Guns: Infinity

[Shrew]

Been doing a little bit of reading on Margaret Thatcher and figured I'd throw this in here:
Why The Modern Republican Party Would Reject Margaret Thatcher

After a deadly shooting rampage in England, Thatcher said, "If [gun laws] need to be tightened up, or if we think that it could prevent anything more like this, then of course that will be considered." A year later, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which outlawed semi-automatic weapons, changed requirements on registering guns, allowed police to refuse a weapon to anyone they saw unfit, and allowed the Home Secretary to add other guns to the list of banned firearms.

[Scottie]

Oh, please. A "think progress" article about Thatcher? I hope you weren't expecting any credibility with your order.

[Johnnie]

BSF - I'm not sure you are supporting Johnnie's argument. His last post was in support of the argument AGAINST the new proposed background checks on gun purchases at gun shows and online. You seem to support background checks (as do I.)

I'll group Shirley/Dave in with my response here.

Did you both not watch the last video I posted? I share Colion's point. We BOTH like background checks. Hell, for all the guns I've purchased (8 in total, but I still own 7), every single time a background check was performed. But none of you guys seem to believe that.

What everyone seems to want is a national registry. Name, serial number, store purchased at, state purchased in, vendor name, etc, etc. all to...wait for it...curb crime. All that does is tell Uncle Sam that I own 6 handguns and a shotgun. Why do you need to know this? So you can bump the murder weapon against a store, original owner, friend, relative, etc to place blame? Because that's going to save a life. All it's going to do is make lawyers rich. Giving you all of my info isn't going to stop crime.

Any sane and rational gun owner wants screening for people. We don't want assholes with mental disabilities owning and operating gun as much as you do. And, honestly, probably more so because WE are grouped in by the oversensitive liberals who call things "assault weapons" and "magazine clips" with those freeks.

This reminds me of the unnecessary overreaction by military commanders when one dude in a squadron of a few hundred gets a DUI. Suddenly, all members in the squadron who either knew the dude or didn't are called into work, in blues, on a moment's notice because the commander "has to show that something is being done about the issue. 1 DUI is 1 too many." So what happens? Everyone suffers. Everyone. The dude who fucked up is never put on full blast, his name is kept quiet. But everyone else had their day ruined by him and for what? To show that people are getting tough on the matter? All you did was piss everyone off to save your ass.

All of the legislation even the leftiest leftie in all the land could orgasm himself to death with and be the most restrictive could be put in place and crime will still happen. 10 round mags. A national registry. Gun insurance. State operated gun stores. No gun shows. Hell, the government buys all manufacturers. Nothing will prevent gun violence. But hey...as long as you think you're preventing gun violence, it works, right? Spare me.

Unless you build a time machine and go back to the day after RFK was murdered and convince everyone to tone down the manufacturing and distribution of guns, then it doesn't matter. No one fucking sees that. No one talks about it. Guns exist and they kill people. Cars exist and they kill people. People exist and they kill people. This discussion goes in circles and nothing changes.

[Shrew]

Oh, please. A "think progress" article about Thatcher? I hope you weren't expecting any credibility with your order.

Yeah, yeah, consider the source and all. I was really trying to learn more about her though. Give me a good read on her and I'll go with that.

[Johnnie]

This is real. And it is amazing.



The Young Turks on the topic:

[Johnnie]

Man shoots self in infield at NRA 500.

Really, Bronto? No 'MURICA shout out? I thought we were bros.

[Johnny Hotcakes]

Man shoots self in infield at NRA 500.

Really, Bronto? No 'MURICA shout out? I thought we were bros.

For real, Bronto. You should have at the very least linked to this thread.

[Rex]

At least the author didn't ask whether it's irony.

[Brontoburglar]

The hate mail spigot is on full blast

[Rex]

4,679 comments in two and a half hours. Impressive. Has anyone completed a sentence yet?

[Steve of phpBB]

Track spokesperson Mike Zizzo said Saturday night that the incident happened "in or around a pickup truck" in the infield.

That should narrow it down.

[Rex]

Bronto, you could totally be the heel NASCAR beat writer, and challenge all the things that Murica holds dear, by tossing in Steve's line for instance. If you don't do it I might.

[Brontoburglar]

Bronto, you could totally be the heel NASCAR beat writer, and challenge all the things that Murica holds dear, by tossing in Steve's line for instance. If you don't do it I might.

I already am, judging by what's been flying my direction.

The grammar is better this time than it was last time, though.

[Johnnie]

So what does Yahoo tell you about this junk? You ever get a death threat because you wrote an article? Is that pursued via legal channels?

[The Sybian]

Come on Bronto, why didn't you give us detail about the suicide? Surely you already uncovered the deceased's psychiatric medical history, ascertained his motives, interviewed his family etc... for the Yahoo! piece, right?This is all part of the Liberal Media Agenda. I'm surprised you didn't somehow tie in your Gay Marriage Agenda and Pro-Baby Killing into the article, too ya Commie.

[Scottie]

The NRA element never ceases to amaze me; the ways in which they manage to marginalize themselves knows no creative bounds. Even when some asshole is served up on a plate to them (like Piers Morgan), they manage to go loonie over it instead of using that idiocy to their easy advantage.

Bronto's article is anything but inflammatory (although I felt it stopped suddenly and left the reader with a number of unanswered questions). But it does demonstrate, by merely existing, that a considerable number of the pro-NRA crowd will hair-trigger react to any mention of guns in virtually any capacity.

Bronto, I don't know why you'd include that last paragraph about a random bullet (which doubtlessly never should have been shot) at a motor speedway some years ago. It really has no relevance. Some fuckwit accidentally shot his wife in the leg a few years ago at a White Sox game in Comiskey. Neither is indicative of a trend, unless carelessness or idiocy are trend-worthy.

Having said that . . . the Molon Labe crowd reaction is predictable. Sorry to see Bronto endure the rage as his article is pretty much an innocuous unrolling of facts with no editorializing whatsoever. In other words, properly what a journalist should be doing.

And, Bronto, your improvement as a writer over the last few years is worthy of mentioning. You are finding a voice and I do hope you continue to excel; never hesitate to ask advice, you are among friends here.

The two things that piss me off the most among today's excuses for issues are Environmentalism and Gun-Control. Neither should be a partisan political football yet both are. And each are emptied, utterly, when the conservative/liberal squabble shouts down any actual substance.

[Brontoburglar]

Thanks, I appreciate it. The last graph at the end was added because I felt it was important to the conversation because it was the same track. Had that happened at Las Vegas or Phoenix or wherever, it wouldn't have been included. But because this was the second instance of a fan being shot (even though it seems the first one came from a mile away), it was worth pointing out.

And I agree that there are a lot of unknown questions -- as there always are with suicides. Because of what they are, officials aren't forthcoming and there's the journalistic fine line as well.

The best are the ones that are claiming that I am implicating the NRA in the man's death, am a puppet of the government and hate guns and the NRA. No, you inferred those things. It was a summation of all that's surrounded the race's sponsorship.

[Brontoburglar]

I got two new emails as I was typing that post. Yeesh. I should post them all somewhere.

[Brontoburglar]

[Rex]

Premature Baby Born At March Of Dimes 500

[kranepool]

Track spokesperson Mike Zizzo said Saturday night that the incident happened "in or around a pickup truck" in the infield.

That should narrow it down.

Blew out a booger on this one.

Also, "alcohol may have been a factor."

[A_B]

I don't even know where my infield is to shoot myself there. Is it close to the spleen?

[howard]

Premature Baby Born At March Of Dimes 500

"Coathanger abortion performed in (or around) van in infield at Planned Parenthood 600."

[Johnnie]

Premature Baby Born At March Of Dimes 500

"Coathanger abortion performed in (or around) van in infield at Planned Parenthood 600."

I shouldn't be laughing this hard before I turn in for the night.

[Rex]

Planned Parenthood 600: NASCAR's Latest Turn To The Left

[howard]

Female cop kills husband, infant in Brooklyn before killing self: police

[sancarlos]

Bronto, in all honesty, I admire your willingness to grab that tiger by the tail.

[The Sybian]

Bronto, in all honesty, I admire your willingness to grab that tiger by the tail.

Seriously. I am in shock my comment of "this never would have happened if he had a gun." got thumbs downed. I am still shocked how many people expected you to write an article about the suicide as if a Yahoo! Nascar writer is going to engage in a detailed investigative journalism research in that short a time frame for an online Nascar article in that short a time frame on a piece about a single fan. Seriously, people. Like Bronto is supposed have instant access to an unnamed dudes medical records? Instantly? WTF do they expect? But no, it's the Liberal Media's fault!

[howard]

Suck it, haters of the Bill of Rights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For all the wrong reasons, the GOP senators manage to do the right thing. Surely they'll get back to shredding the parts of The Constitution that they don't like (or understand).

[sancarlos]

Suck it, haters of the Bill of Rights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For all the wrong reasons, the GOP senators manage to do the right thing. Surely they'll get back to shredding the parts of The Constitution that they don't like (or understand).

Oh yes, Howard. God forbid we submit to a criminal background check before we get to buy a handgun at a gun show. Oh, the horror!

[Johnnie]

You do! I did! 5 times in fact. In Arizona.

Therein lies the problem.

[A_B]

You do! I did! 5 times in fact. In Arizona.

Therein lies the problem.

yeah but you're black.

[sancarlos]

So, Johnny. I've never been to a gun show, but you say you've been background checked there. So, if some in U.S. Congress tried to pass a law to force this to happen, I have to assume that the federal government was voting on a blanket requirement for all states, because I assume some states don't have the requirement. My understanding, from an SF Chronic article I read, is that Nevada does not have this requirement, which causes many Californians of dubious background to purchase guns at Nevada gun shows. (Unless I got that wrong.) But, in any case, are you saying they are voting to implement something that is already implemented across the country? If not, then your counter that you already got checked isn't really a counter-argument.

[howard]

Some entities who do business at gun shows are compelled by law to perform background checks. Some are not. Some weapons require background checks; some do not.

The simplification of reality to 'gun shows don't have background checks, so we must do something' is usual political bs. In the same territory as the whole 'assault weapon' definition.

Time of universal deceit.

[sancarlos]

Some entities who do business at gun shows are compelled by law to perform background checks. Some are not. Some weapons require background checks; some do not.

The simplification of reality to 'gun shows don't have background checks, so we must do something' is usual political bs. In the same territory as the whole 'assault weapon' definition.

Time of universal deceit.

howard, I'm often right there with you on libertarian, individual rights issues. But, can you simplify for my understanding, why you specifically preferred the senators vote against this?

[howard]

…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Congress of the United States is hopelessly corrupt and a complete and utter joke. So my preference is actually for all of them to fuck off and die. My preference for any given vote on any given piece of garbage law they inflict on us pales in comparison. My preference in this instance is quite mild. It rests upon three reasons, I suppose:

1) the above passage excepted from the law of the land--I am always cheered a bit when it is supported, but chastened by the reality that I am prevented from legal exercise of that right by my local government;

2) the embarrassment and the 'suck it' sentiment for senator diane and president obama--I am always cheered when these types are forced to suck it;

3) my preference for Congress to do nothing, than to do anything in this day and age, because of their complete and abject corruption.

I can indulge in these petty preferences because the upside of governmental gun control, in the face of 400 million firearms in circulation, is nil. The downside of extra laws, specifically those targeting the 2nd amendment in an incremental manner, is substantial. As but one example, there are documented cases of the federal government violating federal law in misusing data from gun registry and gun purchase background checks, 'in the name of security'. fuck that noise.

In the abstract, a functional, non-corrupt federal government placing some rational controls on eligibility for some firearm purchase--sure, I am all for that. The right to free speech is not absolute; there is a history of reasonable legal and judicial limits being placed.

But, we live in a real world when our government repeatedly tramples upon rights and laws; see free speech. I do not trust the fuckers to write, pass, and enforce a good law if their lives depended on it.

Aren't you glad you asked?

[Steve of phpBB]

…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hmm. What was in the part that you replaced with the ... ?

Nice lawyering.

[howard]

I watch the best, and try to mimic.

I find the first clause to be irrelevant to the G_d given right to self defense. That is 100% sincere and honest, from the heart. I think it is a fascinating historic and intellectual issue, why these two phrases were crafted and combined as they were. What exactly they meant by that, even who exactly 'they' were is fascinating, as is the judicial history of the amendment.

In my personal worldview, rights do not come from any piece of paper, including the Constitution. The right to life includes the right to the means to protect that life. The right to bear arms is not granted to me by a government; it is mine by dint of my existence.

That right, along with all other rights, is not unlimited nor absolute. There are both limits to that right, and heavy responsibilities carried by exercise of that right. Government has a proper and appropriate role in both protecting that right, encouraging and enforcing the responsibilities that accompany that right, and in protection of other citizens from my expression of that right.

Our country has completely fucked the responsibilities that accompany the free exercise of the right to bear arms. I do not know how to remedy this sad state of affairs. I do not trust government to be the remedy.

The governmental record on attempts at remedy are thus far a complete failure--this is the core of my distrust. In brief, the locales with the most gun control have the most death and destruction. And, locales which have seen decreased gun control in recent decades have not experienced increases in death and destruction. I expected that they would--I was wrong, and my thinking on this issue had to change.

Anyway, as much as I have tried to avoid airing it on this thread, that is my personal view of gun rights and gun control. A senseless fucking horror which I am confident congress can only make worse.

[Gunpowder]

It probably doesn't help that many people think government is too big and, yet, those same people judge representatives by how many pieces of legislation they crafted during their terms. That is funny to me.

[Steve of phpBB]

In my personal worldview, rights do not come from any piece of paper, including the Constitution. The right to life includes the right to the means to protect that life. The right to bear arms is not granted to me by a government; it is mine by dint of my existence.

I don't agree with you (shocking!).

I do agree that on the moral plane, rights don't come from the Constitution. The Constitution merely purports to force certain governments from doing things to infringe on the rights you already have.

But I think there is a problem with your second sentence; it looks at your rights as an individual without accounting for the effects on others of the exercise of the right you are claiming.

In my view, allowing you access to the "means to protect that life" involves letting thousands of other people to die each year from gun violence. Giving you the ability to buy and own an AR-15 to defend yourself also gives people like the Sandy Hook shooter the ability to find an AR-15 and use it to kill twenty school kids.

I do agree with the general concept of the right to defend yourself. But I don't think that right to self-defense includes a right to endanger others. And obviously, your owning a gun does not directly endanger others because I assume you are responsible about it. But continuing to allowing everyone to access guns does endanger others. So I don't think the moral right to defend yourself includes the right to own weapons.