Melt 'em

[Stinky The Clown]

What will it take? How many people have to die by gunshot?

Mental illness? In the context of discussing guns, its a side show.

Legal gun possession? Change the fucking laws NOW.

Brand the NRA for what it is: a PR mechanism to keep people stupid and to keep gun makers rich.

This guy in Lafayette, LA, was so bad his wife took all his guns away. Yet he still got more. And he used them to terrorize a community, injury too many people, and kill two beautiful, promising young women.

Outlaw them in civilian hands and do it now. Confiscate them all and melt them down.

I am So Fucking Sick of all this.

Charleston wasn't even out of the news, the Colorado guy's trial is barely over, and we have this.

Until we melt them down, this will not end.

This is day 204 of 2015 and there have been exactly 204 mass shootings - to say nothing whatever of all the "ordinary" shootings - in the US so far this year.

Don't tell me if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them. BULLSHIT. Round them up and melt them. It can be done. Sure, the road to a gun free country will take time and cause pain. But the end result will be better for those who come after us.

Round them up and melt 'em down.

Is no one outraged enough to DO SOMETHING?

Every lawmaker who fails to author legislation to end the gun violence is PART OF THE PROBLEM.

For Christ's sake, DO SOMETHING. This problem is literally killing us.

MELT THEM DOWN.

I don't give a fuck for me. I worry about my kids. And your kids. And their kids.

Round the guns up and

M E L T T H E M D O W N

[daleanime]

1. Hell yes....

[BlueJazz]

2. People are so terrified of death. That's the main reason people will not give up their arms.

They would rather chance other people's lives than take a chance on losing theirs.

[GoneOffShore]

3. That's a great hashtag-

#meltthemdown.

[FrodosPet]

4. And melt down gunmaking tools as well

http://www.grizzly.com/products/Combination-Gunsmithing-Lathe-Mill/G0791

We've taken our extremely popular G4003G Gunsmith's Lathe and added a precision gearhead mill with 3/4 HP motor to create the ultimate "small footprint" machining station for gunsmiths and machinists alike! But don't let its compact size fool you, this combo lathe/mill really delivers on big machine features, such as a D1-5 lathe spindle and an R-8 mill spindle -- and it comes fully equipped with a huge variety of work-holding and tool-holding equipment and accessories to get you started turning, drilling, milling, chambering, boring, and facing with the best of ’em!

[90-percent]

18. gunsmithing lathe/mill

There is no design feature on this that makes it specifically for making guns. It is a generic lathe and mill combination and lathes and mills are in every machine shop in the world.

Machine tools are the only things in the world capable of replicating themselves. a cnc machine that makes hip replacement parts or radio controlled car parts or ported cylinder heads can also make guns and silencers. Outlawing machine tools would grind all manufacturing to a halt because almost all products employ a machine tool to make the tooling and dies and molds to make the final product.

machine tools are like the microscopic animals that live on the surface of the ocean, almost imperceptible, but without them life on earth would no longer exist.

-90% jimmy

[malokvale77]

106. I had to laugh at that myself.

I have a good friend who is a machinist. He makes everything from obsolete steam locomotive parts to precision space exploration gadgets. He might take offense at the idea of having the means to his livelihood melted down.

[oneshooter]

112. No he won't take offence.

After all, it's for the greater good.

[malokvale77]

114. Hah...

He just ask me to hug you for that perfect response.

So here is a hug

[Thespian2]

5. Australia

did a good job of decreasing gun ownership...so, yes, it can be done...even in America...

[Fred Sanders]

13. No need to reinvent the wheel, the pathway to gun control is well known, but where is the political will?

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. The will went away after Prohibitions 1 (alcohol) and 2 (certain drugs) failed...

...and were seen to have failed.

[Fred Sanders]

29. The will of the people is crystal clear and undeniable, and it is not the will of the NRA or it's corrupt politics.

[former9thward]

45. The majority of Americans support gun ownership.

You are on the wrong side of "The will of the people"....

[friendly_iconoclast]

98. Researching the term "false consensus effect" will explain much about...

...our interlocutor

[EL34x4]

38. Australians buried more guns in the outback than they turned in.

Compliance was dismal. Only about 631,000 of the estimated 2.5 million prohibited firearms were turned in to authorities, and most of these were cheap .22 rimfire rifles and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.

Did Australia decrease gun ownership? Some sources say that there are as many guns in Australia today as there were prior to the 1996 buy-back. One thing Australia did do was turn a lot of formerly law-abiding people into scofflaws.

Though it goes without saying that guns buried in the outback aren't hurting anyone. As far as I know, Australia hasn't had a mass shooting event since Port Arthur. In this, they have succeeded.

[Android3.14]

79. I question your numbers

According to the Washington Post, people turned in 1/3 of prohibited guns.

[Positrons]

83. 1/4 or a 1/3...

Both are dismal...

[Android3.14]

87. Well, except that Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since then

The Op is as extreme as the NRA, but on the opposite end of the spectrum.

That being said, I distrust your motivation because the Australian experience shows that gun control does work, and when folks throw around inaccurate information and compound the inaccuracy by mischaracterizing the result, I have to speak up. The 1/3 turn-in is excellent, with the other restrictions on guns, the Aussies successfully dealt with runaway gun nuts, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

[stone space]

116. I'd like to bury some US guns in the outback.

Australians buried more guns in the outback than they turned in.

How did they get folks to bury their guns and how can we repeat that here?

Getting folks to bury their guns in the outback is an incredible achievement.

May they Rest in Peace.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Gun registration laws -- mere registration -- have only a 5% compliancy rate.

And that includes non-red, non-redneck states like Connecticut and New York. States that have passed magazine capacity limits find law enforcement unwilling and unable to enforce the laws. People have no appetite for such nonsense no matter how much hyperventilating attends the subject.

So what happens when the call to melt down guns goes out and no one complies or enforces the law?

[sarisataka]

8. Like this?

Flouting The Law, Some New Yorkers Won't Register Guns

New York state has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. Compliance with those laws is another matter.

New York passed a broad package of gun regulations after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., despite the objections of hunters and gun rights advocates. Now it appears that many gun owners are refusing to comply with a key provision that requires the registration of so-called assault weapons.

***

Still, the law's opponents show no signs of backing down. They've been especially loud in upstate New York, where hunting is a big part of the culture. Among them are many elected county sheriffs.

"When I prioritize what I need to do as a sheriff, the SAFE Act comes in at the bottom of that list," says Christopher Moss, the sheriff in Chemung County, a rural area near the Pennsylvania border. "I do look at it personally as an infringement on Second Amendment rights."

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/24/425966334/flouting-the-law-some-new-yorkers-wont-register-guns

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Reality is seldom as convenient as rhetoric. nt

[LynneSin]

7. I've always said that the NRA does not give at rat's ass about the 2nd Amendment

to them it's a tool used to make huge profits off of the stupid.

True gun owners respect the power of the gun. They know it can be dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. They also know they are not a better person walking around in public showing it off. If the need to carry a gun on them it's better to keep it somewhere as to not to startle others. And at home they they keep thei guns put away safely so children can not get to them.

[DashOneBravo]

41. +1

[SCantiGOP]

64. The NRA is simply a trade association

It used to represent gun owners. Now it is the lobby of the gun and ammunition manufacturers. Its aim is no more lofty than the drug companies or the cable TV lobbyists- to manipulate Congress so as to sell more of their product.

[Fred Sanders]

69. The KKK would also be "simply a trade association" then? Their product is also fear and paranoia.

[SCantiGOP]

78. Fred?

Saying the NRA is simply a trade association was a perjorative, not an excuse. Either you misunderstood my post or I your answer.

[NRaleighLiberal]

10. Kick and Rec

[pocoloco]

11. WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso

[SoapBox]

12. Ditto to, HELL yes!

[jomin41]

14. Guns can cross borders as easily as people or drugs can.

Are you going to make guns illegal all over the world? Because otherwise, they will leak into the country as fast as you can melt them down. I am not a gun owner or a 2nd amendment extremist. But I just don't think full confiscation is possible, at all. And the attempt would become another "drug war" scenario with smugglers and basement gunsmiths. When I was a kid I made a .22 zip gun in the basement with rudimentary tools. There are a gazillion military rifles and pistols all over the world, sometimes very loosely controlled. Some or many of them will find their way into the warm, live hands of our own gun freaks. I don't have an answer to the problem but I think talk of confiscation, in THIS country, at THIS time, is counter-productive. It gives the NRA the means to scare even moderate gun owners, who might be amenable to some consensus short of confiscation.

[calimary]

17. Well, we can just go on ahead and number all the reasons why NOTHING can be done, can't we?

So then the answer is - we do NOTHING???? We just let it go so it only gets to be a bigger and bigger problem? With bigger and bigger death tolls?

So the answer is - we can't do ANYTHING about it, then? The answer is - there IS no answer?

I'm sorry, but I'm simply not okay with that. It's NOT okay to just throw up our hands and say "well, gee, for this reason or that reason or whatever fine print somewhere or exception over here or loophole over there, gee, well, looks like we're stuck - nothing we can do?" That's just not good enough anymore.

It's NOT okay. This is simply unsustainable. It CANNOT continue.

[goldent]

19. It doesn't take the NRA to scare gun owners

I know several people who turned into first time gun owners over the last few years, who wanted to get in before the restrictions came down (which of course never did). They got the idea from watching the news. I think the NRA is not nearly as powerful as people think - it is gun owners as a voting group who are, and most of them are not affiliated with the NRA.

[calimary]

15. Melt Them Down! I like it, Stinky!

I'm onboard. I'm fucking sick of this, too. HOW MANY MASSACRES is enough, America?

Why are guns so easy to get? WHY can't we stop that? Or even slow it down????

I liked what Charles Pierce said on MSNBC today (I believe it was on "All In" with Chris Hayes). He said he wanted to put it to the gunners and 2nd Amendment apologists: Please explain to me how a gun massacre every other week is the price we have to pay for "freedom"? How is a gun massacre EVERY OTHER WEEK a fair exchange for the mindless worship of the 2nd Amendment? I'd like you to make the case for a gun massacre every other week being the price we have to pay. Is it REALLY that worth it?

SUCH a good question. And they won't answer it. But they will do some very good dancing and bob 'n' weaving, I'm sure.

Probably dancing with their damn guns.

HOW MANY of these are okay per year, America? HOW MANY per MONTH? Or WEEK? You gonna push it to How Many Per DAY???? Will THAT be enough for you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Under-aged drinking kills 4300 annually.

That's just under-aged drinking over-indulgence. That's around 3.75 Sandy Hook episodes -- each and every week -- without pause.

That does not include DUIs and alcohol-fueled child abuse killing children.

Beyond children: DUIs, sexual assault, domestic violence and other alcoholic-fueled crimes pollute our society.

If banning things was the answer we would still be living under Prohibition.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. I don't know if gun prohibitionists forgot (or simply never learned) the history of Prohibition...

...but they seem hellbent on repeating it.

[Positrons]

84. Many seem to salivate at the idea of some TBD police force kicking down millions of doors....

... to ensure compliance and complete confiscation.

[WDIM]

103. The biggest arrest would be blacks as well.

Banning guns would only give the police more reason to randomly stop and search people especially minorities and double especially african americans.

Just like prohibition of alcohol and drugs have had the worse impact on minorities so would the prohibition of guns. All you would be doing is giving police more power to harrass otherwise peaceful citizens.

We need to focus on the root causes of violence. The programming and conditioning done by our media and government. The divisive fear monger. The justification of violence as a means to an end. Hypocrisy of leaders who decry murder here at home but are complicit to murder all over the world.

[Unknown Beatle]

16. Where there's money there's clout and corruption.

The NRA uses money as clout and corrupts our congresscritters.

As long as there's corruption in DC, nothing will get done and our politicos have been corrupt for decades upon decades. I believe today's corruption is even more blatant than it's ever been.

[elias49]

21. A little something I wrote called: 'I Want a Big Gun'

Not so big that it's hard to handle, but big enough so I feel a kind of weather-beaten self-confidence. I want to feel truly gritty like my hero, John Wayne. There are 3 gun shops within 10 miles of my house in the country. And, of course there's always WalMart. So there are plenty of guns to choose from. I went to one of my local shops a couple of times during the millennium scare. But it wasn't the fear of runaway lawlessness that got me going. If I lost my internet access because of the change to 2001, I figured I might need a crutch to support my rage.
In the end, I made it into 2001 unscathed. But ever since then I've been getting more and more anxious. What if an Arab knocked on my door one day? Or what about going into the Quick Mart in town late at night? I think the guy who runs it is Arab. I don't know how to explain this hang-up I have with Arabs. But there it is.
There are other reasons why I want a big gun. I worry all the time about someone coming around my neighborhood and stealing my shit. If I had a big gun - or just any gun - I could put my own personal stamp on things and turn an attempted robbery into a bloody mess.
Back when I was a chicken-shit, I installed surveillance cameras outside my house. Very cool! Now if I'm at my computer, downstairs in my finished basement, I can keep tabs on my driveway and my back door. It's like having caller ID in a way. You get that 5 second jump on the fight-or-flight thing. But I don't know...if I have security cameras and a gun, would that be considered unfair?
I need a gun that's really easy to use, with a light trigger, because I have rheumatoid arthritis and if I wake up in the night to the sound of someone trying to steal my shit, I'd want a gun that doesn't require a lot of dexterity. But that shouldn't be a problem. The elderly are a group that's often encouraged to keep a gun for 'self defense' so there must be a lot of choices for ease of handling. I have an aunt I'll call Mary - she's almost 80 and is still recovering from hip surgery - who was showing her dear friend the Beretta her brother had bought her for Christmas but when she knocked over her glass of Sherry with the pistol barrel and it got all over, she thought better and went and put the gun back under her pillow where it rightfully belonged. Lesson learned, I'd say!
Some have suggested that extended clips might be particularly helpful to the infirm. You can miss the target a number of times and still have a chance to save your crystal. But then there's the extra weight.
There are plenty of other issues to consider about owning a gun. But my arthritic fingers are getting tired, the sun's going down and I'm not sure, but I think I heard something in the kitchen.
Happy trails!

[NJCher]

24. that's funny as hell

Too bad it's so close to the truth--kind of like Onion headlines.


Cher

[Kennah]

25. After Sandy Hook, I think the nation collectively decided this is all normal. n/t

[Hekate]

26. Thank you, Stinky. Just thank you.

When Sandy Hook happened a lot of people here and elsewhere said, "NOW it will change," and I thought to myself, "No it won't." I hope I refrained from saying it, because I don't like to sound terminally cynical, but I couldn't shake the thought.

I feel numb to the shootings by now. Just numb.

The country is in the grip of the gun manufacturing lobby, and there is a streak of insanity in the American character. I don't get it.

[linuxman]

27. Will you be volunteering for the (presumably) unarmed gun confiscation patrol?

What have you done this year to reverse the supreme court and the president's opinions on the 2nd amendment? Have you contacted your state representatives? Removing the 2nd altogether would take only a paltry 2/3 vote, after all.

More hashtag worthy bluster from fantasyland.

[X_Digger]

37. And repealing the second amendment wouldn't strip the right from the people.

The bill of rights grants no rights. Were the amendment repealed, the right would go from being explicitly protected by the constitution to being implicitly protected by the ninth amendment, as well as still explicitly protected by various state constitutions.

[dreamnightwind]

28. Hand out semi-automatics as slave reparations

and watch the RW scramble to implement gun control faster than you can imagine.

What did Australia do? Did they confiscate all of them? Was it met with armed resistance? I like the idea, but I can think of few things that would radicalize the right more than gun confiscation by a black Democratic president. We'd quite possibly have an armed insurrection on ou hands.

Somehow Australia had a lot of success, perhas their approach would work here, or maybe our wild-west culture is too enamored of their weapons. Personally I hate guns and would be happy if nobody, including the police, had them.

[hack89]

33. Australia has plenty of guns.

They did not ban them nor did they confiscate them.

[Lurks Often]

30. How about you provide some realistic ideas of how to make this happen?

Keeping in mind: The US is ranked 108th out of 218 countries for intentional homicide rates worldwide Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

Explain how you plan to handle the following:
1. How are you going to get this passed in Congress
2. How are you going to get this to hold up to judicial scrutiny
3. How are you going to get ALL 50 states to comply
4. What are you going to do when states refuse to comply
5. What are you going to do when the local police refuse to enforce the law*
6. What are you going to do when people refuse to comply**

* CO, NY and WA police departments have publicly stated they would not/will not enforce the recent laws passed in those states

**While it is, for obvious reasons, impossible to get hard numbers, the laws passed in NY and CT have resulted in widespread non compliance with gun owners refusing to register the firearms and/or magazines as required by law.

Oh, yes, one more question: How much have YOU donated this year to support one or more of the gun control organizations?

[hack89]

32. That's nice. Nt

[corkhead]

34. One of my favorite bands, XTC makes that suggestion in 1982...

[Novara]

35. Instead, the legislature wastes time regulating uteruses

Talk about fucked-up priorities.

[Fred Sanders]

48. Good to see someone else noticed that, to most of the media that is not real news, like Trump.

[sarisataka]

36. I say

[DashOneBravo]

42. That's soooo stolen

I'll be using that now

[sarisataka]

54. Be my guest

I'm sure the person I stole it from won't mind

[DashOneBravo]

61. :)

[sellitman]

39. #meltthemdown

Agreed!

[Throd]

40. How would you "round them up"? That would require a massive armed police action.

I have firearms that nobody knows about. So I get to keep mine, but the guy next door with registered weapons doesn't?

[Fred Sanders]

49. Australia, it's better in the Outback, mate!

[bvar22]

43. Would anyone here make an exception for those od us who live in very rural areas?

We have guns, and have used them to protect our pets, stock, and ourselves.
We don't hunt, but some of our neighbors here depend on hunting for survival.

I can't remember the last time someone local used a gun to harm anyone,
or had an "accident" while hunting.

I understand it is different in the cities.
I don't see where anyone who lives in an urban area needs a gun.
Dodge City (and many western towns) used to make people turn in their guns before entering the town.

[Fred Sanders]

50. Sure, prove you need the gun for subsistence or recreational, legal hunting and you get one per person.

[Adrahil]

58. Prove you need cigarettes and alcohol....

Both kill more people every year than gun. Heck, cigarettes kill more than 10 times as many. In fact more people die of second hand smoke than guns.

Source:CDC

[Fred Sanders]

59. Nonsense...the NRA salutes you!

[Adrahil]

72. Absolutely true... Check the CDC

450,000 annual deaths related to cigarettes. 41,000 of thos due to second hand smoke.

88,000 alcohol-related deaths.

If your REAL concern is saving lives, start there. But i suspect that's not the real concern here.


And fuck the NRA.

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. Acknowledging that would take the fun out of parroting "NRA!" regularly...

...along with pretending an entirely self-proclaimed moral superiority

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

109. Nothing unites folks like a nice big enemy

If you can't find a real one, make one up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. Or if you have a real one, tell whoppers about it. The ends justify any means, dontcha know?

[bvar22]

67. Of course you wouldn't know,

but are willing to make rules about stuff which you don't have the slightest clue.
Several different guns, long & short, are necessary to take care of a homestead.

you ever tried to chase a skunk out of your chicken coop with a deer rifle?
Of course you haven't...or you would know better.

Have you ever tried to kill a rabid skunk with a .22 pistol?
Of course you haven't, or you would know better.

Obama: gun control advocates must respect rural hunting culture

"Gun control advocates need to do "more listening" to rural Americans, Barack Obama has said in an interview during which he acknowledged going on shoots with guests at Camp David.

In an New Republic article published Sunday, the president said he had a "profound respect" for the nation's hunting traditions and that to dismiss them out of hand in the course of the debate would be "a big mistake".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/27/obama-gun-control-hunting-culture

Of course, knowing NOTHING about a subject has never kept some from pontificating rules for everybody else.

[Fred Sanders]

68. Passive-aggressive nonsense. If folks really need firearms to take care of their "homestead", no problem.

[bvar22]

73. "Passive-Agressive"??? NO.

I was directly aggressive confronting your nonsense.

[Positrons]

85. Reminds me of that video bit that wanders around about "ghost guns"

Some fool blathering on about a topic he wants to legislate but has no clue about...

[wincest]

117. is this the video you're referring to?

that would be Ca Sen. kevin de leon.

[bvar22]

70. Of course you wouldn't know,

but are willing to make rules about stuff which you don't have the slightest clue.
Several different guns, long & short, are necessary to take care of a homestead.

you ever tried to chase a skunk out of your chicken coop with a deer rifle?
Of course you haven't...or you would know better.

Have you ever tried to kill a rabid skunk with a .22 pistol?
Of course you haven't, or you would know better.

Obama: gun control advocates must respect rural hunting culture

"Gun control advocates need to do "more listening" to rural Americans, Barack Obama has said in an interview during which he acknowledged going on shoots with guests at Camp David.

In an New Republic article published Sunday, the president said he had a "profound respect" for the nation's hunting traditions and that to dismiss them out of hand in the course of the debate would be "a big mistake".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/27/obama-gun-control-hunting-culture

During the Spring and early Summer I carry a pistol in my 4WD truck
I am a member of our local fire/rescue dept.
The locals call me when there is an injured animal on the highway hit by a car, mostly fawns this time of the year.
There is little I can do beyond ease the animal's suffering and remove the body.
It is not something I enjoy.


Of course, knowing NOTHING about a subject has never kept some here from pontificating rules for everybody else as long as the laws don't affect them and their lifestyle.

Thanks for your input.
I will take it under advisement.

[bvar22]

96. That sounded better in the original German. (N/T)

[Fred Sanders]

97. Speaking of past Germans and propaganda and lies, did you know about this NRA lie:

Today at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:
“.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856_Page2.html#ixzz3h7ICiEMh

[PeoViejo]

44. If you want to drive voters to the GOP, just talk about confiscating Guns

You're just wasting your breath and polarizing the Electorate.

[SCantiGOP]

46. You're right, PeoViejo

I don't want to see things like this picked up and posted on other sites where it can turn off independent voters. Let's regulate and control guns, and restrict military style weapons to the military, but advocating unconstitutional seizure of personal weapons is a non-starter and hurts sensible gun control efforts.

[beevul]

52. Theres a problem with that.

restrict military style weapons to the military

The military doesn't use 'military style' weapons. They use actual military weapons, and would not use weapons that were only 'military style', because they don't actually function the same as true military weapons.

There IS a difference.

[Fred Sanders]

60. Australians had no problem with gun seizures and safety laws after they got sick of mass murders.

And then afterwards there were no more.

[Marengo]

74. Bullshit. There have been mass murders since Port Arthur...

A quick Google search would seem to prove your assertion incorrect.

A sampling:

Childers Palace Fire (arson) – 2000 - 15 deaths
Lin Family Murders – 2009 – 5 killed with a hammer
Quaker Hill Nursing Home Fire (arson) – 2011 – 10 deaths
Hunt Family Murders – 2014 – 5 gun deaths
Cairns stabbings – 2014 – 8 deaths

[Fred Sanders]

75. Try to keep up, this is about guns and gun control.

[beevul]

76. People are noticing that.

this is about guns and gun control.

And nothing else, right?

[Marengo]

80. It's you who needs to "keep up". The number of victims in the Hunt family shooting...

qualify the event as a mass murder according to the commonly accepted definitions of the term in use in Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology) and the US (FBI). So, yeah, a mass gun murder. So much for your claim. As to your post I responded to, you wrote "mass murders", not "mass gun murders" In the future, I would advise you choose your word carefully as your credibility is so very thin on this issue you simply can't afford the potentiality of misinterpretation due to imprecise language.

[Fred Sanders]

82. Your concern for my credibility on gun control is touching.

[sarisataka]

81. Twitterspeak

#onlygundeathsmatter

[Positrons]

86. ha...

[PeoViejo]

66. Hate Media is the real problem

The shootings are just a symptom of a greater problem in our Society. The guns are just a tool, just like a hammer or Machete.

[Fred Sanders]

71. The NRA also salutes YOU - for the laughable "GUNS and hammers are the same" absurdity.

[PeoViejo]

93. Lame try.

The problem is people, not Guns.

[Fred Sanders]

94. The NRA now not only salutes you, but has nominated you for a gun-lovers medal. Congrats!

[PeoViejo]

110. I think your record is stuck

It keeps repeating itself.

[WillyT]

47. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[snappyturtle]

51. Won't happen. eom

[the band leader]

53. good luck with that.

[BeanMusical]

55. Kick and R

[linuxman]

56. Coming next week...

" I just don't get why these crazy gun owners think people want to confiscate their guns! Literally nobody is saying that. No, really, you can trust our intentions! What poisoned well?"

100 recs later; sigh...

Bookmarking

[IcyPeas]

57. I wish we could.

[spanone]

62. k&r...

[Long Drive]

63. When Sandy Hook Happened And America Thought It Was A OK To Kill Babies

This shit was way over. Gun lovers, the most cowardly of all got their way.

[Sancho]

65. For a while, I've been advocating a possible improvement...

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. We should impose similar pre-crime regulations on voting, religious thought and media.

[Sancho]

89. Actually, you seem to misunderstand your "rights" then

You have to register and prove eligibility to vote.
All rights have limitations when balanced against the public good. Regulation does not remove a right.
Committing a "crime" is not the reason a person is dangerous. That's so obvious that it's silly to even discuss it.

To understand your "rights" better, read: "The Second Amendment: A Biography"
In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/1476747458/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438001046&sr=8-1&keywords=2nd+amendment+book

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. Now impose a psychiatric pre-screening to the right to vote.

[Sancho]

91. Don't be silly....

First, there's no immediate threat to life from a voting violation. Even then, to register there are reasonable and appropriate requirements: proof of age or citizenship. I suspect that if you were in a psych ward in a hospital, you would have trouble voting. Criminals in some states can't vote (as you point out about guns), even though they have paid their time and may not have done anything except pass a bad check or smoke a joint.

My license certainly asks for a check on emotional status. Just like you likely have a vision test to get a driver's license. If you can't see well, then the DMV won't treat you or diagnose your vision problem. They will just send you to al professional for glasses or whatever.

If you want a license to possess a gun, you should answer some questions, maybe get a reference, or turn over a medical history. If you have a history of depression, are taking a prescription for bipolar, or family say you are a threat, or you've been seeing a psychologist, or you report that you have issues - then you should be diagnosed and cleared by a professional examination before getting a gun.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. So many mistakes to contend with.

First, there's no immediate threat to life from a voting violation.

You're demanding psych screening for 80+ million people. It has nothing to do with safety because the percentage of them that are mentally ill to the point of violence is vanishingly small.

Moreover, those who are mentally ill do not suddenly materialize as being such. Loughner, Lanza, Cho, Alexis, Holmes, Houser, Rodgers, etc had long, established histories of mental illness. There is no need for a fishing expedition against 80+ million people when the individually dangerous ones self-identify. What needs to happen is for mental healthcare professionals and law enforcement to get off their worthless butts and actually start helping people who need help rather than harass people who are more likely to be the victims rather than the problem.

I suspect that if you were in a psych ward in a hospital, you would have trouble voting.

Being involuntarily committed requires due process and that requires demonstrated behavior, not a fishing expedition.

Criminals in some states can't vote (as you point out about guns), even though they have paid their time and may not have done anything except pass a bad check or smoke a joint.

Incarceration is not the sum total of "paying ones debt to society." Felonies are considered to be so grievous that the person committing them is considered to have sacrificed their right to participate in society. It is a philosophical debate as to whether that is appropriate or not but that is what the law states.

But even that requires a burden of proof upon the state to present a case based on actions, not a fishing expedition. To be analogous to what you propose all people would be deprived of the right to participate in society unless first cleared by a mental health professional (a self-selecting clique with no screening for biases, by the way).

My license certainly asks for a check on emotional status. Just like you likely have a vision test to get a driver's license. If you can't see well, then the DMV won't treat you or diagnose your vision problem. They will just send you to al professional for glasses or whatever.

First, driving is a privilege.

Second, if nothing indicates a need for corrective lenses there is no burden on the applicant to prove it is the case.

Third, psychiatric screenings are not as simple as "Please read line 7" but you know that. In fact, I suspect the entire proposition to be nothing more than an effort to harass gun owners with undue nuisance regulations.

If you want a license to possess a gun, you should answer some questions, maybe get a reference, or turn over a medical history. If you have a history of depression, are taking a prescription for bipolar, or family say you are a threat, or you've been seeing a psychologist, or you report that you have issues - then you should be diagnosed and cleared by a professional examination before getting a gun.

People who are a danger to themselves and others need treatment but what you are proposing is to stigmatize people seeking treatment. You are casting a wide net -- deliberately so, I suspect -- that will not safeguard rights but disqualify as many people as possible or simply make seeking a gun license too burdensome to endure.

No other right is subject to fishing expeditions.

I doubt your proposal would withstand judicial scrutiny and even if it did it would not be logistically tenable and I suspect it will be ignored by both law enforcement and the people as are magazine limits and registration requirements.

[Sancho]

104. There's a great alternative to preventing dangerous people from easy access to guns!!!

Confiscate all the guns!

Rather than repeat all the same BS arguments that some of us have done over and over...you tell us!!

How would YOU keep dangerous people from easy access to guns?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

105. Considering these rampage killers never materialize out of the blue how about we start there.

Getting the authorities off their worthless butts would be a good start. The Aurora theater shooter was reported to police per the law. Why is whoever chose to ignore that report not being dealt with for dereliction of duty?

And then we can move to the War on Drugs which fuels gang violence. Safety education for kids and adults. Mental healthcare for the suicidal. Improve NICS and make it available to private sellers.

On edit -- I would also encourage the media to blackout the names of anyone perpetrator a rampage crime. They are obviously seeking notoriety. It should be denied to them. This cannot happen by law but it should be an industry practice.

[Sancho]

107. That's simply not true...

I was in a courtroom and saw a psychologist (actually two different ones) tell the judge that someone was dangerous. The person had never been convicted of a violent crime, and had never been committed to a mental institution. The judge said "nothing I can do". Two months later he broke in a house, raped a 15 year old, and shot and killed someone with a legal gun!! He had a mental health record, but not one that prevented buying a gun. Purchased at Walmart.

Officials cannot do anything with the current laws and background checks. Sorry.

Been there, done that, more than once.

The only way to make things safer is to make it harder for dangerous people to get guns.

The only way to do that is a universal license. If you pass whatever screening your state creates, then to hunt, shoot at the range, buy a gun, buy ammo, or transport a gun...whatever activity requires a gun in your hand...you show a license.

It's not rocket science.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. You shift efortlessly from describing specific people with specific behaviors to

wanting to impose absurd requirements on all people. If you can't deal with someone demonstrably dangerous why should you be allowed to disarm by nuisance those who pose no threat?

[beevul]

102. I'm pretty sure there are a few million...

First, there's no immediate threat to life from a voting violation.

I'm pretty sure there are a few million Iraqi people that would be happy to tell you how dangerous votes can be.

If they were still alive.

[ileus]

77. Now that's being progressive....

[Amishman]

95. facepalm, this is why we can't make any real progress

People need to stop shouting about bans and confiscation for a good decade and maybe we can get better background checks and safe storage. There are a shit ton of gun owners out there and they don't trust anyone who talks about any kind of restriction because they can't tell between those who really only want reasonable gun laws and those who will perpetually push for tighter restrictions until all guns are banned.

Seriously, half of the people who want gun control are their own worst enemy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

99. Fortunately the Constitution protects us from such Fascist fantasies

[WDIM]

101. Anti-gun laws will only lead to

More minorities especially Africa Americans being wrongly profiled, stopped and searched, and more in prispn.

It would create a black market with more corruption and violence on the street.

We need to change our entire culture of violence. From our leaders that continuously send us the message it is okay to murder those with a challenging or different world view than our own. A hypocritical president who speaks of "machines of murder" when us bombs are falling overseas. The world governments and their hinchmen kill more people than all mass shooters combined. We live in a country that glorifies violence justifies violence as a means to an end. That is what we must change.

[Snobblevitch]

111. I believe a constitutional amendment banning

the private ownership of firearms would result in violence and bloodshed that would make the violence and bloodshed that occurred because of the 18th Amendment look like a pleasant afternoon in a park.

[hack89]

113. I love DU performance art!