Another shooting on campus

[Coleman]

I'm not crazy about the gov't telling me what I can do with my private property, bought legally

The government regulates the sale of all kinds of private property, and for good reason.

Try buying a house, car, cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, or any other number of items without some sort of government regulation. In all instances there has never been any doubt as to the constitutionality of the the government regulating this commerce.

[swoopem]

The government regulates the sale of all kinds of private property, and for good reason.

Try buying a house, car, cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, or any other number of items without some sort of government regulation. In all instances there has never been any doubt as to the constitutionality of the the government regulating this commerce.

Don't forget that sticky chronic..shout out to Coloradical and Washington

[keefe]

Don't forget that sticky chronic..shout out to Coloradical and Washington

The funniest bit about the hemp law is that the DEA acknowledged that it would not enforce contradictory and antithetical Federal law in WA and CO.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The government regulates the sale of all kinds of private property, and for good reason.

Try buying a house, car, cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, or any other number of items without some sort of government regulation. In all instances there has never been any doubt as to the constitutionality of the the government regulating this commerce.

Yes, the gov't regulates some purchases but let's not kid ourselves.  Selling a house is different than selling a gun.  Are we going to mandate registration of all weapons...can I sell a knife any longer?  Machete (I own a few, from my dad's days in the Amazon jungle when he was have to be on a well site)?  What about nunchucks?  So on and so forth.   By the way, that house or car that I have, I can choose to sell it to anyone.  Is the gov't going to let me do that with a gun, or do I have to fine out how sane they are? 

I just want to know what they are going to do to the person that had the property, sold it and someone 3 people later in the chain of custody does something the gov't doesn't like....whom are they going to blame?  I'm not denying the gov't is involved in regulating commerce, what I want to know is what is the end game here?   

[ChicosBailBonds]

It can be done other ways, but guns are certainly the most effective. Many, many more people try to hang themselves or OD and survive. And many of those end up glad they did survive down the road. There would most certainly be fewer deaths if people had to find other methods of killing themselves.

Just like there would still be homicides without guns. But certainly many fewer. Someone would not be able to conduct a mass stabbing in a movie theater and kill more than a handful of people before being accosted. They just couldn't.

Yup, a gun is pretty lethal, though I actually know of someone that shot themselves in the head and survived.  Lucky, but did survive.  Sometimes the bullet goes just right.  Sometimes the rope breaks, or someone finds you convulsing do to the OD before you die.  A second chance.

Just like some abortions get botched and the baby lives and the parents are glad it got botched as the baby grows up to do great things.  It happens.  Some day I'm hopeful that the anti-gun crowd that is so concerned about the deaths of innocents will actually be concerned about the deaths of the ultimate innocents.        I'm sure people will be pissed that I say that and be pissed that I'm bringing that into the conversation, but the next time I hear about the death of innocents from some of these people on the radio and TV while at the same time they have no problem with abortion, I'm going to donate to the NRA which I have never done before...just for the pleasure of exposing the hypocrisy.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Fair response as well.  To your point around stolen guns, if they were locked up, and still stolen.  Nope, not your fault.  To idiots, like this politician who leaves machine guns in her garage?  Hell to the yes.  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ar-15-rifle-stolen-from-rep-ellmers-nc-home-98719.html

(Now do me a favor, and don't troll me that if someone steal a butcher knife from my house, then stabs someone 6 months down the road, am I at fault...  

To your last paragraph, if we can't even muster enough political support for background checks @ gun shows, clearly something is wrong in this country, right?  The wacky 10% of gun nuts is ruining it for the rest of everyone, that sucks.  

You talk slippery slope, but what about the 16,000 guns manufactured every day in this country (and rising)...more and more of them will end up in the hands of bad dudes.  Our culture, gun manufacturers, and a small, but powerful minority of folks think the solution to crime is more guns, but fail to recognize that it is easier than ever for criminals to get guns, and will get easier as more and more get produced, sold, resold, lost, stolen...

Wingnuts and gun manufacturers have played this fear mongering card for the last 50 years.

Rinse. Repeat.

I'll have to disagree with you about guns stolen in the garage.  Stolen is stolen.  I guess I should read the article, but if the guns are in my house (garage, house, attic, basement, whatever) and someone comes in and takes them...that is stealing.  If they came into my garage and stole my car but I had the keys in the car, it's still stealing my car.

Question for you, despite the proliferation of guns that you speak of, wouldn't you think this would mean more homicides by guns each year?  Why is the data showing the opposite?

1993 was the peak, at 17,075 gun related homicides.  In 2010, 11,078 gun related homicides.   So is it perception that it outweighing reality?  Seems to me, despite all these guns out there, more than ever, the actual number of gun related deaths has been on the decline.    Incidentally, of the gun related homicides, the FBI reports over 80% are gang related.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The funniest bit about the hemp law is that the DEA acknowledged that it would not enforce contradictory and antithetical Federal law in WA and CO.

Yeah, a lot of that going on....the laws that were sworn to be followed and executed aren't so followed, executed or enforced.  Not sure why these guys even put a hand on the bible anymore, they're lying from the get go.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What is inscribed on the wall at the NRA headquarters? "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

It's very interesting that they never mention the entire statement. "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."

Why only the 2nd half? Is the NRA afraid that the American people know what the Constitution actually says?

I have no idea....same as I have no idea how our leaders can put their hand on the bible and swear to uphold and ENFORCE the laws on the books.  Seems a lot of organizations, gov't bodies, etc are choosing what to say, follow, etc....not just in your example above.  

I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS has ruled on the militia arguments in Heller v D.C and later in McDonald v Chicago.   You may not like the ruling, but that's the interpretation of the law of the land.

[ChicosBailBonds]

There seems to be a John Oliver quote circulating now:

"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all take off our shoes at the airport. Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns."

Some truth to that.   I guess I would ask our politicians why they have armed guards or security details that can carry....why they think they are able to do this but I as a citizen cannot.  Apparently they think they are above everyone else....well, actually I already knew that.

[Spotcheck Billy]

1993 was the peak, at 17,075 gun related homicides.  In 2010, 11,078 gun related homicides.   So is it perception that it outweighing reality?  Seems to me, despite all these guns out there, more than ever, the actual number of gun related deaths has been on the decline.    Incidentally, of the gun related homicides, the FBI reports over 80% are gang related.

just a guess here but maybe Crack had something to do with the numbers back in '93 vs. later

[Galway Eagle]

Yup, a gun is pretty lethal, though I actually know of someone that shot themselves in the head and survived.  Lucky, but did survive.  Sometimes the bullet goes just right.  Sometimes the rope breaks, or someone finds you convulsing do to the OD before you die.  A second chance.

Just like some abortions get botched and the baby lives and the parents are glad it got botched as the baby grows up to do great things.  It happens.  Some day I'm hopeful that the anti-gun crowd that is so concerned about the deaths of innocents will actually be concerned about the deaths of the ultimate innocents.        I'm sure people will be pissed that I say that and be pissed that I'm bringing that into the conversation, but the next time I hear about the death of innocents from some of these people on the radio and TV while at the same time they have no problem with abortion, I'm going to donate to the NRA which I have never done before...just for the pleasure of exposing the hypocrisy.

So much wrong with your statement that shows just how big of a silver spoon you were raised with

[Coleman]

Yup, a gun is pretty lethal, though I actually know of someone that shot themselves in the head and survived.  Lucky, but did survive.  Sometimes the bullet goes just right.  Sometimes the rope breaks, or someone finds you convulsing do to the OD before you die.  A second chance.

Just like some abortions get botched and the baby lives and the parents are glad it got botched as the baby grows up to do great things.  It happens.  Some day I'm hopeful that the anti-gun crowd that is so concerned about the deaths of innocents will actually be concerned about the deaths of the ultimate innocents.       I'm sure people will be pissed that I say that and be pissed that I'm bringing that into the conversation, but the next time I hear about the death of innocents from some of these people on the radio and TV while at the same time they have no problem with abortion, I'm going to donate to the NRA which I have never done before...just for the pleasure of exposing the hypocrisy.

Red herring for dinner tonight? At least we made it 12 pages before it happened.

If it makes you feel better, I am not morally comfortable with abortion and would never advise or encourage anyone toward it. I am consistent in that regard. That said I am not a medical professional or a female and feel even more uncomfortable imposing my belief on others. I recognize that other people may have different beliefs than me and my beliefs aren't special and they don't get to determine the law in a secular democracy. I believe in the rule of law and the Supreme Court has spoken and laid down the law of the land on this issue. If you are against abortion, my suggestion is similar to those who are against gay marriage: then don't get one or perform one.

What I find even more hypocritical are those who argue against abortion but do not offer any real world suggestions to prevent it, such as realistic sex education, safety nets for single mothers, universal access to prenatal care, subsidized daycare, etc.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Yup, a gun is pretty lethal, though I actually know of someone that shot themselves in the head and survived.  Lucky, but did survive.  Sometimes the bullet goes just right.  Sometimes the rope breaks, or someone finds you convulsing do to the OD before you die.  A second chance.

Just like some abortions get botched and the baby lives and the parents are glad it got botched as the baby grows up to do great things.  It happens.  Some day I'm hopeful that the anti-gun crowd that is so concerned about the deaths of innocents will actually be concerned about the deaths of the ultimate innocents.        I'm sure people will be pissed that I say that and be pissed that I'm bringing that into the conversation, but the next time I hear about the death of innocents from some of these people on the radio and TV while at the same time they have no problem with abortion, I'm going to donate to the NRA which I have never done before...just for the pleasure of exposing the hypocrisy.

Wow... from botched abortion to superstar... sounds like an urban legend to me.

I'm so thankful we have rugged throwbacks with pickup truck mentalities like Chicos to save us from all they hypocrisy!

Hypocrisy: 0
NRA: kaching! got that Chicos cheddar!

The real winner here is the U.S. constitution. Thank you Chicos. Thank you!

[jesmu84]

Red herring for dinner tonight? At least we made it 12 pages before it happened.

If it makes you feel better, I am not morally comfortable with abortion and would never advise or encourage anyone toward it. I am consistent in that regard. That said I am not a medical professional or a female and feel even more uncomfortable imposing my belief on others. I recognize that other people may have different beliefs than me and my beliefs aren't special and they don't get to determine the law in a secular democracy. I believe in the rule of law and the Supreme Court has spoken and laid down the law of the land on this issue. If you are against abortion, my suggestion is similar to those who are against gay marriage: then don't get one or perform one.

What I find even more hypocritical are those who argue against abortion but do not offer any real world suggestions to prevent it, such as realistic sex education, safety nets for single mothers, universal access to prenatal care, subsidized daycare, etc.

i get so freaking annoyed at people who bring logic into these discussions. how dare you.

[Badgerhater]

I have no idea....same as I have no idea how our leaders can put their hand on the bible and swear to uphold and ENFORCE the laws on the books.  Seems a lot of organizations, gov't bodies, etc are choosing what to say, follow, etc....not just in your example above.  

I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS has ruled on the militia arguments in Heller v D.C and later in McDonald v Chicago.   You may not like the ruling, but that's the interpretation of the law of the land.

<---is a real-life military historian who draws a paycheck from it.

The "militia" back when the constitution was written was every able-bodied male with their own firearms.  It was not until the 1870s where the term National Guard came into play.   Also, "regulated" in the context of the time means "outfitted" or "equipped", not organized by a bunch of laws, rules and regulation.

[mu03eng]

Haven't really read everything in great detail, but I did have a relatively interesting(to me anyway) and simple question.

Let's look at two rights in the US....gun ownership and voting.  Both are constitutionally protected, however it seems often that someone who is all for restricting gun ownership is against any restriction on voting and then vice versa.  Someone has to go through a background check and show ID to get a gun, but such requirements are heralded as fascist when applied to voting.  Those who are pro-gun want to force checks on US citizens to prove they are who they are before electing their leaders but chafe under the requirement that they verify that they meet the standards dictated by law to own a gun.

Why the two standards?

[warriorchick]

Haven't really read everything in great detail, but I did have a relatively interesting(to me anyway) and simple question.

Let's look at two rights in the US....gun ownership and voting.  Both are constitutionally protected, however it seems often that someone who is all for restricting gun ownership is against any restriction on voting and then vice versa.  Someone has to go through a background check and show ID to get a gun, but such requirements are heralded as fascist when applied to voting.  Those who are pro-gun want to force checks on US citizens to prove they are who they are before electing their leaders but chafe under the requirement that they verify that they meet the standards dictated by law to own a gun.

Why the two standards?

Because no one has ever killed someone with a ballot (at least not directly).

I am pro- gun rights, BTW; just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The fundamental question I would have for those talking about common sense changes, would any of them prevented what happened?

From what I'm seeing, no.


The common sense requests are to do background checks of people who were institutionalized for psychiatric reasons.  This kid never was.  He certainly was going through counseling for many years, but so are tens of millions of Americans.  Unless the new common sense change is to say anyone that ever once spoke to a psychiatrist or psychologist is not eligible, well that's going to be interesting.  At the end of the day, despite this kid going through counseling all these years, his doctors never felt him a threat to institutionalize him.

He had no criminal history.

He bought his weapons legally, not at a gun tradeshow or off the street.

He did not buy a gun with a large magazine capacity, another "common sense" approach.

Yes, he had a lot of rounds, but when people shoot, they consume rounds.  Is the common sense approach to say you can only buy X number of rounds per month?  Even if so, all a guy has to do is buy that cap for several months in a row and stock them.  How would anyone know, as far as the gov't knows he's at the range shooting the rounds and consuming them.


Unless I'm missing something, what would those changes that everyone is up in arms about (which honestly, I'm fine with them making most of them), how would any of those proposed changes have made a difference?

[ChicosBailBonds]

So much wrong with your statement that shows just how big of a silver spoon you were raised with

Yeah, spending years in 3rd world countries, having my mom have to barricade us in a tiny apartment in Panama as a man with a machete tries to take down the door and do who knows what to her and us.  I could go on, but you seem to know so much about me.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Red herring for dinner tonight? At least we made it 12 pages before it happened.

If it makes you feel better, I am not morally comfortable with abortion and would never advise or encourage anyone toward it. I am consistent in that regard. That said I am not a medical professional or a female and feel even more uncomfortable imposing my belief on others. I recognize that other people may have different beliefs than me and my beliefs aren't special and they don't get to determine the law in a secular democracy. I believe in the rule of law and the Supreme Court has spoken and laid down the law of the land on this issue. If you are against abortion, my suggestion is similar to those who are against gay marriage: then don't get one or perform one.

What I find even more hypocritical are those who argue against abortion but do not offer any real world suggestions to prevent it, such as realistic sex education, safety nets for single mothers, universal access to prenatal care, subsidized daycare, etc.

It's amazing to me how few single mothers we had "back in the old days" compared to now.  Wonder why that is....


At any rate, I'm merely pointing out the argument about the innocents killed by guns always makes me wonder about how these people square the ultimate in innocent life lost.  Let's face it, MOST of the deaths at the hands of guns per the FBI are gang related and involving criminal activity.  Not a whole lot of innocent things going on.  Of course there are the mass shootings that get the headlines and people focus on those...hard not to.  But my head does spin when someone says we have to "stop the senseless killing" with these guns and 5 minutes later they are fine with a baby being decapitated or having their skull crushed in the womb...and to make it easier for them to accomodate their hypocrisy they call it a "fetus" as if it is a ball of mush.  Human beings are quite unreal sometimes.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Haven't really read everything in great detail, but I did have a relatively interesting(to me anyway) and simple question.

Let's look at two rights in the US....gun ownership and voting.  Both are constitutionally protected, however it seems often that someone who is all for restricting gun ownership is against any restriction on voting and then vice versa.  Someone has to go through a background check and show ID to get a gun, but such requirements are heralded as fascist when applied to voting.  Those who are pro-gun want to force checks on US citizens to prove they are who they are before electing their leaders but chafe under the requirement that they verify that they meet the standards dictated by law to own a gun.

Why the two standards?

I think we all know the reason for the double standard.   

[Spotcheck Billy]

It's amazing to me how few single mothers we had "back in the old days" compared to now.  Wonder why that is....

no fault divorce?

[Galway Eagle]

Yeah, spending years in 3rd world countries, having my mom have to barricade us in a tiny apartment in Panama as a man with a machete tries to take down the door and do who knows what to her and us.  I could go on, but you seem to know so much about me.

Want sympathy? I'll give you about as much as you clearly have for rape victims getting an abortion, or the thousands who died from back alley abortions, or the unfortunate women who make that choice. 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

The fundamental question I would have for those talking about common sense changes, would any of them prevented what happened?

From what I'm seeing, no.


The common sense requests are to do background checks of people who were institutionalized for psychiatric reasons.  This kid never was.  He certainly was going through counseling for many years, but so are tens of millions of Americans.  Unless the new common sense change is to say anyone that ever once spoke to a psychiatrist or psychologist is not eligible, well that's going to be interesting.  At the end of the day, despite this kid going through counseling all these years, his doctors never felt him a threat to institutionalize him.

He had no criminal history.

He bought his weapons legally, not at a gun tradeshow or off the street.

He did not buy a gun with a large magazine capacity, another "common sense" approach.

Yes, he had a lot of rounds, but when people shoot, they consume rounds.  Is the common sense approach to say you can only buy X number of rounds per month?  Even if so, all a guy has to do is buy that cap for several months in a row and stock them.  How would anyone know, as far as the gov't knows he's at the range shooting the rounds and consuming them.


Unless I'm missing something, what would those changes that everyone is up in arms about (which honestly, I'm fine with them making most of them), how would any of those proposed changes have made a difference?

Because of Connecticut law and the sequence of events, the thought is he would have been stopped here.  This ran in yesterday's New Haven Register.

Elliot Rodger likely would have been stopped in Connecticut, state official says
http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140527/elliot-rodger-likely-would-have-been-stopped-in-connecticut-state-official-says

[Galway Eagle]

It's amazing to me how few single mothers we had "back in the old days" compared to now.  Wonder why that is....


At any rate, I'm merely pointing out the argument about the innocents killed by guns always makes me wonder about how these people square the ultimate in innocent life lost.  Let's face it, MOST of the deaths at the hands of guns per the FBI are gang related and involving criminal activity.  Not a whole lot of innocent things going on.  Of course there are the mass shootings that get the headlines and people focus on those...hard not to.  But my head does spin when someone says we have to "stop the senseless killing" with these guns and 5 minutes later they are fine with a baby being decapitated or having their skull crushed in the womb...and to make it easier for them to accomodate their hypocrisy they call it a "fetus" as if it is a ball of mush.  Human beings are quite unreal sometimes.

Dude a fetus is essentially a ball of mush. And I'd like to say that you're quick to point out this hypocrisy but it's only a hypocrisy if someone follows your beliefs.  You talk about it being the ultimate innocent life or whatever, to me it's a cluster of cells for quite awhile before it reaches that stage.  The reason people freak out about young deaths more is because not only the potential (which you seemed concerned about) but also because they've experienced life and the world but that gets taken away.  The "life" you refer to has not experienced anything this the loss is purely based on potential.  

I'm curious if you were drowning with two sons ages 3 and 7 and you can save one of them which would you save? I actually have a point to this depending on your answer.  

Was considering pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti choice folks who don't wanna help the babies forced into this world with cheap healthcare or how those same people are all about military spending but anti expanding veterans benefits but... Oops guess I did just point out some of your side's hypocrisies