Presidential Study on Gun Control

You tawkin to me?!

So I'm watching Shatner's sitcom tonight. There's a burglar in the neighborhood. Shat's girlfriend hates guns and won't have sex with him unless he locks away his shotgun. Naturally, that night he gets robbed at knifepoint. The girlfriend says it's best, because his son's laptop wasn't worth killing over.

The next night the girlfriend is alone in the house when Shat's son shows up unexpectedly. Of course, like the stupid liberal she is, the GF gets the shotgun when she hears noises, violates every rule of common sense and gun safety, and blasts away into the dark, "comedically" destroying the porn tape the son was carrying, playing near-manslaughter for laughs

Then of course she gets righteous and angry again about guns being dangerous. ("See? See?")


Well, it DOES show that guns are dangerous in the hands of idiots who hate them and don't bother to learn how to behave with them, then suddenly decide they're good when they're afraid of something.

Typical Hollywood sitcom on the gun issue. At the end of our 30 minute emotional roller coaster we all realize that guns are bad, guns are not the answer, blah blah blah, all we need are hugs and after-school programs.

Seriously I"m really not interested in making any suggestions. When the mere suggestion that some sort of reasonable control might be possible sets off a flame fest, I'm not about to put anything concrete on the table. I don't have any on tap and they won't happen no matter how brilliant I think they are and I'm pretty much satisfied with the way things are anyway. I haven't heard any suggestions recently that I thought were original and palatable to any kind of cross section. I mean really when you get down to it, I'd say we have a better chance of resolving grave, ancient philosophical questions like "Ford or Chevy"...It's just not worth the time and effort.

I'm wondering what about current gun laws seems "unreasonable" to anti-gunners. That people are allowed to own them at all?

Apostle83...are you referring to this comment that was directed at someone else? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you are just being an asshole and not a liar

First off again, that wasn't directed at you. Second, if you read really carefully and slowly and concentrate on each word you might discern that while I was being sarcastic I was not engaging in name calling and certainly not at you. I can give you the names of several wordforgers who have met me in person and I don't think anyone of them would agree with your assessment of me as a "liar" and "asshat". If you want those names I'll pass 'em along and you can ask them yourself. By the way, I've never been called those names here before so I guess you made history. Congratulations.

I'm not following you.

You called someone an asshole - and said they might be a liar, and then get offended that I call you an asshat, because it's somehow different when you do it than when I do it?

In Dade County and Broward County they both have local ordinances where you have to wait five "business" days to get any gun. Of course CCW is exempted from such requirements.

Hopefully the state will change that law and void all these county ordinances.

See it's all my fault. I called him and all other so called "reasonable restrictions on guns" people what they are: LIARS.

He took offense. My bad.

So apparently he can sling back fiery words but you can't because I started it.

And I do believe he implied you're some type of retard for not reading really carefully and slowly and concentrating on each word.

Oh and he thinks name dropping means something.

But hey you did make history by calling him an asshat.

This is a very good question.

It sure is nice that you treat people who basically agree with you this way. It's good thing no one who actually supports gun grabbing posted in here. God knows what would have happened.

No it isn't because they can still buy a gun.

Preventing someone from owning a firearm isn't infringement because they can still buy a gun?

Why.... WHY.... WHY????
Why don't people understand what infringement means?

If a law is passed saying "Don't infringe on your neighbor's yard" you would not be able to lay a foot on the yard.

But people think when you talk about guns that if people can look them, you're fine. Or if you can have a BB gun, all is cool.

BS.

You really are a fucking idiot.

* Elwood raises his hand.

In the spirit of honesty, I started a fight when I was in 7th Grade (11 years old). A guy had been running his mouth for about two weeks so one day I walked right up to him and gave him a full-on John Wayne haymaker right in the nose. I ended up with a black eye and a five day suspension. He ended up with a broken nose and two black eyes.

Outside of that youthful indiscretion, I've never used physical or deadly force except in self defense or the defense of others.

Until I prove to be unable to make my own rational decisions (mental instability/dementia/etc) or I prove that I can't be trusted to control myself (being convicted of a violent crime), all of you can leave me, my guns, and my buying habits the hell alone.

I'll buy what I want, where and when I deem acceptable and the rest of you can get your panties in a twist over it if you want, but you can get happy just as quick as you got mad. And...that's all I have to say about that.

And you really don't understand the English language or the law.

In that example, infringement means that you cannot place a foot into your neighbors yard. Period.

Just because there are bans on MAC 10s or whatever doesn't mean you can't get a gun. The underlying right is still protected.

Whatever you say Alfie.

Only a fool and an asshole like you is stupid enough to believe that limiting an individuals choice is not an infringement when the choice that is being limited is a right identified in the Constitution.

What is stupid Alfie is a moronic dickhead like you making such ridiculous statements.

Thanks for again making my point for me...hows your nose btw?

Agreed. Look at the mass shootings.

#1 - Columbine. The weapons were purchased via an illegal straw purchase months before the assault.

#2 - Virginia Tech. The shooter, someone who had been declared mentally ill through due process, bought the weapons illegally two months before the assault.

#3 - Tuscon. The shooter bought the weapon 40 days before the assault.

Would someone tell me how a seven day waiting period would have stopped any of those?

I admit that I'm not supercop. But, none of the shooting cases I've ever worked would have been prevented by a waiting period. None.

That none of them have involved a waiting period prove waiting periods work*!











Despite your state not having a waiting period now

Much of the legislation has been feel good legislation.

So in AlfaRomeo world, giving people a list of weapons they are not legally allowed to purchase anymore, does not constitute an infringement of their Constitutional rights, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Typical stupidity from someone who claims to understand the law.

ARMS ARMS ARMS...keep and bear ARMS. Not a specific type of gun you idiot. If the law says "You can't have a gun in the city of X" That law is unconstitutional because it would try to do what you are describing.

But if the law says..."No purchase or owning of automatic weapons within the city" That does NOT infringe your right to bear arms. You can get ANY OTHER type of arm.

That's the point I'm trying to make which you refuse to concede because of your dislike for me.

Arms, arms, arms indeed!

In other words, don't infringe on the genre!

Again, that is an infringement asshole. The only idiot is you. A loser that is willing to go to any lengths to rationalize away why limiting a persons choice is not infringing on their rights. Typical stupidity from a jackass.

It is an either or. Only in the world of the stupid and assholes like you Alfie is the splitting of hairs like this required. It is because fuckers like you that we have the problem of people being confused into believing that it is okay to limit their rights because the government has said, oh well, we are saying you can still own a bb gun, and since that is still a gun, your rights are not being infringed.

Hey, a good-old WF gun thread! It's been too long.

Anyway, I think the last thing we need in this country are more gun laws. Most of them are pointless. I mean, what does banning this bullet but not that bullet, or this size clip versus that size clip actually do, other than make a few people feel a little safer?

Beyond laws that restrict straw purchses, and restrictions on convicted felons and the mentally ill buying guns...is there anything else that really makes sense?

The one and only thing that was ever needed is severe consequences for people who commit crimes with firearmes. If no one dies, 5-10 years. If you kill someone, it's life without parole. Doesn't matter if it's a deterrent. Proven threats are removed from society, and those of us who are not proven threats are left the fuck alone.