^word, LanG.

Nigee, you are not American, so really, your opinion on this is worth nothing. Obi is, and even if I disagree with him, I at least ackowledge he has the right to his opinion on the country he is a citizen of, and respect his right to that opinion.

i do not go around laughing at UK for their stupid immigration policies, that are becoming self destructive now, so really, keep you 'holier than thou' attitude in UK.

@ Gina. I don't think it's a liberal talking point to say that the US does have a higher ratio than other countries that are deemed on a par w/ us economically. Using third world countries to compare against is not exactly what I would call a glowing recommendation.

I still think this shouldn't even be a conversation on gun laws. The focus should be on punishing the fucktard (copyright to Draugnar) that did this and helping the families of those affected.

Maybe a better solution would not to get rid of peoples guns but to restrict their future sale? Over time the number of guns in the general population would decline.

I use to be a fan of gun control until I saw this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRAw3VWVyD8

"Nigee, you are not American, so really, your opinion on this is worth nothing."

That's disgraceful, StressedLines.

It's an open forum--everyone's opinion counts...

He can give an "outsider's perspective" if he's not American, there's no need to be coarse in that fashion, rather rude.



There are incindiery and chemical booby traps in the guy's home, and the police say he used three different guns.

No, Nigee should be ignored on plenty of other grounds, besides his nationality.

"So you're just going to ignore the fact that regulation to the extent you want would be unconstitutional? Standard obiwanobiwan: I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT SHAKESPEARE I'M RIGHT!!!"

Oh, come on now...

Even for you, that's an unfair characterization, Invictus, and beneath you--I've used no literary figures, quoted no Shakespeare or Milton, I have not cited Hitchens or Nietzsche...

I've done nothing of the sort this time, so give me a break.

And--no.

It would NOT be unconstitutional to regulate further.

Again:

"A well regulated MILITIA being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Am I taking away your right to form a militia?
No.
Am I taking away all your right to bear arms?
No.
And yet, do I think you should be able to own an assault rifle or tear gas shells?
No.
Is THAT against the constitution?
No--I'm NOT infringing your right to bear arms when I limit your rights to SOME forms of weaponry.

Or would you suggest we allow everyone to buy any sort of gun they want?



You are being absolutist and not just a little vulgar--

The right to bear arms does not necessitate that all arms need be owned by citizens,
Likewise,
Banning certain arms and regulating more doesn't mean all gun owners must cower in fear that their guns will all be taken away.

There IS a middle ground between the absolutes you paint, Invictus.

I read that the guns he used were not covered by the assault weapons ban were it still in effect. So even one of the most stringent federal anti-gun law would not have stopped this. Like I said before, if you want to have regulations which could have prevented this murdering loser from buying guns then you'll need to amend the constitution. But continue ignoring that...

Completely my personal opinion, but I'd be comfortable w/ some combination of:

Adherence to a waiting period until a background check has been completed
Fully automatic weapons should not be legal/sold (though I'm not averse to the idea of gun enthusiasts using them at ranges). Hell, I'm not sure even semi-automatic weapons should be legal/sold.
Crimes committed w/ a use of a firearm should come w/ a mandatory higher punishment that the same crime committed w/o a firearm (though it can be argued murder is murder)

Common sense tells us that you're never going to outright ban guns (constitutionally protected, and should be); you're never going to be able to keep them out of every hand that would use them for criminal purposes; and you don't need a semi-automatic nor automatic weapon to go hunting or for protection (i.e. Red Dawn was fictional people). I'm pretty sure that there's common ground to be found; that makes sense, is practical and can be either enforced or appropriately punished. However, there is no such world (yet?) that will provide some utopian safety that either banning guns or arming oneself to the teeth.

District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago. If you want to change that then you need to amend the constitution.

@TGM:

First--is your contributing to the forum more regularly now a sign you're back in full? :)

"You can't look at (say) the UK and US, say that the UK has lower homicide rates, therefore it is because of gun laws.

There are massive differences between the countries, and zero evidence to show that its to do with gun law rather than:
- Drug laws
- Policing
- The Justice system
- The Prison system
- Attitudes (e.g. racial)
- Education

I could go on."

I agree.

I am simply suggesting that gun laws are PART of the problem.

Surely even if it's only part of the problem it warrants solving? Part of it fixed is better than nothing being fixed, yes?

*by either* not *that either*

"Driving test? Aren't you a college student, obiwanobiwan?"

Yes, but until recently I've gone to a community college, so I've just bused (and there's really nothing worth driving to around here, so I could basically get around fine by walking--good exercise--or taking the bus or meeting up with a friend who drives on those occasions we chose to go places.)

Unfortunately, I didn't pass anyway, so have to take it again.

(Sorry that I'm sending one message after another instead of answering them all at once, just trying to get through them all, so please be a bit patient while I get through all these, sorry folks.)

Early twenties and can't pass a driving test?

Obi, he can have his opinion, but he is insulting with it (nigee) and he is not even American, so yes, my comments were right on target.

outside opinions welcome. He gave something much more than that

Lan, the 2nd amendment was never intended to protect us from aninbvasion outside the country, but from a Tyranical government here....sort of like what we have had for the last 20 or so years, as they erode at our rights without a 2nd thought.

"Obi, it is cultural bias. I was hunting alone when I was 8. I only had a 22, but I and my brother both hunted alone, because, well, poor Apppalachian folk generally need to hunt to put meat on the table. That is just the world we lived in. Guns were not toys, they were tools. Just like a shovel or a hoe for a garden, they helped produce food.

Maybe the mindset of a 8 year old who has been shooting every day since the age of 5 (of course supervised then) they understand a gun, and what it s."

Well, I'll certainly agree that's not my world, and so you'd know more about that than me--

Even still, if anything, I'd argue that such a situation shows, even more, the need for regulation that is FLEXIBLE and adaptive to each situation and locale.

It'd be just as absurd as my friend saying that one should be allowed a bazooka in NYC (we can agree that's absurd, yes?) for me to say that, living in the region you describe yourself as living in, that (most) guns whose primary use is for hunting should be disallowed.

I would be the first to defend your right to such an arm living in such an area.

However, the environment of Los Angeles is different than, say, Wyoming, and thus I would submit that there ARE guns that would be permissible in the more wide-open, less-urban states such as Wyoming than a county (I won't say the whole state, as Central California is very rural, it's sort of the oddball in a state with Los Angeles and San Diego at one end and San Francisco/San Jose and Oakland at the other) like Los Angeles county.

I am NOT--with the exception of, say, cop killer bullets and certain types of guns--asking for UNIFORM regulations, but simply more strict regulation on a Federal, State, AND County level.



Wouldn't you agree that's reasonable?

That perhaps, for your region, an 8 year old walking around with a gun is socially and logically acceptable, but in Los Angeles, that's not at all the case, and if anything, it's a good way for that 8-year old to accidentally shoot or be shot?

"It is BS that the US has a higher murder rate than the rest of the world combined"

I said the FIRST WORLD, sir--that is, Europe and select parts of Asia, mostly.

"Our Rate per capita is dwarfed by nations of Central and South America. The murder rate in Honduras is 40 (!) times that in the US. South Africa is another worse case."

My point exactly--those are NOT First World regions.

"Please, don't use liberal talking points without checking your facts first."

Please, don't post in complete ignorance without checking what I actually SAID first.

Thank you, have a nice day.

Egads. I did a job at the (alleged) mass murderer's high school in April or May of his senior year. Wonder if I saw him.

First, on the Militia word that Libs love to use, Militias were formed when needed,. There was never an official Militia, and no, The national guard is NOT THAT, since at any time The Federal government can get control of it.

2nd, Thomas jefferson was very clear on what the 2nd amendment meant, and even wrote about it after, so shall we visit HIS thoughts on it, since he wrote the damn thing, andunderstand the spirit of it?

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government:" notice the word 'the people' there.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (he quoted someone else, but read this off in support of the 2nd amendment)

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits. The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."

"he beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it"

"It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

there is plenty more where this came from.

So, stop trying to pollute the meaning of it, since he was VERY clear what he meant.

Draug, I'm not advocating for a nanny state.

AGAIN, I don't see how my asking for a little more regulation is a sign that I want the Constitution torn up or that I want a nanny state...

READ the 2nd Amendment before telling me banning cop killer bullets or limiting the use of weapons according to federal, state, AND county laws and civil codes is out of line...

My asking that you be denied the right to a machine gun does NOT mean that you don't have the right to bear arms--it's just limiting which arms you can bear, as it were.

Unless you feel that every single gun ever made should be available?

WHY is it all or nothing?

For that matter...

WHY is it that 12 dead and (now) 59 wounded is just a drop in the bucket, a tragedy, sure, but it'll pass, oh yes...but if someone even SUGGEST that even a FEW guns be limited--

MY GOD! RED ALERT! *NOW* WE HAVE A REAL THREAT, SOMETHING TO *REALLY* BE UPSET ABOUT!

Obi, sure. An Urban citizen does not have to hunt for food,d efend livestock from predators, etc. I would not expect them to understand guns or respect them in the same way as we grew up.

"Why is being able to shoot and kill stuff a constitutional right. Grow up imbeciles.
This is a time for change and this is a time to start being led by educated people, not gun-toting testosterone filled fuckwits that have dominated US politics for so long.
The times they are a changin'...... change or die, literally.
Maybe you don't think U.S. citizens deserve better ..... I disagree.
Please don't respond to this if you're a gun-toting fuckwit as I don't argue with idiots.
GROW UP AMERICA"

THANK YOU, Nigee...

Though I WOULD say that I DO respect the 2nd Amendment.
So they DO have the right to guns.
All *I* am saying is...
Not ALL of them.

The Framers did NOT expect guns to be so lethal or so widespread or so increasingly deadly and easy to get.

Obi, because, it is a slippery slope. Once you start down it, it is easy to just push the line a little bit more the wayt hey want it.

"Obi criticizes Iron Age civilizations for not being feminist. I think he gives new meaning to cultural bias."

I said up front and in that statement, CA, that I understood that ALL Iron Age civilizations were not exactly female friendly; I was merely making a point I felt some cultures were more progressive than others in that regard.

But then, that's a conversation for another day and another thread.

@obiwan:
“I agree.

I am simply suggesting that gun laws are PART of the problem.

Surely even if it's only part of the problem it warrants solving? Part of it fixed is better than nothing being fixed, yes?”

We don’t agree. I don’t think Gun laws are part of the problem; and don’t just go around suggesting crap without giving any sodding evidence for it. Come back with a proper study that stated methodology rather than went cherry picking for data and then come back and argue the point.

“Someone got shot, that’s bad” is a perfectly true statement, but “therefore gun laws” doesn’t work as an argument.

You’ve given no justification for the idea that gun laws actually reduce homicide rates.

""It is BS that the US has a higher murder rate than the rest of the world combined"

I said the FIRST WORLD, sir--that is, Europe and select parts of Asia, mostly.

"Our Rate per capita is dwarfed by nations of Central and South America. The murder rate in Honduras is 40 (!) times that in the US. South Africa is another worse case."

My point exactly--those are NOT First World regions.

"Please, don't use liberal talking points without checking your facts first."

Please, don't post in complete ignorance without checking what I actually SAID first.

Thank you, have a nice day."

Ukraine: 7 violent deaths per 100,000
US: 6.5 violent deaths per 100,000

Awkward...