Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

Really wanted to make a comment, about the chart that accompanies that article.

Really glad that the board software will not permit me to embed a link to a file with a "png" extension.





 

(Haven't read the New Yorker link in FanboyOf91's post. Just responding to another recent wave of blame the media.  It's always fun to kill the messenger and a lot easier than acting)


BTW, feel free to read the article, and then let me know whether you still want to go on a rant about something I didn't say.

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toddlers have rights too, bro.

True dat. I saw Baby Geniuses, those kids could truly form an impressive militia. Especially because no one suspects the baby to be packing heat.

But I do wonder, if they're so smart, why do they keep shooting themselves and others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I do wonder, if they're so smart, why do they keep shooting themselves and others?

 

It's clearly a guy thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South Carolina 2-Year-Old Shoots Grandmother in Back With Revolver

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-carolina-2-year-old-shoots-grandmother-back-revolver-n443521

A 2-year-old accidentally shot his grandmother with a revolver in South Carolina on Sunday after finding the weapon in the back seat of his great-aunt's car, police said.

The 40-year-old grandmother, who has not been identified, is expected to recover, according to Officer Mark Bollinger with the Rock Hill Police Department.

The woman was shot in the back by the toddler while sitting in the passenger seat of her sister's car, police said. The toddler had found the .357 magnum revolver in a pouch behind the passenger seat.

More from the link.

 

As a follow-up to this:

 

People are getting shot by toddlers on a weekly basis this year

 

This week a 2-year-old in South Carolina found a gun in the back seat of the car he was riding in and accidentally shot his grandmother, who was sitting in the passenger seat. This type of thing happens from time to time: A little kid finds a gun, fires it, and hurts or kills himself or someone else. These cases rarely bubble up to the national level except when someone, like a parent, ends up dead.

 

But cases like this happen a lot more frequently than you might think. After spending a few hours sifting through news reports, I've found at least 43 instances this year of somebody being shot by a toddler 3 or younger. In 31 of those 43 cases, a toddler found a gun and shot himself or herself.

 

 

Click on the link for the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to be insensitive here, but since the grandmother will recover...I'm pretty impressed that a 2 year old was able to manipulate and fire a .357 magnum. That's not a small revolver and usually has a pretty hefty trigger pull weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to be insensitive here, but since the grandmother will recover...I'm pretty impressed that a 2 year old was able to manipulate and fire a .357 magnum. That's not a small revolver and usually has a pretty hefty trigger pull weight.

 

Wouldn't be that hard if the hammer was already ****ed. The trigger pull is really light at that point.

 

That being said, the toddler was probably just defending his constitutional right to defend himself from tyranny. Grandma was probably going to put him/her down for a nap.

Edited by ExoDus84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be that hard if the hammer was already ****ed. The trigger pull is really light at that point.

 

 

Now who would be stupid enough to leave a 357 with the hammer pulled back?

 

Are these folk from Arkansas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now who would be stupid enough to leave a 357 with the hammer pulled back?

 

Are these folk from Arkansas?

Was just thinking the same thing. A .357 with the hammer ****ed sitting around in a car. When a kid is there, no less. How stupid and irresponsible can someone possibly be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a country with more guns than people, it's only natural that a certain number of small children are going get their hands on an unsecured firearm, with tragic consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a country with more guns than people, it's only natural that a certain number of small children are going get their hands on an unsecured firearm, with tragic consequences.

 

 

Kinda like light plugs,swimming pools and bathtubs ....ya either watch em or take precautions

far too many do neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Gun Laws, We Must Get the History Right

 

Oddly enough, medieval English laws matter in legal debates about gun control in the United States today. The Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 Second Amendment decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, determined that sufficiently “long-standing” firearms regulations are constitutional. This means that in Second Amendment cases, we have to get our English history right.

 

Doing so is crucial in a gun case now before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals: Wrenn v. D.C. The case is critical for Washington residents but also more broadly as the pro-gun lobby challenges laws in cities across the country. The District of Columbia argues that English and American law has always permitted restrictions on the right to carry guns in populated public places, tracing this tradition to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which generally prohibited carrying guns in public. The District argues that the Second Amendment and its English precursors did not allow unfettered public carrying in densely populated cities, and thus the District may restrict it.

 

A group of legal historians has disputed this interpretation in an amicus brief filed this month, followed by an essay in the Washington Post by David Kopel, adjunct professor at Denver University’s law school. They claim the English Bill of Rights of 1689 superseded the 1328 statute and that, “There was a lot of weapons-carrying in England.” Thus, they conclude, D.C. residents have the right to carry guns in public. But their English history is wrong, as are their conclusions about public carry in the nation’s capital.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, crazy person in Sweden attacked a school with a sword. He killed two and wounded two, matching the causality count that would have occurred within the first 2.5 seconds of an attack with a semi automatic rifle with 30 round magazine.

#gunsdontkillpeople

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/scotus-assault-weapons-ban-216485

Supreme Court won't hear assault weapons ban case

 

The Supreme Court decided on Monday that it would not take up a challenge to a local law banning semi-automatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park, Illinois.

 

In doing so, the court upheld a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the city's restrictions did not infringe upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, avoiding the prospect of a politically-charged fight over gun rights at the highest court in the land. The decision to deny the case follows months of intensified debate over gun safety and the prevalence of guns, including in last week's terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.

 

Those weapons were purchased legally.

 

The affluent Chicago suburb in 2013 banned the manufacture, sale, transfer and possession of semi-automatic firearms and magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition in the wake of shootings in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011; Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012.

 

The Court did not provide a reason for its denial of a writ of certiorari, though Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent of the denial, wrote that the Seventh Circuit misinterpreted the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which it was ruled “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.”

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun lobby points out angrily that the Supreme Court is wrong because when the framers wrote "A well regulated militia" they clearly meant one individual and no regulations. The only part of the language that should be paid attention to is "shall not be infringed" everything else was just hot air and pretty poetry meant to take up space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol at the posts in this thread stating that nobody would possibly think to use a gun registry to take away guns because that's just nutter talk.

Meanwhile in the real world these same nobodies would like to use no fly lists to decide who can and cannot purchase or own a gun despite the fact that no fly lists can have anybody on them for all kinds of reasons, none of which are felony convictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol at the posts in this thread stating that nobody would possibly think to use a gun registry to take away guns because that's just nutter talk.

Meanwhile in the real world these same nobodies would like to use no fly lists to decide who can and cannot purchase or own a gun despite the fact that no fly lists can have anybody on them for all kinds of reasons, none of which are felony convictions.

Lol at anybody who thinks this post makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The No Fly List has lots of problems.  It's a good tool in theory, but is cast wide and yet still has holes.

 

That being said, the fastest path to making the No Fly List better would be to ban those on it from buying guns.  The NRA would get that thing working right and efficiently REAL quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/connecticut-gun-ban-no-fly-216646#ixzz3twjM2900

Connecticut to ban people on watch lists from buying guns

 

Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy announced Thursday that he will sign an executive order prohibiting people who are on government watch lists from buying guns.

 

"If Congress will not act, we in the states will," Malloy said at a news conference.

 

"This is a moment to seize here in America," Malloy said. "It is incumbent upon leaders at all levels of government to protect its citizenry."

 

His comments come amid a passionate national debate over guns in America, with gun control activists citing the recent mass shootings in California and Colorado as evidence of the need for stricter regulation — and gun rights advocates pushing back just as hard.

 

Democrats have slammed Republicans for rejecting a measure banning people on the federal “no-fly” list from buying guns. Conservatives counter that the no-fly list is riddled with errors and that terrorists are likely to obtain guns illegally anyway.

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I drank beer before I was 21. But it sure was easier to acquire after I turned 21. It didn't prevent booze from falling into my hands. But it sure did limit it

Lol I drank less after 21 then I did before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they are restricting constitutionally protected rights based on unknown criteria with no due process.

 

Really? 

 

1)  Being able to travel isn't a right?  We (the country as a whole) are cool with restricting citizen's right to travel, but telling them that can't have a gun, well, that's going too far? 

 

2)  And there's no due process at all, with these lists?  Granted, our government masters won;t tell us what the procedure is, for putting people on these lists.  But I'm pretty sure that there is a procedure.  (It's the government.  they have procedures for how to wipe their noses.) 

 

3)  Please tell me what you think is the minimum criteria that must be met, constitutionally, before the government can say "You can't have a gun"? 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.