Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Number nine, number nine
Sometimes ya just gots to have a gun (or more)
(KARK) Authorities in Van Buren County, Arkansas say they were forced to shoot nine dogs in order to recover the body of pet hoarder who passed away inside her rural home.
The dogs had already consumed part of the woman’s body.
“When the deputies arrived on the scene to get in to her, the dogs were vicious. You couldn’t even get into the trailer to check on her to see what needed to be done,” Van Buren County Sheriff Scott Bradley said.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Farook and Malik were dressed in black masks and tactical gear
The bodies after being shot during the so called gun battle were in regular street clothes and the woman was in dress and high heels.
Photoshop crew is standing by to fix their fukup .....
|
|
The Chief
climber
Down the hill & across the Valley from......
|
|
Two of the four weapons used in the shooting were legally purchased,
And ILLEGALLY utilized by the two perps. None of the weps utilized by the individuals yesterday were legally registered to the individuals. Thus rendering them totally ILLEGAL by both Strict CA and Fed current Gun Control Acquisition and Ownership laws.
Also, according to the logic that abounds here, the actual registered owners of the weapons utilized yesterday should be held totally accountable for allowing the perps access to their weapons. I concur 100%.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 3, 2015 - 08:29am PT
|
Dear America: Here's Your Gun Solution
2 hours ago | Updated 1 hour ago
Sara Benincasa Comedian; author of "DC Trip" (Adaptive Books)
Bloomberg via Getty Images
Here's some common sense for you. I want gun ownership to be as boring and annoying as car ownership. I want you to go to some Department of Weapons and sit for hours. I want folks who own guns to prove their skill, their mental and physical health, and to be licensed and reviewed over the years just as happens with our driver's licenses. You earn the right to own and drive a vehicle; earn the right to own and use a gun.
Quibble with me over semantics if you want to; what is a "right" vs. what is a "privilege." I'll be busy with my friends and colleagues trying to prevent more unnecessary deaths.
Gun ownership isn't some inalienable right granted by God. Remember, the Constitution was written by men coming out of a long and bloody war near the end of the 18th century. It was written for their time.
It also included the "right" to own a human being.
Things change.
Folks evolve.
I want a voluntary federal buyback program for firearms, with hunting weapons and vintage/historic weapons exempt. I want the sale of weapons to be even more tightly controlled than the sale of Xanax and other controlled substances. I want advertising for firearms to be as regulated as DTC (direct to consumer) advertising for pharmaceuticals ("May cause shortness of breath, long-lasting boners, etc.") We can do all of this. It'll likely create jobs, believe it or not: regulators, educators, enforcers.
It will not end murder. It won't end rape or robbery either. It will make it harder to commit those crimes. There will be a black market for guns as there is for any coveted item in a capitalist society. (And I'm not anti-capitalism, btw. I'm a big fan! Sorry, hippies. I do love you guys, by the way, you're very nice people with good instincts.)
Continuing education credits for gun owners should be required, just as they are with medical professionals.
When you have a greater ability to take a human life, you have a greater responsibility to prove your fitness to wield the tools that may create that end.
And that's how the f*#k you well-regulate a goddamn American militia.
This post originally appeared on Medium.
More:
|
|
The Chief
climber
Down the hill & across the Valley from......
|
|
John M!
VOX = FOX of the Liberal Media
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
so you didn't read it or watch the video..
Check..
by the way.. I have no idea what vox is. I just read the article. Sometimes I even read articles from fox news. I do realize how biased it is. I try to see past the bias and understand what is being said.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Philo posted:
"Two of the four weapons used in the shooting were legally purchased..."
Since when are Straw Purchases legal?
Not in California, they aren't. You can look it up.
Philo, you need to think before you post this sh#t. Seriously.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
so how about refuting it if you disagree with what it says. Instead of just sneering. I dont[ know all of the background facts on this subject, so I can't refute what it says and shows. It seems logical to me, but I don't have enough history with this to know what is really a fact and what is a skewed interpretation.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Philo, you need to think before you post this sh#t. Seriously.
I'm tellin' ya, he's got digital turrets syndrome. When it is really bad he deletes and denies.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
What make you think they were straw purchases, Chaz?
Farook could have bought those guns thru a private sale.
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, Moab, A sailboat, or some time zone
|
|
He nor anyone else took it. Gary. Go figure that one. Twit....
Perhaps because you took cheap to a new low level.
Susan
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
"Philo, you need to think before you post this sh#t. Seriously."
That's impossible.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Monolith writes:
"What make you think they were straw purchases, Chaz?"
In California you have to go through a licensed gun dealer, with paperwork, transfer fee, and waiting period to legally transfer a gun to anyone outside your immediate family. ( your own brother is not considered immediate family, btw - he still needs to fill out the forms )
Buying a gun for a former roommate is the definition of straw purchase. The crime confirms it.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Gun ownership isn't some inalienable right granted by God. Remember, the Constitution was written by men coming out of a long and bloody war near the end of the 18th century. It was written for their time.
It also included the "right" to own a human being.
Philo posted the above, and he should stop posting things that are obviously and provably false.
There is no "right" to own a human being in the US Constitution, even before the 13th Amendment.
At the time of the Constitution was ratified, lots of states outlawed slavery (although some of course permitted it).
If there were a Constitutional "right" to own a slave, then it would have been impossible for any state to (validly) outlaw it.
State law cannot trump a Constitutional right. (If you're interested in that point, read up on the "Supremacy Clause.")
It would be correct to say that the US Constitution as originally ratified acknowledged that slavery existed in parts of the US at that time.
But that's not what Philo wrote.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
It was implicitly allowed. There was a very robust debate on the issue and the northerners lost the argument. You can't get to a 3/5 compromise without very much allowing for the legality of slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
You'll note that this is in the body of the Constitution. They thought addressing slavery's impact on elections was more important than anything in the Bill of Rights and they appear to have bent over backwards to avoid using the word "slavery" to make themselves feel better.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
There's a lot uncertainty about viable solutions for gun violence.
Unfortunately, answers are harder to come by since for the past 20 years, the NRA has flexed its muscles to block federal funding of such research.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
HDDJ what you wrote is correct but it in now way contradicts that there was no RIGHT to slavery in the Constitution.
Again, if there were such a right, then no state could have outlawed slavery.
Many (most) states outlawed slavery at the time the Constitution was ratified.
Ergo, what Philo wrote was false.
This is really just elementary logic and history--there is no reason to be contentious about it.
Edit for those of you who are completely ignorant of fundamental principles of US law:
If you have a federal right (based on either a federal statute or the US Constitution), then no state can validly abridge that right. An example would be the "right" to an abortion (which should not be right because it is based on illegitimate liberal activist judges improper "interpretation" of the Constitution, but that's a separate point).
If a state law conflicts with your federal "right" to an abortion, then that state law is invalid an unenforceable.
If there were a federal "right" to slavery under the original US Constitution, no state could have prohibited it.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy tweeted a powerful message to those who lazily offer "thoughts and prayers" to victims of the San Bernardino shooting.
Chris Murphy
@ChrisMurphyCT
Your "thoughts" should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your "prayers" should be for forgiveness if you do nothing - again.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!