BS: Shooting tragedies and guns

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 03:32 PM

Wellll... back briefly... I got three emails and on PM in response to a PM I sent. Here is my response to two of them, FWIW

mmm... just to be clear. Are you saying, for the reasons given, another amendment cannot be made?

I would have to think carefully about the words to describe my intent, but, off the top of my head - Amendment 2a : Listen up. In the interests of all of youse, and in the name of common sense, anyone who wants to bear arms gotta take an arms saftety course and pass it and have a background check before you can bear arms or ammo. None a youse can bear arms a) if yer too stupid to pass the test b) if ya got a crimial record or warrants or restraining order(s) c) yer a nutbar d) if yer civil union partner says, "A gun? Fuck NO! That asshole would probably use it to rob a corner store to feed his crack habit." e) if you bought a Built Ford Tough F-150 four wheel drive and and then you found out it was a pussy machine and the fuckers at Ford give you a hard time when you try to get shit fixed during the warranty period.

I can't think of any others off the top of my head on accounta a lot of ideas slip off since I lost my hair.

MERRY HO HO!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 04:46 PM

From the Columbia Law School website:


New York, July 26, 2010—Most Americans believe the Second Amendment gives people the right to keep a gun at home, but they still favor limits on certain weapons, according to a new survey co-authored by Nathaniel Persily, the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law and Political Science.

"At a base level, Americans believe in the right to bear arms and own a gun," said Persily, who collaborated on the poll with Harvard University Professor Stephen Ansolabehere.

Persily, a leading constitutional scholar and political scientist, is also the Director of the Center for Law and Politics at Columbia Law School, and co-edited the book Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, which examined the effect court decisions have on public opinion.

Some 76 percent of the 1,027 persons surveyed online by Knowledge Networks oppose attempts to ban handgun ownership. Almost as many—72 percent—believe the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun, while 25 percent say the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" found in the amendment is confined to forming a militia.

"The Supreme Court's recent decisions confirming an individual's right to own a gun, while recognizing the constitutionality of some limits, has broad support among the American public," Persily said.

{continued at website}

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:02 PM

Well, in that case, if President Obama really wants to do something about the situation, what's to stop him from issuing an executive order, not to ban or control guns, but to hold a nationwide referendum asking

1). Should privately owned guns be subject to stricter control, YES or NO?
2). Should gun sale be restricted to gunshop premises where background checks can be made, YES or NO?
3). Should auto and semi auto weapons be banned from private ownership, YES or NO?
4). Should enlarged magazines be banned, YES or NO?
5). Should weapons owned by collectors be rendered permanently inactive, YES or NO?

It's hard to see how Congress or the Senate could ignore five resounding Yesses. After all, they want to be re-elected, while Obama doesn't have to worry about votes.

Anybody know whether this would be possible?......Not will he do it?, just could he do it?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:08 PM

Should people from other countries mind their own business?
Should Amerika mind its own business?
I think so.
=(:-( P)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:10 PM

A friend of mine said tonight that some of the posters on here sounded like a cruel parody of Mel Gibson in Braveheart.

You may kill our children, but you'll never take our guns!

Seems to be what some of you are implying.
It's an awful high price to pay for the right to bear arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:26 PM

""Should people from other countries mind their own business?
Should Amerika mind its own business?""

Should trolls stay under their friggin' bridge and mind their own business?
I think so.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:29 PM

Hmm, dateline on that Columbia Law School article is from almost 2 1/2 years ago. I wonder how people would respond today? No doubt there will be plenty of polling done and it'll be interesting to see where sentiments lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:29 PM

"Compassion is a far more powerful weapon than violence. Let us all become weapons of mass compassion" — Carlos Santana

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:29 PM

It's a fundamental tenet of US law that a right, once extended, can only be rescinded or limited if its free exercise denies others the free expression of a more fundamental right. Though the practice of chattel slavery was perfectly legal when the Constitution was framed, it was later determined that the right to own slaves was trumped by those slaves' more fundamental right of freedom.

Does the right to bear arms conflict with a more fundamental right? It depends on what arms we're talking about.

People have a right to feed themselves and to feel safe in their homes. For many, whether you or I agree or not, owning a gun for purposes of hunting food and personal protection is part and parcel of securing the fundamental right of life itself.

On the other hand, owning a firearm which is not likely to be used in securing a fundamental right cannot be considered a fundamental right itself. Most semi-automatic rifles in private ownership are used for non-hunting recreational purposes. Last time I checked, recreation is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution or by subsequent legislation. Life is. When the two come into conflict, even though it's a rare occurrence, Bubba's right to shoot an AK-47 at tree stumps gets trumped by his fellow citizens' right to life.

Of course there are plenty of gun owners who will contend that since an AK-47 can be used for hunting, they should have a right to own them. Well, if the government has a right to say you can't hunt moose with a .22 because you're more likely to wound the animal than kill it, it should have the right to say you can't have that AK because you're more likely to use it to shoot your neighbor than a deer.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:32 PM

There you go again, Lizzie.
The voice of sensibility.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:41 PM

The diameter of the slug fired from the Bushmaster was .223 inches, the slug fired from a 22 rifle is .220 (as far as I can tell) so there is very little diference.

Neither should be used in hunting deer, boar, similar large game animals.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:04 PM

Sorry, PeeDee, but the .223 is a standard military round, has a jacketed bullet, and is considerably more powerful than a standard .22 long rifle cartridge. They are nothing alike.

You're just displaying your ignorance, once again.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:15 PM

"Of course there are plenty of gun owners who will contend that since an AK-47 can be used for hunting, they should have a right to own them. Well, if the government has a right to say you can't hunt moose with a .22 because you're more likely to wound the animal than kill it, it should have the right to say you can't have that AK because you're more likely to use it to shoot your neighbor than a deer." ~ Bee-dubya-ell

Quite often, laws, rules and regulations are intended to educate people as to the right thing to do.

They are not always intended to punish the bad guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:39 PM

They are not always intended to punish the bad guy.

However, thay should also "punish the bad guy" in addition to their educational function, if such there is.

Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:40 PM

The .223 is a very accurate round. At a long distance.
I'd use one to hunt deer. I had a Ruger Mini 14.
A good gun.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 07:50 PM

Mister PDQ... I WILL "drag you into" the ongoing debate...by name.. when it is you who is carrying the banner for just accepting the status quo and letting such crucial issues be decided and influenced by outmoded concepts.
If you wish to just read from the sidelines, now that you have "said all that needed to be said", quit tossing in your 2 cents worth!

-----------------

Olddude said: "Let responsible well trained people have their guns but come up with a way of keeping them out of the hands of criminals and unstable people. "

You miss the point that almost anyone can be trained and **considered** responsible until they prove otherwise. Even those who cannot be, or are deranged, or criminals can steal weapons! This boy WAS refused the purchase of a rifle shortly before the shootings. "Oh, never mind, I know where my survivalist mother keeps hers!"

I of course, like the idea of closing the loopholes of gun shows and internet sales. But, Dan... what will you do about millions of assault weapons and handguns with large magazines already out there... many already IN the hands of criminals and the unstable!

I'm sorry, but what I see in the idea "...Let responsible well trained people have their guns but ..." is.. "Don't take MINE!".. and everyone who HAS those weapons will define themselves as 'responsible' and resist any changes.

If ONLY proven responsible folk who actually NEEDED them had guns, I would shrug... but reality is otherwise.... and even IF 75% of everyone agreed with ME, it would be very hard to implement any changes!

So... what are MY ideas? (since I am so loud about things?)

1) I would immediately reinstate the ban on sales and imports of assault weapons
2) I would require ALL privately owned such weapons to be turned in to National Guard armories, with a certain buy-back % of their value.. costly, but worth it) (I am not sure what I would recommend be done with the weapons... but armories can be breached.)
3) I would ban the sale of many types of ammunition... you can guess which types.
4) EVERY known possessor of ANY gun permit would be required to RE-register and be reevaluated... and like drivers, be re-checked every few years. ANY misstatement about number & types of weapons owned would be grounds for revocation of their permits and/or jail time!
5) ANYONE caught using an unregistered firearm, whether in a crime or not, would receive a LARGE fine and some jail time.
6) ANYONE who qualified to have a permit for certain firearms would be subject to random inspections to prove that they had current possession and proper safeguards.
7) I would promote and lobby ALL members of Congress to revisit the 2nd amendment and TRY to pass a reasonable version that addresses the stuff that the Founders could not have imagined.

......now, that's a set of ideas... which I shall send to my congressman & senators. Anyone feel like piggybacking on my ideas to YOUR representatives? I won't complain a bit!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM

I will add:
8)Any gun store which needs to deny a sale for any reason, must REPORT the attempted buy to authorities.

9)I would create a national database of owners, serial numbers of ALL guns and all those who use weapons in crimes... and perhaps more. This might be the easiest idea to pursue. Perhaps some of it already exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 07:59 PM

Henry,

The .223 (or 5.56 mm) is legal in my state but it is not allowed for deer hunting in some states.

If you are a good shot or get close enough, almost any gun will take down a deer.

My grandfather used a 25-20 made in about 1895, but that was a long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:00 PM

"Should people from other countries mind their own business?"

On an international forum? Dream on.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:01 PM

[Kendall]
Jack, I'm still waiting for that apology.

What fucking apology? You knowingly repeated a bunch tired and often-refuted NRA propaganda you had been shown to be bollocks a couple of hours before, making no effort whatever to check any of it.

You aren't just a liar, you have to rehash other people's lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:12 PM

Something important for your list, Bill:
Limit the amount of ammunition one can buy and legally posess.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:21 PM

And we should use the guillotine on all firearms offenders.
=(:-( o)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:31 PM

Seems the NRA has been unavailable for comment. Likewise with Republican supporters of the NRA. Wonder why that is?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:01 PM

The NRA is not stupid... they know when to lay low & hope things settle down.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:19 PM

Yeah. Real stalwart defenders of America's freedoms.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:22 PM

The last time there was BIG outcry... after the shooting of Gabby Giffords, the NRA did just that... refused to comment and answer questions while everyone bewailed the poor victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 09:55 PM

Well, surprise, surprise. FOX news has said its broadcasters/reporters will NOT discuss gun control in the wake of the Newtown murders. Another heroic news organization at work.

So, the first amendment ain't but the second amendment is? Gotta love them.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John P
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:06 PM

Kendal says, "John P my IQ is 140. whats yours?"

I don't know. I don't think it's pertinent to this discussion. Why do you? Is there any chance you could actually respond to the things I said, rather than trying to say you're smarter than me? When I posted a list of laws I would like to see, none of which exist yet, your response was to say they already exist. What's IQ got to do with it?

Everything I've seen you write previous to this discussion has made me think you're an intelligent and honorable person. Can you understand how frustrating it is to try to have a rational discussion on a topic, only to have you respond with really old and tired bumper-sticker slogans? "There's plenty of laws on the books, but criminals ignore them" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people". I believe you are really smart, but you don't seem to be bringing your brains to this discussion.

How about if you go back and read what I really said, and then really respond to it? Perhaps we could take my points one at a time. Let's start with the fact that a gun in the home is four times more likely to be used on a friend or family member than on an armed intruder. What do you think we should do about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:20 PM

Perhaps Fox is consulting the NRA about what to say... he said cynically.

------------------------------

Now, let me clarify what my draconian suggestions would NOT include.

If you were a farmer in Kansas who kept a .22 rifle to shoot vermin near your barn, you would likely have NO trouble getting your permit okayed.

If you were a rancher in Wyoming who sometimes needed and even more powerful rifle to deal with predators... it would probably be routine for YOU to submit forms and be approved.

If you live in the West Virginia mountains (as a friend on mine does)and often supplement your diet with venison, of course you may have the *necessary* firearms..(DO buy the permits)

If you collect antique firearms and have relevant permits... no problem.

If you are a licensed private investigator who sometimes encounters dangerous situations, and are sometimes threatened in the line of your work, it is 'likely' that you can keep your sidearms... if you have complied with all relevant laws.

A good proportion of hunters... who do not claim the need to 'hunt' with semi-auto AR-15s and such... are likely to be allowed to continue hunting... birds, deer, etc.... just refer to the rules 1-9.

I am NOT....yet... suggesting we deny those uses. I only assert that the definitions of 'need' as to firearms needs to be tightened a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: olddude
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:21 PM

damn near everything you said Bill is already on the books. If you try to buy a weapon and you are a convicted felon, yup the licensed dealer is required to report it ... other than the assault ban which we did have a few years ago there is little new in your suggestion. Why doesn't it work, well private sales are not required to have a BG check and the gun show loophole makes that a reality. Hence it is all negated. Like I said plug the hole in the dam and then the 27,000 laws will make sense that we already have

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: olddude
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:23 PM

ya can't ban bullets, guys like me make our own, melt down tire lead and reload or swag our own jacketed bullets. Guys who shoot a lot and I do, reload their own. even if you ban that, most people have the equipment and primers and power to last the next 20 years .. that won't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:56 PM

You CAN ban... or severely limit... commercially mass-produced ammo. And for many types, VERY few will be able to melt enuf lead and obtain the powder necessary to amass the huge stock some of these nuts collect.

10) (almost forgot) restrict easy access to casings and black powder

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 11:01 PM

It's me... I'm back because this is just sOOOO inane in many ways but very important (sue me). Sooooo, are youse keen to write Amendment 2a? I posted my proposal. Post yours. What would you write in the next amendment?

WE, the peeps, are pissed and we... ???

Is that an odd request?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 11:18 PM

Leave the guns alone. Combat mental illness.
If you're not from the U.S., worry about things in your own backyard.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 12:02 AM

The ignorance of some Mudcatters, like most Americans, about their own history, about the 2nd Amendment, and even about grammar, is discouraging.

First let's have the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment:


"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."

It shows, among other things, ignorance of grammar, to allege that belonging to a militia was not intended by the 2nd Amendment to be a requirement for bearing arms.


The obvious meaing of the Amendment is that "Since a well-regulated militia is essential to defend the US, there is to be no restriction on bearing arms."   That is; we need freedom to bear arms in order to serve in the militia which is to defend the US.

Yet again, at the time of the Bill of Rights there was a strong fear of a standing army;   the militia was to substitute. If you have only a citizen army a general is unlikely to be able to make himself dictator.

But we do need an armed force, ran the reasoning, in order to defend against British attempts, probably from Canada, to reverse the Revolution, and to defend our homes against Indian attacks--and probably, in the South, against slave uprisings.


So every able-bodied (white) man is to be armed and to be ready to be part of a militia at any time.    In fact, there is to be training for these men ("well-regulated")---which turned out to be a pathetic joke, as I've already noted in the thread.


Relying on a militia for national defense quickly proved to be a disaster--people like Washington already knew this--but it took quite a while for a standing army to be accepted.

However, at this point, unless you are still afraid of British invasion, Indian attacks. slave uprisings or a standing army, therefore, the 2nd Amendment has lost all usefulness.    It is in fact at this point a curse---since gun rights groups can and do always wrap themselves in the Constitution--- a tactic which cannot be used anywhere outside the US to turn back gun control efforts.

But knowing about the history is the first step to dealing with the 2nd Amendment and its defenders.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 12:15 AM

Trouble is Henry, You export your back yard to us.

Our kids pick up on your gangsta rap , wargame jargon, crime stories...

The USA is the dominant culture in the world, and as such it has responsibilities beyond its shores.

Lets be honest. Maybe you DO need to shrug and say, we love our freedoms and the price of it apparently is that now and then something terrible like this happens.

We ain't perfect. Sorry about that.

No more of this bursting into tears and hypocrisy. Its going to happen again in the new year and every year after that. It must be borne.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 02:16 AM

"If you're not from the U.S., worry about things in your own backyard."

The US is my backyard, Henry. Go fuck yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 02:58 AM

I agree with everyone who disagrees with how the media presents guns.
I've been in the military. I had a collection I sold off.
A gun should either be locked away or on a person's person.
Not left in a car or in a closet.
Just like in the military.
I enjoyed my AK47 and Ruger Mini 17.
Fun to empty out a clip.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 05:33 AM

Like clip, like brain, Hen.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 05:47 AM

SEMANTICS:

Incidentally, the word 'infringed' appears to be used in the 2nd Amendment in an odd, perhaps obsolete, sense. What, precisely, do all you upholders of the amendment take it to mean? The intended implication would appear to be that the right should not be disregarded, or contradicted, or set at nought; but in what sense does 'infringe' reference any such actions?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:14 AM

Bill D, you are right on with your ideas. Now, get them past congress. That is the REAL problem.

Jack, I quoted some old stats. Do you know the difference between lying and just being mistaken?
A liar is one who says something he knows to be false. I am not a liar! I admitted being mistaken.
By the way, I don't really expect an apology,pedants never apologize, they don't have to because they are never wrong.

John P, you called me a moron, that's why I brought up IQs.

Part of being a liberal is the willingness to allow others to have a different opinion. I believe I do that as a matter of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:56 AM

As BillD said in his original post,What we need is a grass roots campaign to get rid of all automatic weapons, and every congressman and Senator who is in the pocket of the National rifle assassination.

Does anyone not understand what I'm saying? I'm tired of being misunderstood.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:10 AM

Let us suppose for one moment that it may be possible to reduce and finally ban completely gun ownership by the public in the USA. Would it be enforcable, and if so, how would it be undertaken? Could there be, for example, a longish period of armistice, where folk hand in their weapons voluntarily; closure of all retail units which sell guns; then house searches, penalties and fines; ban on sales of bullets (or whatever one loads these things with); severe and swingeing sentences for shootings; Government campaigns on TV and the Press to win the hearts and minds of the people, and so on. But would the American people ever submit to this? Looking at this list, I can't see it being embraced by them much. In fact, it might provoke riots!

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:18 AM

""I would create a national database of owners, serial numbers of ALL guns and all those who use weapons in crimes... and perhaps more. This might be the easiest idea to pursue. Perhaps some of it already exists.""

Good idea Bill, and I would add to that compulsory test firing of every weapon sold, with cartridge and slug added to the database.

I imagine the cops would be overjoyed if they had an automatic means to find murderers by forensic checks on a slug.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:35 AM

Would either of the sensible posters like to answer my question re Obama issuing an executive order for a referendum, not on banning, but on genuinely effective tight control, which would be much more likely to elicit a positive reaction from a majority of voters.

Faced with a positive response, politicians would have to be very sure of themselves to ignore it, while Obama no longer needs to care about votes.

Does he have the authority to do any such thing?

Kendall, or Bill D, any thoughts on this?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Charmion
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 07:56 AM

Don, as a non-American who pays attention, I think I can help answer your question.

I'm not sure a national referendum, as such, is technically possible in the U.S. The United States is 50 sovereign states, a federal district and some territories, all flying in a formation that is not necessarily close, guided by the Executive Branch of the federal government and the Supreme Court in compliance with the Constitution. That's why they have an Electoral College; the national popular vote for the Presidency is tallied by state and it is the states' weight in the Electoral College that determines which candidate wins.

Canada is a federation of provinces under a Westminster-system parliament. We could do it -- in fact, we have done three national referenda, the most recent in 1992 over the proposed Charlottetown Accord -- because the federal government is the boss of us all. Australia and New Zealand -- ditto, with minor variations.

I believe the United Kingdom would actually have a hard time doing a binding national referendum. Technically, I think the vote would have to be conducted separately in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:01 AM

Bill asked for some new ideas. I only read the first 100 or so posts, so maybe this has been said before. Personally, I'd like to get rid of all the guns, but that's not going to happen any time soon. So, let's pay attention to something the gun supporters are saying, take on their 'people kill people' slogan and say maybe they are partially right, how you deal with the mental health issue is part of the problem. So I suggest you double the price of every bullet and gun and pass the additional revenue into a hypothecated budget for a national mental health fund. Oddly enough, I suspect the gun supporters are unlikely to think that's something they could support either.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:32 AM

They would not. They would see it as a threat, another "Foot in the door" thing.

No president has the power to change the constitution, and he has so many enemies he would be lucky to survive such an attempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 08:40 AM

Perhaps pass a law stating that gun ownership requires approval and training by the NRA. Let them charge each gun owner a substantial fee, about double the purchase price of the gun. Then allow individual or class-action lawsuits of negligence against the NRA for any crime using said approved gun in any illegal manner. Once a court of law determines that the gun was used illegally or a felon is convicted using said gun the burden of proof in defense falls on the NRA! This law would apply to the approved gun notwithstanding who uses it.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 09:05 AM

They would not. They would see it as a threat, another "Foot in the door" thing.


Precisely so, kendall. I'm not intending to tar all gun owner's with this brush, but there seems to be a substantial group whose argument can be summarised thus: It's not a gun issue ... so we won't do anything about that ... it's a mental health issue ... which we won't do anything about either.


Not a very encouraging stance.