“So, consider how many more might have been hurt if Newtown had turned into the Gunfight at the OK Corral? Or Aurora?
Your example, while serving your immediate point, does nothing for situations like Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Trayvon Martin, etc.
Regulations, restrictions and the repeal of nonsensical legislation like "Stand Your Ground" laws would go a long way toward making the country safer for children like Trayvon Martin, whose only crimes were being black, carrying a Snapple bottle and wearing a hoodie. Repeal of "Stand Your Ground" laws in no mean attacks the concept of Castle doctrine (whole other topic of conversation and equally controversial).”
alaturk777 on Jan 29, 2013 at 14:59:25
“Hold it...Trayvon Martin deserved to be shot. He was killed in self-defense. If Zimmerman didn't shoot him, he surely would have been beaten to death by Martin. Martin was physically bigger and stronger than Zimmerman and he ignored Zimmerman's pleas to stop or his cries for help...he just continued to slam Zimmerman's head into the pavement and didn't stop until he was shot. By the way, Zimmerman was walking AWAY from Martin when he was grabbed and assaulted. Every citizen has a right to stand his ground if he can defend himself from being assaulted. No one has the right to assault another person, rob him, or break into his house. Were you just as outraged when a group of thirty blacks attacked two white people, a man and a woman, who were stopped at an intersection in their car in W.Virginia??????? I guess their only crime was being white driving through a black neighborhood! NO ONE was imprisoned or stood trial for that crime.”
“What I meant by my comment is that the Second Amendment in no way prohibits regulation, an argument made regularly by the pro-gun lobby. 100% in agreement. Gun ownership comes with many responsibilities, defined in the Second Amendment, as well as other legislation, including the Militia Act of 1908.”
“The cursory background check at time of purchase (required only if the gun is bought from a dealer) is hardly regulation. Regulation is a renewable license for the gun owner and the weapon (think driver's license and vehicle tags) with checks and balances along the way.
“What a callous response. Advocates for guns are showing themselves to be at the very least insensitive to the plight of the victims and those who mourn them and at worst robotics mouthpieces for the gun lobby.
It's funny how no one from the pro-gun side ever wants to answer the simple question - what possible useful purposes can an AR-15 with high capacity magazine serve outside military and law enforcement circles? Claims that it's a hunting rifle are ludicrous. It's a poor and/or lazy hunter that needs such a weapon with high capacity magazine to hunt anything. If you missed with the first shot, whatever you were shooting will be gone before you fire the second shot anyway.
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, which implies certain responsibilities. Applying regulations for the safe and secure use of said arms is not something that's covered by the Second Amendment.”
alaturk777 on Jan 29, 2013 at 13:51:02
“Gun control advocates are only concerned with making themselves feel good by trying to get more gun control laws passed to "protect" our children. If a father shot a gunman threatening to shoot his child, he would have succeeded in protecting his child at lot more than an unarmed father watching a gunman shooting his child to death.”
runamokinjun on Jan 29, 2013 at 13:35:08
“Regulated means REGULATIONS --it IS covered .”
myakkakat on Jan 29, 2013 at 13:30:57
“Actually the 2nd Amendment does say "well-REGULATED". It's time we had those regulations!”
desta23 on Jan 29, 2013 at 13:29:45
“"Advocates for guns are showing themselves to be at the very least insensitive to the plight of the victims and those who mourn them and at worst robotics mouthpieces for the gun lobby."
- Ironically you look like a robotic mouthpiece because you didn't even watch the entire video of the incident or you'd know he wasn't heckled. He made the statement that he didn't see why anyone in the room needed one of these rifles and an individual in the room responded to his statement.
"It's funny how no one from the pro-gun side ever wants to answer the simple question - what possible useful purposes can an AR-15 with high capacity magazine serve outside military and law enforcement circles?"
- Huh? I served nine years in the military doing two combat tours in Iraq. The Constitution isn't a list of needs. I own an AR15 because it operates closest to what I used in the military and my family is worth protecting. "High capacity magazines" -- you mean the standard 30-round magazine I was issued and utilized since boot camp?
"Claims that it's a hunting rifle are ludicrous. It's a poor and/or lazy hunter that needs such a weapon with high capacity magazine to hunt anything."
- They make fantastic varmint hunting rifles. In .308 they make fantastic deer hunting rifles.
If you dislike the second so much -- try repealing it instead of the backdoor attacks against the Constitution.”
fjmcm on Jan 29, 2013 at 13:29:00
“You don't know much about the use of the AR15, first it is not used by the military and never has been, second it is used widely in hunting and in competition and great for home def.”
lmslewis on Jan 29, 2013 at 13:27:24
“Touche, sir - - excellent response and so full of common sense! Now how do we explain this to the "crazies" who refuse to see?”
“Way to go! Prove exactly the opposite of your claim. Maybe you should have thought it through before going ahead with this.
Isn't she likely to lose her casino job for pleading guilty to a felony? I'm sure the Nevada Gaming Commission will be looking into this. Now she'll become an unemployable burden to the state of Nevada. Absolutely brilliant!”
mikegotcha123 on Jan 29, 2013 at 10:16:07
“Actually, she most likely won't be fired over this. NV Gaming control is concerned about gaming infractions. If she were a licensee..it might or might not affect her depending on what the gaming board decided. They are an entity unto themselves and only answer to the Gov..Brian Sandoval. Republican and former gaming commish.”
Jan 28, 2013 at 11:11:29
“How many times were you "affected" by a BB outage over the past 24 months and for what duration? And were these impacts significant enough for you to give up the security and privacy offered by the BB? Just remember that if you're using an iPhone/iPod/iPad anywhere in the world, Uncle Sam's got access to your device (thanks to iTunes and the PATRIOT Act), but Uncle Sam does not get access to your BB or data with a Blackberry on a non-US carrier.”
cowman on Jan 28, 2013 at 14:15:57
“Interesting - and sadly not as surprising as this revelation should be.”
Charles the Great on Jan 28, 2013 at 11:43:47
“When I had a BB to many times to count when it comes to an outage
. Also RIM does same hand over private data collecting such UAE, Saudi Arabia , India and Thailand, People Republic of China and United States (under the PATRIOT Act) on what they say, do , and call over their networks on the BB device sorry RIM has been known to do this .
Also Apple runs it through carrier not their network so your point makes no sense and if that was the case then Uncle Sam would arrest anyone who does not pay for music and that only applies to American Carriers not all of them and still there are ways to get around that.
Apple does not have their own network and if their was network issues such as spying it would be the carrier fault not Apple. However RIM is more then happy to spy on their users and hand over data to these governments to stay in that market. RIM has been known to do this.”
Jan 28, 2013 at 11:07:44
“I'm the first to admit that the delays in releasing new devices (as opposed to reworks of the old ones) has been harmful to RIM. And the ill conceived Playbook marketing strategy really hurt what is an excellent device. But, ultimately, I think RIM has an excellent opportunity to retake the corporate market, because, when you atop and think about it, the BES server is the reason why the corporate market wants BB and they're realizing that iPhone and Android just don't offer the same kind of security and privacy that RIM's BB/BES combo does.
Time will tell though. I'm personally looking forward to the BB10 OS upgrade for my Playbook and the opportunity to get a new BB10 phone.”
cowman on Jan 28, 2013 at 14:10:46
“At work we keep talking about some of the new BB10 phone functions like replacing keycards and Apple products aren't even being considered. One person relied on Apple Maps to get to a meeting and left his work BlackBerry on his desk - he got so lost he never made it to the meeting, lost a major account, and then lost his job. No one takes out an iPhone at my work anymore because of that...it's a symbol of style over substance and the last thing you want to remind people of is the guy that got fired.”
DrownedSamurai on Jan 28, 2013 at 13:15:14
“I was dissapointed that my playbook died on me when the fall update came out...just killed it and I LOVED that thing. But then I bought a Nexus 7...wow...love that way more...and I'm buying a BB10 within days of launch...”
thtech on Jan 28, 2013 at 11:42:23
“Yes, I got to play with a Playbook at FOSE last year, very snappy, responsive, and seemed incapable of slowdown. The OS was a joy to use and simple enough to figure out.”
“We no longer have free-enterprise capitalism in health care," he said. "The government is directing it. So we need a new word for it."
The fact that you consider care for the sick to be free-enterprise capitalism is a problem, since health care, in a democracy in the 21st century, is a right, not a privilege for those who can afford it. The debate shouldn't be about health insurance, but health care. Your inability to get past the business of health insurance and the profits made on the backs of the sick is staggering.”
“The problem is Scalia, a textual originalist, assumed in writing his 2008 decision (used by gun owners everywhere to defend their "right" to own as many and any kind of gun) that actually knew what the founders meant when they wrote the Second Amendment, when in reality, he forgot that a comma is not a period and the first phrase of the amendment sets the context of a federation of States needing to create a civilian defence force to protect themselves from invasion by foreign powers (a real risk in those days, with France, Spain and England surrounding them) or from the "king" of the country, having just fought for independence from England due to the king's actions. By ignoring this historical context and that all important comma, Scalia made errors both in fact and law. Yet this interpretation, by a 5-4 vote of the SCOTUS, is why were having this discussion over the graves of the children and teachers of Newtown, the moviegoers of Aurora, the students of Virginia Tech, the shoppers of Clackamas, and the list keeps going.”
Kachies on Jan 18, 2013 at 11:33:54
“You are right on the money Joel. I wish others could think as clearly as you do and not just be all emotional about gun ownership especially of the kind of gun that was made for combat situations rather than domestic affairs.”
“Here's a challenge for everyone one here. These are questions for which no one has been able to provide a rational and satisfactory answer.
What possible, legitimate civilian use is there for an AR-15 or other assault-style weapon with high capacity magazines (30, 50 or 100 rounds)? And "varmint" hunting or hunting in general don't qualify. It's a poor hunter who needs 30 rounds and a semi-automatic assault rifle to get his prey.
What possible argument can a legitimate gun owner make against an acquisition and possession license (as is issued in Canada) that must be renewed every 5 years and for which a prerequisite is successfully completing a firearms safety course?
What possible argument can a legitimate gun buyer or seller make against the idea of a every gun sale, whether from a dealer, gun show or private sale, is subject to obtaining an acquisition and possession license as described above?
For the last two questions, keep in mind that your right to own firearms (as per the Second Amendment) is not being removed, except as per existing legislation restricting access to felons and the mentally ill. These are simply regulations that improve compliance to existing legislation.”
UrascalU on Jan 17, 2013 at 19:17:05
“If I thought an explanation would be received with anything but contempt or derision I would gladly give one.
But here's the thing. It won't and I'm tired of trying. Instead I'm going to say the burden of proof in a free society is NOT upon people who want to exercise rights, it's on people who want to restrict those rights.
And frankly, gun control supporters have not met that burden. No one has shown ONE shred of evidence that banning semi-auto rifles like the AR-15 and/or high capacity magazines will do anything to:
1) reduce gun violence to any measurable degree. That was the conclusion in a Dept of Justice report analyzing the results of the last ban.
2) keep them out of the hands of criminals and/or 'undesirables' anyway.
3) Prevent, dissuade or even hinder the next rampage killer. Given their limited use in such mass killings (only 3 times in the last 27 rampage killings) I doubt a ban will even be seen as anything more than a hiccup to the next lunatic.
4) Contribute directly to 'saving our children'.
And if you can counter any of the above with facts... not just with emotion or outrage against Sandy Hook... but with facts I'm all ears.”
davidstarlingm on Jan 17, 2013 at 17:31:19
“To begin with, you've already muddied the waters by calling the AR-15 an "assault-style" weapon. It isn't. The only thing that makes it any scarier than any other common firearm is the plastic handgrip underneath...clearly that doesn't make it more lethal.
High-capacity magazines aren't necessary; I would agree that a restriction on the licensed sale of any magazines larger than 10 rounds (for a rifle) is a good idea. It wouldn't have any significant impact on crime, but it might conceivably make another mass shooting 2-3% less lethal...so at least that's something.
Instituting a federal acquisition and possession licensing system is prohibitively expensive and wouldn't do any good. Legally purchased firearms are only used in the narrowest minority of crimes.”
barnabas finch on Jan 17, 2013 at 15:17:21
“"What possible, legitimate civilian use is there for an AR-15 or other assault-style weapon with high capacity magazines (30, 50 or 100 rounds)?"
- It's fun to shoot, a pain to always reload, and different calibers feel different, just like driving a mini-van feels different from driving an Audi.
"What possible argument can a legitimate gun buyer or seller make against the idea of a every gun sale, whether from a dealer, gun show or private sale, is subject to obtaining an acquisition and possession license as described above?"
- I agree that background checks should be mandatory. I don't agree the person selling it should have to pay though. Taxes are a good way to ban something in practice without having to say so. Just imagine if an abortion cost $5,000 in fees that weren't allowed to be paid for by insurance or any second party... The start of a ban in all but name...
Because the 2nd amendment doesn't specify the type of arms envisioned, there is a big grey area. Reasonable people can differ.”
“Agreed, mental health is the primary issue in this situation and it's deplorable to have anyone, let alone veterans, unable to access mental health professionals and get help. In a well regulated system, however, it would have been possible to identify the man's issues, revoke his gun permit and seize his firearm due to the risk his mental health issues pose to the general public. Why are so many people opposed to this approach with guns, but have absolutely no qualms about the same approach being used with respect to automobiles? Is the primary purpose of an automobile more lethal than the primary purpose of a firearm?
It's a cry for ACTION on both mental health issues and better regulation of the gun industry as a whole.”
“Clearly, a man with mental issues kills another man with a gun. In a well-regulated system, the man would have had to obtain a license to own a gun (akin to a driver's license) and a permit for the gun itself (akin to a license plate). These, as with drivers and vehicle permits, would need to be renewed on a regular basis and part of the renewal process could, where issues are suspected, include mental health exams. Failure to "pass" the tests and exams would result in a ban from gun ownership (akin to a lifetime driving ban) and seizure of any and all registered firearms. Gun ownership licenses and permits would be required for all firearms transactions, including ammo purchases and gun show/swap meet transactions. In the case of complaints, the review could occur outside the normal cycle (akin to a DMV interview/hearing when you exceed a certain number of demerit points).
No guarantee that this wouldn't happen, but it would certainly remove guns from the hands of people who are clearly suffering from mental health issues by assessing them on a regular basis. The current system of criminal background checks means nothing once the gun has been purchased legally. The gun may be transferred without a background check or the owner may develop mental health issues or a criminal record after purchasing the weapon. According to the FBI - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics - these situations are not covered by the current process.”