26 dead in Connecticut elementary school

[matt_warfield]

 

I am OK with semiautomatic pistols if there are no removal clips - manufacturers can sell guns you load into the handle and you get one set of 6 or 8 shots or whatever is standard there.

 

Also, you can own only one such gun for self-defense - no stockpiling weapons for the apocalypse, and sorry "collectors", find something else to collect.

 

While I'd prefer to do more, this seems like a reasonable start - in addition to required background checks/waiting periods/registrations for gun shows and a tighter leash on sellers at shows.

 

To buy immediately at shows you have to have a concealed weapons permit which requires a background check. To buy otherwise takes a waiting period which also involves a background check. I know that these gun shows fuel the fire but WA has barriers in place. It is the black market or friends and family that qualify where mayhem can start. It is a tough problem to solve.

Edited December 19, 2012 by matt_warfield

[AlpineK]

A huge stockpile of weapons and ammo didn't seem to do Bunker Dude much good in his standoff with the man.

 

[img:center]http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2012/04/27/2018090167.gif[/img]

 

[img:center]http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2012/07/12/ed/5d/keller.jpg[/img]

 

[img:center]http://richkidsbrand.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/peter.jpg[/img]

 

[img:center]http://skyvalleychronicle.com/999/news/img201204290411411904313206.jpg[/img]

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

I am OK with semiautomatic pistols if there are no removal clips - manufacturers can sell guns you load into the handle and you get one set of 6 or 8 shots or whatever is standard there.

 

Also, you can own only one such gun for self-defense - no stockpiling weapons for the apocalypse, and sorry "collectors", find something else to collect.

 

While I'd prefer to do more, this seems like a reasonable start - in addition to required background checks/waiting periods/registrations for gun shows and a tighter leash on sellers at shows.

 

I already stated I agree with these latter items.

 

[kevbone]

Weighting the benefits and harms, it would be best for everyone if handguns were banned along with assault rifles. They save far fewer people than they hurt. Sorry, gun freaks. Your costly little hero fantasy is just too expensive for the rest of us.

 

There are handguns and there are handguns. Folks have a right to defend themselves, and I think there's a way to accommodate that right w/o owning semi-automatic pistols with large volume magazine clips.

 

Unless you are defending yourself from our own government.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Unless you are defending yourself from our own government.

 

Go Ron Paul!

[kevbone]

You guys keep talking about defending yourself's? But from whom? The guy breaking into your basement? Or getting car jacked? This is all fine and good and I support this but what about the bigger picture? The entire point of the right to bear arms is not put in place so you can go kill deer. It is put there so when the government starts doing things that are fascist and tyranical the "people" can have a chance in stopping it. The current government is so hopping the country gets behind the movement to ban machine guns......disarm the people is the first step.

[kevbone]

There is a ban on heroin and cocaine.....that seems to be working out pretty well eh? Or how about drinking and driving...did you know that is illegal too.

[ivan]

......disarm the people is the first step.

please name a successful revolution in which the people weren't initially completely out-matched in terms of firepower compared to the government?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You guys keep talking about defending yourself's? But from whom? The guy breaking into your basement? Or getting car jacked? This is all fine and good and I support this but what about the bigger picture? The entire point of the right to bear arms is not put in place so you can go kill deer. It is put there so when the government starts doing things that are fascist and tyranical the "people" can have a chance in stopping it. The current government is so hopping the country gets behind the movement to ban machine guns......disarm the people is the first step.

 

There is nothing to worry about - we don't have any oil.

[matt_warfield]

There is a ban on heroin and cocaine.....that seems to be working out pretty well eh? Or how about drinking and driving...did you know that is illegal too.

 

We seem to have an ample supply of BC Bud, cocaine, and heroin. Does anyone think illegal arms are going to be contained? And who is going to get them?

[ivan]

We seem to have an ample supply of BC Bud, cocaine, and heroin. Does anyone think illegal arms are going to be contained? And who is going to get them?

cheech n' chong?

[matt_warfield]

We seem to have an ample supply of BC Bud, cocaine, and heroin. Does anyone think illegal arms are going to be contained? And who is going to get them?

cheech n' chong?

 

yeah, cheech n' chong with assault rifles. Times have changed unfortunately.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Ron Paul's new slogan: "A chicken in every pot, an M1 Abrams in every garage!"

[ivan]

yeah, cheech n' chong with assault rifles. Times have changed unfortunately.

clearly you're forgeting cousin strawberry!?

[dougd]

The entire point of the right to bear arms is not put in place so you can go kill deer. It is put there so when the government starts doing things that are fascist and tyranical the "people" can have a chance in stopping it.

 

Context, in this part of the gun debate is important I think. In 1791 the second amendment was ratified. America was not far removed from the revolutionary war. Britain was a belligerent world power, not to mention still pissed off about losing said war. The war of 1812 was a ways off in the future but it happened, and is helpful in a contextual sense as an indication of the times this young republic was experiencing. The tyranny referred to in proper context is not rationally applicable to contemporary American Government. It's used as an excuse by "gun rights advocates" to justify and perpetuate unnecessary possession of weaponry primarily used in war.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_debates

 

I don't think another constitutional amendment is necessary to "fix" the second amendment, nor is "repeal" appropriate. Proper interpretation is all that is needed. To my knowledge, a case for or against "military style assault weapons" has not reached the courts. The Supreme court has fairly recently struck down a DC law banning handguns, allowing possession in an individual's home for personal protection, but that's as close to we've gotten to a real interpretation of the second amendment.

 

I'm willing to leave this interpretation where it was meant to be, in the courts, not some joe posting on a BB on the web...

 

d

[ivan]

most of the power on the issue is of course supposed to be held by the congress

 

the original bill of rights that emerged from the english civil war of the 17th century did also contain a right to own weapons, though in a predictably english fashion w/ lotza clauses n' what-have-you's regarding social classes n' sorts of weapons n' such

 

bottom line, drag jefferson or washington out of their graves and ask them if a homeboy w/ no education/property/social-standing should be able to have a weapon giving him the firepower of an entire 18th century regiment, what do you think they'd say?

[matt_warfield]

Ron Paul's new slogan: "A chicken in every pot, an M1 Abrams in every garage!"

 

Don't tell anyone (the internet is secure right?)but I have experience with the Bradley and the M1 Abrams. While the Bradley is fierce, the Abrams is absolutely lethal. Both are terribly expensive and if Ron Paul was President, unneeded.

 

Sorry for more thread drift. Just trying to keep this site headed toward being a mini mini mini Facebook with participation. And I'm drinking beer.

Edited December 19, 2012 by matt_warfield

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Ron Paul's new slogan: "A chicken in every pot, an M1 Abrams in every garage!"

 

Don't tell anyone (the internet is secure right?)but I have experience with the Bradley and the M1 Abrams. While the Bradley is fierce, the Abrams is absolutely lethal. Both are terribly expensive and if Ron Paul was President, unneeded.

 

Sorry for more thread drift. Just trying to keep this site headed toward being a mini mini mini Facebook with participation.

 

Well, if I could afford an M1 and need a weapon to protect me from my gov't, then why can't I own one? We should have militias that can buy M1's - for protection against our gov't, no?

 

[matt_warfield]

Ron Paul's new slogan: "A chicken in every pot, an M1 Abrams in every garage!"

 

Don't tell anyone (the internet is secure right?)but I have experience with the Bradley and the M1 Abrams. While the Bradley is fierce, the Abrams is absolutely lethal. Both are terribly expensive and if Ron Paul was President, unneeded.

 

Sorry for more thread drift. Just trying to keep this site headed toward being a mini mini mini Facebook with participation.

 

Well, if I could afford an M1 and need a weapon to protect me from my gov't, then why can't I own one? We should have militias that can buy M1's - for protection against our gov't, no?

 

Prolly no law against it but expect government interference through the military contractor alliance. If you do pull it off expect men with good haircuts and black jackets to knock on your day sometime to wish you well.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Ron Paul's new slogan: "A chicken in every pot, an M1 Abrams in every garage!"

 

Don't tell anyone (the internet is secure right?)but I have experience with the Bradley and the M1 Abrams. While the Bradley is fierce, the Abrams is absolutely lethal. Both are terribly expensive and if Ron Paul was President, unneeded.

 

Sorry for more thread drift. Just trying to keep this site headed toward being a mini mini mini Facebook with participation.

 

Well, if I could afford an M1 and need a weapon to protect me from my gov't, then why can't I own one? We should have militias that can buy M1's - for protection against our gov't, no?

 

Prolly no law against it but expect government interference through the military contractor alliance. If you do pull it off expect men with good haircuts and black jackets to knock on your day sometime to wish you well.

 

You do understand I am responding to boner's irrational justification of the "need" for automatic weapons, right?

[matt_warfield]

most of the power on the issue is of course supposed to be held by the congress

 

the original bill of rights that emerged from the english civil war of the 17th century did also contain a right to own weapons, though in a predictably english fashion w/ lotza clauses n' what-have-you's regarding social classes n' sorts of weapons n' such

 

bottom line, drag jefferson or washington out of their graves and ask them if a homeboy w/ no education/property/social-standing should be able to have a weapon giving him the firepower of an entire 18th century regiment, what do you think they'd say?

 

Okay, fake ivan, I agree but let's also recall some history. Rev War had quite a bit of lining up, marching forward with muskets and cannons and blasting the shit out of each other in a war of attrition. The Civil War had a bunch of ambush, snipery, and death due to bleeding or infection. And then there is Normandy in WW2, going onshore knowing the sniping will begin immediately.

 

But I will guarantee that the operators of fighter jets, bombers, and tanks are no homeboys in the modern era.

 

And Feck has a very good point. Add doomsdayers to people who accumulate weapons and ammo and may be slightly or greatly unhinged as well.

Edited December 19, 2012 by matt_warfield

[ivan]

 

Okay, fake ivan, I agree but let's also recall some history. Rev War had quite a bit of lining up, marching forward with buskets and cannons and blasting the shit out of each other in a war of attrition. The Civil War had a bunch of ambush, snipery, and death due to bleeding or infection. And then there is Normandy in WW2, going onshore knowing the sniping will begin immediately.

 

But I will guarantee that the operators of fighter jets, bombers, and tanks are no homeboys in the modern era.

i'm shocked n' horrified you can't distinguish the geniune-deal from that ersatz-bastard - when, forsooth, has tvash ever been known to expostulate w/ a kenning!?!

 

you seem to be confusing the fuck-taxes war w/ the war of northern aggression, but, uh...uh...i'm not really sure what you were saying there?

 

i'd return you to the 1791 argument - how many Famous Founders would be kewl w/ the status quo pro bellum?

[ivan]

Don't tell anyone (the internet is secure right?)but I have experience with the Bradley and the M1 Abrams. While the Bradley is fierce, the Abrams is absolutely lethal.

my family's bidness for 3 generations has been armor (present cc.retard excepted, naturally) - little bro was a cav scout officer w/ the 7th cav in ought-three when we taught them iraqi fellers a lesson - he commanded 4 bradleys and reported inflicting far more carnage on the civil populace then the bulky, brooding bastards in the abhrams, alleging the cause to be the bradley's higher rate of fire (albeit w/ a relative pop-gun) n' general ability to squeeze down corridors too restrictive for an m1-'s hulk...

[matt_warfield]

 

Okay, fake ivan, I agree but let's also recall some history. Rev War had quite a bit of lining up, marching forward with buskets and cannons and blasting the shit out of each other in a war of attrition. The Civil War had a bunch of ambush, snipery, and death due to bleeding or infection. And then there is Normandy in WW2, going onshore knowing the sniping will begin immediately.

 

But I will guarantee that the operators of fighter jets, bombers, and tanks are no homeboys in the modern era.

i'm shocked n' horrified you can't distinguish the geniune-deal from that ersatz-bastard - when, forsooth, has tvash ever been known to expostulate w/ a kenning!?!

 

you seem to be confusing the fuck-taxes war w/ the war of northern aggression, but, uh...uh...i'm not really sure what you were saying there?

 

i'd return you to the 1791 argument - how many Famous Founders would be kewl w/ the status quo pro bellum?

 

Good to have you back. I was confused for a bit but I could detect a little left winging there. I have had a couple beers, but the point I was trying to make is that shit happens that transcends presidents, congresses, and masters of the universe from 1791 to 2012. While some sit on their arses being profound, bad things are happening behind the scenes.

Edited December 19, 2012 by matt_warfield

[matt_warfield]

 

You do understand I am responding to boner's irrational justification of the "need" for automatic weapons, right?

 

I plead guilty to being gullible from time to time.