Elementary School Shooting In Connecticut

[Red7227]

Believe it or not the vast majority of parent with guns and small children, take care to keep their guns away from their kids. Amazingly enough they do so without laws telling them have to do so. I am guessing cause maybe the are even more concerned about their kids safety than the government or folks on internet forum. :shock:

In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[4] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[5] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[6] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[7]

Child Access Prevention (CAP)
Research indicates that CAP laws are correlated with a reduction in unintentional gun deaths by 23%,[127] and gun suicides among those aged 14 through 17 by 11%.[128] A study by Lott did not detect a relationship between CAP laws and accidental gun deaths or suicides among those age 19 and under between 1979 and 1996.[16] The National Bureau of Economic Research has found that CAP laws are correlated with a reduction of non-fatal gun injuries among both children and adults by 30-40%.[125]

Its only wiki, but you get the idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... ted_States

Say we passed a law mandating approved gun safes for the storage of all firearms. How many parents that are currently stupid enough to leave guns where the kids can access them, are going to hear about the new law and rush out and buy a gun safe? How do you propose enforcing it?

Easy. Police inspect the installation before you get approval for your gun license, or in the case of the US, your license is revoked if you don't have a licence and your guns get confiscated and destroyed. Its how its done in Australia and it works. Fund it with a tax on firearm ownership. People pay taxes on cars and beer and cigarettes, why not guns?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Believe it or not the vast majority of parent with guns and small children, take care to keep their guns away from their kids. Amazingly enough they do so without laws telling them have to do so. I am guessing cause maybe the are even more concerned about their kids safety than the government or folks on internet forum. :shock:

In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[4] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[5] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[6] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[7]

Its only wiki, but you get the idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... ted_States

Interesting statistics but since no breakdown of the number of kids I don't see how its is all relevant to dispute my claim that vast majority of parents keep guns away from their kids. But for the sake of argument lets assume that all 22,237 accidental gunshot incident involved children and the presence of gunsafe would have prevent 100% of all the accident. (Realistically there are probably no more than 10s kids killed each year cause the got hold a gun and probably a couple of hundred injuried and I won't be surprised if the number was lower). In country where 50+ million households have guns and 200+ million guns exist, it appears that 99.98+% of all guns are not involved in any type of accidental incident each year. 99.98% qualify as the vast majority in my book.

Say we passed a law mandating approved gun safes for the storage of all firearms. How many parents that are currently stupid enough to leave guns where the kids can access them, are going to hear about the new law and rush out and buy a gun safe? How do you propose enforcing it?

Easy. Police inspect the installation before you get approval for your gun license, or in the case of the US, your license is revoked if you don't have a licence and your guns get confiscated and destroyed. Its how its done in Australia and it works. Fund it with a tax on firearm ownership. People pay taxes on cars and beer and cigarettes, why not guns?

Putting aside that legal issues. For instance it is is illegal for a government official to step inside a person house without a warrant. (That pesky bill of rights,which is lacking in Australia, The 4th Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized") You also do need not a license to own a gun in the US, any more than you need a license to vote, or start a blog. Nor can the government confiscate and destroy property without due process.

Let simply focus on the cost to see what a silly idea this is. A gun safe cost around $400. (I don't know if that is a very good one or not) There 50 million household that own guns.
So you want the American people $20 Billion to what keep few kids from being killed by unsecured guns. On the list of things I want American to spend $20 billion on this near the bottom.

But the more important issue is what the hell good does it do for me a to have a gun locked in a gun safe, if there is an intruder in my house?

 

[Red7227]

But the more important issue is what the hell good does it do for me a to have a gun locked in a gun safe, if there is an intruder in my house?

Try locking your door.

 

[Jupiter551]

There's all sorts of Kalishnikov knock-offs. People used to be able to get a WASR10 for about a hundred bucks, but that was many years ago.

yeah but Kalashnikov is just the name of the guy who designed it, all those weapons in your picture are kalashnikovs but I can see, off the top of my head, an AK-47 (middle right), AKS-74 (middle left), AK-74M x3 (top left is the later model, 1990+, bottom left is the prior variant 1985-90, bottom right appears to be a 74M minus the flash suppressor and the regular folding buttstock replaced with a metal folding one), top right is, I think, a modified AK-74M with an aftermarket rail interface and folding buttstock.

Saying they're all ak-47s is like saying M-16, M-4, and M-110 are all AR-15s.

I know I'm being pedantic but whatever.

 

[Mirra]

Putting aside that legal issues. For instance it is is illegal for a government official to step inside a person house without a warrant. (That pesky bill of rights,which is lacking in Australia, The 4th Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized") You also do need not a license to own a gun in the US, any more than you need a license to vote, or start a blog. Nor can the government confiscate and destroy property without due process.

That argument is silly. It only works if everyone were REQUIRED to own a gun. It is a right. If laws were passed along the lines of what Red is suggesting, then failure to allow an inspector one time access to your property for an inspection is to forfeit that right. Just because it is a right does not mean there can not be reasonable requirements or limitations placed upon it.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Fantastic article on gun control and the NRA here...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ns.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Bocefish]

But the more important issue is what the hell good does it do for me a to have a gun locked in a gun safe, if there is an intruder in my house?

Try locking your door.

Why didn't we ever think of that?

Excuse me Mr. Killer Rapist, would you mind not breaking in until I can get my safe opened and gun loaded? Brilliant! Fucking idiotic is what that is. A gun for self & home protection requires quick access.

 

[Mirra]

In other news, I'm sitting here struggling to keep tears from my eyes looking at the front page of today's Hartford Courant.

 

[Neudiin]

Just gonna leave these here. I ask that you read the article and then watch the video.

I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother

 

[Red7227]

Why didn't we ever think of that?

Excuse me Mr. Killer Rapist, would you mind not breaking in until I can get my safe opened and gun loaded? Brilliant! Fucking idiotic is what that is. A gun for self & home protection requires quick access.

Right, the gun needs to be available and in plain sight so that when the rapist breaks in he can pick it up and shoot you with it. Your ninja rapists are actually pretty rare. Breaking in makes noise and if you spend $50 on some decent locks then the breaking will take long enough and be loud enough that you will at least be awake when the intruder is finally in your house.

This assumption that you will spring awake at the last moment and shoot your attacker dead is much less likely than you will spring half asleep and shoot yourself, dog, kids, wife, neighbour or a fireman. Spend some money on basic security before you start shooting random people for no particularly good reason, or worse, have someone steal your gun and shoot you with it.

 

[Bocefish]

Why didn't we ever think of that?

Excuse me Mr. Killer Rapist, would you mind not breaking in until I can get my safe opened and gun loaded? Brilliant! Fucking idiotic is what that is. A gun for self & home protection requires quick access.

Right, the gun needs to be available and in plain sight so that when the rapist breaks in he can pick it up and shoot you with it. Your ninja rapists are actually pretty rare. Breaking in makes noise and if you spend $50 on some decent locks then the breaking will take long enough and be loud enough that you will at least be awake when the intruder is finally in your house.

This assumption that you will spring awake at the last moment and shoot your attacker dead is much less likely than you will spring half asleep and shoot yourself, dog, kids, wife, neighbour or a fireman. Spend some money on basic security before you start shooting random people for no particularly good reason, or worse, have someone steal your gun and shoot you with it.

Breaking in makes noise sometimes, not always. Either way, the gun does not need to be in plain sight, just readily available where you don't need to waste crucial seconds rushing to and opening the safe, then go through whatever unlocking and loading procedures the idiotic government deems reasonable. Having high on a shelf or in your bed nightstand, or somewhere out of sight but where you can access it in a hurry. If you have children, educate them. It's not rocket science.

Go to minute mark 5.30 and see what an Australian has to say:

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Putting aside that legal issues. For instance it is is illegal for a government official to step inside a person house without a warrant. (That pesky bill of rights,which is lacking in Australia, The 4th Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized") You also do need not a license to own a gun in the US, any more than you need a license to vote, or start a blog. Nor can the government confiscate and destroy property without due process.

That argument is silly. It only works if everyone were REQUIRED to own a gun. It is a right. If laws were passed along the lines of what Red is suggesting, then failure to allow an inspector one time access to your property for an inspection is to forfeit that right. Just because it is a right does not mean there can not be reasonable requirements or limitations placed upon it.

Well 47% of household own guns so it applies to a huge group. First the Supreme Court ruled that gun locks etc are not reasonable requirements.
It is depressing how willing US citizen are to give up their rights and are fine with allowing an inspector in your house in order to be allowed to exercise a fundamental right of self defense.

The internet is a very dangerous place for children; it is filled with porn, predators, the worst type of violence and hate speech, access to information about to make or buy drugs, and explosives. It is not something that responsible adult should allow their children unlimited and unsupervised access. Access to the internet is a contributor to all most all tragic deaths among teens. Luckily there are software/hardware solutions to keep children safe but lots of adult are dumber than their kids about computers so proper installation and setup is key to keeping our kids safe.

So Mirra I assume you'd be cool with requiring all computers that access the internet to have child safety features installed,and would have no problem allowing a government inspector into your house to check your computer and make sure the child safety software is installed correctly. :lol:

 

[Bocefish]

Excellent segment from the mother of a mentally ill child:

http://mashable.com/2012/12/17/liza-lon ... interview/

On a side note, the male psychiatrist looks way creepy! :shock:

 

[Mirra]

The internet is a very dangerous place for children; it is filled with porn, predators, the worst type of violence and hate speech, access to information about to make or buy drugs, and explosives. It is not something that responsible adult should allow their children unlimited and unsupervised access. Access to the internet is a contributor to all most all tragic deaths among teens. Luckily there are software/hardware solutions to keep children safe but lots of adult are dumber than their kids about computers so proper installation and setup is key to keeping our kids safe.

So Mirra I assume you'd be cool with requiring all computers that access the internet to have child safety features installed,and would have no problem allowing a government inspector into your house to check your computer and make sure the child safety software is installed correctly. :lol:

1. An inspector for such a thing is unlikely. There are software based clients they could use to monitor such a thing OR hardware appliances hosted by ISPs to do it. Fail analogy is fail. My geekery triumphs!
2. You know... a household that intends to keep children from having unattended access to a computer/the internet can use this nifty feature built into Windows, Mac OSX, and every flavor of Linux I've ever used called a PASSWORD.
3. Most of the parental control software packages are designed for the technologically challenged. If I had children, I have the knowledge to enable many types of restrictions and filters without spending a dime. With a little research, I could do more. Someone who isn't such a geek (And thank goodness for them since they are why I have a job) can spend a little money and get something designed for someone who only knows the basics. TADA!

Look at how many freedoms we have already given up for the sake of feeling safe from the evil terrorists. Established by the right. Extended by the left. Virtually unmentioned during the debates besides a statement from Obama confirming what he'd done and Romney saying he would have done the same. Our rights are already screwed. You want your gun rights protected because you like guns. You can justify it in all kinds of pretty ways but that's the reason. You can continue to lie to me about it but please don't lie to yourself.

 

[Alana Cruise]

I dont want to argue about internet, guns, or mental health. I just want to remember those who past. This is such a sad time for me. This poem made me cry today

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

1. An inspector for such a thing is unlikely. There are software based clients they could use to monitor such a thing OR hardware appliances hosted by ISPs to do it. Fail analogy is fail. My geekery triumphs!
...

Look at how many freedoms we have already given up for the sake of feeling safe from the evil terrorists. Established by the right. Extended by the left. Virtually unmentioned during the debates besides a statement from Obama confirming what he'd done and Romney saying he would have done the same. Our rights are already screwed. You want your gun rights protected because you like guns. You can justify it in all kinds of pretty ways but that's the reason. You can continue to lie to me about it but please don't lie to yourself.

Like a lot of people you seemed to confused about constitutional rights. We don't have a constitutional right to fly on an airplane or drive a car. Which is why the government can and does, xray us, grope us, and subject us to silly restrictions in order to fly. We don't have a constitutional right to add an addition to our house, which why we have building inspectors come and make sure we follow all kinds of nit picking procedure before adding a deck to our house. We don't have a constitutional right to cut someones hair which is why the government can and does make us get a license to do so.

I don't own a gun, and I am unlikely to ever own one in the future. I have no particularly love of guns and in fact if every gun in the US not in the hands of cop or soldier stopped working tomorrow I'd be delighted. What I do love is our constitutional rights and so I am willing to advocate for protecting the 2nd Amendment in order to help protect the amendments I do care about namely 1,4,5,9,10,14, 19 and 21.

The reason you shouldn't permit my internet child safety software inspectors, is not because of technology reason. It is because putting restriction on the internet interfere with your constitutional protected freedom of speech. Back in in 1996, the government attempted with Communication Decency Act to restrict access to the internet to protect children. The Supreme Court in 9-0 ruling declared the law unconstitutional on free speech grounds and told Congress and the Executive Branch, keeping your fucking hands of our internet. Every additional attempt to regulate content on the internet has been meet with a similar court response.

Here is why you should care. If I post something that is stupid, offensive and/or racist on this forum or Facebook, Amber can ban and my FB friends can call me out or defriend me, but I can't go to jail. If make the same post in England and some countries in Europe people can and do go to jail for saying stuff on the net. I am not sure if the same thing has happened in Australia or Canada, but it is pretty likely it will soon. So while the Aussie and European can shake their heads at disbelief over our crazy gun culture, I know this same constitution means I don't have to worry that some government official will toss me in jail for posting in the internet. So I am supporting the constitution not gun rights.

 

[SoTxBob]

Breaking in makes noise and if you spend $50 on some decent locks then the breaking will take long enough and be loud enough that you will at least be awake when the intruder is finally in your house.

just as a slight correction.. a decent entry lock set with deadbolt [not the cheap crap that bump keys work so easily with] will start out around $100 and go up from there... multiply by the quantity of exterior doors.
for my $$ tho... big dogs are by far the best deterrent to any home invasion. And they're fun to play with :-D

Go to minute mark 5.30 and see what an Australian has to say.

[/quote]


It's sad that they didnt realize up front that the ban laws would only effect the law abiding citizens. IMO, the major diff here is that no matter the laws, firearms are so ingrained in this country and heritage that not many would actually turn them in unless they needed the cash from a buyback. Take into account the volume of guns sold and traded before paperwork was required for every sale and you have staggering numbers of untraceable weaponry the govt will never get. whats the term.. ....oh yeah..... 'civil disobedience.'

 

[Nordling]

You don't care about the Third Amendment? You want to be forced to allow soldiers to have slumber parties in your home?

The whole deal with the Second Amendment is a bit silly, IMHO. The wording, as we've discussed to death, is shitty. It's one sentence, and includes two dependent clauses, separated by a comma. Gun advocates like to avoid the first part and claim it has nothing to do with the second part... but that's just not how grammar and syntax works.

It's time for the Second Amendment to be thrown away and rewritten. In its present form, modern readers have no clue about what a militia is (no, it's not a bunch of neo-nazis playing war in N. Idaho) or they indulge in the belief that a piece of modern technology (relatively modern, it's not ancient), GUNS, is some kind of innate RIGHT--and that's just silly.

 

[Jupiter551]

Go to minute mark 5.30 and see what an Australian has to say.

It's sad that they didnt realize up front that the ban laws would only effect the law abiding citizens. IMO, the major diff here is that no matter the laws, firearms are so ingrained in this country and heritage that not many would actually turn them in unless they needed the cash from a buyback. Take into account the volume of guns sold and traded before paperwork was required for every sale and you have staggering numbers of untraceable weaponry the govt will never get. whats the term.. ....oh yeah..... 'civil disobedience.'

Hoollld on, for a start that video is from over 10 years ago - the police car that drove past the rally is from like 1999 lol, secondly the statistics are fudged - homocides aren't up 3.2%, they've actually dropped by 20% since the laws in 1996, 300% increase in gun murders in the state of Victoria that was quoted is due to a gangland war that saw at least 36 deaths, all of them gangsters shooting each other.

Breaking in makes noise sometimes, not always. Either way, the gun does not need to be in plain sight, just readily available where you don't need to waste crucial seconds rushing to and opening the safe, then go through whatever unlocking and loading procedures the idiotic government deems reasonable. Having high on a shelf or in your bed nightstand, or somewhere out of sight but where you can access it in a hurry. If you have children, educate them. It's not rocket science.

Here's a better idea, build a 12 foot deep sheerwalled deadfall trap in front of each of your doors and windows, with a removable cover you take off at night. Toss a funky, colour-coordinated throw-rug over each of the traps. Then enjoy a good night's sleep and if you find a rapist, burglar, fireman or daughter's boyfriend curled up asleep at the bottom of the pit (wrapped in the useful throw rug!) call the police or grab a ladder as necessary.

 

[Bocefish]

It's time for the Second Amendment to be thrown away and rewritten. In its present form, modern readers have no clue about what a militia is (no, it's not a bunch of neo-nazis playing war in N. Idaho) or they indulge in the belief that a piece of modern technology (relatively modern, it's not ancient), GUNS, is some kind of innate RIGHT--and that's just silly.

The Second Amendment is fine the way it is and the SCOTUS has correctly interpreted its meaning. The only ones who want to change it are the sniveling gun grabbing liberals because they can't have their way.

 

[Nordling]

It's time for the Second Amendment to be thrown away and rewritten. In its present form, modern readers have no clue about what a militia is (no, it's not a bunch of neo-nazis playing war in N. Idaho) or they indulge in the belief that a piece of modern technology (relatively modern, it's not ancient), GUNS, is some kind of innate RIGHT--and that's just silly.

The Second Amendment is fine the way it is and the SCOTUS has correctly interpreted its meaning. The only ones who want to change it are the sniveling gun grabbing liberals because they can't have their way.

As long as you're going to make unfounded assertions, I'll do the same.

SCOTUS was WRONG in their interpretation.

As a liberal, I DO NOT want to grab your "gun" or any other part of your "anatomy."

It is not liberals who snivel; it is not us who sit in fear to the degree that we demand the right to lethal penis extensions.

 

[Bocefish]

It's time for the Second Amendment to be thrown away and rewritten. In its present form, modern readers have no clue about what a militia is (no, it's not a bunch of neo-nazis playing war in N. Idaho) or they indulge in the belief that a piece of modern technology (relatively modern, it's not ancient), GUNS, is some kind of innate RIGHT--and that's just silly.

The Second Amendment is fine the way it is and the SCOTUS has correctly interpreted its meaning. The only ones who want to change it are the sniveling gun grabbing liberals because they can't have their way.

As long as you're going to make unfounded assertions, I'll do the same.

SCOTUS was WRONG in their interpretation.

As a liberal, I DO NOT want to grab your "gun" or any other part of your "anatomy."

It is not liberals who snivel; it is not us who sit in fear to the degree that we demand the right to lethal penis extensions.

You just proved to everyone how ignorant your reasoning is and how small minded you are on the issue. :lol:

ETA all these women crave penis extensions too right. That penis extension phrase seems to be your central repetitive reasoning. Hmmm

 

[Nordling]

It's time for the Second Amendment to be thrown away and rewritten. In its present form, modern readers have no clue about what a militia is (no, it's not a bunch of neo-nazis playing war in N. Idaho) or they indulge in the belief that a piece of modern technology (relatively modern, it's not ancient), GUNS, is some kind of innate RIGHT--and that's just silly.

The Second Amendment is fine the way it is and the SCOTUS has correctly interpreted its meaning. The only ones who want to change it are the sniveling gun grabbing liberals because they can't have their way.

As long as you're going to make unfounded assertions, I'll do the same.

SCOTUS was WRONG in their interpretation.

As a liberal, I DO NOT want to grab your "gun" or any other part of your "anatomy."

It is not liberals who snivel; it is not us who sit in fear to the degree that we demand the right to lethal penis extensions.

You just proved to everyone how ignorant your reasoning is and how small minded you are on the issue. :lol:

You sure are good at making assertions you pull out of your butt.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

The whole deal with the Second Amendment is a bit silly, IMHO. The wording, as we've discussed to death, is shitty. It's one sentence, and includes two dependent clauses, separated by a comma. Gun advocates like to avoid the first part and claim it has nothing to do with the second part... but that's just not how grammar and syntax works.

It's time for the Second Amendment to be thrown away and rewritten. In its present form, modern readers have no clue about what a militia is (no, it's not a bunch of neo-nazis playing war in N. Idaho) or they indulge in the belief that a piece of modern technology (relatively modern, it's not ancient), GUNS, is some kind of innate RIGHT--and that's just silly.

I pretty much agree. Although you have to accept the 2nd Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. Even when Justices change in future years, Scalia opinion that the 2nd Amendment means people have the right to keep guns in their house for self protection is unlikely to change. The scholarship behind the opinion is impressive.

I'd happily support amending the 2nd Amendment and making gun ownership similar to how we treat owning a car, a useful but deadly device, that require training license etc. But changing the amendment is the process that needs to happen, anything else just isn't going to matter much. Since rewriting the 2nd amendment isn't likely to happen any time soon (understandment) the focus should be on keep guns and other dangerous devices out of the hands of crazies.

 

[SoTxBob]

Here's a better idea, build a 12 foot deep sheerwalled deadfall trap in front of each of your doors and windows, with a removable cover you take off at night.

Naaaaa.. too much work. I'll just let them do whatever they want to get in and then shoot'em in the face.

As a liberal, I DO NOT want to grab your "gun" or any other part of your "anatomy."

Thx U BB.. Tips first plz :lol:

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

As long as you're going to make unfounded assertions, I'll do the same.

SCOTUS was WRONG in their interpretation.
.

Why was SCOTUS wrong?. But in order for you to avoid looking like an uninformed Liberal . I highly suggest you read the wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller. Then read the Heller opinion, I think most fair minded people will agree that Scalia arguments are stronger than Stevens.

 

[Nordling]

The whole deal with the Second Amendment is a bit silly, IMHO. The wording, as we've discussed to death, is shitty. It's one sentence, and includes two dependent clauses, separated by a comma. Gun advocates like to avoid the first part and claim it has nothing to do with the second part... but that's just not how grammar and syntax works.

It's time for the Second Amendment to be thrown away and rewritten. In its present form, modern readers have no clue about what a militia is (no, it's not a bunch of neo-nazis playing war in N. Idaho) or they indulge in the belief that a piece of modern technology (relatively modern, it's not ancient), GUNS, is some kind of innate RIGHT--and that's just silly.

I pretty much agree. Although you have to accept the 2nd Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. Even when Justices change in future years, Scalia opinion that the 2nd Amendment means people have the right to keep guns in their house for self protection is unlikely to change. The scholarship behind the opinion is impressive.

I'd happily support amending the 2nd Amendment and making gun ownership similar to how we treat owning a car, a useful but deadly device, that require training license etc. But changing the amendment is the process that needs to happen, anything else just isn't going to matter much. Since rewriting the 2nd amendment isn't likely to happen any time soon (understandment) the focus should be on keep guns and other dangerous devices out of the hands of crazies.

Agree. And really, I'm not against people keeping a weapon for home security...as long at they aren't nuts. The problem is, sometimes it's difficult to define "nuts." News today indicates that the killer's mother was a survivalist--and a bit paranoid about the future, and may even have taught her son how to use her may pieces of armament--knowing he was a disturbed child. Is that nuts? I think so, but many will disagree.

 

[Bocefish]

Here's a better idea, build a 12 foot deep sheerwalled deadfall trap in front of each of your doors and windows, with a removable cover you take off at night.

Naaaaa.. too much work. I'll just let them do whatever they want to get in and then shoot'em in the face.

Not to mention some nut job who lets their pets crap and piss all over my yard would sue if little princess fell in the hole and broke her leg.

As a liberal, I DO NOT want to grab your "gun" or any other part of your "anatomy."

Thx U BB.. Tips first plz :lol:

Screw the tips, a steak dinner at the very minimum.

 

[Nordling]

As long as you're going to make unfounded assertions, I'll do the same.

SCOTUS was WRONG in their interpretation.
.

Why was SCOTUS wrong?. But in order for you to avoid looking like an uninformed Liberal . I highly suggest you read the wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller. Then read the Heller opinion, I think most fair minded people will agree that Scalia arguments are stronger than Stevens.

Interesting you should ask. lol If you check the context of my post, it was more of a nose tweek to people who make assertions without any backup information. Such assertions are ambiguous at best: "John is a good boy." Why is he a good boy? (from Sophomore English class).

As far as Scalia's assertions, I noticed he stated that the Amendments are written in "plain English" so lay people can easily understand them and interpret them. That in itself is an ambiguous assertion. It's obvious that the second Amendment, though it consists of plain words, is constructed in a completely confusing way, and that only the Might of a SCOTUS majority gives it any real weight. I say shit can it...and if necessary write a new amendment that really DOES make sense to the average citizen.

 

[Nordling]

Oh, and I do not find Scalia to be a competent legal mind. Recently he affirmed his RIGHT to hate gay people.