Jump to content

Hey, Gun Nuts, This Is On You!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I really wish that folks from Trump and on down the food chain stop calling these mass shooters sickos, or mentally ill.   Yes, I am here to tear apart the 'mentally ill' mass shooter straw man.

I don't know if it's your paranoia, if guns make you feel empowered or whatever other problem you have that compels you to go ballistic every time someone suggests sensible gun laws.  What I do k

I love how the US gun lover wants to have a reasoned rational debate on what other excuses can be used to ensure that their precious rights aren’t infringed whilst you murder each other in your local

Posted Images

18 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Dead kids are a plus to you assholes.

And this is what passes for "reasonable" discussion by the antifa-worshiping wing in here. Imagine!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Home schooled?

What, you think that nationwide door to door search will just happen with no lawsuits stopping it?

Nip it in the bud, remove a few more annoying amendments and you can have the police state the echo chamber in here dreams about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

There is no reasonable discussion with you bpm you've proven yourself a fucking moron. There is no reasonable discussion with Tom, Jeffreaux or the rest of the gunnuts on gun issues either. That's on you

I see. It is all _my_ fault because I don't support random bans on firearms that you can't/won't define. Imagine that.

Was the truck attack in France the fault of truck owners, too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Door to door? You could be one of those concealed carry types.

Strip search and cavity search. A back door cavity search. Probably want to let the dogs give y’all a once over as well. You can’t be too careful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swimsailor said:

Universal background checks, including online

Are you one of those people who still don't understand that firearms purchased online are not shipped to your door?

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No, you're probably right.  And that would be fine if the 2A had anything to do with hunting or target shooting.  Hint:  It has nothing to do with either.  

The 2A has run its part in history, time for a makeover. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bpm57 said:

Are you one of those people who still don't understand that firearms purchased online are not shipped to your door?

Are you one of those people who don’t understand that you can buy guns online?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

Door to door? You could be one of those concealed carry types.

Strip search and cavity search. A back door cavity search. Probably want to let the dogs give y’all a once over as well. You can’t be too careful.

Bad news, though - it is all houses, not just the ones who voted in a non-leftist approved manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

Are you one of those people who don’t understand that you can buy guns inline?

And it is shipped to an FFL, dimwit. Where you go and fill out all sorts of paperwork and get a background check. Imagine!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bpm57 said:

Are you one of those people who still don't understand that firearms purchased online are not shipped to your door?

That is not universally true either. There is no federal ban on private sales via online and usps if it remains within the same state. Across state lines, it must go through an FFL. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Olsonist said:
8 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Are you one of those people who still don't understand that firearms purchased online are not shipped to your door?

Are you one of those people who don’t understand that you can buy guns online?

@bpm57 - it looks like he answered your question in the affirmative, thereby proving he's an idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Bad news, though - it is all houses, not just the ones who voted in a non-leftist approved manner.

Yeah but with all your FFL paperwork history you’re already on the list for the black helicopters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

C&R permits are pretty easy and cheap to get and C&R can be shipped to your door.

If you live in a place that allows them - and you want to deal with BATFE procedures in your house.

C&R is just another type of FFL, and has restrictions on the firearms allowed..

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

@bpm57 - it looks like he answered your question in the affirmative.  

I’m not sure what the limit is, but I can buy 1000 cartridges of differing loads online and have them delivered anywhere as long as someone signs for them. 

That’s in the UK, before any confusion takes place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Yeah but with all your FFL paperwork history you’re already on the list for the black helicopters.

Sorry Olsonist, it is all for the good of the collective, your place will have to be searched as well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mad said:

I’m not sure what the limit is, but I can buy 1000 cartridges of differing loads online and have them delivered anywhere as long as someone signs for them. 

That’s in the UK, before any confusion takes place. 

We are talking about firearms, not ammo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

that would be the C&R I stated. I realize much of the appeal of guns to you is useless trivia and trading useless trivia with your gun nut buddys but none of this shit is really secret or complex or hard.

Then why act like it is some sort of overall refutation of what I said?

You might as well say FFLs can ship from door to door.

It clearly isn't what is being claimed by swim when he talks about buying "online".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

We are talking about firearms, not ammo.

My mistake, there are a few loopholes here as well with regards to ‘components’

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

image.png.5f9bb2becabffc43f617c03898e9f2fb.png

So? If I order a replacement firing pin for something I don't need an FFL transfer to do so.

Did you really not realize that there is a large amount of firearms related items that do not need a background check to buy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

easy solution. Ban them all. Then allow people to apply for a licence and permit on a needs basis.

no questions asked buyback for those already out there. 

Kids will soon hunt out all those unused and forgotten guns for you :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

image.png.5f9bb2becabffc43f617c03898e9f2fb.png

Just because I know most folks won't bother checking, the items under no FFL required are air guns and black powder guns. Both of those are currently exempt from federal FFL requirements for BCs. Here is the link:

https://www.swfa.com/firearms/no-ffl-required.html

Mind you that a black powder gun is still dangerous. I hunted with an inline and flintlock, so I am not saying that they are harmless. Also, air guns can be very powerful and dangerous as well. More powerful air guns are used for hunting game up to the size of wild hogs. Still they are single shot, time consuming to reload, and as stated previously exempt from BC requirements.

It would be illegal to buy any kind of modern firearm from a company without completing a BC check. One could do so legally in many states as long as it is a private sale and with both parties residing in the same state. 

With all that being said, I have not kept a running tally, but it seems that most of the highly publicized mass shooters did pass a BC, making all the other points moot. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Thanks, I forget that not being a gun enthusiast, I can get fooled by sales pitches and rhetoric. But the idea that you can't buy a gun online without an FFL is specious nonsense.

You are right, but it is not as common as some would suggest, nor is it impossible as others would. I do think that some expansion of BCs is possible both politically and constitutionally but I am also doubtful it will have much of an impact overall without further changes to how a BC approval is determined. I am again without an answer, but willing to entertain any offered.  

What I find deeply troubling is that someone can announce to the world via the Internet that they plan to kill people, and still pass a BC. If I so much as think about buying a boat, Google and FB are flooding my browser with boat ads. Yet, someone can plan an attack online with others and nobody raises a red flag. I have always been hesitant to hand over more of our privacy to the federal govt, but since that ship has already sailed,  I do think we should at least see some direct societal benefits from it. I don't know that it is any more viable than any other proposal, but it could be worth exploring. Sadly, with the number of mass shootings we have had, I would not be surprised if a fairly reliable algorithm for identifying future mass shooters could not be created with data readily available. That may be getting into creepy thought crimes territory, but I am really tired of seeing people die. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Troglodytarum said:

1EBNnUVtXoAAGSon__2__jpg-1043701.JPG

Traditionally, isn’t that what armory is for?  When the army or the people turn against the state?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Sorry Olsonist, it is all for the good of the collective, your place will have to be searched as well.

 

You’re entire philosophy is built on rate of fire, isn’t it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I would just like to point out that you DO NOT want laser guided nukes.  

But why don’t I believe you? When I was a kid, neighbors had M1 tanks, 50 caliber machine guns, bazookas, full automatic you name it, antipersonel mines, bombs, basically WW2 weaponry etc etc in their barns, hidden under bridge abutments, and in fallout shelters.  Some got arrested for it, like the guy who got drunk and was hunting deer with a fully operation M1 tank- when he thought the howitzer wasn’t doing the trick, he started with the 30 cal.  Mowed down a stand of birch trees. Little tufts of deer hair all over the place.  Hell of a racket.  We made a lot of nervous jokes about it.  FBI wasn’t too popular in town for a while. That’s when I was a kid! Imagine what’s out there now!  I can understand, I think, why you want to draw a line, but face it, there are guys out there who will just do it, and your pussyfooting agonizing over it won’t mean shit.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, your exactly right,  America has been a violent culture for a very long time....

I guess the question now could be, why are so many young Americans comfortable shooting up innocent people?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, random said:

Just spit it out Joe.

you watched us in our wars and you won't shut up about that or other stuff

I want to be the guy on the porch in your picture

after speaking my fill from the southern hemisphere.

 

I woke up wanting to have coffee on the porch with ya, look mom, no more fucks do I give

I am not that guy and neither are you

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm not completely disagreeing with you on this.  What does "get out in front of this" mean?  What does that look like to you and your elk?

You would start by acknowledging the problem, then you would seek remedies. You would research gun violence, with gusto, then act on the research results. You are not out of the batter's box yet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LenP said:

What I find deeply troubling is that someone can announce to the world via the Internet that they plan to kill people, and still pass a BC. If I so much as think about buying a boat, Google and FB are flooding my browser with boat ads. Yet, someone can plan an attack online with others and nobody raises a red flag. I have always been hesitant to hand over more of our privacy to the federal govt, but since that ship has already sailed,  I do think we should at least see some direct societal benefits from it. I don't know that it is any more viable than any other proposal, but it could be worth exploring. Sadly, with the number of mass shootings we have had, I would not be surprised if a fairly reliable algorithm for identifying future mass shooters could not be created with data readily available. That may be getting into creepy thought crimes territory, but I am really tired of seeing people die. 

I agree with you 1009% on this.  But every time I've brought this up here in the past, and I have brought it up a LOT - the answer always is "FUCK YOU, 1st Amendment".  Which tells me that people who are fine with repealing the 2nd in the name of saving lives are also perfectly fine with people dying as long as they get to keep their own "precious" (speech and privacy).  They want they to have their cake and eat it too.  The reality is they can't have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I agree with you 1009% on this.  But every time I've brought this up here in the past, and I have brought it up a LOT - the answer always is "FUCK YOU, 1st Amendment".  Which tells me that people who are fine with repealing the 2nd in the name of saving lives are also perfectly fine with people dying as long as they get to keep their own "precious" (speech and privacy).  They want they to have their cake and eat it too.  The reality is they can't have it both ways.

It's not either/or, this is a matter which will evolve. And I am presenting no silver bullet, of course.

But Shootist Baby, you and Boothy could someday be identified as violence-prone, and as vigilante-prone. This could be fixed, even in later stages, by conditioning.  I suggest a remedial class setting, in group settings like the AA. The results could be monitored by screening, and would hopefully be followed by new skilz: mature gun ownership.

 

(I can see it all now...Hi, my name is Shootist Jeff, and I am not a vigilante no more…)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LenP said:

someone can plan an attack online with others and nobody raises a red flag.

Not what happened.

Quote

 

The document was deleted from one of 8chan's forums after the shooting began, but forum users archived the post, which contained a link to a PDF version.

The first reply to the posting was “Hello FBI.”

An initial attempt to upload the document occurred at 10:15 a.m., but was unsuccessful. The document was then uploaded a few minutes later. At 10:39 the first emergency calls reached 911.

Law enforcement was already analyzing the document before the mass shooting began and had connected it to a person, but the writing didn't name a target, time, place or use the suspect's name.

 

The policies on this site about outing people might have to go.

The thing about that is,

Quote

Canceling web venues where some users are awful will shut down social media as we know it really quickly.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Not what happened.

The policies on this site about outing people might have to go.

The thing about that is,

 

Not saying that the El Paso shooter did, but that someone could. I am also not saying anything about shutting down sites nor am I suggesting banning the pseudo anonymity which exists today on many sites. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I agree with you 1009% on this.  But every time I've brought this up here in the past, and I have brought it up a LOT - the answer always is "FUCK YOU, 1st Amendment".  Which tells me that people who are fine with repealing the 2nd in the name of saving lives are also perfectly fine with people dying as long as they get to keep their own "precious" (speech and privacy).  They want they to have their cake and eat it too.  The reality is they can't have it both ways.

Aren’t there reasonable and similar restrictions on speech already in place? Yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre for example.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Canceling web venues where some users are awful will shut down social media as we know it really quickly.

Good.  Good riddance!  It might mean people have to actually talk to each other in person again.  Kids might have to actually go outdoors again and play in the sunshine instead of getting obese on cheetos while playing COD.  

Its a win / win for everyone, as long as the little shits stay the fuck off my lawn!  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, phillysailor said:
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I agree with you 1009% on this.  But every time I've brought this up here in the past, and I have brought it up a LOT - the answer always is "FUCK YOU, 1st Amendment".  Which tells me that people who are fine with repealing the 2nd in the name of saving lives are also perfectly fine with people dying as long as they get to keep their own "precious" (speech and privacy).  They want they to have their cake and eat it too.  The reality is they can't have it both ways.

Aren’t there reasonable and similar restrictions on speech already in place? Yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre for example.

I dunno, lets see:

  1. Do you have to get a background check to exercise your right to speak? 
  2. Do you have to wait 3 days before you're allowed to criticize trump? 
  3. If you have an RO placed on you by a judge, do you lose your right to speak?
  4. Do you have to go to a licensed Speech dealer and pay $25 on each visit in order to be able to have an exchange of ideas with another person?  
  5. Are you required to have training before you are allowed to speak?
  6. Are you required to get a license by the gov't in order to speak?
  7. Are people demanding that you buy insurance against your misuse of that speech?
  8. Are you required to get a license in order to speak outside your home?
  9. Are there some places such as gov't buildings, restaurants, bars, etc that you are not allowed to bring your speech inside?  
  10. Do you have to fill out a form every time you exercise your speech that is kept on record in a Federal warehouse?
  11. Do you have to pay a $200 dollar tax and wait a year every time you want to be able to speak really fast?
  12. Do you have to pay a $200 dollar tax and wait a year every time you want to be able to speak really really softly?

If the answer to any of these is NO.... then gunz are far more highly regulated that speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have to be a well regulated militia to justify your right to speak?  Oh, that's right, we ignore that part as we know that 2-A is never what was intended whereas 1-A is exactly as they intended.  

Jeff, you are a Trump-lovin idiot.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, since NOTHING has been done, and the Republicans' have done ZERO to do anything about the so-called mental health crisis and NOTHING has changed, how about we do SOMETHING?  The most frustrating part in all of this is one, NO REPUBLICANS are even willing to admit that Trump's rhetoric is the cause of at least some of these shootings and two, we continue to collectively shrug our shoulders.  I'm sick of it. And you know why people here end up telling the right wingers to go fuck themselves?  Because since you aren't doing a damn thing to actually address the issues, you might as well do something with your time and go fuck yourself.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

So, since NOTHING has been done, and the Republicans' have done ZERO to do anything about the so-called mental health crisis and NOTHING has changed, how about we do SOMETHING?  The most frustrating part in all of this is one, NO REPUBLICANS are even willing to admit that Trump's rhetoric is the cause of at least some of these shootings and two, we continue to collectively shrug our shoulders.  I'm sick of it. And you know why people here end up telling the right wingers to go fuck themselves?  Because since you aren't doing a damn thing to actually address the issues, you might as well do something with your time and go fuck yourself.  

Ok.... let me be the first to say:  "Trump's rhetoric is the cause of at least some of these shootings"

And I'm sorry, I'm as frustrated and sick about this as you are.  But I don't believe in doing something for the sake of being seen to just do "something".  That's BS. 

And I have long advocated for many fixes here that I strongly believe would actually be effective in addressing these killings.  Far more effective than banning toolz.  But they are hard and require a lot of political courage out of both sides of the duopoly.  Which is why its not happening.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish that folks from Trump and on down the food chain stop calling these mass shooters sickos, or mentally ill.   Yes, I am here to tear apart the 'mentally ill' mass shooter straw man.

First of all, 25% of mass shooters have a diagnosable mental illness.  That leaves 75% that are apprently 'normal'.  In addition, a dignosable mental illness can be anything from a personality disorder to full blown pychosis.  I am willing to wager that every mass shooter in the last 20 years knew the difference between right and wrong and knew who they were, where they were and what the current date was.  

The other day Trump labled the recent and other mass shooters as sick.  Well that's a pretty vague term.  I am pretty sure he was implying that they are/were mentally ill.  First off, that does a diservice to mentally ill people of all kinds.  A prediposition to violent behavior is not a common feature in most mental illnesses.  Many, many people in the US and the world have some form of mental illness, a large number of them live with it, some due to medication ands or other therapy, some because the impairment is not so terrible, many suffer in silence.  Using the label 'sick' is the same as calling all Mexicans criminals and all Muslims terrorists.  It is empty, bigoted, inflammatory rhetoric that doesn't help anything.

Now I will agree with some posters here that probably most mass shooters have some degree of sociopathy.  Sociopaths tend to follow their own rigid rules, and have little empathy for others.  One would have to believe that a distinct lack of empathy for others is required to carry out sustained shooting of random strangers, men, women and children. 

So let's not let sociopaths have access to guns.  Well how the hell are we going to do that.  Sociopaths are among us everywhere.   Sociopaths are usually excellent liars and extremely charming.  Sociopaths are good at hiding their inner thoughts and feelings, and many of them do just fine in their life.  It would be easier to repeal the 2nd Amendment than it would be to identify the sociopaths that are capapble of carrying out mass shootings, since most sociopaths don't do such things anyway.  

It is time to stop blaming mass shootings on mentally ill people.  As Len P pointed out, it is already hard enough to get people with mental health issues to seek treatment, being labled as 'sick' in that special tone of voice that isn't used when describing cancer or even the common cold doesn't help.  Insurance comapnies hate to pay for mental health treatment because mental illnesses are so common.  Thanks to the Republican diety, saint Reagan, the state has washed its hands of caring for the seriously mentally ill.  So these people carry on, try to live some kind of life in spite of being stigmatized and treated terribly by almost everybody.  And they rarely go on shooting rampages.  

Anybody that thinks the US doesn't have a serious gun violence problem is seriously delusional.  The gun problem/fixation/fetish/worship in the US will take generations to cure.  The only answer is to make a serious attempt at repealing the 2A as the first step, because thoughts and prayers just aren't geting the job done.  To Jeff and others that scoff at this idea, with every new shooting the possibility of at least starting the process grows.  Nobody even seriously thought of such an action 20 years ago, today it is at least being talked about.  

BLUF:  Most mass shootings are not a mental health problem.  People with mental health issues are being further stigmatized.  It will take years to resolve the gun violence problem in the US.  The US needs to take a serious look at repealing or at least severely restricting the 2A.  We can continue on the current course, which is essentially shaking our heads and wringing our hands while innocent people needlessly die.  If we do that then the problem will become another 'us vs. them' issue and it can easily get out of hand, some kind of civil war being the most extreme result.   That scenario is unlikely but pretending a huge problem isn't so big and doing little or nothing never ends well.  It would be nice for the country to get its shit together for once and try to resolve this thorny problem in a rational way, instead of it boiling over and causing all kinds of mayhem.   It has been over 100 years since slavery ended in the US and black people are still far behind the curve.   The gun violence problem is going to take at least that long to iron out unless we all kill each other first.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

So some guy is going around chopping down all the trees and everyone is wondering why is he doing this? what is going on? How should we address this? Is he mentally ill? Does he just hate trees? Why? Does he hate all trees? Let's do a study to see which trees he is cutting down.

Meanwhile another guy takes away his axe.

The End

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Huckabee: Thoughts And Prayers Are ‘Only Thing’ That Will Stop Mass Shootings,

WTF is he smoking, or snorting?

If guns don't kill people , but people kill people ,then take the guns away for people who want to kill, which is any one with a gun,

I'm for the 2nd Amendment , every house should have a Musket

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swimsailor said:

So, since NOTHING has been done, and the Republicans' have done ZERO to do anything about the so-called mental health crisis and NOTHING has changed, how about we do SOMETHING?  The most frustrating part in all of this is one, NO REPUBLICANS are even willing to admit that Trump's rhetoric is the cause of at least some of these shootings and two, we continue to collectively shrug our shoulders.  I'm sick of it. And you know why people here end up telling the right wingers to go fuck themselves?  Because since you aren't doing a damn thing to actually address the issues, you might as well do something with your time and go fuck yourself.  

So what did the Dems do when they were the majority?  Not a damn thing.  But now you want to piss and moan?   I am so sick of you assholes.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

So what did the Dems do when they were the majority?  Not a damn thing.  But now you want to piss and moan?   I am so sick of you assholes.

Come with some facts before you start mouthing off.  You ever heard of a filibuster?  Here's some interesting info.  Feel free to fact check and then go fuck yourself. 

http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its not a BLUF if you put it last.  Just saying......

I knew some pedant would catch that.  Especially a military one.  

If you got that far and that was your only crticism, then I am glad you agree with the other things I said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

I'm just reporting what I see. The expert can be found over here.

 

Here is Tom's link, and Tom's brain. It gets stuck on race-baiting, on many a morning. See the fine anarchists become rapt observers.

On 7/30/2019 at 2:06 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

Why is fame better when salty?

(Joe, having observed five years of dogballs-style race-baiting:)

Hi dogballs. Do you race-bait around with the junior sailors, down there in FL?

Race-baiting has found a national discussion. Hmmm, we find you on the same page as cheetoh face.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

I'm just reporting what I see. The expert can be found over here.

You are being a prick, and your perverted values enjoy that. Let's play this game for a few more years.

NOW HEAR THIS. This is my position on racial matters. This man speaks for me, fully, and completely. (Thanks to @B.J.Porter & Sean)

https://youtu.be/QKiB0APdxTo

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we keep saying that many of you on the right can't provide any reasonable thoughts of your own and resort to memes.  

So rather than taking up the challenge, you post a meme.  

You may not be 12, but your mental age hovers around 6.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

So we keep saying that many of you on the right can't provide any reasonable thoughts of your own and resort to memes.  

So rather than taking up the challenge, you post a meme.  

You may not be 12, but your mental age hovers around 6.  

You're just out of touch with kids these days.

It happens to everyone eventually, don't feel too bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I dunno, lets see:

  1. Do you have to get a background check to exercise your right to speak? 
  2. Do you have to wait 3 days before you're allowed to criticize trump? 
  3. If you have an RO placed on you by a judge, do you lose your right to speak?
  4. Do you have to go to a licensed Speech dealer and pay $25 on each visit in order to be able to have an exchange of ideas with another person?  
  5. Are you required to have training before you are allowed to speak?
  6. Are you required to get a license by the gov't in order to speak?
  7. Are people demanding that you buy insurance against your misuse of that speech?
  8. Are you required to get a license in order to speak outside your home?
  9. Are there some places such as gov't buildings, restaurants, bars, etc that you are not allowed to bring your speech inside?  
  10. Do you have to fill out a form every time you exercise your speech that is kept on record in a Federal warehouse?
  11. Do you have to pay a $200 dollar tax and wait a year every time you want to be able to speak really fast?
  12. Do you have to pay a $200 dollar tax and wait a year every time you want to be able to speak really really softly?

If the answer to any of these is NO.... then gunz are far more highly regulated that speech.

You didn’t pay much attention to what I was responding to.

Your previous post, to which I was replying, was AGREEING with LenP’s post (quoted below) “1009 percent” regarding online discussions which trended toward violent speech.

So I made the point that there are already limits on free speech, making the point that precedent exists for threatening speech being labeled illegal and subject to penalty.

At which point you went on a rant about gun owners are so persecuted by regulations. 

Chill out, dude. You’re coming across as very excitable and incapable of intelligent debate.

On 8/5/2019 at 8:45 PM, LenP said:

You are right, but it is not as common as some would suggest, nor is it impossible as others would. I do think that some expansion of BCs is possible both politically and constitutionally but I am also doubtful it will have much of an impact overall without further changes to how a BC approval is determined. I am again without an answer, but willing to entertain any offered.  

What I find deeply troubling is that someone can announce to the world via the Internet that they plan to kill people, and still pass a BC. If I so much as think about buying a boat, Google and FB are flooding my browser with boat ads. Yet, someone can plan an attack online with others and nobody raises a red flag. I have always been hesitant to hand over more of our privacy to the federal govt, but since that ship has already sailed,  I do think we should at least see some direct societal benefits from it. I don't know that it is any more viable than any other proposal, but it could be worth exploring. Sadly, with the number of mass shootings we have had, I would not be surprised if a fairly reliable algorithm for identifying future mass shooters could not be created with data readily available. That may be getting into creepy thought crimes territory, but I am really tired of seeing people die. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/07/28/judge-strikes-down-penalties-for-local-governments-that-pass-gun-control-laws/

A Tallahassee judge has struck down the $5,000 fine that Florida mayors and city council members face if they try to enact municipal gun-control rules, ruling the unique penalty goes too far in stamping out defiance of state checks against local regulations.

Judge Charles Dodson also declared unconstitutional a provision of the 2011 law that allows Florida’s governor to remove local officials for going too far on the gun-control front.

You read that right.  There is a law on the Florida books that fines or allows for the removal from office any official "for going too far on the gun-control front."

“It gives cities the ability to pass legislation that tests the boundaries of preemption, without fear of being thrown out of office or penalized,” said Jamie Cole, the Weiss Serota lawyer from Miami representing Weston and 19 other cities in the suit against Florida.

Sean Caranna, a board member of the gun-rights group Florida Carry, said he was confident the fine would be restored by a higher court, since it makes sense to link penalties to illegal conduct. “It’s the same reason you have a monetary value attached to a speeding ticket,” he said. “It discourages people from violating the law.”

But the Florida AG, the same one who is trying to stop a signature drive to ban assault weapons, is having none of this recent ruling.  She's working to overturn the judge's ruling.

Florida will appeal a circuit judge’s ruling that struck down a state law threatening tough penalties for local officials and governments that approve gun regulations.

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/07/31/floridas-attorney-general-appeals-pro-gun-control-ruling/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jules said:

You read that right.  There is a law on the Florida books that fines or allows for the removal from office any official "for going too far on the gun-control front."

Florida has preemption for firearms laws. 

If you are unaware of what that means, it means the state government sets the firearm laws for the whole state.

Therefore, by definition, local municipalities do not get to add their own gun laws. They are breaking state law when they do so.

The judge in that case made sure local gov'ts continue to ignore state law.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jules

Since you started this dumb thread that no one here needed to rehash, and everyone knows ultimately results in hassles for gun owners with little or no inconvenience to the bad guys, please define "gun nuts." Am curious whether you're another knee jerk lefty or have you put any real thought in this. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

Actually it is on liberals and their failed social engineering and social dysfunction of the past 50 years 

Uh huh

When was the last time your river caught fire? That's a good example of "liberal social dysfunction."

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jules said:

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/07/28/judge-strikes-down-penalties-for-local-governments-that-pass-gun-control-laws/

A Tallahassee judge has struck down the $5,000 fine that Florida mayors and city council members face if they try to enact municipal gun-control rules, ruling the unique penalty goes too far in stamping out defiance of state checks against local regulations.

Judge Charles Dodson also declared unconstitutional a provision of the 2011 law that allows Florida’s governor to remove local officials for going too far on the gun-control front.

You read that right.  There is a law on the Florida books that fines or allows for the removal from office any official "for going too far on the gun-control front."

“It gives cities the ability to pass legislation that tests the boundaries of preemption, without fear of being thrown out of office or penalized,” said Jamie Cole, the Weiss Serota lawyer from Miami representing Weston and 19 other cities in the suit against Florida.

Sean Caranna, a board member of the gun-rights group Florida Carry, said he was confident the fine would be restored by a higher court, since it makes sense to link penalties to illegal conduct. “It’s the same reason you have a monetary value attached to a speeding ticket,” he said. “It discourages people from violating the law.”

But the Florida AG, the same one who is trying to stop a signature drive to ban assault weapons, is having none of this recent ruling.  She's working to overturn the judge's ruling.

Florida will appeal a circuit judge’s ruling that struck down a state law threatening tough penalties for local officials and governments that approve gun regulations.

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/07/31/floridas-attorney-general-appeals-pro-gun-control-ruling/

The Florida Legislature will enact whatever they are paid to enact. When Marion Hammer says “Jump!” They ask “How high?” It is an exceptionally cost effective whorehouse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 12:17 PM, LenP said:

You need to repeal the 2nd amendment to do all those things, otherwise it will be tied up in court with almost all of the laws teeth eventually knocked out by the SC. 

I didn't see much in that post that required any changes to any laws. 

Maybe I misunderstood, but I read it as being all about gun-owner "culture".

On 8/5/2019 at 10:47 AM, badlatitude said:

When I first started posting on this forum, I was drawn out to explain my position on guns. What I wrote, I used to stand by; I no longer claim it is a workable idea. I believed that we should start over, eliminate all of our poorly thought-out laws, and rewrite by convention, a set of laws that would work nationally. I thought it was a good idea, but we have moved past any chance of an agreement.

Eliminating the Second Amendment is a fools' errand. The Founders put it there for a reason and more than anything else, I think we should respect that. We should be concentrating on the elements that, at one time, made gun ownership respectable. The NRA is the single most damaging entity to gun ownership in this country. It has divided, it has created anger, even hate, it has promulgated additions to weapons that are destroying us from within, it has stomped on laws it didn't like, and it has pressured lawmakers from doing anything about it.

We need to restore respectability, education, and responsibility to gun ownership, You start by writing laws that require strong background checks which involve social media. You involve mental health professionals, to weed out people who should not own guns, and you educate, you get people in training programs where proper storage, handling, and use of firearms are stressed. You find responsible gun owners to supervise those programs so that lessons are learned and hard-learned lessons are transferred to new owners.

Last, we need to buy back all assault weapons, and high-capacity magazines. It will be a hard sell, but those tools have caused the greatest damage to our American reputation and self-respect. We also need to break the idea that a militia will save America. That time has passed. The thought of old fogies traipsing through the woods thinking they are doing good, have not seen what a laser-guided smart bomb will do to them.

Once we knock the crazies out of gun ownership, we just may be able to hold our heads high again. Tom will be by soon to criticize and add his folksy humor and worn-out library of previous statements, don't listen to him, his time has passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 10:47 AM, badlatitude said:

Eliminating the Second Amendment is a fools' errand.

It's really just for wealthy fools.

On 4/7/2018 at 9:08 PM, badlatitude said:

There is nothing I can do now but support a full Second Amendment extermination, which I will do with huge endowments. Money talks.

 

On 8/5/2019 at 10:47 AM, badlatitude said:

You involve mental health professionals, to weed out people who should not own guns,

The problem is, they're terrible at it.

Quote

The idea that mental health professionals can accurately predict which seemingly harmless people will turn violent has no basis in fact. "Over thirty years of commentary, judicial opinion, and scientific review argue that predictions of danger lack scientific rigor," notes University of Georgia law professor Alexander Scherr in a 2003 Hastings Law Journal article. "The sharpest critique finds that mental health professionals perform no better than chance at predicting violence, and perhaps perform even worse."

 

On 8/5/2019 at 10:47 AM, badlatitude said:

Last, we need to buy back all assault weapons, and high-capacity magazines. It will be a hard sell, but those tools have caused the greatest damage to our American reputation and self-respect.

So the friend to whom you sold your ammosexual overcompensator should not be allowed to own it?

I'm fine with the government buying back all the guns I have bought from them.

"High" capacity means more than 5 rounds to the US citizens in Puerto Rico and means 7 rounds to grabbers in my state. What does it mean to you?

"Assault" weapons means plinking pistols in the censored caliber to DiFi and the Presidential Contenders. What does it mean to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing for sure, the gun lobby will milk this for all they can.  "They are going to take your guns away!!!"  The believers will run out and buy more guns.  The gun manufacturers will profit.  The gun lobby will get a cut of that. 

Every reasonable person knows America will never take away the citizen's right to own a gun.  That's the hysteria the gun lobby spins because it works.  The fact is this is about money.  Always has been.  Always will be.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jules said:

One thing for sure, the gun lobby will milk this for all they can.  "They are going to take your guns away!!!"  The believers will run out and buy more guns.  The gun manufacturers will profit.  The gun lobby will get a cut of that. 

Every reasonable person knows America will never take away the citizen's right to own a gun.  That's the hysteria the gun lobby spins because it works.  The fact is this is about money.  Always has been.  Always will be.

 

Yep. Good call.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2019 at 10:23 AM, Jules said:

I don't know if it's your paranoia, if guns make you feel empowered or whatever other problem you have that compels you to go ballistic every time someone suggests sensible gun laws. 

What I do know is your fanaticism has armed the psychos. 

These mass shootings are on YOU!

 

What about KNIVES?  Didn’t you use a knife to cut up your tofu faux chicken, last night?  Does this place the mass stabbings on YOU?!  I’m sure the relatives of the victims will sleep better knowing that no guns were used in their murders!  

 

Ask the Brits how their restrictions on Knives is going! 

 

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/pure-hate-robbery-apparently-drove-man-who-went-on-o-c-stabbing-rampage-that-killed-4-injured-2-police/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read a perfect solution for gun and gun ownership, 

The proposal is simple: Anyone purchasing a gun should be required to enlist for military reserve service, spanning the entire period of their gun ownership,

Gun advocates tend to talk about the Second Amendment as if it provides the unlimited freedom for any individual to own and carry weapons. The actual language is very different: "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."
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

They seem in general pleased with the results.

Now - yank gunnut dumbfucks seem really outraged by it.

The results are great, knife crime at an all time high. 

They do a nice line in acid attacks as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, silent bob said:

What about KNIVES?  Didn’t you use a knife to cut up your tofu faux chicken, last night?  Does this place the mass stabbings on YOU?!  I’m sure the relatives of the victims will sleep better knowing that no guns were used in their murders! 

Practicing your standup routine?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, frenchie said:

I didn't see much in that post that required any changes to any laws. 

Maybe I misunderstood, but I read it as being all about gun-owner "culture".

I think I wrote that in anticipation of certain people resurrecting dead posts to criticize how people can evolve, or something hypocritical like that.

Edit to add: Sorry for the late reply, I've been very busy lately and haven't been posting much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

It's really just for wealthy fools.

 

The problem is, they're terrible at it.

 

So the friend to whom you sold your ammosexual overcompensator should not be allowed to own it?

I'm fine with the government buying back all the guns I have bought from them.

"High" capacity means more than 5 rounds to the US citizens in Puerto Rico and means 7 rounds to grabbers in my state. What does it mean to you?

"Assault" weapons means plinking pistols in the censored caliber to DiFi and the Presidential Contenders. What does it mean to you?

Tom, I think the gun problem in this country would be