'm very close to being susceptible to being talked out of it. That said, if anyone wants to criticize a person's *actions* - by all means, do - just be prepared to substantiate your claims.] I have fantasies of *the most beautiful* poetic justice that could ever be executed in the history of mankind. And should that day ever come, I'll open the finest Champagnes I can find, and keep pouring them for everyone, until my stocks are depleted. Because on that day, untold numbers of innocent lives will be saved, and the United States will have a new national hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 On 10/6/2017 at 4:00 PM, DonRocks said: Fair point, but playing devil's advocate: If you don't go that route (either "original intent," or "original understanding") then what route do you take, and why? I'm a firm believer that the Legislative Branch exists to make laws, and the Judicial Branch exists to settle disputes based on what is written. I want to know exactly (or as closely as possible) whether or not I'm breaking the law at any given moment, and the only way for that to happen is to have it spelled out in writing. I believe that a reasonable person should know what is, and isn't, the law, and you shouldn't need to memorize arcane court cases to know what's legal and illegal. *This* is what happens when you have "legislation by the judicial branch," i.e., umpires making up rules as they see fit. Show me where the rule says *anything* about "stolen bases." Maybe it does, but this article doesn't mention it: "Nationals Believe Umpires Missed Call That Would Have Stopped the Bleeding in the Fifth Inning." According to the article: But when Baez swung, his wild backswing grazed Wieters. If so, Baez seemingly should have been out, under rule 6.03(a). The pertinent section of the rule states: “If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 Fuck the NRA. Fuck the 2nd Amendment. The Texas Church Shooting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted November 6, 2017 Author Share Posted November 6, 2017 10 hours ago, Al Dente said: Fuck the NRA. Fuck the 2nd Amendment. The Texas Church Shooting I have a solution to mass shootings in this country, but it's going to take some serious backbone that I doubt our electorate has: Essentially, treat guns as cars - my right to own cars has never been infringed since I turned 16. 1) Do not make guns a right unless you're in a militia (e.g., The National Guard) subject to the same rules and regulations as all other militias. 2) Require all other guns to be treated just like cars. Tax them, assign a unique serial number to each gun, and maintain a national database linking all guns to their owners. 3) Define specifications that all guns must adhere to, and annual tests the guns must pass, just like a car. 4) Require all gun owners to regularly pass both a "written test," a"field test," and a "background investigation," showing that they're responsible and competent enough to own and use their guns, just like a drivers license. 5) For items 2)-4), decide whether or not you want to grandfather existing guns into these requirements. If you do, your gun problems will be over in about 50 years; if you don't, your gun problems will be over in about 100 years. Political backbone will be the thing that saves 50,000 Americans (I'm approximating 1,000 dead Americans annually due to mass shootings in the upcoming century- it could be many more than that). There's your disarmingly simple, five-point plan to solve the mass-shooting problem in the United States. As for Texas, I don't have enough tears in my eyes to adequately cry for them, and I'm forced to look at them as casualties of war. If I met one as an individual, that would be different, but not in such large numbers. Yes, it's sad, but this involves more grief than one man is capable of enduring. My plan will end, or minimize, that grief and those tears. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.A.R. Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 I have two novel ideas: 1) Don't outlaw any guns, but make bullets super fucking expensive. Bullets can only be sold at gun ranges for use outside of a gun range, and all sales will be registered and tracked. Set strict limits on how many bullets can be taken from the gun range. That number should be super small, and bullet should cost A LOT of money, say $100. I don't know any hunter that takes more than a few bullets, or shotgun shells, when going hunting. Inside of a gun range, bullets should be super cheap. I want people to practice shooting and become proficient marksmen. That skill should be "honed" in a licensed and registered gun range. And the whole "militia/ protection from the federal boot argument" -> raid the armory, just like our Founding Fathers did, when you are ready for the uprising. Now, this could adversely effect the poor in rural communities who hunt for sustenance. I say, "bow hunt". Use a crossbow if you want, and feel free to shoot deer, or any other game animal, year-round with a bow or crossbow. ETA: Also, the 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about bullets. 2) Gun owners should be forced to buy insurance and provide the insurance documentation when purchasing a gun. This is a perfect "free market" solution. Let the for-profit insurance companies, and their super smart actuaries, put a "price" on gun ownership. I am sure one or two guns would be relatively inexpensive, depending on what the gun is. You want to purchase a shit ton of "assualt rifles". That's going to cost you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.A.R. Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 One more thing: 3) Voter registration is automatic at age 18. Voting will be on Saturdays. Early voting available EVERYWHERE one week prior to election day. Allow for a tax deduction for voting as an incentive. Virginia is voting tomorrow, and I think its voter turnout is fairly normal....which is to say an embarasssment. A quick look at the voting History since 2000, an embarassing 57.7% of eligible voters (CVAP) voted in the Presidential elections. 4 in 10 could not vote, or could not be bothered to vote. Even worse....non-Presidential elections! 30.1% of CVAP voted during "off-year" elections. That's just appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 A few hours after the shooting, the NRA tweeted: It wasn't up for long: https://deepstatenation.com/youre-insane-the-internet-recoils-in-disgust-over-nras-tweet-after-texas-church-massacre/ A helpful vocabulary lesson from the NRA: https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/8/misused-firearms-terms/ Here's the NRA bitching about "The Ruling Class" being anti-gun. They seem to think that the ruling class consists of Bill and Hillary, Michael Bloomberg, Rahm Emanuel, and the leaders of the Women's March. The article was published 4 days ago. My understanding is that our current ruling class is made up of Wayne LaPierre's c*ckholsters, so what the fuck are they talking about? https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171102/the-ruling-class-vs-the-second-amendment 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now