General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoward Dean is right. This is the year that gunfuckery begins to end.
I was surfing TV. Came across the worst Indiana Jones film.
Note the logo. The MSM is fully in.
Gun culturists, the tipping point is here.
Hug your AR-15s and say bye-bye.
[img][/img]
BeyondGeography
(39,395 posts)Go figure.
villager
(26,001 posts)nt
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)In San Bernardino and Orlando the weapon was acquired to kill people.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I don't know how many fucking times it needs to be said.
What you think I NEED, affects my RIGHTS nary a whit.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)because this right is predicated on thousands of innocent deaths annually, needs are not.
Demit
(11,238 posts)As many times as you imply that your rights trump every other human value, that will need to be said to you. None of your rights is an absolute right. There are valid & rational & reasonable limitations.
As Tom Tomorrow pointed out in his cartoon today, there are two halves to the 2nd amendment. Not just the half that you like.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Seriously.
A few, we can count them on two hands and still hold a beer, have spoken out against guns in any meaningful way.
Sorry, this will just be another massive boost to sales. Nothing will change. Change is not coming and this election doesn't offer it.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)The piece that just got aired on 60 Minutes about smart guns shows just how far out the pro firearm side is. The contortions the lobbyist made to sound cogent was increadible. One second he is saying that smart weapons should "not" be sold. The next second when asked if it should be the market place that decides if smart guns should be sold he says "yes" the market place should decide...which is it yes or no...
Unbelievable.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And only mandate police must use them
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)New federal gun control laws aren't going to come true, no matter how much hopolophobes whine about it.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Cool story, bro.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Gun owners are just average people, the kind of folks who continue to mourn the victims of the Orlando attack. But "gun control" just won't be the answer, thankfully.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper
Classy huh?
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)Yup
scscholar
(2,902 posts)it shows why the US is so damn dangerous.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)uponit7771
(90,371 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Whatever your professors at the University of What Someone On The Internet Said School
of Law told you, a 8-0 Supreme Court decision is decisive:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
The Court has held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment. 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).
The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendments enactment. Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Hellers clear statement that the Second Amendment extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding. 554 U. S., at 582.
The court next asked whether stun guns are dangerous per se at common law and unusual, 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms, Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are unusual because they are a thoroughly modern invention. 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693694. By equating unusual with in common use at the time of the Second Amendments enactment, the courts second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.
Finally, the court used a contemporary lens and found nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military. 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. 554 U. S., at 624625.
For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Courts precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
I pointed out in another thread:
Even if President Clinton names two or three utterly anti-gun justices to the SC, that would still
leave it with six or seven justices that signed their names to the above...
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)No non-sworn civilian should own any device that is DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans efficiently
Crunchy Frog
(26,719 posts)Always nice to see the barely concealed gloating.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)That statement doesn't make sense.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)yet here we are - smack in the middle of a golden age for gun rights. I suspect you will be telling us that for a decade to come.
peace13
(11,076 posts)This 'us' you speak of. I would love to see the racial make up of that group!
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Human beings have been killing each other violently, savagely, and senselessly for centuries before guns were ever invented.
Guns make it easier to kill, no question. But anyone who thinks passing gun control laws will "stop the killing" is incredibly naive.
peace13
(11,076 posts)We have brought on our own misery by respecting one right over the others. Letting one group of people endanger and kill others is uncalled for. Have the guns but figure it out. It is the gun owner's obligation to work to solve this problem.
villager
(26,001 posts)uponit7771
(90,371 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)I don't support AWBs or registration. But that leaves a lot that can be done.
blue neen
(12,335 posts)"Gloomy age for avoiding death or injury from gunshots".
hack89
(39,171 posts)gun deaths have declined steadily for over 20 years.
As you were saying?
peace13
(11,076 posts)Holler it out to the gay community of Orlando. Maybe send a note to the church people in Atlanta. You sound like someone who would only understand if his own family were shot dead doing an activity that should be totally safe from massacre! People are trying to have you avoid the heartache. Pull your head out and take a breath!
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:44 AM - Edit history (1)
a serious question. If so - how do you plan to do it.
peace13
(11,076 posts)I expect that people should be allowed the safety to move around this country with the expectation that they won't be mowed down at any moment. Most murders are committed by people who know each other. That is a problem but not the one we're talking about!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I give you Caetano v. Massachusetts, published in March of this year
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
The Court has held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment. 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).
The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendments enactment. Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Hellers clear statement that the Second Amendment extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding. 554 U. S., at 582.
The court next asked whether stun guns are dangerous per se at common law and unusual, 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms, Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are unusual because they are a thoroughly modern invention. 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693694. By equating unusual with in common use at the time of the Second Amendments enactment, the courts second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.
Finally, the court used a contemporary lens and found nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military. 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. 554 U. S., at 624625.
For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Courts precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
I pointed out in another thread:
Even if President Clinton names two or three utterly anti-gun justices to the SC, that would still
leave it with six or seven justices that signed their names to the above...
blue neen
(12,335 posts)Many "unintentional" deaths are occurring among children. Are you okay with that? Many suicides could have been prevented if there wasn't a gun so very available. Tell the grieving families that the gun was more important than their loved one's life.
109,000 people are shot in this country every year. 35,000 will die. Of the ones who will survive, many will never be functional again.
"As you were saying?" Here's what I'm saying: I think the phrase "in the middle of a golden age for gun rights" is callous and hard-hearted and ludicrous.
You are correct about one thing, though. Guns do have more rights than human beings in this "age".
hack89
(39,171 posts)there are many more things we can do. I was just questioning the notion that gun violence has been increasing.
I have no problem, for example, setting up a system whereby mental health professionals report patients who are potentially dangers to themselves or others so their guns can be temporarily taken away. As long as it is not permanent and respects due process, such a system can save lives.
blue neen
(12,335 posts)"A 15-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself in Allegheny Township last week has died."
"Nicholas Ursiny, of Leechburg died at UPMC Presbyterian Hospital Sunday afternoon, according to the medical examiner."
"Police said Friday the shooting was an accident that occurred while Ursiny and his father, Patrick, were target shooting along Melwood Road. The gun went off while the teen was trying to reload it and a bullet struck him in the head."
http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/10661737-74/ursiny-accidentally-allegheny
This just happened. It occurred during that "harmless" and "relaxing" activity known as target shooting.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if you want to go down that road, why don't we rank them by the number of accidental deaths and start at the top of the list?
I introduced my kids to shooting sports when they were 12 - not a single accident. I was more nervous putting them behind the wheel of a car because that is what kills teenagers where I live.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)it is impossible to say that more guns reduced gun violence. All we can say is more guns did not increase gun violence.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)... before the ban vs after the ban... numbers are clear
hack89
(39,171 posts)handguns are still the preferred weapon for mass killers.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)uponit7771
(90,371 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)so why the focus only on rifles? What if you are wrong?
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)Clinton's statement might be questionable but this is not
What is an undeniable truth is that we have seen an incredible uptick of mass shootings since the ban expired on September 14, 2004. To be fair, it also is a small sample size, and 2012 was an exceptionally tragic year, but the fact remains that the number of shootings has gone up over 200 percent since the ban expired.
and this
So, was Clinton accurate? Have half of the nations mass shootings occurred since the Assault Weapons Ban expired? No, its more like a quarter.
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the-assault-weapons-ban-did-it-curtail-mass-shootings/
hack89
(39,171 posts)namely that during the AWB there was a significant increase in the sale of military style semi-automatic rifles. AR-15 sales peaked during the AWB. If you remember, the original AWB was a flawed law that focused on how many cosmetic features a rifle had. The manufacturers simply removed those features and continued selling rifles. And all the fuss over the AWB ensured that sales went through the roof. The best example is the rifle Adam Lanza used - it was not legally an assault weapon according to CT's strict AWB and would have been legal to buy during the original federal AWB.
So wouldn't you have expected an increase in mass shootings well before 2004 since rifle sales had skyrocketed since 1994?
And one other thing - the link presents no breakdown as to what weapons were used in these mass shootings. Can you show an increase in mass shootings using rifles since 2004?
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)... and people still bought the mass human killers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/data-point-to-drop-in-high-capacity-magazines-during-federal-gun-ban/2013/01/10/d56d3bb6-4b91-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html?tid=a_inl
Banning the magazines seemed more specific so it had a more specific effect...
hack89
(39,171 posts)handguns are the problem to be solved. They kill many more people than rifles by an order of magnitude.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)We should have learned by now that government is too compromised to take any meaningful action against the gun insanity. (Prove me wrong and make me happy.)
Want to do something about guns? Ostracize the gun people.
* Don't socialize with them.
* Don't hire them.
* Don't do business with them.
* Don't spend money in gun-insane states.
* Don't pass up opportunities to mock them for their irrationality, their corrupt politics, their fearfulness, and their indifference to bloodshed, and yes, their embrace of weapons as compensation for their inadequcies.
* And don't engage them in debate. Don't feed the trolls.
People should hang their heads in shame to have any connection to guns.
hack89
(39,171 posts)i don't think your shunning will work.
Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)Calling people names and then refusing to engage them in conversation doesn't make them the moron in the equation.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I bet you think hunters are evil monsters, too.
because this is what the "gun debate" really is about, "sophisticated" people in the big cities finding another reason to demonize us "dumb hicks".
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I don't carry a gun in public. I don't wear Hobo Kelly sunglasses. I don't wear black socks with birkenstocks nor do I carry a camera around my neck. I don't wear denim bib-overalls, straw hats, or cheap sunglasses.
I also have a nasty habit of not talking in public about what guns are in my locked gun case at home, or how many thousands of rounds of practice ammo I have on-hand.
How the fuck are you going to finger ME, the Operations Manager of a corporation, as one of "THEM"? You're NOT. You'd do business with me all fucking day long... ALL. FUCKING. DAY. LONG. Do I seem irrational to you? Do I seem fearful? What the FUCK do you know about what inadequacies I may or may not have? You don't. You. Do. not.
Mock me. Just don't engage me in a debate. You're not up to the task if your post says anything at all about how you think.
I own eight guns. Five are heirlooms; three I bought. Two 9mm pistols (one for me and one for my Wife), three .22s (one circa 1936 and one circa 1960 and one brand new), one .30-30 circa 1959, one .30-06 circa 1960, and a 20 gage pump shotgun. Four of the long guns have actually FED ME. How the fuck would you ever know they were in my house in a locked up cabinet? I'd certainly never tell you.
You be sure and avoid those "gun-insane" states now, ya hear? Some people "shun guns", others shun fools. Guess which one I am?
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Clinton? Nope.....
Senators? Nope....
Representatives? Nope...
The Gun Slaughter will continue...if kills 20 children did not stop it NOTHING will....
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)I'll be shooting and enjoying my guns years from now while you're still telling me "IT's COMING!".
Have fun promoting speculative gun purchasers in the mean time. The industry and the enthusiasts thank you.
flvegan
(64,426 posts)Fail? Yep, it's strong here.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Response to onehandle (Original post)
Downtown Hound This message was self-deleted by its author.