Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 18, 2014

An 11-year-old boy in Frazeysburg, Ohio, accidentally shot his best friend to death Tuesday at home Tuesday after finding a loaded revolver while his mother was outside mowing the lawn. Brady Scherer called 911 to report the shooting, but his friend Lucas Templin, 11, was pronounced dead at the scene of a gunshot wound to the chest. Neighbor Ross McNemar said, "I tried to comfort the little boy. He was shaking and bawling. He had blood on him. He kept saying, 'Is he OK? Hes going to be OK, Mom? '"

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Freedom is expensive.

- the NRA

#1 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2014-06-18 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of innocents.

-The NRA

#2 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-06-18 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

He was just exercising his second amendment rights. Nothing to be learned here, just move on.

#3 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2014-06-18 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Someone tell him to say that he was standing his ground.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-18 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

I doubt he was his "best" friend.

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-06-18 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I doubt he was his "best" friend."

When you are 11, everyone is your "best friend" [...]

#6 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-06-18 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

#5..."I doubt he was his "best" friend."

What the hell are you yammering about Mackris?

You wanna re-animate the corpse and put him on the stand?

Has the story no meaning to you if the corpse was only his 3rd to the best friend?

Sheesh!

#7 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-06-18 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Young boys will find and shoot an unsecured, loaded gun.

Is that too much to assume?

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-06-18 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Teenager make mistake, drives off bridge, kills 4.

Teenager dares friend to swim across river. Friend drowns.

Prank turns deadly as 'chicken' game causes head on collision.

_________ fill in the blank.

#9 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-18 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

#9 | POSTED BY TUFFLUV AT 2014-06-18 11:13 AM | FLAG:

Just go ahead and say it. Don't be such a chicken.

#10 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-06-18 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tuffluv: Why do you feel the need to minimize this tragedy? A gun rights advocate should want stories like this to be told so that people who own guns are less reckless in how they treat them at home.

In fact, since your side is constantly pushing for more guns to be in our society, you should feel obligated to get stories like this out.

#11 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The question is, why do you feel the need to maximize this story?

And the answer is, because you irrationally think that a ban is the most effective way to protect us all from ourselves.

The point I make is that accidents happen. Does every accident that results in a tragic death make the headlines? Or is it just the ones with an agenda behind them?

#12 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-18 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#12.."Does every accident that results in a tragic death make the headlines? Or is it just the ones with an agenda behind them?"

Yeah, it's the media's fault, huh Tuffy.

#13 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-06-18 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

And the answer is, because you irrationally think that a ban is the most effective way to protect us all from ourselves.

You do your argument no favors by misrepresenting my position. I support the right to keep a gun at home for self protection.

Plenty of accidents make the news. Every summer there's a rash of stories about small kids left in cars who die.

But every time a gun tragedy makes the news, a bunch of people think they have to pretend it's not that important. The NRA has stoked gun-grabber paranoia so well that you care more about the gun than the dead kid.

#14 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

I doubt he was his "best" friend.

It's weird you don't believe the dead kid's grandmother, who said in the link, "They were best friends."

#15 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Mother is an idiot. What was she going to do if she was attacked while mowing the lawn when she left her gun inside the house?

#16 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-06-18 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

I see a supervision and training fail. The government can't fix that; each family must.

#17 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-06-18 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

You do your argument no favors by misrepresenting my position. I support the right to keep a gun at home for self protection.

First of all, my argument needs no favors.. It's like a fence post set in concrete.

Secondly, we all know you are for allowing our government to infringe in whatever way they see fit our enshrined right to bear arms. Your proclaimed stance of a narrowly defined right to keep a pistol in the closet is just a tool you use to deflect criticism.

You know as well as anyone that giving any ground on this issue leads to an inevitable end.

I don't own a single handgun. Shall I use that to deflect any accusations of my being a gun nut? I don't need to, because I do not care what anyone thinks of my defense of barring the government any ability whatsoever to infringe the right of American citizens to own firearms and ammunition.

Now, on the topic of whether you should have even brought attention to this story, have a look at this..


in reality among all child accidental deaths nationally, firearms were involved in 1.1 percent, compared to motor vehicles (41 percent), suffocation (21 percent), drowning (15 percent), fires (8 percent), pedal cycles (2 percent), poisoning (2 percent), falls (1.9 percent), environmental factors (1.5 percent), and medical mistakes (1 percent). Since the difference between accidental deaths due to medical mistakes (1 percent) and accidental deaths due to firearms (1.1 percent) is only 0.1 percentage points, perhaps we should consider a ban on pediatricians along with the ban they propose on firearms and large-capacity magazines.

www.childdeathreview.org

Read and weep.. Where is your concern for tragic drownings, suffocations, etc.. ? hmmmmmm?

Agenda, agenda, agenda.. Pathetic.

#18 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-18 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Plenty of accidents make the news. Every summer there's a rash of stories about small kids left in cars who die."

Even you have to admit, no one cares unless there is a big story to be made. How many drownings are national news? Who many kids hit by cars? How many children die in hospitals. Even murders are not national news. But a gun and everyone is up in arms(pun intended) to use it to promote their political agenda.

Yes it is a tragedy, yes it is sad. But it is an incredibly rare occurrence. It is a freak accident, and those will happen regardless. But the sensationalism feed the phobia that is already pressed on the people. Just read the comments on this thread and you can see exactly what i am saying. It just more using the bodies of dead children to accomplish political goals and that is shameful.

#19 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"Yes it is a tragedy, yes it is sad. But it is an incredibly rare occurrence. It is a freak accident, and those will happen regardless."

Obviously, we haven't reminded some gun owners enough times to secure their guns properly, especially if they have curious boys in their homes. So I think it is very newsworthy every single time one of these preventable accidents happens. Maybe with enough reminders some of these very stupid people will finally hear the message.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-18 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Where is your concern for tragic drownings, suffocations, etc.. ? hmmmmmm?"

Our news media here in Florida publishes lots of stories about drownings, especially small kids in family pools.

#21 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-18 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously, we haven't reminded some gun owners enough times to secure their guns properly, especially if they have curious boys in their homes. So I think it is very newsworthy every single time one of these preventable accidents happens.
#20 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-06-18 12:18 PM | FLAG:

It'll be newsworthy when somebody is actually prosecuted for their negligence.

#22 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-18 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

yes it is sad. But it is an incredibly rare occurrence. Posted by salamandagator

It is not an incredibly rare occurrence, children and adults are injured every day, in gun "accidents"

#23 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-18 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Secondly, we all know you are for allowing our government to infringe in whatever way they see fit our enshrined right to bear arms. Your proclaimed stance of a narrowly defined right to keep a pistol in the closet is just a tool you use to deflect criticism.

As I said, the NRA does a great job whipping people into an irrational state of paranoia about gun grabbers. So much nonsense in two short sentences. If I supported infringement "in whatever way," I wouldn't have opposed Chicago's handgun ban.

My position on guns is constitutional and consistent with the Heller decision, which was written by the extremely conservative justice Antonin Scalia and decided by a conservative majority Supreme Court.

Any time you want to stop ascribing false positions to me, that would be great.

#24 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

It just more using the bodies of dead children to accomplish political goals and that is shameful.

Ignoring dead children is shameful. As a gun owner you should be spreading these news stories, not trying to discourage people from spreading them.

#25 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Any time you want to stop ascribing false positions to me, that would be great.

posted by rcade
that you care more about the gun than the dead kid.

I will if you will.

#26 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-18 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is not an incredibly rare occurrence, children and adults are injured every day, in gun "accidents"

#23 | POSTED BY SAMMYAZ_RI

Wrong. www.childdeathreview.org

#27 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-18 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

The drownings comparison is bizarre. Did someone force the child to drown? Show me the clear analogy to a loaded gun going off accidentally.

I'm not suggesting a ban; I'm pointing out a flaw in logic.

#28 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-06-18 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I will if you will.

Show us you care about the dead kid and stop minimizing this tragedy and telling people there's something wrong with spreading the story.

#29 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks Mom!

#30 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-06-18 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#28

A vast majority of the gun accidents that kill children are self-inflicted. A perfectly logical analogy to self inflicted drowning, suffocation, etc.

#31 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-18 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#29

Show us you care about the other 98.9% of accidental child deaths by giving those stories as much attention as this one.

#32 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-18 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#29: Your original post of the story is not the issue, its post like these that skew the story:


Freedom is expensive.
- the NRA
#1 | Posted by ness_gadol

The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of innocents.
-The NRA
#2 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour

He was just exercising his second amendment rights. Nothing to be learned here, just move on.
#3 | Posted by SomebodyElse

Someone tell him to say that he was standing his ground.
#4 | Posted by danni

#33 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-18 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Show us you care about the other 98.9% of accidental child deaths by giving those stories as much attention as this one.

33 comments in, and you've yet to make a single comment about the danger of adults being reckless with a loaded gun in homes with children.

#34 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your original post of the story is not the issue, its post like these that skew the story ...

If that's the case, people should make an issue out of that extreme rhetoric and stop shooting the messenger. I spread stories like this for the same reason I post stories on hot car kid deaths.

#35 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Two 12 year-old white American girls who look perfectly normal stabbed their 12-year old friend 19 times in a murder attempt. By murdering their friend the girls hoped to win the acceptance of a totally fictitious cartoon character on a website.Does this mean that American kids can no longer tell the difference between fiction and reality? Has the electronic existence in which children are raised destroyed their humanity?

I don't think we can dismiss the 12-year old girls' murder plot as just another aberration the way "law and order" conservatives do every time the police employ violence against the innocent citizens who pay the salaries of the goon thug police who body slam infirm 92-year olds, shoot down usually innocent "suspects," kill the family pets, and throw grenades into the cribs of sleeping babies.

The 12-year old girls' attempt to murder their friend does offer insight into why the American population, including the "christian" churches, has been mute for the entirety of the 21st century while the US government and its military have murdered, maimed, and displaced millions of people in 7 countries that have been destroyed in whole or part, entirely on the basis of Washington's lies. There is scant sign of any American remorse over these extraordinary crimes against humanity.

It is a mystery how the US masquerades as "a light unto the world," when morality is totally dead in Amerika. There are only two issues in politics, money and morality. Can morality be resurrected? (Paul Craig Roberts)

#36 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-18 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Right, I'm sure there are a ton of misguided, uneducated, armed adults reading this comment section right now who missed out on my chastising them for their malfeasance.

That's not what I'm here for. If it was, I'd be delusional.

#37 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-18 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It is not an incredibly rare occurrence, children and adults are injured every day, in gun "accidents"
"

There are roughly 800 instances a year for some 350 million people. You are 2-3 times more likely to be killed by a hernia then an accidental gunshot. As numbers grow the rare becomes more often but not per person, that remains. In the world you will find the incredibly rare happened every day it does not make an epidemic.

#38 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

-giving any ground on this issue leads to an inevitable end. Pathetic.

Domino Theories. Pathetic.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Ignoring dead children is shameful. As a gun owner you should be spreading these news stories, not trying to discourage people from spreading them."

Really, it was a tragic accident. And you think of it is not politicized it is shameful? Dancing on the grave of a child is perfectly okay with you but to call it what it was is not?

#40 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Infringed

Not in Corky's vocabulary.

#41 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-18 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

#41

You'll have to tell us which well-regulated militia it is to which you belong?

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"33 comments in, and you've yet to make a single comment about the danger of adults being reckless with a loaded gun in homes with children."

The reckless part was not having it, it was not teaching the kid about it. Tons of stuff exists in houses that are deadly but children are taught not to play with them. Poisons, electricity, knives, pools, stairs, glass, ext... But when these take a life it is not about how they were stored or whatnot, only with guns is that the issue. Well, take issue with lack of education for the child, that's fine. But applying a completely different set of rules just because it is a big scary firearm is ridiculous.

#43 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's not what I'm here for.

As a gun rights advocate, you should be talking about gun safety when a story like this occurs, not just conjuring up exaggerated fears about gun grabbers.

The NRA has been really good at convincing millions of Americans they need guns around all the time. Since people are often stupid, reckless and thoughtless, they need to be reminded often that accidental gun deaths will occur when people aren't responsible with their firearms.

Gun people know this better than anti-gun people, because you're around guns far more often. I hear all the time how responsible your side is when you want things like open carry and liberal concealed carry, but after tragedies like this one, the only people who talk about being responsible are generally from the other side.

#44 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The reckless part was not having it, it was not teaching the kid about it.

C'mon, dude. That wasn't the only reckless part. The gun was not kept securely away from the children.

Comparing a loaded gun to stairs, glass and electricity is a bit ridiculous. It's far more lethal than just about anything else a child could get into at home.

#45 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

#42: The big one. It has over 300 million members. Only about 1/3 attend the meetings though.

#46 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-18 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, was this little boy's death a shooting? Because, you know, someone got shot.

#47 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-18 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46

The NRA is more a desperate marketing and sales group with a diminishing market than it is a well-regulated militia.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

The NRA has been really good at convincing millions of Americans they need guns around all the time. Since people are often stupid, reckless and thoughtless, they need to be reminded often that accidental gun deaths will occur when people aren't responsible with their firearms. - RCade

This is an interesting point, the NRA should use this unfortunate opportunity to promote gun safety and training, would seem reasonable.

#49 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-06-18 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

The NRA is more a desperate marketing and sales group.....

Ain't that the truth. Because of that, I haven't been a member for over 10 years.

#50 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-18 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"You'll have to tell us which well-regulated militia it is to which you belong?"

You will have to tell us to what bastardized language you attribute the constitution to if English grammar and rules do not apply.

#51 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

" The gun was not kept securely away from the children."

The point is there really is no such thing. Teach the kids just like you teach them with every other dangerous thing and there is no issue if they come across a gun.

But to act like this one dangerous thing kids are not capable of learning about is plain dumb. My daughter who just finished kindergarten knows that and ask before she even deals with approximations of guns.
So just having one somewhere that a kid is not supposed to be where it is not known to them or even if it is locked in a safe can not guarantee that they cannot get their hands on it. The only real method is education.
So pretending like there is no comparison only betrays the lack of reason a fear of guns creates. You don't fear ammonia so a kid can learn about that but not a gun according to you. Sad really.

#52 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

You will have to tell us to what bastardized language you attribute the constitution to if English grammar and rules do not apply.

#51 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014

Are guns designed to shoot things?

#53 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-18 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#51

images2.dailykos.com

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are guns designed to shoot things?

#53 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-18 01

Interesting that this question is still up in the air.

#55 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-18 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one will answer Zed because you are so obviously doing your best to be a dick about it.

Here I'll play your game for you so you can get it out of your system, but you have to promise to never bring it up on a gun thread again.

Yes Zed guns are designed to shoot things.

Now you say...

#56 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-06-18 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#56 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014

Its no fun being dick with you TAO. I was looking forward to being a dick with SAL.

Its a bit more than my attitude, however. If we can't get people to agree on what even guns are and what they do, further debate is likely useless.

#57 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-18 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

" It's far more lethal than just about anything else a child could get into at home."

Funny, over 12,000 youths 0-19 die a year from unintentional injury. about 140 of those are firearms. So according to reality, you are wrong.

#58 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

#54

Well, that makes sense. If the only place you get your information are intentionally deceiving cartoon i can see why you might hold a false definition as your opinion.

#59 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Interesting that this question is still up in the air."

That question was never in the air.

#60 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

" If we can't get people to agree on what even guns are and what they do"

Guns can not by definition hold intent. But if you are to say they are designed to fire ammunition,(to shoot bullets) then of course. But your question this time is far closer to a real question then those who would pretend like it is the same as asking if guns are designed to kill.

Yes, just as stated dozens if not more times, guns are made to facilitate a the launching of a projectile. Nothing more nothing less. If you understand the question now you are one step further to thinking reasonably about guns.

#61 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

You will have to tell us to what bastardized language you attribute the constitution to if English grammar and rules do not apply.

Of course "well-regulated militia" means the militia must never be regulated!

Just once I'd like to see a Second Amendment absolutist admit that the direct, plain language reading of the amendment's words encourages regulation instead of forbidding it.

#62 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, just as stated dozens if not more times, guns are made to facilitate a the launching of a projectile.

To kill something. Leaving that out is silly.

(Yes, they're used for target practice. But a lot of that practice is to get better at using them to kill something.)

#63 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

- intentionally deceiving cartoon

Bested by a cartoon. Must be embarrassing.

So, you think that the framers had in mind that guns belong in the hands of just any psychopath. Duly noted.

Don't fergit to go out and shoot some dinner today, btw. It's the 18th century thing to do.

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Just once I'd like to see a Second Amendment absolutist admit that the direct, plain language reading of the amendment's words encourages regulation instead of forbidding it."

Not according to the courts. Not according to the English language. You have to intentionally change the rules of English to pull that out or pretend like those who wrote it were ignorant of proper use. But to believe that you have to believe that the individual right as enumerated were put on hold to add one that was not individual. No reasonable reading of the amendment can come up with anything but that it is an individual right. It's not a plain reading that supports your opinion it is an incorrect reading. But i should not have to tell you this, it has been gone over many times as it is even less grounded then the birther arguments, it's tin foil stuff Rcade and you are better then that.

#65 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Bested by a cartoon. Must be embarrassing."

Funny again you rely on a cartoon, a stupid one. Even if we were to pretend like the courts had not already ruled and that reality did not apply you still have a cartoon that says that the police are a militia. Yes that is how dumb it is, but i have learned there is no limit to the stupidity of the anti-gun nuts.

#66 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Don't fergit to go out and shoot some dinner today, btw. It's the 18th century thing to do."

Just for you i might cook up one of the rabbits in my freezer or maybe some elk. You can dine on whatever you think was not killed.

#67 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Not according to the English language.

I think if you asked an English speaker unfamiliar with the Second Amendment or jurisprudence what this meant ...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

... the most common interpretation would tell you that sentence is pro-gun regulation, pro-militia regulation.

Yes, you can make the legal argument that it doesn't really mean that. Our judges have done that. You can argue that "well-regulated" isn't about regulations. I am not disputing that fact.

But just once I'd like to see a Second Amendment advocate admit that the language as it is understood today suggests that we need guns because we need militias and those militias must be well-regulated.

#68 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just once I'd like to see a Second Amendment absolutist admit that the direct, plain language reading of the amendment's words encourages regulation instead of forbidding it.

#62 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't have a problem with state writing laws they see fit on gun control. The problem is when the federal government gets involved. This case doesn't involve any gun laws. The parent did a very very stupid thing and a young boy was killed. What gun regulation would have prevented this? Also, what good is another gun law to a guy willing to shoot several people they don't know? Would it somehow be more severe than a murder charge? Do you think they care when they kill themselves after the fact? It sounds good to talk about gun regulation but, when you get to the practical application of those regulations they just don't work.

#69 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-18 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#67

The lowest common denominator, and an ancient one at that, is no way to run a railroad.

#70 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

btw, pre-existing state militias, the context as referred to by the framers, were not open groups of psychopaths, but were, "well-regulated".

#71 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I think if you asked an English speaker unfamiliar with the Second Amendment or jurisprudence what this meant ."

No i think you would have to ask someone unfamiliar with the English language. Most of us learned basic grammar and usage in our early education.

What then, prey tell does this mean?

A well-educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

#72 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

#71

You have no idea what you are talking about. Go read some more cartoons. If you want to know the context of the matter in the framers minds then look at their writings and then you would find that even if you cannot understands the basic concepts of the language it is made perfectly clear by the writings reinforcing the concepts they enumerated in the constitution.

#73 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#73

Pre-existing state militias, the context as referred to by the framers, were not open groups of psychopaths, but were, "well-regulated".

It's a fact.

#74 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#74

Just digging deeper there buddy. Might as well stop now.

#75 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously you have no argument to retort that as fact.

"well-regulated militias" existed previous to the amendment and were being referred to within that context. And they were well regulated, as everyone then knew.

en.wikipedia.org(United_States) #Colonial_era.2C_pre-1774

#76 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

btw, pre-existing state militias, the context as referred to by the framers, were not open groups of psychopaths, but were, "well-regulated".

#71 | POSTED BY CORKY

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The way I read this is, regulated Militias are necessary for the security of a free State. Therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

By allowing people to bear arms, they ability to create a "well regulated" Militia is possible, not that they have to exist at any point in time.

#77 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-06-18 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

A well-educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

It means that the right to own books is associated with the need to have a well-educated electorate.

#78 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

So Corkster, for the last 225 years it has been interpreted wrong and now you have the correct interpretation?

#79 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-18 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

What gun regulation would have prevented this?

It's not true no laws could have an effect on the problem.

These days, more parents who leave a child to die in a hot car are being prosecuted. Parents who leave a loaded gun unsecured that results in a child's death could be prosecuted criminally, if there were laws to criminalize it. Stories about the convictions might cause gun-owning parents to take the danger more seriously.

#80 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-18 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

The way I read this is, regulated Militias are necessary for the security of a free State.

Maybe two centuries ago that was the case. Maybe when we didn't have standing armies that was the case. But it's a dumb thing to say today. Modern-day militias are groups like Boko Haram and ISIL/ISIS.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-18 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

" And they were well regulated, as everyone then knew."

See again you are just making a fool of yourself.
The militias that existed for the most part were comprised of any able bodied man. No training to very little training was the norm. There is a big difference between a standing army and a militia. And as far as regulation goes, sure that is somewhat subjective my even the revolutionary armies were know to be very disorderly so take that as you will.

Either way, no, your statement is patently untrue.

#82 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#80: False comparison. If the gun was placed in the childs hand by an adult, then it might be comparable. Placing and leaving a child in a hot car is a criminal act. A child finding a stored gun is not. Although, I have no problem proclaiming the ignorance of the parent, it was not criminal.

#83 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-18 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It means that the right to own books is associated with the need to have a well-educated electorate."

You are being intentionally obtuse.

#84 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Parents who leave a loaded gun unsecured that results in a child's death could be prosecuted criminally,"

Would you extend that to a pool or an outlet? What about that bottle of bleach under the counter or the steak knives in the drawer? Maybe keys to the car left on the counter?

The major difference is that if you leave a child in a hot car for an extended period of time there is a reasonable expectation that there will be harm that comers to a child. There is no reasonable expectation with the other scenarios.

#85 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe two centuries ago that was the case. Maybe when we didn't have standing armies that was the case. But it's a dumb thing to say today. Modern-day militias are groups like Boko Haram and ISIL/ISIS.

#81 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-06-18 03:19 PM | FLAG:

The militia was mostly loyalist. 100 regiments of them. They were abusive of their power. They spearheaded The Crown's efforts to impose its political will by gun confiscation of colonists. A comparison to modern-day militias is more accurate than you want it to be. The right of the people to be able to bear arms is to counter the danger of having well-regulated militias.

#86 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-18 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

guns are made to facilitate a the launching of a projectile.

#61 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 02:

If you leave it at that, and my you do try, then you're guilty of sophistry.

You could at least stipulate that guns are made to facilitate launching projectiles at supersonic speeds. Reducing all your little friends to the semantic status of nerf guns is too cute.

#87 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-18 04:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

not that they have to exist at any point in time.

#77 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

They did exist prior to teh amendment, as per the link I gave. And they were regulated, AND they were the example used in teh amendment.

(teh is the new the... you people will just have to live with it, lol)

#88 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

The right of the people to be able to bear arms is to counter the danger of having well-regulated militias.

#86 | Posted by sitzkrieg at

In order to be an effective counter they'd have to organize, at the least, into well-regulated militias themselves.

Individual people with guns are just meat.

#89 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-18 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

-guns are made to facilitate a the launching of a projectile.

That's hysterical. Guns are designed to kill... quickly and efficiently and in large numbers.

If Thomas Jefferson had thought psychopaths would be able to buy today's automated weapons predominately designed for military purposes, he would have bought an eraser.

#90 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You could at least stipulate that guns are made to facilitate launching projectiles at supersonic speeds."

Not all rounds are supersonic.

"If you leave it at that, and my you do try, then you're guilty of sophistry."

That is it, there cannot be intent inherent in steel because that's just plain silly, inanimate objects and all.

#91 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Guns are designed to kill... quickly and efficiently and in large numbers."

Careful all that avoidance of reality is likely to give you whiplash.

#92 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

able to buy today's automated weapons predominately designed for military purposes"

See, you cannot get even not even one thing correct.
Not that it matters to you but automated does not mean what you think it does. Then you have your military purposes bull, do you not know the difference between an ar-15 and an m16? Do you not know the difference between a real ak-47 and the semi-auto version?

You are talking about guns specifically designed for civilians. Very different function.
I know that you don't care because it does not fit the spoon fed boggyman crap that you have bought into but you are once again completely off base.

#93 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

#92

Non-responsive posts cause Alzheimers.

#94 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If Thomas Jefferson had thought psychopaths would be able to buy today's automated weapons predominately designed for military purposes, he would have bought an eraser."

Funny how that works, he never said a thing about wishing he did something different and spoke many times is support of ownership without restriction but i guess he must not even have know what he thought about it. Luckily we have you here to let us know that he did not mean what he said and you are the only one who actually knows what he was thinking.

#95 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#93

Will argue for days about cart v mag, lmao!

#96 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

-spoke many times is support of ownership without restriction

Recently? Love to see those quotes!

#97 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are reenactment camps for people who like to live in the 18th century.

#98 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Will argue for days about cart v mag, lmao!"

It this your attempt to see how many things you can get wrong on one thread?

I mean you go to make a stupid joke and still screw it up.

I assume by cart you mean cartridge which is a projectile, propellant and primer together.

A mag is what holds ammunition.

I just find it amazing that anyone can have an opinions they hold so strongly to that reason and logic have no meaning to them and yet have absolutely no idea what it is they are even talking about.

#99 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"There are reenactment camps for people who like to live in the 18th century."

And there are padded rooms for those that would like to live outside reality.

#100 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Recently? Love to see those quotes!"

Recently? Are you serious?

You are aware that there were no restrictions on cannon or bomb or rockets or multiple barreled guns or anything at the time right? Do you think the founders were so daft as to not know there were evil people who could use them nefariously?

#101 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#100

lol! "Reality is the 18th century." ! For some folks, I guess.

#101

Yes, "A cannon on every farmstead!". Wasn't that the first NRA political campaign?

#102 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

In order to be an effective counter they'd have to organize, at the least, into well-regulated militias themselves.
Individual people with guns are just meat.

#89 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2014-06-18 04:05 PM | FLAG:

Yes, however "well-regulated" didn't really have anything to do with government oversight. The people answered the government's call, forming militias on an ad-hoc basis, choosing their own officers and NCOs, providing their own equipment, and implementing their own strategies and tactics. That said, more often than not they were civilian amateurs against professional soldiers. They had some astounding successes and a lot of failures, but to be fair even Washington only won 3 of 9 battles.

#103 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-18 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

As previously pointed out here above, the states had long maintained militias, and regulated them, and this was the context, and the militias, that are referred to in the amendment.

#104 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

#102

Hey, you are the one who claimed to channel Jefferson and that he thought just the opposite of what he said or wrote.

#105 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

#104

Are you a special kind of stupid or just trolling?

#106 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

The historical context of a well-regulated militia

The Military Act of 1757

www.newsherald.com

#107 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

#106

Naw, only crappie and minnows here.

#108 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Late to the game, but here goes:
A similar situation involved the shooting of the son of a former co-worker. Wrecked the mom's life. The shooter and his family skated. If gun owners were held responsible for the poor way they manage their firearms, there would be a lot less of this thing going on, and a lot fewer folks would be angered by gun owners...

#109 | Posted by catdog at 2014-06-18 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#107

Did you even bother read what you posted? It is completely contrary to what you espouse.

Were you to believe that however as the definition then you would have to believe that women have no right to arms nor does anyone over 45. No one can be that stupid.

#110 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Our forefathers' concept of bearing arms was a musket. Rapid fire consisted of the actual number of militia members and how fast they could load a flintlock. Our forefathers could not conceive of today's military arms of mass destruction anymore than we can conceive the handheld weapons to appear 200 years from now.

I am confident that as the Grand Old Party of the elderly, angry white men move further into assisted care, the Supreme Court ruling on Amendment 2 will again change, not only for the health, safety and benefit of citizens but to reflect actual intent."

from what I posted. Reading must not be your friend.

#111 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

from teh same link

"Respective to the constitutional argument that all people have the right to bear arms becomes shady when you look at the intent and purpose of Amendment 2.

The intent is clarified by adding one word "because" to the amendment: "Because a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is to say the militia of all conscripted 18-to-45-year-old white males could not be disarmed.

(Note also that Black's Law Dictionary defines the National Guard: "The U.S. militia, which is maintained as a reserve for the U.S. Army and Air Force. Its members are volunteers, recruited and trained on a statewide basis and equipped by the federal government." A state may use the National Guard to quell a disturbance, but it is under the authority of the federal government.)"

#112 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

""Our forefathers' concept of bearing arms was a musket."

Yes, sure, they were competently unaware of the arms at the time. The ones they themselves used, the ones some of them oversaw on battlefields.
Never mind the bombs, cannons, large bore, mortars, rockets, multi-barreled guns, ext...

Yeah, sure, they were all a bunch of idiots. So why bother with anything they say. Just go the full length of your argument corky and say the whole constitution should be invalid because it was written by morons.

#113 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#113

Posted by, well... you know.

"I am confident that as the Grand Old Party of the elderly, angry white men move further into assisted care, the Supreme Court ruling on Amendment 2 will again change, not only for the health, safety and benefit of citizens but to reflect actual intent."

Yeah, me, too.

#114 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

...if there were laws to criminalize it.

Were you to educate yourself you would know that some twenty-eight states (including that "gun crazy" whipping boy, Tx) and D.C. have enacted child access prevention laws, excluding Ohio. smartgunlaws.org

#115 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"not only for the health, safety and benefit of citizens but to reflect actual intent."

Can you provide one iota of anything to back up that the intent was anything other then what it clearly says? Are you completely unaware that the topic was often spoken about by those who wrote it and none of them come close to your warped concept of it?

Corky you are wrong about their intent, no one would argue that. If you don;t like what they wrote then just say you think they were stupid. Pretending like there is any support from them for your unsupportable position is lunacy.

#116 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ho hum.... another gun accident which the left will try to use as fodder for gun control.

#117 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-18 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

The historical context of a well-regulated militia

I'll see your letter to the newspaper editor link and raise you a law review article, THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Hint, it's an individual right.

#118 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

" another gun accident which the left will try to use as fodder for gun control."

Which will be used by both the RNC and DNC since they want to talk about nothing else, certainly not corporate power or imperialism or government surveillance, etc.

#119 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-18 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#118 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Really interesting read, thanks! Its enlightening on the civil war's State militia's, being at the call of the Federal government. Fascinating stuff.

#120 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-06-18 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

From ET_AL's link.....

Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population.

#121 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-06-18 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

yes it is sad. But it is an incredibly rare occurrence. Posted by salamandagator

It is definitely NOT an incredibly rare occurrence, children and adults are INJURED or KILLED every day, in gun "accidents"

"incredibly rare" would be once every 100 years or so

#122 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-18 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ho hum.... another gun accident which the left will try to use as fodder for gun control.
#117 | Posted by sames1

Ho hum, just another kid who won a Darwin award thanks to guns.

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-18 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Ho hum, just another kid who won a Darwin award thanks to guns."

Pretty much yeah.

#124 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-18 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population.
#121 | Posted by AndreaMackris
I wonder how well that would workout, when the Government sends 10,000 troops with tanks and armored vehicles into a small town here in Gun CRAZY Arizona ...My money is on the tyrannical government and their soldiers ..LOL

#125 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-18 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Our forefathers' concept of bearing arms was a musket. Rapid fire consisted of the actual number of militia members and how fast they could load a flintlock. Our forefathers could not conceive of today's military arms of mass destruction anymore than we can conceive the handheld weapons to appear 200 years from now."

Written in the context of magazine capacity yet indicative of firearms technology at the founding, [t]he history of magazines holding 11 or more rounds[.]

By the time of the Second Amendment, the state of the art for multishot guns was the Girandoni air rifle, with a 20 or 22 round magazine. Ballistically, it was superior to the powder guns of its time, and had been created for elite marksmen in the Austrian army. Lewis & Clark carried a Girandoni on their famous expedition.
See also Heller.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like -- may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment 's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

#126 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"would be once every 100 years or so"

Per how many people?

Because there are about 140 per year for a populace of almost 350 million. That is incredibly rare.
that comes out to about 1.6 per hundred thousand in their entire lifetime. Or .02 per 100,000 per year, if that is not incredibly rare nothing is.

#127 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Well, it could. They simply choose not to.

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-18 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

-your unsupportable position is lunacy

Well, I hate to contradict such an expert on lunacy, but...

"Respective to the constitutional argument that all people have the right to bear arms becomes shady when you look at the intent and purpose of Amendment 2.

The intent is clarified by adding one word "because" to the amendment:

"Because a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is to say the militia of all conscripted 18-to-45-year-old white males could not be disarmed.

(Note also that Black's Law Dictionary defines the National Guard: "The U.S. militia, which is maintained as a reserve for the U.S. Army and Air Force. Its members are volunteers, recruited and trained on a statewide basis and equipped by the federal government." A state may use the National Guard to quell a disturbance, but it is under the authority of the federal government.)"

Some people hate repeating themselves. But i know iteration and constant reiteration can convey an alien thought to a recalcitrant mind.

Here, I won't even charge you for the edumacation...

Militia history and "well-regulated"

www.thomhartmann.com

What does "well regulated" mean? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that

"the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

What is the mechanism by which "proper discipline and training" is provided to members of this militia? How well disciplined was Adam Lanza? James Holmes? Jared Loughner? Cho Seung Hui?

www.dailykos.com

How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution
On Second Amendment, Reporters Side With Gun Lobby Against Supreme Court

fair.org

Read/learn.

#129 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, it could. They simply choose not to.

"Our" is the Court. "They" includes all the Justices. The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases

These cases suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as an individual right, rather than as a right of state governments.

#130 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 06:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Read/learn.

Take your own advice. Read/learn something other than what a letter to the editor, journalists and a dictionary have to say on the subject.

Here's the definition of the militia, it ain't in the dictionary but what congress says. www.law.cornell.edu

#131 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The intent is clarified by adding one word "because" to the amendment: "

This would be counter to language usage at the time. It's also a lower level of writing and even now is not included in most law because even the least educated understand.

"Here, I won't even charge you for the edumacation."

The funny thing is you think you are actually dealing in reality or fact but have done nothing but link to absurd unsupported opinion. No better then your first offering of a cartoon.
Did you even bother to read et al's link? A real paper with cited source and everything.
Slightly more substantial then drivel from some liberal talking head. I mean seriously who would take an opinion piece from a pundit as fact on anything? All that does is betray your lack of any sort of semblance of education on the subject. You have been wrong on every thing you have said so far on this thread why bother to dig yourself deeper?
Your flawed and fed opinion is not held by the courts, nor by definition, nor by English standards, nor by the people, nor by anyone who actually knows what they are talking about. Continued insistence that the trees are actually pink would be no less absurd then what you have regurgitated on this thread.

Do yourself a little favor are read up on the crafting of the second amendment. Look through the various drafts and the arguments held as to the language used. What was kept and what was thrown out. Then read what was said by those who crafted it. Read what they did after when crafting states constitutions. What they wrote to each other and to officials. Then compare the historical fact with the nonsense espoused by political hacks such as the sources you cited.

Sorry, i will take the founders actual words over political's hacks.
I mean seriously, the daily kos and thom hartman? Might as well post an editorial by hannity, it would have no less credit.

#132 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Plenty of accidents make the news. Every summer there's a rash of stories about small kids left in cars who die.
But every time a gun tragedy makes the news, a bunch of people think they have to pretend it's not that important. The NRA has stoked gun-grabber paranoia so well that you care more about the gun than the dead kid.

#14 | POSTED BY RCADE

Social Services investigates parents who leave their kids in cars on hot days even if nothing bad happens.

No one investigates families who have loaded weapons lying around the house.

#133 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-06-18 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because there are about 140 per year for a populace of almost 350 million. if that is not incredibly rare nothing is. Posted by salamandagator
Your 140 number is about very young children, NOT all children under 18, and does not include injured kids that survived or adults killed or injured. The yearly total for gun "accidents" is around 20,000 killed or injured

Not incredibly rare ..LOL

#134 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-18 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, it could. They simply choose not to.

"Our" is the Court. "They" includes all the Justices. The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases

These cases suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as an individual right, rather than as a right of state governments.

#130 | Posted by et_al

I know. They said "cannot." What they really mean is "doesn't."

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-18 07:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one investigates families who have loaded weapons lying around the house.

Wrong but it's done after the fact. You know, ostensibly, there's no probable cause before the fact.

buffalo.twcnews.com

abc13.com

www.khou.com

#136 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Your 140 number is about very young children, NOT all children under 18, and does not include injured kids that survived or adults killed or injured. The yearly total for gun "accidents" is around 20,000 killed or injured
Not incredibly rare ..LOL"

According to the cdc it is about 140 for children up to 19 yo.
There are about 800 deaths including adults a year. There are just over 17,000 injuries a year for all ages and majority were minor and did not require hospitalization.

By the way there were 15,000 bb gun injuries at the same time.

Specifically we were talking about a child dying and the stats show that it is incredibly rare. There are no if ands or buts about it.

If you want to talk injuries then it is a little more common but again less then 20,000 out of almost 250 million a year amounts to 0.005 percent chance of a person getting injured or killed unintentionally by a gun. To claim anything but very rare is absurd.

webappa.cdc.gov

#137 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#132

I mean seriously, you can lead a jackass to facts, but you can't make it think.

There was a long unbroken period of time with legal decisions that held, "that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states... and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen."

fair.org

Just because the NRA bought some justices doesn't mean the current law won't change again.

Unless of course you believe that being current law automatically makes it correct?

Thought not.

#138 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-18 07:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

#135

Has to do with a concept that is apparently foreign to you, stare decisis.

#139 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

One dead child is every ten years would be way too many for me. I doubt the 140 number is accurate. But the gun-nuts think 140 dead kids is acceptable ...ok
WELL IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE ...IT'S NOT ..OK
THE NUMBER SHOULD BE ...ZERO

#140 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-18 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

I should have mentioned that the "election manipulators" at the NRA just agreed to pay a $63,000 fine, to the Rhode Island Board of Elections. I would like to thank the dues paying members of the NRA for their very generous "donation" ...LOL
Fools are easily parted from their money

Sammy in Rhode Island and AZ

#141 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-18 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

435 Representatives, 100 Senators, 1 President.

One dead child every ten years fails by comparison to 536 Democrats and Republicans elected and responsible for the death of more.

#142 | Posted by Petrous at 2014-06-18 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I mean seriously, you can lead a jackass to facts, but you can't make it think.

Self retorting retort. Scholarly analysis that refutes your contentions are linked above nevertheless yet you continue to tout yet another article by an "independent scholar and author" written in 1996. Other than Miller, a case with questionable reasoning, he refers to one Supreme Court case, Lewis v. United States.

This case presents the question whether a defendant's extant prior conviction, flawed because he was without counsel, as required by Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), may constitute the predicate for a subsequent conviction under § 1202(a)(1), as amended, of Title II of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a)(1).
In the legal world that means the case had nothing to do with the Second Amendment and the quote from Miller is dicta. So, the author made a rookie mistake and your the jackass that buys it.

Which leads to something I have espoused many times, never rely on the media to accurately report on legal matters.

#143 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 07:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Errata.

nevertheless yet you

and your you're the

#144 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 08:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

You just know that with 140+ responses on any thread that that thread would be filled with rightie wackadoo, talking points, and strawmen. To equate the risk of knives, hatchets, and even spoons to guns and/or to suggest that the statistical probability of this sort of thing isn't the direct result of increased gun availability and gun worship is idiotic, and therefore not surprising coming from them. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

#145 | Posted by midiman at 2014-06-18 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

...increased gun availability...

Overlooking the unsourced use of "increased," what constitutional proposal do you have to decrease gun availability?

#146 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

what constitutional proposal do you have to decrease gun availability?
#146 | Posted by et_al

How about we reduce the caliber you can get without a Federal permit from .50 to say 9mm?

#147 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-18 08:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#135
Has to do with a concept that is apparently foreign to you, stare decisis.
#139 | Posted by et_al

If they had meant to invoke stare decisis they would have done so. Furhtermose, stare decisis is not writ in stone. I'm sure you can provide examples of when it's been ignored.

They simply choose not to do something and present a falsehood as justification.

#148 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-18 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about close the gun show loop hole? Until we can agree with that, I don't want to waste my time discussing it. Commenting on it, sure, but it's simply not serious to argue that the 2nd amendment has the natural consequence of people carrying long weapons into Target, as ironic as that connection might be.

#149 | Posted by midiman at 2014-06-18 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

What constitutional proposal do you have to decrease gun availability for criminals?

The honest person will follow the law to obtain a firearm. Change the laws to make it harder, or safer, only affects the law abiding person.

The criminal doesn't care.

#150 | Posted by Petrous at 2014-06-18 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about we reduce the caliber you can get without a Federal permit from .50 to say 9mm?

Why? Make your case.

They simply choose not to do something and present a falsehood as justification.

Your are correct that stare decisis is not cast in stone. Yet it takes something substantial to over rule prior decisions. Notice, Heller did not expressly overrule Miller while severely questioning its reasoning. To have done do would have cast substantial doubt on the illegality of sawed off shotguns.

What falsehood was presented as a justification?

#151 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 09:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about close the gun show loop hole?

Define "gun show loop hole[sic]," as that terminology has no established meaning that I am aware of. The rest of your post is meaningless non sequitur.

#152 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 09:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about we reduce the caliber you can get without a Federal permit from .50 to say 9mm?

Why? Make your case.

Why? What does it matter "why?"

Invoke whatever reason that permits drawing the line at a half inch, and re-draw that line at nine millimeters.

Hope this helps.

#153 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-18 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

What falsehood was presented as a justification?
#151 | Posted by et_al

The word "cannot."

#154 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-18 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

The criminal doesn't care.
#150 | Posted by Petrous

All the more reason to simply get rid of all guns, since legislative approaches won't work.

#155 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-18 09:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

153

For what purpose? How many lives would that save? 9mm is already the most common caliber pistol. So it seems that would be just as pointless as banning pistol grips or bayonet lugs.

#156 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 09:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

149. Because it does not exist. It is a figment of the control freaks imagination. On top of that it is a tiny percentage if guns used in crimes that come from gun shows.

#157 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

140

0 is not a possible number. Sure that would be ideal but reality prohibits it. No there cannot be a real world where all children are 100 percent safe. But frankly when we are at a fraction of a fraction of a percent we should see it rationally and know that freak accidents occur, it's part of life. It may be a tragedy but you cannot remove all tragedy.

#158 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

How many lives would that save? 9mm is already the most common caliber pistol. So it seems that would be just as pointless as banning pistol grips or bayonet lugs.
#156 | Posted by salamandagator

Even if the number of lives saved was 100% you wouldn't support the ban. So why'd you ask the question?

#159 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-18 09:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

138.

See, now you just gave yourself away. Not even you could consider opinion of a talk show host fact an no one thinks the daily kosher deals in fact. If your gonna troll you have to be a bit more sneaky.

#160 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

It may be a tragedy but you cannot remove all tragedy.
#158 | Posted by salamandagator

All tragedies, no. But this tragedy, yes. This tragedy could easily have been avoided if other modern countries are any guide.

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-18 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stories like this appear with numbing regularity (1) boy finds his gun-nut's father's gun (2) boy plays with gun; (3) boy kills his brother, sister or friend with gun. We'll read it again next week guaranteed,

But the gun-nuts tell us that 140 dead kids is an acceptable number...ok
WELL IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE ...IT'S NOT ..OK
THE NUMBER SHOULD BE .....ZERO

#162 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-18 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

159.

The point is that there is no solution if those claiming to save it have no knowledge of the issue. Your plan is just like mag limits or black gun bans. No purpose whatsoever and only serves as a placebo to help those stricken with the phobia sleep better at night. Nothing is solved. If there was a way to stop gun deaths and injuries without endangering or removing basic rights there would be no problem. But when the control freaks are too busy thinking 9th how to force others to live in fear the way they do they prevent any progress from being made.

#163 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 09:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

People will try to use this story for more gun control. There are irresponsible people who just do not think and use safety precautions. There are dog owners who are careless and the dog attacks an innocent child. Do we ban people from owning dogs?

#164 | Posted by 4doxies at 2014-06-18 09:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

161

We have only slightly above average when it comes to accidental gun deaths. So no that's not a legitimate point.

#165 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tuffluv: Why do you feel the need to minimize this tragedy? A gun rights advocate should want stories like this to be told so that people who own guns are less reckless in how they treat them at home.

In fact, since your side is constantly pushing for more guns to be in our society, you should feel obligated to get stories like this out.

Rcade, no offense but if they're too dumb to not lock them up with kids around, they likely aren't going to after reading something.

Actually charging these people for the negligence they're committing is what will open their eyes IMO.

#166 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-18 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

162

No one said it is acceptable. But it is a very small number. Life happens, refusing to accept that does not help it. Tragedy occurs and there is nothing that can be done aside from locking everyone up always that could prevent it. This is sad, but no more sad then if it were any other circumstance where a kid dies.

#167 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why? What does it matter "why?"

See "compelling interest." Remember the question?

Hope this helps.

Nope. You made no case.

The word "cannot."

You gotta be kidding me. Sophistry? Typical.

#168 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think we should stop trying to limit gun rights, this case and others convinces me that we need to focus our efforts on education and community rejection of gun owners who refuse to safely secure their guns.
I think every death caused accidentally by a gun should be publicized and every gun owner should be encouraged to learn about them so that they can avoid them.
I don't think politically we will ever be able to enact strong gun control laws and with the number of guns already in the nation it seems irrelevant anyway. We need to change gun owners, make them more responsible, we could conceivably save a few lives that way. Other than that, I don't see much that we could really change that would change very much of anything.
We have millions of idiots with guns, accept it, it's America. Yay!

#169 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-18 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

169

You are getting close. A solution is education. I say teach kids. Bring guns into the classroom and show the children how to be safe with them. No matter what there is no way to ever prevent every child from coming into contact with one. But teach them what to do and that does not stop with tell an adult. Teach them how they operate and how to make sure they are safe. That way even if a kid disobeys at the very least they would know safe ways of handling them.

#170 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-18 10:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

#169 | Posted by danni

Excellent. I might quibble with the details but generally agree.

#171 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-18 10:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

#51

images2.dailykos.com

#54 | Posted by Corky

Why doesn't it surprise me you'd find that garbage compelling.

#172 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-18 11:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

If Thomas Jefferson had thought psychopaths would be able to buy today's automated weapons predominately designed for military purposes, he would have bought an eraser.

#90 | Posted by Corky

Could you be any more of an ignorant, bloviating schmuck?

#173 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-18 11:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I think every death caused accidentally by a gun should be publicized and every gun owner should be encouraged to learn about them so that they can avoid them."

Agreed. And there should be legal penalties for being irresponsible with firearms that end up killing people.

I don't think the standard argument that "He will have to live with that" is enough.

#174 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-06-18 11:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why yes, yes he can. He'll be along shortly and prove it.

#175 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-18 11:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously there was no gun control in that household,folks if you can't do it then maybe someone else should.By the way,the priest shot to death in Phoenix the other day was killed by his fellow priests gun.Not that being beat to death by an iron rod is any better.Got kids,trigger lock,that's how it's done at my house.

#176 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-06-19 12:04 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

But i know iteration and constant reiteration can convey an alien thought to a recalcitrant mind.

Or it allows a condescending, ignorant hack to pat themselves on the back for providing an "edumacation" when really they're just saying more than "Hodor".

I mean seriously, you can lead a jackass to facts, but you can't make it think.

Oh man if irony were gold you'd have more than Ray is buried under.

#177 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-19 12:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Take your own advice.

Corky is incapable of doing so.

Hell, he's incapable of learning anything that goes against his opinions, hence why he says the same thing and finds some condescending rationalization for doing so.

#178 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-19 12:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

but it's simply not serious to argue that the 2nd amendment has the natural consequence of people carrying long weapons into Target

Here's a hint, free of charge.

If you genuinely want to have a discussion, don't choose the most extreme example of the other side as the basis for your argument. It only makes you look intellectually dishonest.

#179 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-19 12:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

I see my rent and wifi are still free in some heads.

#180 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-19 12:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Corky,the kid was killed with a revolver,still would have been pretty fancy for Jefferson,but not what would be called an automatic weapon today

#181 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-06-19 12:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

For most of our existence it was a legal assumption that the 2nd amendment applied to the states with their militias, and had nothing to do with the rights of individual ownership.

That the NRA now owns enough justices to change that does not mean it won't be changed again.

#182 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-19 12:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

#181

Bruce, the discussion has not been limited to this particular incident, so my general comments ridiculing the idea that somehow TJ would think individuals should have the equivalent of several ranks of soldiers firepower in their hands in public places is at all lucid are valid.

#183 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-19 12:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

I see my rent and wifi are still free in some heads.

I see your ego is far too large for for even a smidgen of introspection.

Let me simplify it for you: you're an idiot. (Don't over-interpret that)

#184 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-19 12:51 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

that somehow TJ would think individuals should have the equivalent of several ranks of soldiers firepower in their hands

Can you post some of his actual words suggesting he showed concern for citizens possessing future weapons more advanced than those he was familiar with?

#185 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-19 12:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

TJ thought he could own people,but you're right I haven't read 180 posts,can I ask you what state you live in?

#186 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-06-19 12:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

For most of our existence it was a legal assumption that...

I'm sure those letters to the editor, journalists, pundits and dictionaries have convinced you. Scholarship, that you ignore, teaches otherwise.

That the NRA...

Trite straw man. Your favorite whipping boy.

Sometimes I feel
Sometimes I feel
Like I've been tied
To the whipping post
Tied to the whipping post
Tied to the whipping post
Good lord I feel like I'm dyin'
The Allman Brothers

#187 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-19 01:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

We have millions of idiots with guns, accept it, it's America. Yay!

#169 | Posted by danni

Typical Danni drama-BS....actually we have millions responsible with guns and a few idiots.

#188 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-06-19 02:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

161
We have only slightly above average when it comes to accidental gun deaths. So no that's not a legitimate point.
#165 | Posted by salamandagator

Citation?
Also, seems odd that we are only slightly above average on accidental gun deaths but so much higher on intentional gun deaths. Or are we only slightly higher on intentional gun deaths too?

#189 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 02:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why? What does it matter "why?"
See "compelling interest." Remember the question?
#168 | Posted by et_al

Well, what's the compelling interest for .50cal?
There's your compelling interest for 9mm.
Hope this helps.

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 02:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

The word "cannot."
You gotta be kidding me. Sophistry? Typical.
#168 | Posted by et_al

It's certainly typical of the Supreme Court. They routinely make statements in their opinions which simply aren't so. Here, they said "cannot" when they most certainly "could have" but chose not to.

#191 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 02:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well, what's the compelling interest for .50cal?
There's your compelling interest for 9mm.
Hope this helps.

Nice cop out.

You made a statement you felt would help reduce gun availability. Justify it.

#192 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-19 02:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

You made a statement you felt would help reduce gun availability. Justify it.

Here's how you justify it: Take whatever rationale justifies the Federal license for calibers greater than .50 and apply it to 9mm.

I'm not the one who drew the line at .50cal. But if a line can be drawn, so be it. If we draw it at 9mm, that makes a lot of guns a lot less accessible.

#193 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 03:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well, what's the compelling interest for .50cal?
There's your compelling interest for 9mm.

Why ask me to make your argument? You're the proponent make your own. The question, since you obviously forgot, is what is your constitutional proposal? You have yet to offer, much less justify, one. Typical.

Here, they said "cannot" when they most certainly "could have" but chose not to.

Another rookie mistake, they "could" have said anything. They "could" have left out that paragraph entirely because it's a response to possible criticism, it's anticipatory. The outcome was decided in the many preceding paragraphs. That paragraph decides nothing, it is dictum.

How much longer will you hang onto irrelevance and sophistry to avoid answering the question?

#194 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-19 03:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why ask me to make your argument? You're the proponent make your own.

You're the expert. You'll do a better job than I, don't you think?
Surely you can explain why the Federal license isn't an unconstitutional burden. (I can't do that.)
Surely you can explain if changing that number to something smaller than a half inch would be permitted. (I cant do that either.)
Now, I can't make you you to perform your job to the best of your ability. But you should.

#195 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

what is your constitutional proposal?

I've explained it three times now. Require a Federal license as we currently do for certain firearms. Simply reduce the caliber subject to Federal licensing regulations. What's so hard to understand?

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

That paragraph decides nothing, it is dictum.

That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. They "choose not" to change their interpretation. They most certainly could have done so.

#197 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Simply reduce the caliber subject to Federal licensing regulations. What's so hard to understand?"

Because it does nothing. This is why those in support of our 2nd amendment rights have such an issue with the gun control nuts. What they want has no value and does not help anyone. It's incredibly frustrating to have to explain again and again just why thees things are useless. What it amounts to is not a drive for safety or less crime it is about retribution for holding onto a freedom that the anti-gun nuts don't like. It's more then annoying to have people with no clue what they are talking about exacting revenge and taking away via attempted legislation just because they are afflicted with a phobia of inanimate objects.

#198 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-19 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Because it does nothing.

How can you say it does nothing when no Federally restricted weapons have been used in mass shootings? As best I can tell weapons over .50cal are scarce in this country, and fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1982 or whenever the cutoff is are scarce too.

What it amounts to is not a drive for safety or less crime it is about retribution for holding onto a freedom that the anti-gun nuts don't like.

I wouldn't call it retribution. If I wanted retribution, I would invite Al Qaeda to send their wannabe terrorist here where they can easily acquire firearms, then send them to schools and shopping malls in red states to give you guys a taste of the freedom you hold so dear. But I don't want that. I want the opposite of that.

#200 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

just because they are afflicted with a phobia of inanimate objects.
#198 | Posted by salamandagator

Take a deep breath, but down the broken beer bottle you're brandishing, and consider the possibility that "phobia of inanimate objects" is not the driving motivation behind gun control measures.

Cars kill about as many as guns. Do you call people who strive for safety improvements in cars "afflicted with a phobia of inanimate objects?"

#201 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're the expert. You'll do a better job than I, don't you think?

"Hey, you know what? I got this great idea! You figure out how to make it work."

What's so hard to understand?

Nothing except the unjustified idealism.

#202 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-19 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've explained it three times now. Require a Federal license as we currently do for certain firearms. Simply reduce the caliber subject to Federal licensing regulations. What's so hard to understand?

#196 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-06-19 12:26 PM | FLAG:

I must not understand what the point is. A ".50 cal restriction" is not reality based. It assumes ".50 cal" is significantly more dangerous than smaller sizes. That's not true and severely lacking on details. I have ww1 and hunting rifles that shoot 7mm bullets with 2.6x the energy of a .50 cal desert eagle, and more energy than the .50 caliber Beowulf fired from AR-15 platforms used to defend roadblocks from suicide attackers in cars and close range hunting of animals from 300 pounds up to bears.

Why would these inferior bullets be "destructive devices" that need a $200 transfer tax, when I already have far more powerful rifles that are not "destructive devices"?

#203 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-19 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

As best I can tell weapons over .50cal are scarce in this country, and fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1982 or whenever the cutoff is are scarce too.

#200 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-06-19 01:12 PM | FLAG:

It's easier now to get "destructive devices" than any time in the last 30 years. Scarcity isn't an issue. Cost is. Look up "NFA Trust". They have caused a massive proliferation of "destructive device" classed items over the last decade. Alternatively, you can always work an agreement with a friendly FFL dealer to keep the weapon for you, an increasingly popular option.

#204 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-19 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

" As best I can tell weapons over .50cal are scarce in this country,"

Actually one of the most popular calibers is .72 incredibly common. It's called a 12 gauge. There are also quite a few calibers that are holdovers from bygone eras like the various nitro express or the tyrannosaur .577.
If a caliber over .50 is wanted it can get a variance from that rule. So not scarce at all.

" fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1982 or whenever the cutoff is are scarce too."

To the law abiding citizen based solely on cost. Full auto guns are not difficult to get but are very expensive. Use did not see much change after the 1943 nfa. Nor did it see much of a decline after 1986.

#205 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-19 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Cars kill about as many as guns."

About 20,000 of the gun deaths each year are suicide.

" Do you call people who strive for safety improvements in cars "afflicted with a phobia of inanimate objects?""

No one is striving for safety improvements. It's just the control freaks doing all they can to limit them. Using cars as you analogy what push has been made to take away cars? To limit how much gas or how much power they can have?
None. Your analogy fails because none of the same uneducated attempts to restrict access are being made. Furthermore is direct contrast to the anti-gun nut jobs the safety increases made to cars are made by people who know what they are talking about. Engineers and designers and scientists. The ones trying to restrict firearms have no education on them and no knowledge of them at all. That is why you have asinine suggestions like restricting magazine sizes or pistol grips or bayonet lugs or flash suppressors or thumbhole stocks, or in your case, caliber.
A little education about firearms and you would see exactly why what is wanted by the control freak crowd is lunacy. When all semblance of reason and logic are removed all you have is the irrational fear. No one in their right mid would consider a fear of inanimate objects to be rational and no one in their right mind would consider the control freaks position to be reasonable or logical. So there is no other definition but phobia that fits.

#206 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-19 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can you post some of his actual words suggesting he showed concern for citizens possessing future weapons more advanced than those he was familiar with?

"The Earth belongs to the living."
He was certainly concerned with how the laws of one generation are "forced" on another generation. He never expected or wanted the Constitution to last this long. We can be certain that when he campaigned for ratification he couldn't imagine 4 guys in Dodge Durango being able to lay down more lead in two hours than was expelled during the entire Revolutionary War. And he didn't need to, he assumed we'd have sense enough to change the damned thing to suit society as we progressed.

#207 | Posted by BluSky at 2014-06-19 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one is striving for safety improvements. It's just the control freaks doing all they can to limit them.

Limiting guns improves safety.
Look at the second graph.
tewksburylab.org

#208 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Using cars as you analogy what push has been made to take away cars? To limit how much gas or how much power they can have?

The analogy quickly falls apart because states license drivers but they don't license gun owners. And states take away driver's licenses when people screw up.

To address the question, the licensing of drivers is intended to keep the roads safe by only allowing competent operators to drive. I would be accepting of something like that when it comes to guns, but I suspect neither yourself nor any of the gun lovers nor the NRA would be.

#209 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 06:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Full auto guns are not difficult to get but are very expensive.

I'm fine with pricing guns out of reach of most everyone. That achieves the purpose of restricting access but isn't an outright ban.

#210 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm fine with pricing guns out of reach of most everyone. That achieves the purpose of restricting access but isn't an outright ban.

#210 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

#211 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-19 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Look at the second graph.

Data for this graph and related graphs on the next post are taken from the following websites:
en.wikipedia.org...

#212 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-19 06:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

The raw data are also available through the next post. On that post, you can also find an updated graphic, with the UK included (missing due to a data-error in this graph).

The next post:
tewksburylab.org

#213 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 06:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#212 were you attempting to, ahem, shoot the messenger there or what?

#214 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#211 see also the "razor and blades" business model where the hardware platform (razor) is sold at the loss but the consumables (blades) are sold at profit.

#215 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-19 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

ET_AL -

To be fair, when you look at the Wiki links, the cited sources include: "Guns in United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law". Gunpolicy.org. University of Sydney School of Public Health. Retrieved 2013-05-22.

Just sayin'.

#216 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-19 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

#211: I could go along with that. I'd be an instant billionaire! Overnight! Of course, I'd probably have to expend half of it just fighting off all the lefties that changed their minds over banning it.

#217 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-06-19 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just sayin'.

Not a problem, I didn't chase the links. I just found it odd that an apparently serious biologist would cite Wikipedia as a primary source. Leads me to believe it's more a side project than a serious endeavor because it's outside his area of expertise.

That said, doesn't mean he is wrong just suspect.

#218 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-19 08:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Outlawing guns and then collecting them from everyone is as likely as outlawing gold and then collecting it from everyone.

Fooled the public once...

#219 | Posted by Petrous at 2014-06-19 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

That said, doesn't mean he is wrong just suspect.
#218 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Worthwhile point and fair enough.

#220 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-19 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Actually one of the most popular calibers is .72 incredibly common. It's called a 12 gauge."

There's the kind of pedantic -------- that makes these threads a waste of time.

#221 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-06-19 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No one said it is acceptable. But it is a very small number. Life happens, refusing to accept that does not help it."

Deaths from acts of terrorism are also extremely rare in the US and happen in smaller numbers than kids killing others after finding loaded guns. But life happens, refusing to accept that does not help it, eh Salamandagator?

#222 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-06-20 01:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

222

What is your point?
Short of locking everyone up there is no way to stop all tradgedy. That would go for terrorism as well.

#223 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 01:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

209. Licenses are not taken away for accidents. Gun rights are taken away from criminals. Funny how that works. Guns taken away but not cars. And cars kill many times more then guns if you do not count the two thirds of our gun deaths which are suicides. But even with those included cars kill more. See if you really cared about safety then guns would be one of the last things you would worry about. But that never has been the primary concern for the anti gun nuts and control freaks. It is now, just like always, about a petty desire for everyone to have to give up their rights to satiate the fear that is your phobia.

#224 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 02:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"What is your point?"

My point is you're singing "Que Sera, Sera" when a kid kills a friend with a gun. You make other sociopaths look like pikers.

#225 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-06-20 08:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

I note that DR puts accidental shootings on the front burner lately. Gun violence has actually drooped about 50% in the last 20 years. the worse news is a disproportional amount of gun violence is in areas that have the most gun control, those shootings in Chicago are not accidents.

#226 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-06-20 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

#226

Even accidental shooting have gone way, way down. But its not about that. IF there is one every 100 years there will always be people willing to publicize it to promote their warped politics and phobias.

#227 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-06-20 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

All this talk about "there shouldnt be even one dead kid from gun accidents". Lets apply that logic to other things... there shouldnt be ONE illegal immigrant, there shouldnt be ONE o/d, there shouldnt be one pedofile, there shouldnt be one stabbing, there shouldnt be one texting and driving death. Now quick, ban guns and all the other shouldnt bes will work themselves out.
If you take away all the darwinian shouldnt bes the gov will have to actually orchestrate more herd thinning practices.
That being said the gun owning parents should be dragged over the burning coals of justice for not securing the firearm and the kid is probably now screwed in the head for life.

#228 | Posted by monkeylogic42 at 2014-06-20 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort