Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ColDayMan

Gun Rights

Recommended Posts

Ever hear (or say) the phrase: "He made me so mad that if I had a gun right then, I could have killed him." This is why having more weapons is crazy. It enables heated arguments to more easily escalate into bloodshed before we have time to cool down and think. If America is becoming a land of shootouts between wackos who want blood and wackos who want to be heroes, I will seek refuge in a sane nation.

 

Very, very true. I don't trust the average person to act rationally when emotions start to fly. Otherwise cool and collected people fly off the handle (sometimes justifiably) when certain situations arise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quality personal narrative on guns in her life. For whatever it's worth she resides in Cincinnati and runs the KNOW Theater in OTR.

 

HOW A GUN-LOVING WEST TEXAS GIRL LEARNED TO FEAR ASSAULT WEAPONS

 

For every outraged indigence about "trampling" on the second amendment, with every word and breath, I am that young woman again, sitting in her truck in a parking lot, alone except for a 911 operator.

 

...

 

http://www.xojane.com/issues/on-black-holes-patience-and-what-i-know-to-be-true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banning assault weapons won't work.  Banning handguns won't work.  Spending more money on mental health won't work.  Assault weapons, handguns and mental patients have existed throughout our American history.  The problem today is the media.

 

The only way you will stop this is to take away the one thing these shooter's all crave:  fame. 

 

I think we should all get behind an Anonymity Law, in which the media is banned from publishing the perpetrator's names in these cases.  They should be sealed under a court order for 20 years, until the episode is but a distant memory in our collective minds.  Of course the families should be able to know the truth, but they'll have to accept this new reality as a way of preventing future copycat episodes.  Once the name is released in 20 years they can celebrate with closure, and knowing that they helped curb this dark period in American culture.

 

Even if this was possible under the First Amendment, do you honestly expect the name to remain anonymous?  All it will take is one leak.  The British and other nations' tabloids would pay top dollar for the information and then once they spread it over the web, it is fair game for all.

 

We could maybe discourage media from showing the name and face.... and hope they take a tact similar to how NFL broadcasts will turn the camera away from ruckuses after the play.... but an outright ban is not plausible.

 

Why can't we try and all of the above approach?  Assault weapons should be banned IMO and I would bet that would garner a lot of support.  Since automatic weapons are banned, an assault weapons ban would be consistent with the 2nd Amendment.  We should also increase liability on gun owners and be more restrictive in the ways they have to secure their weapons.  Taking some needed action won't eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting, but we can at least try to diminish that possibility, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banning assault weapons won't work.  Banning handguns won't work.  Spending more money on mental health won't work.  Assault weapons, handguns and mental patients have existed throughout our American history.  The problem today is the media.

 

The only way you will stop this is to take away the one thing these shooter's all crave:  fame. 

 

I think we should all get behind an Anonymity Law, in which the media is banned from publishing the perpetrator's names in these cases.  They should be sealed under a court order for 20 years, until the episode is but a distant memory in our collective minds.  Of course the families should be able to know the truth, but they'll have to accept this new reality as a way of preventing future copycat episodes.  Once the name is released in 20 years they can celebrate with closure, and knowing that they helped curb this dark period in American culture.

 

Even if this was possible under the First Amendment, do you honestly expect the name to remain anonymous?  All it will take is one leak.  The British and other nations' tabloids would pay top dollar for the information and then once they spread it over the web, it is fair game for all.

 

We could maybe discourage media from showing the name and face.... and hope they take a tact similar to how NFL broadcasts will turn the camera away from ruckuses after the play.... but an outright ban is not plausible.

 

Why can't we try and all of the above approach?  Assault weapons should be banned IMO and I would bet that would garner a lot of support.  Since automatic weapons are banned, an assault weapons ban would be consistent with the 2nd Amendment.  We should also increase liability on gun owners and be more restrictive in the ways they have to secure their weapons.  Taking some needed action won't eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting, but we can at least try to diminish that possibility, no?

 

Does it really trample their first amendment rights when the shooter is dead?  Don't we already seal cases when a victim's identity is to be guarded?

 

I'd push for stiff $$ fines for US based media.  They are the ones feeding the frenzy.  Sure the perp's name could get out via social media and foreign press, but without Nancy Grace and her fellow band of ratings addicts saying the name 24 hours a day it would certainly me more subdued.  With their fame in question would some of these freaks choose to go out in a blaze of glory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (Media); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (Media); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

Thanks or the amendment reprint and I understand the the concern.

 

But we would be forbidding them to mention a name of a dead person, not trample their right to a free press.  And this of course could be lifted after a set period of time, say 15 years.

 

How is this any different than forbidding the press to name a rape victim?  Or criminals under the age of 18?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dead guy has no rights.  He's dead.  The press has the right to unabridged free speech.  They don't 'release' the name of a rape victim or minor for a few reasons.  Most commonly, they don't have it because the names are redacted from any reports they recieve.  But when they do learn the name through confidential sources or otherwise, they often *choose* not to release the name for the same reasons why the law allows public agencies to withhold disclosure.  However, there is no penalty for releasing the names.  I've honestly never heard of a media wide gag order and can't imagine it would pass muster under any circumstances.  Would the families of the victims not be allowed to know who murdered their loved ones?  Would the gag order also apply to them?  Would it apply to every opinionated talk show host, gossip columnist, blogger, and tweeter?  Would there be a big unsealing event after the gag period expired and the media would then be allowed to bring the story back to life?  Doesn't sound realistic.

 

That said, I'm all in favor of encouraging the media to seriously consider the implications, good or bad, of giving the killer too much exposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1,500 kids die from guns every year. Some accidental some not. Were these 20 children more important than the 10,000's of thousands that have died by gun the past 2 decades? no.  They should have had harsher penalties for people who commit crimes with a gun. Banning guns will do nothing since a criminal will get their hands on a gun anyway. There are over 250,000,000 million guns in the US. So banning them would do nothing but leave innocent people even more vulnerable to criminals.

 

We need harsh sentences like the death penalty for crimes committed with a gun.  Of course they may resort to knives or bombs, but make harsh penalties for those too. Anything can be re-wrote or amended in the constitution. It just's takes balls and everyone working together to make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ There have been numerous studies that show harsher penalties for crimes do not deter crime. The effect of harsher penalties looks a little like this graph (this is just a random graph I found online, the information does not mean anything in this context and I'm just using it for the curve):

 

Timg51.gif

The x-axis is the severity of the punishment for a given crime, and the y-axis is the effectiveness of the punishment. You have a dimishing return on harsher penalties because of one or more of these factors:

 

1) People who commit these crimes are not right mentally

2) People don't think they will get caught

3) People don't know the punishments anyway, they are determined to do these crimes regardless of the punishment.

 

Harsher penalties will not solve problems like murder where these factors exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banning guns will do nothing since a criminal will get their hands on a gun anyway. There are over 250,000,000 million guns in the US. So banning them would do nothing but leave innocent people even more vulnerable to criminals.

 

I don't think we need to ban all guns, but the argument that "criminals don't obey the law" is not a good reason not to have a law in place.  Murder is illegal too.

 

My own opinion is that guns are inherently dangerous, and gun sales and ownership ought to be more strictly regulated.  Outright banning private ownership of all handguns would be ideal -- restrict gun ownership to law enforcement, national guard, and military, and allow shooting ranges to allow gun ownership onsite only, and permit low-capacity, non-magazine-ready shotguns for hunting.  But we don't live in my ideal world so let's discuss other options. 

 

Mandate that all gun sales go through licensed dealers (everyone gets a background check -- it only takes minutes with today's computer tech), require gun owner's insurance, regular training, tax gun ownership and ammunition, and ban automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines and clips -- those are all ideas that we should be discussing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Right-o.  After all, the word "REGULATED" appears right in the text of the Second Amendment.  For those arguing that no bans of any type will work...... shall we remove the ban on automatic weapons?  Shall we remove the ban on anti-aircraft missile silos?  I always wanted one of those in my backyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dead guy has no rights.  He's dead.  The press has the right to unabridged free speech.  They don't 'release' the name of a rape victim or minor for a few reasons.  Most commonly, they don't have it because the names are redacted from any reports they recieve.  But when they do learn the name through confidential sources or otherwise, they often *choose* not to release the name for the same reasons why the law allows public agencies to withhold disclosure.  However, there is no penalty for releasing the names.  I've honestly never heard of a media wide gag order and can't imagine it would pass muster under any circumstances.  Would the families of the victims not be allowed to know who murdered their loved ones?  Would the gag order also apply to them?  Would it apply to every opinionated talk show host, gossip columnist, blogger, and tweeter?  Would there be a big unsealing event after the gag period expired and the media would then be allowed to bring the story back to life?  Doesn't sound realistic.

 

The media as a whole has decided against covering suicide attempts and broadcasting suicides themselves in order to deter them. I'd say that's quite similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Television networks and radio stations are licensed by the FCC. Since they must be licensed to broadcast, the FCC can fine them and ultimately revoke their license for displaying content that the FCC has determined unacceptable such as swearing, nudity and extremely violent acts, especially before 10pm. The FCC could quickly and easily decide to fine or even revoke the license of a station that mentioned the name or used the image of a mass murderer once they have been taken into custody or in this case, died committing the act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that.  I think the limitations you refer to fall under the 'obscenity' exception to the First Amendment...... the "I know it when I see it" exception.  Besides, the FCC has no control over the internet (websites, blogs, twitter, facebook), so how would you deal with that issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Right-o.  After all, the word "REGULATED" appears right in the text of the Second Amendment.  For those arguing that no bans of any type will work...... shall we remove the ban on automatic weapons?  Shall we remove the ban on anti-aircraft missile silos?  I always wanted one of those in my backyard.

 

If one carefully reads the Second Amendment, it’s clear that the “well regulated militia” clause is justification for the right to keep and bear arms.  It’s not modification. 

 

One key phrase is “shall not be abridged”.  It is up to the courts to decide what constitutes abridgement. In the “Miller” decision of 1939, the district court (one step below the USSC) found the 1934 National Firearms Act  to be unconstitutional.    When the feds appealed to the USSC, Miller was not represented.  He had been killed, and his lawyer was not inclined to travel to DC without a client (this, of course, would not happen today). 

 

The rules are that the justices cannot consider any arguments not explicitly brought before them.  Therefore, even though a couple of them asked if Miller’s shotgun was of a type used by the military, they had to accept the government’s (incorrect) assertion,  that it was not,  as stipulated.

 

Another key phrase is “the people”.  Not “the states”.  The militia is considered to be formed by the people as a whole, not by the states or their governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that.  I think the limitations you refer to fall under the 'obscenity' exception to the First Amendment...... the "I know it when I see it" exception.  Besides, the FCC has no control over the internet (websites, blogs, twitter, facebook), so how would you deal with that issue?

 

You're probably right that you could never completely cover the identity of the shooter.  It would leak out via social media and other means.  But if the major networks were banned, or even voluntarily refrained from reporting the name, the copycats of the future would reconsider their final act.  I chalk this up to the "fame culture" we've spawned thanks to reality TV, obsession with celebrity etc.  But that is a discussion for a thread of it's own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys are giving too much credit to the influence of fame on the thinking/motivation of these individuals.  While I'm no psychologist, I tend to think that a significant portion of the motivation comes from the feeling of power they get (or think they'll get) by inflicting pain on others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one carefully reads the Second Amendment, its clear that the well regulated militia clause is justification for the right to keep and bear arms.  Its not modification. 

 

I never said it was a modification, but it is not superfluous either.  I don't agree with the reasoning of the majority opinion in the Heller case decided a few years back by SCOTUS.  The opinion fell along traditional party lines, with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy making up the majority.  Surprise, surprise.  There were some scathing and, in my humble blue-blood opinion, much better reasoned dissents.  I felt it was totally hypocritical how especially Scalia and Thomas broke from their 'strict intepretation' MO's and from long standing precedent to come to the conclusion they wanted.  They would argue otherwise, of course....... but somehow, someway, they always seem to pull off this feet whenever an issue the right wing lobby feels strongly about comes before them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one carefully reads the Second Amendment, it’s clear that the “well regulated militia” clause is justification for the right to keep and bear arms.  It’s not modification. 

 

I never said it was a modification, but it is not superfluous either.  I don't agree with the reasoning of the majority opinion in the Heller case decided a few years back by SCOTUS.  The opinion fell along traditional party lines, with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy making up the majority.  Surprise, surprise.  There were some scathing and, in my humble blue-blood opinion, much better reasoned dissents.  I felt it was totally hypocritical how especially Scalia and Thomas broke from their 'strict intepretation' MO's and from long standing precedent to come to the conclusion they wanted.  They would argue otherwise, of course....... but somehow, someway, they always seem to pull off this feet whenever an issue the right wing lobby feels strongly about comes before them.

 

The only case I know of that was really precedental was Miller, which was flawed because it was not actually argued.  Precedent, of course, does not trump the actual text of the law.

 

One area where I disagree with some of my colleagues on the right is judicial review, as I believe that it is completely right and proper that the Courts rule upon whether or not governmental actions violate the supreme law of the land.  Furthermore, I would submit this quote from one of my very favorite decisions, Barnette, where Justice Jackson wrote:

 

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections..”

 

By the way, Barnette not only overturned precedent, but very recent precedent in the Gobitis case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'flaw' you spot in Miller was really just a footnote, not the basis of that decision.  The reasoning of Miller was clear and it had nothing to do with the decisional process.  Miller was also affirmed by SCOTUS in the 1980 decision of Lewis v. United States.  Furthermore, while Miller and Lewis properly considered the implications of proposals rejected during the drafting of the 2nd Amendment (such as proposals which would have specifically restricted Congress' ability to regulate private use and ownership of weapons), Heller does not.

 

Regarding your take on the purpose of the Bill of Rights, I would say that is the purpose of a constitution as a whole.  It is intended to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority.  If not, we wouldn't even need a constitution and all of our rights would be defined through the democratic, statutory process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that.  I think the limitations you refer to fall under the 'obscenity' exception to the First Amendment...... the "I know it when I see it" exception.  Besides, the FCC has no control over the internet (websites, blogs, twitter, facebook), so how would you deal with that issue?

 

They would have to make what I said stated policy first and notify everyone involved -- I forgot to mention that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'flaw' you spot in Miller was really just a footnote, not the basis of that decision.  The reasoning of Miller was clear and it had nothing to do with the decisional process.  Miller was also affirmed by SCOTUS in the 1980 decision of Lewis v. United States.  Furthermore, while Miller and Lewis properly considered the implications of proposals rejected during the drafting of the 2nd Amendment (such as proposals which would have specifically restricted Congress' ability to regulate private use and ownership of weapons), Heller does not.

 

Regarding your take on the purpose of the Bill of Rights, I would say that is the purpose of a constitution as a whole.  It is intended to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority.  If not, we wouldn't even need a constitution and all of our rights would be defined through the democratic, statutory process.

 

Agree on the second part.  It was Justice Jackson who was specific about the Bill of Rights.

 

The flaw in Miller appears nowhere in the text or footnotes.  It was the very structure of the case.  The Court may not give official consideration to facts or interpretations not brought before it during the argument of that particular case.  For example, in one of the medical marijuana cases, Justice Thomas specifically stated that since the constitutionaly of the Controlled Substances Act had not been challenged in this case, it was not being upheld.  Even this was pushing the envelope of that rule, though it was illustrative of same.

 

The Court had no choice but to rule as it did in Miller, based upon what it had heard (and not heard).  Nor was it proper to point out the flaws in the defense.  But it was in a position analogous to a grand jury that hears no defense arguments.  It's incumbent upon a later Court to consider this when invoking stare decisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one carefully reads the Second Amendment, its clear that the well regulated militia clause is justification for the right to keep and bear arms.  Its not modification. 

 

I never said it was a modification, but it is not superfluous either.  I don't agree with the reasoning of the majority opinion in the Heller case decided a few years back by SCOTUS.  The opinion fell along traditional party lines, with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy making up the majority.  Surprise, surprise.  There were some scathing and, in my humble blue-blood opinion, much better reasoned dissents.

 

In other words, if you insist on seeing "party lines" in the Court, the dissents were closer to your party line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Unfortunately, especially on cases involving hot=topic issues like interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it is impossible to not see party lines.  You can pretend you don't, but your lying to yourself.  As far as the dissent being closer to my party line, I thought I made that clear in my "blue-blood" post.  But it still doesn't change the fact that Thomas, Scalia, and Alito used very loosely interpreted the 2nd Amendment contrary to their stated "principle" of strict interpretation.

 

^^The Miller Court DID address the merits of that case.  This BS about the decisional process is a load of mularkey (I have been waiting for the right time to use that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one carefully reads the Second Amendment, it’s clear that the “well regulated militia” clause is justification for the right to keep and bear arms.  It’s not modification. 

 

I never said it was a modification, but it is not superfluous either.  I don't agree with the reasoning of the majority opinion in the Heller case decided a few years back by SCOTUS.  The opinion fell along traditional party lines, with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy making up the majority.  Surprise, surprise.  There were some scathing and, in my humble blue-blood opinion, much better reasoned dissents.

 

In other words, if you insist on seeing "party lines" in the Court, the dissents were closer to your party line.

 

It's not even party lines, really.  There's a few Republicans from the more statist wing of the party that support gun control.  But there's even more Democrats that oppose it

Ted Strickland actually got the NRA's endorsement for governor.  Tim Ryan regularly gets As.  Harry Reid has usually been reliable as well.

 

More judicially, Laurence Tribe, the guy Obama (or Clinton) should have put on the Court, has evolved into the interpretation that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

 

http://www.saf.org/TribeUSA.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone watching this NRA press conference?  I don't even know where to begin...

 

Not even a peep about tightening gun laws.  A lot of discussion about mental illness, video games, increasing school security.  LaPierre's not wrong about those things, but he and his organization are in denial about the role that guns play in these massacres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...

 

The NRA wants armed volunteers to serve in schools... What if just one of these volunteers turns out to be completely nuts?

 

And of course, the NRA is not taking questions today. They are waiting until monday...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Unfortunately, especially on cases involving hot=topic issues like interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it is impossible to not see party lines.  You can pretend you don't, but your lying to yourself.  As far as the dissent being closer to my party line, I thought I made that clear in my "blue-blood" post.  But it still doesn't change the fact that Thomas, Scalia, and Alito used very loosely interpreted the 2nd Amendment contrary to their stated "principle" of strict interpretation.

 

I don't see that.  In fact, the reasoning was very simple to me and I was disappointed that the rulings were 5-4 instead of 9-0.

 

Every single instance of the word "people" in the Bill of Rights refers to individuals--the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, etc.  When a right is intended to be collective, it is reserved to "the States"--Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, and so on.  This applies in the main body of the Constitution as well.

 

Therefore, there is really no serious textual argument (originalist or contemporary) that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right (which basically means no right at all).

 

The D.C. and Chicago gun bans in Heller and McDonald were essentially total prohibitions on private handgun ownership.  The right to keep and bear arms may not be absolute, just as the rights of "the people" in the First and Fourth Amendments are not absolute--some speech restrictions are constitutional--but absolute prohibitions are absolutely prohibited.  There is a reason that gun rights advocates chose those battles.  They were the ones on which the government's case was the most hopeless, and the gun control lobby *still* got four votes on the Supreme Court.  So I suppose you are right ... it's impossible not to see party lines.  But that doesn't mean that one party line doesn't have constitutional principle and textual authority behind its positions, whereas the other simply has naked political desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That last sentence is "really something", Gramarye

***

Apparently, Wayne LaPierre is advocating volunteer armed guards in schools, and hopefully people of a higher caliber than George Zimmerman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That last sentence is "really something", Gramarye

 

Then ignore it and focus on the rest of the post.  Can you find a single mention of "people" in the Constitution (other than in the preamble, which establishes no rights) that does not refer to an individual right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I think that the NRA's argument that we should have armed guards in all our schools is the best thing they could have said to aid passing stricter gun control laws.  I've seldom heard an argument so tone-deaf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think they sort of knew that, which is why they kept quiet for so long after the shooting on their Web site, Facebook, and Twitter.  But they didn't wait long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm so what prevents someone from shooting at a school bus far away from the school? We can be that dumb just to protect schools when someone insane can just as easily target a school bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all this we hear about Chicago and it problems with shooting deaths (which is a very real problem for sure), it might raise a few eyebrows to know which states have the highest gun deaths per capita........Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, Alabama.  Gun laws are all comparatively lax in these states and household gun ownership rate ranges from 40% to 60%. 

 

Conversely, the states with the lowest rates are..... Hawaii, Massachussetts, Rhode Island, NJ, NY.  Gun laws are much more restrictive in these states and household gun ownership rate ranges from 10% to 20%.

 

Per capita deaths are anywhere from 3x to 10x more likely in the top 5 states as opposed to the bottom five states.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just bought my first gun at the age of 32.  I personally believe the gun rights of Americans will always be "pro gun" regardless of what pressure is put on the politicians that serve us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just bought my first gun at the age of 32.  I personally believe the gun rights of Americans will always be "pro gun" regardless of what pressure is put on the politicians that serve us.

 

I got mine a bit older, even though I was always a bit more "extreme" on this issue than most.  What it boils down to is a politician who doesn't trust the people to be armed shouldn't be trusted to govern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have yet to see the gun ban bill on which you all continually premise your argument.  We will never be able to have an adult conversation on this topic as long as that is the MO of those who are intent on making sure that conversation never takes place.  Fact is, there already are several lines which the 2nd Amendment does not reach...... automatic weapons, nuclear submarines, chemical weapons, etc.  These are lines which are continually re-examined as society evolves and technology changes.  If Sandy Hook is not reason to re-open the discussion, in a non "I'm rubber you're glue" fashion, then nothing ever will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that spirit I offer this. Shared on FB by my former roommate who liked to fiddle with his handgun while wasted.

564131_10151208782122939_645971273_n.jpg

 

I'll try and remember to save some absurd twitter comments from folks I follow that skew the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

December 26, 2012

TWO SCHOOLS: NEWTOWN AND TOULOUSE

Posted by Cecile Alduy

 

...Sylvie Kauffmann, the editorial director for Le Monde and their correspondent in Washington, D.C., and New York from 1993 to 2001, pointed out an underlying paradox here: “That a country so attached to its civil liberties is able to come together and accept significant restrictions to its individual rights to fight against terrorism in the wake of September 11th but is unable to limit the availability of firearms that kill their own children, that’s properly impossible to understand for Europeans.”

 

The French are hardly the only ones to be bewildered, as Evan Osnos reported from China. The United States’ cultural insularity is vividly captured by a simple fact: only two countries in the world consider gun possession a citizen’s basic right rather than a privilege. The other is Yemen. Even in this select class of two, there are an estimated eighty-eight guns for every hundred people in the United States, compared to fifty-five per person in Yemen, according to the Small Arms Survey. Between three and seven million illegal weapons are in circulation in France, according to police sources, or between five and ten for every hundred—a figure that shocked the French when it was released in the wake of the Toulouse shooting, but which pales in comparison to the more than two hundred seventy million firearms legally owned by American civilians. The United States has the glorious record of counting almost as many guns as people.

 

Seen from abroad, there’s a new American geography, one of places strung together by a narrative of terror. Littleton, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Oak Creek, Newtown: the names ring like a litany of preventable massacres—blots of blood on the map of a country more and more foreign to others in the depth and absurdity of its tragedy.

 

 

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/two-schools-newtown-and-toulouse.html#ixzz2GHHut1Pi


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone that's curious about what we probably should pass but never will, Sen Feinstein has released a summary of the bill she intends to introduce on the first day of the new congress. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119

 

I suppose a 'grandfather' clause for those already owning these guns is a must.  But I would wonder what happens to them when the owner dies.  Without seeing the precise language, it seems the ban on "transfer" would apply to inheritence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As grandfather clauses go, that's not much of one considers it still requires registration.  Also, it allows for grandfathered-in registration of guns, but apparently not magazines.

 

I'm both predicting and hoping that this goes nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As grandfather clauses go, that's not much of one considers it still requires registration.  Also, it allows for grandfathered-in registration of guns, but apparently not magazines.

 

I'm both predicting and hoping that this goes nowhere.

 

I'm pretty certain it's going nowhere.  I think Feinstein realizes this.  She's posturing for her constituency.

 

The 10 limit on the clip (a carryover from 1994) is particularly odious because it's artificially set below an industry norm.  It's like the time the EPA tried to define a large container as 50 gallons or more, when the standard drum is 55.  Or saying pop can't be sold in bottles greater than a half gallon when the 2L is the standard.

 

As for the NFA registration, any comprehensive list of who has what guns will be opposed.  Strenuously.  Both for reasons like we're seeing with the NYC area newspaper that just reaped a whirlwind, or for more sinister potential government aims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As grandfather clauses go, that's not much of one considers it still requires registration.  Also, it allows for grandfathered-in registration of guns, but apparently not magazines.

 

I'm both predicting and hoping that this goes nowhere.

 

I'm pretty certain it's going nowhere.  I think Feinstein realizes this.  She's posturing for her constituency.

My guess is that it's an opening shot to get the debate going and that everyone including Feinstein would be happy with a watered down version of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...