BS: Shooting tragedies and guns

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:39 AM

At least it's a start:

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of Friday's mass killing at an elementary school in Connecticut, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday that she plans to introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.

"I'm going to introduce in the Senate, and the same bill will be introduced in the House -- a bill to ban assault weapons," Feinstein said on NBC's "Meet the Press," according to a tweet from show producer Betsy Fischer Martin.

The shocking murder of 26 children and adults in Newtown, Conn., on Friday has sparked a national discussion on gun control, with mostly Democratic legislators saying laws need to be tightened.

President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law in 1994, but the measure expired a decade later. Democrats have tried several times since then to renew the ban, without success.

Feinstein called for the ban to be renewed after the mass shooting in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater that killed 12 people and injured 58 others.

"Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?" Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. "These weapons are not for hunting deer -- they're for hunting people."

On Sunday Feinstein laid out details of the bill.

"It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively," and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said. "The purpose of this bill is to get... weapons of war off the streets."

Feinstein would not comment on whether President Obama had failed to lead on gun control. "He is going to have a bill to lead on," she said.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:40 AM

It's a good thing they didn't have cars then, and stick an amendment about them in the constitution. They kill more people than guns do. Thatt isn't what they're intended to do, and they're more regulated.

People would be zooming around with no licenses, at whatever speed they wanted, without even a tenuous assurance of competency. Can't limit our constitutional right to drive.

Bruce, the whole Asperger's thing pissed me off, too. I think the ones who started talking about it were trying to put some distance between the killer and "people like us".
"This guy was different, he was inherently flawed, so you don't have to worry."

Anybody think these murderss wouldn't have occurred if his mother hadn't had (legally owned) guns, and he hadn't had access to them?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:44 AM

I SAY AGAIN GOD DAMN IT LISTEN!!

\Your opinion is no better than mine or anyone else. we don't need rehashing opinions we need solutions!

John P look up Connecticut's gun laws. That's where this horror took place.
And for the last time, I am sometimes mistaken, unlike certain Narcissistic pricks here, but I do not consciously lie, so knock it off.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:46 AM

Bobad, that's a piece of good news. Thanks for posting it.

I hear you, Jeri.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:51 AM

".....my point is Mothers tend to overlook serious flaws in their kids.
Enough of this crap. Come up with some solutions or shut up."


That's crap. Mothers are very often the ones who are left to deal with children who have problems, because the fathers walk away...

There ya go, kendall, I'm throwing your sexist crap back at you....

I also know 2 fathers who've walked away from their children, or refused to accept anything was wrong at all, leaving their wives to deal with all the trauma that came their way. My best friend's husband not only refused to accept his son had Aspergers, but neither did his entire family, so for many many long and difficult months Kimmy was left to deal with all the problems on her own. She went through hell, but she came out the other side, as did her son, eventually, when she'd finally GOT that side of his family to accept the diagnosis.

And as for me mentioning Aspergers here, purely because Adam is now reported to have had it, well, time will tell, I guess. But I'll tell you this, there are a LOT of deeply disturbed kids out there...and the adults have been turning away for way too long, even encouraging it.

When my kids were younger I remember asking, in a GAME store, if they had any 'gentle' computer games for children which combined intelligence and adventure, but with no violence. The young man told me I was the first parent who had ever asked him that question, because most parents just bought the latest game, regardless of what was in it. Some of these games are horrifyingly gruesome, dark and gory. They are often made for single players only. Do the research on who the people are who design these games, as well as why so many are for single players only...and you might be surprised....

Our children's heads, worldwide, are filled with images that we NEVER had, unless we had lived through a war and seen horrendous things. Many parents let their children play on these games endlessly to the point where the child ceases to be 'in the real world'...It desensitizes them all.

Our TVs are FILLED with violent, dark and sinister dramas and films. Hollywood has a GREAT deal to answer for...as do those who make these films, write the scripts, do the special effects etc...

I won't discuss Autism in any way again in this thread, nor link it to what happened here, if people don't want to even see a connection...Previous killers from way back were never linked, because they didn't truly understand how the brain worked back then.

I've seen an autism meltdown..and it scared me shitless, for at the time I wasn't truly aware of what I was witnessing. I hear them now and then in the home for adults with severe Aspergers, next door to me. The amount of emotional pain which comes out as terrible anger is traumatic to hear.

NONE of us will ever know the reasons behind this tragedy, ever. We can all surmize as much as we may want to, and to be honest, I doubt even Adam could have told you the reason he did this.

As to the solution? Well, that lies with the American people, but it also lies with the rest of the world, for whilst people continue to watch violence, buy the DVDs, go to the cinema, buy the computer games and never complain, ever, about any of it, nor how the TV pumps out hatred and violence every single day, all day, it will continue to surround our children, to get into their Souls.

Some of those children will eventually implode......

And then, everyone can start going "Oh Fuck!" all over again, just like they did with Columbine.

There won't BE a solution, because most people don't give a fuck about anything any longer..so long as it doesn't directly affect them, so this will soon have faded into 'yet another school attack' and life will continue on....

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:15 PM

The personal attacks on kendall are pointless and gutless.

If someone is incapable of discussing the issue and must resort to personal attacks, don't post anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:16 PM

2/3 of a majority to changes is not democracy; 50%+1 is democracy!

Decisions made by 50%+1 are also subject to being overturned or repealed when the political winds turn just a few degrees. The Founders put those 2/3 and 3/4 majority provisions into the Constitution to insulate the amendment process from the vagaries of politics and public opinion. If an amendment has enough support to survive the process, it's probably not going to be repealed. It's only happened once.

If 50%+1 were the standard for amending the Constitution, the rights of those in the minority would be trampled. The only reason an amendment declaring marriage to be legally defined as between a man and a woman, thus making same sex marriage illegal, has not been brought before Congress is that it probably wouldn't survive the 2/3 and 3/4 majority requirements. If 50%+1 were the rule, it would pass in a heartbeat and there'd be no legal gay marriage anywhere in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:27 PM

So it's not going to happen again, is it?
I mean this only happened because the guy had psychological problems did it?
So how many people with mental problems have access to guns?
How many people who have access to guns, have mental problems, and of those, how many KNOW they have problems?
It's now becom e such a regular occurence, we now only wonder where it's going to happen next time.
It WILL continue to happen, and the reason why is pretty obvious.
BTW who would want to invade the US? Do you think they would do it without flattening large parts of the country, and the people first?
Just think Baghdad, or Japan, or many other places that have been invaded. After a form of blitzkrieg.
One or two men with a pistol ain't gonna deter anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM

What Bee-dub said

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM

One or two? too bad thats not the reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:54 PM

Thou shalt not contradict the omniscient and immutable Saint Liz of Blather.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:05 PM

Lizzie, you know as well as I that Fathers don't have that Mothers instinct.

I'm one of the kids of which you speak. My Father didn't give a shit about anyone but his bottle of booze. We had no male role model and one of my brothers acted up, quit school, raised hell, broke into a store with his no good buddies, but Mother coddled him until he spent a night in jail for decking a cop. If I even mentioned his behavior she got really protective.

Now, before I go, let me clarify something. This saying People kill people is absolutely true. Gun violence doesn't start with a gun, it starts in the twisted mind of a person. A gun is only dangerous in the wrong hands, just like a chain saw, butcher knife or car.

When I stated that many of the regs that John mentioned were already in place, I was referring to Connecticut where this horror happened.
Got that, John P?
Now I believe that all assault weapons should be banned just like sub machine guns have been for many years. No one uses a AK 47 or a AR 15 to hunt anything but people.
As for hand guns, only law enforcement officers and retired law men who qualify for a concealed permit should be allowed to carry

There, that's my opinion, for what it's worth, and that aint much.

We still need a realistic solution, but all I see here is opinions of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:08 PM

pdq ~~ In what way did questioning the validity as argument of Kendall's statement that he found opposition to his views 'a pain in the ass' constitute a 'personal attack' on him? I should love to 'discuss the issue' with him -- if I could find anything he had said that was worth discussing, rather than just consisting of his acting all wounded because we can't make out where exactly he is coming from.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:10 PM

I thank all you folks who are sending me your support via PMs.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:27 PM

"...rather than just consisting of his acting all wounded because we can't make out where exactly he is coming from." ~ MtheGM

Truth be known, it is not always easy to tell where anybody is "coming from" all the time.

I am a minor player on Mudcat and post an average of twice per day.

I have no plans to enlarge my role here, not do I have any authority to become an "enforcer".

I am simply pointing out that personal attacks don't win arguments. Besides, they are supposed to be banned on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:28 PM

Wether or not "People kill people" or "guns kill people" or "people with guns kill people" it's obvious that semi auto pistols and rifles are very efficient tools for killing a lot of people quickly, especially defenseless children. While they're not the only part of the problem we need to recognize that their use is a large part of it and procede from there.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:30 PM

Just an observation. Take it for what it's worth to you:

I live in a very rural area in the southeastern US. Pretty much everyone around here owns guns, and shooting them is a favorite weekend activity for many. It's rare to go more than a few minutes, particularly this time of year, without hearing a gunshot or two from someone hunting or target shooting. I was just outside for over an hour catching up on some chores and did not hear a single gunshot during that period. To say that's unusual is a huge understatement. It's actually pretty much unheard of. The gun crowd seems to have declared a moratorium on shooting. The only time I can remember it being this quiet around here was after 09/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:37 PM

"Lizzie, you know as well as I that Fathers don't have that Mothers instinct."

Not always the way. My uncle had WAY more maternal instinct than his ex-wife. Had his daughter been brought up by him, she'd have been a very different person I think, far more thoughtful and intelligent..
He's gay, as is his ex-wife...

My Dad was far more protective of me than my mother, who did not have much 'instinct' about me at all, for she was way too busy thinking of herself most of the time, but then, my Mum had many problems for various reasons. Had my Dad not been there, I don't know how I'd have got through it all at times.

And, I would argue that the 'Mother's Instinct' is dead and dying,for I now see so many women who seem to not give a toss about their babies and children these days...We've killed off Femininity and Motherhood, with women being urged, more and more,so it seems to me, to behave like the worst kind of man...

And now, back to guns...

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:03 PM

I think that Charmion's idea (6:49 AM)of requiring all gun owners to be members of the National Guard is a good one. That would ensure that anyone 'packing' has had training in the use of weaponry and counseling in the utilities and ethics thereof and that could only be a good thing.
Further, some people might well decide that the requirement is too onerous or restricting and give up their weapons.

Most importantly, it would be a start. A start in meaningful dialogue. And just maybe it would be acceptable to the NRA/gun lobby.

(Far off topic: I wish people would be more aware of the difference between 'discreet' and 'discrete'. The misuse always sounds dumb.)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:08 PM

Well, as expected, lots of spurious reasons from the usual suspects for retaining their personal armouries, so all I can say is this: that any country that loves its guns more than it loves its children (and can I just mention Kent State University here) has no right to consider itself civilised.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:10 PM

The NRA and the gun lobby are, unfortunately, not the deciding element in this issue.

The gun manufacturers would start going broke and the NRA would look pretty silly if there weren't a massive demand by Americans for firearms.

Think about it: 310 million guns but only 300 million Americans. And the guns are still rolling off the assembly lines.

But the reasons - never fully explained - must go a lot deeper than the NRA lobbying Congress and threatening the public with tales of Obama coming with thugs to get their guns.

The people want guns, dude! Men and women! Guns 'n guns 'n guns 'n guns. It don't matter for what: they just want 'em! They crave 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:14 PM

Street gangs in Canada are arming themselves with handguns and assault rifles mostly smuggled from the USA. Halifax, the city I know best and once considered its streets safe to walk at night now has the second highest per capita murder rate in Canada. In the USA gun control seems to be a state government responsibility and some states have good gun control and some have little or none. Problem is that anyone can purchase in a lax state and transport it legally or otherwise over state lines. Canada has a fairly open border with the USA and enterprising smugglers seem able to bypass customs without any great difficulty. Therefore we in Canada share your gun control problem even though we have much stricter laws here.
Part of the answer was given by Bruce when he advocates harsher treatment for crooks using guns. I agree with him but Canadian courts see it otherwise, and lazy prosecuters accept plea bargains allowing the crook to plead guilty to a lesser or a single charge. Con-current sentences, double time credits and early manditory parole mean the crook is back on the street much sooner than he would be in the USA.
Kendall, I have the highest respect for you and your opinion, but we in Canada are also greatly affected by your laws and we share the shoes in which you walk! I know that some of our problem is of our own making and but our countries share a large bed the damn bedbugs don't care on which side they feed!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:22 PM

I am not alone around here in having a child go off the deep end and then try to access the mental health system. For us things eventually worked out pretty well but that doesn't mean I'm happy with the "system." I'm not. One great thing that did happen was that the kids at school had been trained enough to feel free in reporting his dangerous behaviors which I'm sorry to say we missed. So as a given we need more, better, and easier in the mental health field.

We need to start seeing ways to tone back the violence which we have built into the American culture as this also comes into play. This too has much to do with mental health. I saw Rudy Giulani the other night say that "74% of these shootings were mental health related and 25% related to guns." He might be right but that doesn't mean we can just forget about the 25% does it.

We are long past the time to address the gun laws but let's get started now. Diane Feinstein is introducing an assault weapons bill on Day One of the new Congress. Already they're lining up with the "slippery slope" argument and assorted other 2nd amendment issues.

I love all of you but on this issue we may have to agree to disagree. Let me put it bluntly. Fuck the slippery slope. I am an actual card carrying member of the ACLU and I would never expect enough to happen to ever do away with the 2nd but I'm also sick and tired and really pissed that we not doing a damned thing!   I think a later model supreme court might be willing to interpret the amendment differently. The founders were scared to death of having a standing army as they just tend to cost lots of money and get into unneeded trouble. They were right of course.............But do we still need an armed militia? No, but hunting and shooting are (or can be) reasonable sports. Just what sport do you use an AK47 in?

Let's make some sensible laws though. Consider joining me in saying "Fuck the Slippery Slope" and let's do away with assault weapons. Then let's close up the gun show loopholes and tighten the federal requirement on background checks and waiting periods. Let's also make gun owners show proof of a locked storage cabinet(s) whenever the make purchases. Other small rules and better enforcement could make a big difference to Giulani's 25%.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:40 PM

MtheGM, I used to think you were one of the more intelligent members here, but your recent statement that people who disagree with my opinion is a pain in the ass is simply not true. Go back and read it again.

Look, we need some clarity of thought here. I am NOT defending the gun nuts, and I am not supporting the NRA, or the do nothing government.
What I AM< doing is trying to point out what we are up against in the regulations department, and the quandary of how to get around 200 years of a bad habit. You folks who don't live here are only aware of the lack of control we have here, and apparently, you can't understand why that lack is such a problem. Put your minds on a solution and get off the raving about the obvious!

If this is not clear enough then you are not as bright as I thought. I got As and Bs in English in high school.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:45 PM

Who ever closed that other thread, thanks. What took you so long?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:00 PM

LOL@Kendall.....Hey my friend, I have an idea!!! Let's blame the Brits for this entirely.

See, every ruling culture as far back as you care to look had a standing army and of course they used it as that is what happens when you have a large standing army.   When the British Empire ruled the world they did so with a giant standing army. Then some of us pesky colonists got it in our head to rebel and the home grown militia served us well. So in the effort to stay away from the standing army which we had proven able to beat with just a militia, those dumbass founders wrote up the goofball amendment which seems to have gotten us all in so much trouble.

So you see, if the Brits had not stuck with the standing army tradition AND HAD put down the rebellion as proper army should, all would be okay now.

.............'Ceptin' we'd all be talkin' funny and eatin' toad in the hole.



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:06 PM

Yeh Spaw and you could look forward to Camilla being your queen! Off with your head! :<)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:19 PM

Wow....that is bad...........I greatly would prefer the Toad.......

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Backwoodsman sans Cookie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:31 PM

Wrong, Sandy! Camilla won't be the Queen if Charles becomes King, she will be the Consort - exactly the same situation as exists with Prince Philip, the Queen's husband and Consort.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:41 PM

Yeh, I know that Backwoodsman, but that is only a matter of title. The consort of the king is usually called queen but Camilla will perhaps be just addressed as rotweiler.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:49 PM

Not by me, Sandy, I'll still call her 'mother'.   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:49 PM

As usual. Lizzie is the sensible voice.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 04:12 PM

> ...with women being urged, more and more,so it seems to me, to behave like the worst kind of man...

Urged by other women.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM

Sarah Palin. A woman with balls.
=(:-( °)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM

Actually in many cases our militia ran like rabbits when they met the red coats. Without the French we never could have beaten them.

Anyway, folks, I have tried in my best American English, and some Anglo Saxon to explain where I'm coming from, and it was like trying to pull a Bobcat off a wool blanket.

We need federal regulations to deal with this problem, and that is going to be very hard to do as long as we don't trust our government.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:04 PM

Ya gets the gubmint ya pays for Cap'n

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: jacqui.c
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:30 PM

Unfortunately, John, some of the government is paid for by big business, including arms manufacturers and the NRA.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:35 PM

Kendall... "There are some very sharp minds here, all have an opinion of what's wrong with America, none with a realistic solution."

Assuming you are talking about the "gun problem"... NONE? Not even me?

Good gun laws. Education. Raising the standard of living. Said it scores of times on many gun threads in this forum.

I give up.

I just thank God we have so many guns and good ol boys in NA. I explained that more than one thread years ago. I brought it up in an interview with a lewy and two colonels when I was being tested for Royal Military College when I was 18. You can search it if you want. I just can't be arsed with any of this shite anymore and it don't matter on accounta, apparently, nobody thinks I have anything of merit to offer. *I* can't do anything about the problem in the US. I don't live there... so I CAN'T care about it anymore. I can only be sad when I watch TV news.

Oh... yeah... shit on the Yanks because they got guns? citizens and military? That is just fuckin laughable! No, I do not agree with what they do around the world militarily in concert with big money. But, I like my standard of living and I like their ideals so I just hope they will do the right things in the long run, on all counnts. If you have a better bet or a better solution(s), put it (them) on the table.

Otherwise, I gotta lock and load on accounta you guys scare me more than one crazy killing kids BECAUSE you won't even take the necessary steps to stop these kids from being killed. You all just want to grandstand and shout the other guy down and never get the job done because your egos are in the way... it's shameful.

Have fun with it. Rant and rave and point fingers and stand yer ground. BOTH sides. That all youse ever do. And children die while you take the moral high ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:36 PM

It was of course a pretty unclear constitutional provision, reflecting the fact that it was cobbled tgether by a committee of squabbling frontier politicians with agendas of their own. Not exactly Holy Writ.

But even as it stands the clear element in it that shoots holes through the gun lobbies claims is that it doesn't talk about a right of people to bear arms, it talks about the right of "the people" - and that this a whole different thing, "The people" acting collectively have the right to do all kinds of things that individual people can't do - and the other way round. "The people" cant get married, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:54 PM

It's a very simple solution. Have gun owners licensed and tested. Restrict automatic weapons. Make it more difficult for people to own guns.

Guns should not be owned by everyone and their purpose should be carefully defined.
No one needs to pack and carry concealed weapons.

Stop trying to be macho with gun ownership. It's not a phallic symbol.

Support the Brady Institute and campaign. They are actually doing something about the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:32 PM

Yeah, strings is right...

This ain't rocket surgery here...

*Proficiency certification

*Registration

*No gun show loopholes

*Background checks with updated systems

*No assault rifles

*No big clips

Where's the "Obama is going to take away your gun" in that unless you are someone who clearly shouldn't have a gun???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:41 PM

At least half the posters on Mudcat don't believe the 2nd Amendment allow for private ownership of guns.

Roughly the same group of people rattle of their personal list of mandatory gun laws and restrictions.

If you don't have the right to start with, how can you pass laws to control something you don't have?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM

That is delusional, pdq...

With that logic you could say that 1/2 the people don't believe that people should own and drive cars if they aren't allowed to drive a 100 mph in a school zone...

I don't give a rat's ass about "private gun ownership"... I own guns...

BTW, there is a reason why we don't put loaded guns in the crib with the baby...

Get real... Lots of stuff can hurt other people and we regulate those things... Back to cars... Cars can kill people... That's why we have laws about how they are used and who owns them...

With your logic everyone should be able to drive anywhere they want in any manner they want...

Get real, man...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:01 PM

Once again, about half of all Mudcat posters reject the idea of private gun ownership.

They say the 2nd Amendment applies to a militia, hence you and I cannot own a gun as an individual.

Why do these people rattle off lists of needed gun laws and restriction?

They must first admit that Joe Public has the right to own a gun.

It's just common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:06 PM

Henry Krinkle -- All women have balls. They're just higher up.

(And Sarah Palin is an exceptionally poor example of "Woman" -- beauty queen with no brains to speak of. Not a lot of walkin' around smarts, either. Just my opinion.)

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:36 PM

BG!.... "All women have balls. They're just higher up."

Fookin PRICELESS LASS! Hahahahahaha! Love it!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:37 PM

PeeDee....Have you got one loose? "Militia" is used in the 2nd as is "bear arms" and "keep" and a few other words.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I said that for me, I have no desire to repeal the 2nd amendment but I think we can get by with restructuring what it means. I just had some other jackass tell me he needed his assault rifle for wild boar hunting. Now THERE is a real reason to make sure they are readily available!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:52 PM

My point was for those who insist that the 2nd Amendment does not allow for individual ownership of guns.

If someone does recognize the right to own a gun, then we can proceed to work on what constitutes "reasonable restrictions."

Those who think the 2nd Amendment applies only to a militia have no reason to suggest restrictions since they feel the right to private gun ownership does not exist.

I have now said the same thing three times. Is it clear yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:10 PM

Spaw - is that assault rifles or jackasses or wild boars that should be readily available?

Or all three?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Midchuck
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:13 PM

Summary from Wickipedia:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

Of course, a Court with more Justices appointed by a liberal administration could very well turn around on the issue.

Peter