[SlapheadMofo]

The Founding Fathers were smarter than you, me and anyone who frequents this board.

So you think slavery should still be legal too?

Gun people with their 'founding fathers were all-knowing' mantra. The majority of you sound like a bunch of religious fundamentalists and act like there's a requirement of being a constitutional scholar to get service at the Walmart gun counter.

Times change. Having a weapon that you can hunt with and defend yourself with in a situation you might reasonably find yourself in shouldn't be an issue. Allowing a weapon that can do the amount of damage in the span of time that we saw the other day to be put in the hands of a typical meathead just so they can pretend to themselves that they're bad-ass is stupid. Find a safer toy to play with.

 

[kidwoo]

I'm just trying to make the point that taking away ALL GUNS or preventing anybody who has ever smelled a person with depression from owning them will not solve the problem, at all.

Nor is it realistic that it will happen......not in the near term. But people should be ashamed of being a dumb redneck with a huge unecessary personal arsenal, not held up as some sort of iconoclastic beacon of american freedom. Until that happens, yes, their access to gnarly firearms should be limited and regulated. Then when we can all agree that cowboys aren't something we really want in public places, then we can start having the collectors items discussions again. But this country obviously isn't bright enough to handle that right now.

I agree with you that action HAS TO BE taken. Something HAS TO BE done. I agree that a multi-armed, octopus like (noodley apendage?) approach is the best way. promote mental health. Slow down the ability for people to acquire weapons. Increase regulation and certification needs. Promote awareness of mental health needs and speed the process of treatment.

Keep in mind, dirk has said absolutely none of this. He wants a civil war because he doesn't want to live next to me, even though he's statistically far more a threat to my safety than I am to his.

 

[Nick]

Times change. Having a weapon that you can hunt with and defend yourself with in a situation you might reasonably find yourself in shouldn't be an issue. Allowing a weapon that can do the amount of damage in the span of time that we saw the other day to be put in the hands of a typical meathead just so they can pretend to themselves that they're bad-ass is stupid. Find a safer toy to play with.

Problem is, those two weapons can be one in the same.

 

[Sandwich]

Keep in mind, dirk has said absolutely none of this. He wants a civil war because he doesn't want to live next to me, even though he's statistically far more a threat to my safety than I am to his.

to be fair, didn't you tackle a guy in your underpants once?

 

[Sandwich]

Problem is, those two weapons can be one in the same.

I guarantee you that if they ban everything but shotguns, people will start using shotguns to do this. Starting with assault weapons is a great idea, 10+ rounds clips is another good one...but an average shotgun can still hold 8 rounds, a pistol 9 in a clip. That's a lot of death no matter how you slice it.

My wife suggested regulating bullets. Collect all the guns you want, but you only get x number of bullets unless you're at the range. It kind of makes sense, but implementing it would just be impossible.

 

[Damo]

I was brought up with multiple guns in the house. My Dad or Uncles and I went hunting every week. I have never fired an automatic weapon and you will never need an automatic weapon to hunt with.

Every gun owner in NZ must have a gun licence and a hunting licence.

Get rid of the ability for a civilian to own an automatic weapons for a start.

 

[Sandwich]

I was brought up with multiple guns in the house. My Dad or Uncles and I went hunting every week. I have never fired an automatic weapon and you will never need an automatic weapon to hunt with.

Every gun owner in NZ must have a gun licence and a hunting licence.

Get rid of the ability for a civilian to own an automatic weapons for a start.

they already can't and so far none or few of these atrocities were committed with automatics. To my knowledge.

 

[H8R]

My wife suggested regulating bullets. Collect all the guns you want, but you only get x number of bullets unless you're at the range. It kind of makes sense, but implementing it would just be impossible.

Don't regulate, tax the sh1t out of em. Use the revenues to fund mental health programs.

 

[mattmatt86]

they already can't and so far none or few of these atrocities were committed with automatics. To my knowledge.

People use the words automatic, semi-automatic, and assault weapons/rifles interchangeably. But I understand what he's saying. I did read somewhere that the weapon used in the school shooting and the one used in the Aurora shooting would have both been illegal under Clinton's Assault weapons ban.

 

[Scurry]

It's quite a quandary. I remember a few years ago when PA was having a problem with high powered rifles being used in crimes in Philly and other urban areas. They tried to pass laws but were met with heavy resistance because the majority of PA is rural and the way the laws were written they would limit a lot of hunting rifles. The laws never passed.

This doesnt make sense to me. More people die, just so people can go kill some animals? I dont have anything against hunting, but I wouldnt be bothered if it took a hit so more lives would be saved. Use a crossbow or something.

 

[kidwoo]

to be fair, didn't you tackle a guy in your underpants once?

A guy who was breaking into my car, yes.

Real men don't need guns. That humilation will last him for quite a while.

 

[stevew]

A guy who was breaking into my car, yes.

Real men don't need guns. That humilation will last him for quite a while.

did he ask you "is that a roll of quarters?"

 

[kidwoo]

dimes, but yeah


Gets cold in the mountains at night.

 

[stevew]

dimes, but yeah


Gets cold in the mountains at night.

I'm buying a solar and wind powered ranch with a moat.

This country is fvcking nuts.

i'm beginning to think the five acres in southern colorado isn't enough acres...

 

[Sandwich]

So, I just reread the wikipedia article from Columbine, and any assumption that the "distance from the act" via guns vs. knives is stupid. Those bastards had no problem shooting from point blank.

 

[kidwoo]

So, I just reread the wikipedia article from Columbine, and any assumption that the "distance from the act" via guns vs. knives is stupid. Those bastards had no problem shooting from point blank.

No that just means it's not a valid assumption with those two individuals.

When dirk tries to shoot me in the face, he'll break down in tears at first eye contact because he'll be reminded of truly just how much he really loves me.

 

[SlapheadMofo]

Problem is, those two weapons can be one in the same.

Maybe there should be scaled up restrictions as firepower/capacities get higher.
Revolvers, low cap shotguns, less powerful ammo, easier to get, less restrictions.
High powered rifles, high cap and semi-auto weapons and the like, harder to get and maybe even some sort of persistent monitoring at a certain level. Even throw in a technical solution if possible (isn't there some sort of 'smart gun' technology out there? Make it a requirement at a certain level.)

This kind of solution sounds reasonable to me. The problem is, the majority of gun owners seem to be fanatics that only deal in black and white. Almost friend I have that has bought a gun has turned into a 'gun nut'. It's like dealing with born again Xtians, only worse. You even bring up any sort of common sense control scenario and they start spouting about 'the gubmint', etc. I'm convinced guns actually do make people stupid. Either that, or they were stupid to begin with. In which case, why the hell are we allowing them to have weapons?

 

[cecil]

After you guy figure out weather or not guns kill people, or people kill people....... Can you let us know if the chicken or the egg came first

 

[DirtMcGirk]

Get rid of the ability for a civilian to own an automatic weapons for a start.

Silence surrender monkey...

You cannot just walk into a store and buy a fully automatic weapon and take it home. I do own some full auto weapons. Let me walk you through the process.
1. Get about $17,000 together.
2. Find the weapon you want.
3. Convince someone to sell it to you.
4. Find a class III/NFA dealer.
5. Pay for the gun.
6. File paperwork with the ATF/FBI. Pay them $200 for the check.
7. Wait eight months to a year.
8. Enjoy a full background check.

If there's anything slightly hinky in your background, i.e. a DUI, a judgment of being mentally defective, assault and battery convictions, or anything involving your passport, they will not license you to own a full automatic weapon...


I get it, in France surrender and capitulation is the way to do business. Here in America we slightly trust our law abiding citizens. So what's good for France is fine, but please don't tell me what's good for America.

 

[DirtMcGirk]

People use the words automatic, semi-automatic, and assault weapons/rifles interchangeably. But I understand what he's saying. I did read somewhere that the weapon used in the school shooting and the one used in the Aurora shooting would have both been illegal under Clinton's Assault weapons ban.

You know those weapons were for sale during the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban Gestapo days, right? They were much more expensive as they were not making/importing any more of them, or the higher capacity mags, but so long as they were made one day before the ban went into effect, they were grandfathered in.

So you just had a lot of older guns around. Mind you, you could get parts for them still to rebuild them and make them new again, but all his ban did was drive the prices through the roof. It didn't keep AK-47's off the street. It didn't reduce the number of killings in LA, Detroit or Miami. Hell, during those days the murder and violent crime rates were HIGHER than they are to day.

But hey, believe the hype.

 

[DirtMcGirk]

No that just means it's not a valid assumption with those two individuals.

When dirk tries to shoot me in the face, he'll break down in tears at first eye contact because he'll be reminded of truly just how much he really loves me.

Just because we played tummy sticks once does not mean I love you. It was just a Sun Valley booty call, tramp!

 

[stevew]

After you guy figure out weather or not guns kill people, or people kill people....... Can you let us know if the chicken or the egg came first

we can end this right here.

 

[syadasti]

I get it, in France surrender and capitulation is the way to do business. Here in America we slightly trust our law abiding citizens. So what's good for France is fine, but please don't tell me what's good for America.

You are describing the Reagan Administration's response to one of the worst overseas attacks on America since WWII, not the French:

In retaliation for the attacks, France launched an airstrike in the Bekaa Valley against alleged Islamic Revolutionary Guards positions. President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah militants.[21] A joint American-French air assault on the camp where the bombing was planned was also approved by Reagan and Mitterrand. Defense Secretary Weinberger lobbied successfully against the mission, because at the time it was not certain that Iran was behind the attack.

There was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans,[22] besides a few shellings.

 

[DirtMcGirk]

Maybe there should be scaled up restrictions as firepower/capacities get higher.
Revolvers, low cap shotguns, less powerful ammo, easier to get, less restrictions.
High powered rifles, high cap and semi-auto weapons and the like, harder to get and maybe even some sort of persistent monitoring at a certain level. Even throw in a technical solution if possible (isn't there some sort of 'smart gun' technology out there? Make it a requirement at a certain level.)

This kind of solution sounds reasonable to me. The problem is, the majority of gun owners seem to be fanatics that only deal in black and white. Almost friend I have that has bought a gun has turned into a 'gun nut'. It's like dealing with born again Xtians, only worse. You even bring up any sort of common sense control scenario and they start spouting about 'the gubmint', etc. I'm convinced guns actually do make people stupid. Either that, or they were stupid to begin with. In which case, why the hell are we allowing them to have weapons?

So does that mean you support the Sierra Club in their actions to ban bikes from public lands?
Do you support the Klan's idea that black folk should be back in chains, picking my cotton?
How about engine governors on anything stronger than a moped to keep you from speeding?
Your thoughts on a PBT put in every car, linked to the ignition, to keep you from driving drunk?
Should we only ride on 1.95" tires with rim brakes?

 

[H8R]

So does that mean you support the Sierra Club in their actions to ban bikes from public lands?
Do you support the Klan's idea that black folk should be back in chains, picking my cotton?
How about engine governors on anything stronger than a moped to keep you from speeding?
Your thoughts on a PBT put in every car, linked to the ignition, to keep you from driving drunk?
Should we only ride on 1.95" tires with rim brakes?

Dude, way to cement your custom title.

 

[kidwoo]

all his ban did was drive the prices through the roof.

The reason you and I don't have a fleet of bentleys and corvettes isn't because there aren't any for sale.

That in itself does curb the availability. And it would have prevented everyone of them that's been made and sold easily since 2004.

 

[DirtMcGirk]

These guns aren't cheap. And this genius in CT didn't obtain his legally. He stole them from his mom. So how would banning them, or jacking up the price, prevent someone who is hell bent on stealing one from doing so? Yes, maybe fewer (in theory) of them would be in the general public's hands, but I do not thing that it would have prevented someone like this jack-off from doing what he did.

 

[kidwoo]

If his mom couldn't afford them or wasn't legally permitted to own them, they sure wouldn't have been as easy to get.

 

[DirtMcGirk]

I'd go the opposite way with your thinking. I think that if you were to ban them all out, the few still held by private hands would become an even bigger target.

Further, what happens if/when only outlaws and criminals have these guns? You're not going to convince your local MS13 members to give up their AK's because the President outlaws them.

Wait, how are you still allowed in Reno? I thought by now they would have run all the liberals, and anyone who wants a decent paying job, far far out of that town.

 

[Kevin]

I get it, in France surrender and capitulation is the way to do business. Here in America we slightly trust our law abiding citizens. So what's good for France is fine, but please don't tell me what's good for America.

Yeah and look how good its working out for you...

 

[kidwoo]

I'd go the opposite way with your thinking. I think that if you were to ban them all out, the few still held by private hands would become an even bigger target.

Meaning more expensive......meaning harder to get. What you're describing doesn't translate into "just as easy for this guy in CT to get ahold of"

There's not a whole lot of folks around that wouldn't take equal or even more money for their little precious in a lucrative buyback program......because it's worked in the past. STIGMA: this is what needs to happen with these things so that people like this kid's mom don't parade high firepower around like an empowerment since birth.....cuz.......when junior feels threatened this is now something he has as an available avenue.

Right now even good american justice doers such as yourself DO have access to this stuff. Yet virginia tech, columbine, newton, portland, episcopal HS (the school I went to where one of my old teachers is now dead), the shooting in CARSON CITY........ALL STILL HAPPENED. So the whole 'only criminals will have guns' isn't really an argument if you're using it to state that we just need more justice doers. We already have a lot. It's not helping.

 

[OGRipper]

These guns aren't cheap. And this genius in CT didn't obtain his legally. He stole them from his mom. So how would banning them, or jacking up the price, prevent someone who is hell bent on stealing one from doing so? Yes, maybe fewer (in theory) of them would be in the general public's hands, but I do not thing that it would have prevented someone like this jack-off from doing what he did.

Yes there are bad people who steal things. That is precisely why very dangerous things should not be on the streets or in our homes.

Tell me again about the private interest in access to this kind of weapon that is so strong it overwhelms the need for public safety. What is the cost of limiting public access to weapons that fire a gazillion bullets in a few seconds? What's at stake? The ego of a few hunters who are such crappy shots that they need an assault weapon to take down a raccoon?

Oh and as for self-defense, can anyone explain to me how Mommy's guns helped with self-defense here? How did having an arsenal on hand work out for her?

 

[Toshi]

Gazillion bullets in a few seconds? Wha? The weapons used in this massacre were all semi-autos...

 

[syadasti]

Gazillion bullets in a few seconds? Wha? The weapons used in this massacre were all semi-autos...

You don't need even need a semi-auto for speed if you practice:

 

[DirtMcGirk]

The Supreme Court has already come down in favor of individual liberty when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, stating in District of Columbia v. Heller, (554 U.S. 570) that:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

In as much they recognized the higher importance of individual liberty over the concept of flawed collective good as the District of Columbia tried to apply in its unconstitutional ban.

If something is used by less than .00001% of the population to do illegal things, there is no legal or logical merit to ban the rest of the 99.999% of the population from owning them. You wish to vilify them because a very small group of people cannot use them in a safe manner as prescribed by the rule and spirit of the law.

Why not ban the individuals who carry out these acts? I'd rather see every prodromal schizophrenic locked up than see the Constitution abridged in such a manner to deal with the symptom and not the root of an illness in this country. Lock up every gang banger. Lock up every drug runner. Lock up the cop killers.

You're pushing for a fast solution that is not going to yield the results you want. Crazy people will still do crazy ****. Lock them up instead.

 

[kidwoo]

You're pushing for a fast solution

No. People are pushing for a long term meaningful solution. You're the one with the vision that only spans a few years.

 

[syadasti]

You're pushing for a fast solution that is not going to yield the results you want. Crazy people will still do crazy ****. Lock them up instead.

Actually it worked for the UK, AU, IL, CH, and the huge majority of the rest of the OECD countries. The private US prison industry is a failure for everyone involved other than the owners. The prison systems need just as much serious reform as our gun control policies do.

CH and IL recent success - debunks pro-gun touting them:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

Have you seen how much of a failure our gun culture is to curbing violent crime, clearly we are not safer and it detracts from our lives - we are at the bottom - that's the American Exceptionalism the GOP loves so much, huge failure:

http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/

And again, the peer reviewed metastudies on gun ownership both in the US and otherwise - they don't make us safer:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.


2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

 

[DirtMcGirk]

No. People are pushing for a long term meaningful solution. You're the one with the vision that only spans a few years.

Did Clinton's ban achieve a meaningful solution?
Did having the school as a "firearms free zone" do much of anything?

You need to deal with crazy in this country. I will bet dollars and my favorite donuts that this kid is a prodromal schizophrenic. Maybe locking him up or institutionalizing this kid when his mom started telling people that "he was getting a lot more aggressive" in a state/federally funded system until he's cured or he's in the grave.

Change HIPAA. Make it so its easier and legal for therapists/doctors/shrinks to call in red flags. Make them legally accountable for not doing so, like in Colorado. I've spoken to friends who are shrinks/therapists, and they resist the idea because they don't want to have any responsibility for the things their patients can do. If as a lawyer my client did something like this, you can bet that I'd be really looked into and more than likely penalized. Yet shrinks are untouchable. That needs to change. HIPAA needs to change.

There's your "long term meaningful solution." Its not in penalizing law abiding citizens.

 

[DirtMcGirk]

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

There's no way I am trusting anything that comes out of Harvard. Sorry.

 

[kidwoo]

Did Clinton's ban achieve a meaningful solution?
Did having the school as a "firearms free zone" do much of anything?

You need to deal with crazy in this country.

You obviously haven't read much of what I've posted in this thread so I'm going to stop responding to you now.

Like I said: long term......not 'recent memory'