5 People Shot At 3 Different Gun Shows On Gun Appreciation Day
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... ?mobile=nc
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... ?mobile=nc
AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
Gun Appreciation Day "Backfires"
- Thread starter Red7227
- Start date
-
** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
- Status
Jupiter551 said:
That is true. There are already people claiming that the Obama administration planted the shooters to discredit the gun shows.
I was hoping the guns just went off on their own, they could have cancelled out the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' argument too.Red7227 said:
You might say the pro-gun crowd shot themselves in the foot with that one :-D
(I apologise. That was awful. I couldn't help myself. I'm drawn to bad jokes like a moth to light :?)
(I apologise. That was awful. I couldn't help myself. I'm drawn to bad jokes like a moth to light :?)
Didn't have to read any farther than that. That Peck guy, author of the article, sounds like a total left wing peckerhead.
Bocefish said:
Well it is thinkprogress.org man. Of course it's written from the perspective of the left. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Would you prefer to read about it on CNN.com perhaps? In two cases, the private sellers failed to ensure that the weapons were unloaded before bringing them to the gun show. In one of those cases, he accidentally shot 3 people with bird shot. In the other, the person who bought the gun, not knowing it was loaded, accidentally shot a business partner.
Never said it didn't happen. Accidents can and do happen. Idiots and people that don't know how to safely handle firearms find that out quickly.
The author of the article is far from a journalist, he's a flippin' brainwashed blogger with an agenda. He basically says "far-right wingers'' actually want criminal gang bangers and the mentally ill people to be armed. Just more piss poor liberal so-called journalism. :roll:
The author of the article is far from a journalist, he's a flippin' brainwashed blogger with an agenda. He basically says "far-right wingers'' actually want criminal gang bangers and the mentally ill people to be armed. Just more piss poor liberal so-called journalism. :roll:
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
yeah, they're all corrupt. Still, what corporate interests are you thinking are behind the gun control "lobby"?Bocefish said:
Bocefish said:
I'm not watching the whole thing, but as to the whole overthrowing the government thing, this isn't the days of muskets and an empire months travel away - regardless of how many ar-15s they have Earl and his cousin Bobby-Ray aren't going to last long against tanks and predator drones.
Minute mark 10.20 for about 3-4 minutes sums it up... it's about our rights and the freedom to defend yourself. No government is going to dictate how I can defend myself, family or others from an armed intruder or crazed lunatic, period. YMMV.
- Apr 10, 2011
- 14,415
- 49,147
- 1,493
- Twitter Username
- @BlackxRose92
- Tumblr Username
- BlackxRose92
- MFC Username
- RosiePie
- Streamate Username
- BlackxxxRose
- Clips4Sale URL
- http://clips4sale.com/studio/54271/Rose-Black_s-Fetish-Store
It sucks that those people got hurt, but I don't understand why people think stricter gun laws are going to stop criminals.
Isn't the reason people are criminals is because they don't listen to the laws?
How would changing the laws suddenly make criminals start abiding by them?..... :?
Isn't the reason people are criminals is because they don't listen to the laws?
How would changing the laws suddenly make criminals start abiding by them?..... :?
It means simply owning weapons without the proper licensing will make them criminals rather than having to commit a crime with them. Theoretically that means they could be arrested and charged before committing some other crime.EasyBakeBabyOven said:It sucks that those people got hurt, but I don't understand why people think stricter gun laws are going to stop criminals.
Isn't the reason people are criminals is because they don't listen to the laws?
At this point, it's all pretty silly. Gun control doesn't mean shit for this story in my opinion. The only "crime" possibly committed pertaining to this story is failing to heed the regulation that all firearms brought for sale at the shows be unloaded. Luckily everything I read makes it sound like there are no life threatening injuries from any of the shootings.
- Apr 10, 2011
- 14,415
- 49,147
- 1,493
- Twitter Username
- @BlackxRose92
- Tumblr Username
- BlackxRose92
- MFC Username
- RosiePie
- Streamate Username
- BlackxxxRose
- Clips4Sale URL
- http://clips4sale.com/studio/54271/Rose-Black_s-Fetish-Store
Is it not already illegal to own a gun without a permit of some sort? (I honestly have no idea and am not asking this sarcastically.)Mirra said:
Plus....Then that still means they're not listening to the laws so my first question pertains. Isn't the reason people are criminals because they don't listen to the law? :lol:
Gun laws vary by location. A lot of the point of gun control legislation is to enact nationwide requirements for background checks and such before being sol a firearm. In many areas the regulations make it where almost anyone with the money to pay for it could buy and own a gun. Gun control isn't all about outlawing or banning firearms. Otherwise it would be called prohibition of guns. We saw how well that worked with alcohol.
As I understand it, around 40% of gun sales right now are done privately either through private sellers and/or at gun shows, and there is a loophole which means those guns are sold without background checks, and without paperwork. So it's essentially a massive, unregulated, legal gray market.EasyBakeBabyOven said:
One of the major things government wants to do is find a way to close that loophole so that people with criminal records, history of violent episodes etc, can't buy guns legally. Even if all such checks would do is drive that business onto the illegal black market, it would create further risk for those illegally buying and selling, deter some from buying or selling at all, and increase cost.
Note: none of this is in any way a hindrance to a legitimate citizen from buying a gun, only those who would fail a background check.
Controlling supply of necessary items is a proven tactic used in, among other things, anti-terrorism (chemicals used to make explosives), counterfeiting (particular dyes), drug manufacture (chemicals again). No one objects that Joe Citizen has to show ID when buying a bunch of suspicious chemicals but if he wants to buy a gun - well how DARE anyone check if he's a repeat violent offender!
Other measures they'd like to introduce are:
Armed security at schools
Better training for cops
tighter regulation of magazines that hold ridiculous numbers of bullets
studies on the causes of gun violence
All unreasonable, draconian measures I'm sure you'll agree.
Jupiter551 said:
The private sales, from both everyday transactions and gun shows are the big ways of obtaining a firearm without paperwork. But there are other ways. AR-15's for example are easily gotten by mail order. People can order what are called 80% or 95% blanks (or some other percentage depending on the seller) of the lower receiver of an AR-15 rifle. This is the main part that the trigger, stock and barrel all fit in. The lower receiver is the part of that rifle that is considered 'the gun' in the eyes of the law and it's what has a serial number on it. All the other parts are interchangeable so it's the main part. The blanks are not completed yet so they can be sold to anyone, even by mail order off the internet. At this point they are considered nothing more than paperweights, they don't have to have serial numbers either. Then with a simple kit that snaps on to it anyone with a drill press can finish drilling out the blank to make a completed lower unit. All other parts can be ordered in directly to your home. So no FFL (licensed dealer) was needed in this case either.
The reason this is legal is the law states we all have the right to make our own firearms and never register them with the government, and they don't need to have serial numbers. These are only for you personal use and can not be legally sold or even given away to family members by law.
But people don't even have to go to that much trouble. Simply going to your local hardware or automotive store you can buy all the parts needed to make a gun. 3/4 inch black pipe is the perfect size for a 12 gauge shotgun. 5/16 inch brake line tubing works to make a .22lr pistol. Youtube is flooded with homemade gun videos.
The criminals who want guns will always have them, no gun restriction will change that.
And just to avoid outcry at having 'taught' people how to make guns, this not a how-to lesson that will show people how to do stuff. Anyone inclined to get a gun in this manner has already researched it way beyond what I've just mentioned. And it's all legal anyway.
Sure, but there's a credible argument that many shootings aren't actually pre-meditated and are the result of impulse, intoxication, passion, accident or opportunity. It isn't about making sure criminals can never get weapons - it's about making it harder, making less of them, making it easier to notice them gearing up, having the chance to catch them before they actually commit the crime.
This thread is heading to Unicorn or Sloth land I tell you guys and if you really ask for it the girls will bring out the pony’s. You should know better I hear the distant sound of shooting rainbows and clip clop of pony hooves......any one know what sound Sloth makes? (alter ego answers probably not a lot!!).
Just to add a bit of fodder... What exactly would any or the new proposed gun BS do to decrease the Illegal immigrants from having guns ? All throughout south Texas you hear of shootings outside of these little dive bars primarily catering to Mexicans and by default Illegals. Nary a one has a gun they buy from any registered source. Arguments are had, ppl are shot, ppl are arrested and deported and the same happens the next day or 2.
All in all, laws are only for honest law abiding folks and simply put, do nothing to even inhibit the acquisition of a gun by a criminal.
...and Re: jodeum post.. absolutely correct. Anyone with even semi rudimentary machining and mechanical skills can make a gun from parts.
Back in the early 90's on the first go round for assault rifles, I purchased colt ar lower receivers by the box full. My motivation was strictly financial. They appreciated more than the price of gold and have no paper trail when you sell them. [the sale of gold is tracked/reported if its over $1000.]
Stu2.. if you want Uni's and rainbows, go make a thread .... I even have a few dozen I'd put in it. :mrgreen:
All in all, laws are only for honest law abiding folks and simply put, do nothing to even inhibit the acquisition of a gun by a criminal.
...and Re: jodeum post.. absolutely correct. Anyone with even semi rudimentary machining and mechanical skills can make a gun from parts.
Back in the early 90's on the first go round for assault rifles, I purchased colt ar lower receivers by the box full. My motivation was strictly financial. They appreciated more than the price of gold and have no paper trail when you sell them. [the sale of gold is tracked/reported if its over $1000.]
Stu2.. if you want Uni's and rainbows, go make a thread .... I even have a few dozen I'd put in it. :mrgreen:
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
What the “right to bear arms” really means
As long as there have been guns in America, they have been regulated -- even in Dodge City
BY SAUL CORNELL
http://www.salon.com/2011/01/15/saul_cornell_guns/
Dodge City, 1878
The public debate over gun policy has fallen into a somewhat predictable pattern. A tragic shooting — like Jared Loughner’s rampage in Tucson, Ariz., a week ago — prompts outrage from across the political spectrum. After an immediate cathartic and emotional response, the two sides in the gun debate fall into their familiar postures. Proposals for new gun regulation are made, prompting push-back from gun rights advocates, who circle their wagons, issue warnings about the threats to our Second Amendment rights, and — in a more recent twist — begin calling for a relaxation of existing gun regulation so that citizens can more easily defend themselves.
Although the Second Amendment is often invoked in this debate, the dynamics of America’s battle over guns have almost nothing to do with either the historical Second Amendment bequeathed to us by the framers, or even the more individualistic Second Amendment conjured by the present-day Supreme Court of John Roberts in two controversial decisions. The original Second Amendment was the product of a world in which a well-regulated militia stood as check against the danger of a professional standing army. The framers certainly believed in a right of self-defense, but most viewed it as something that was so well-established under the English common law that there was no need to write it into constitutional law. Even among those eager to secure a bill of rights, the dominant view (with a few notable exceptions) was that the right of self-defense was best left to the care of individual states to regulate as part of their criminal law. Even the more expansive modern notion of the Second Amendment popular today (an interpretation endorsed by the Roberts court) permits ample room for reasonable regulation. American courts are still wrestling with how to implement this new model, but most legal schools of thought agree there’s plenty of room for regulation.
If not from the founding generation, where did our modern notions of the Second Amendment come from? A more individualistic conception of the right to bear arms did emerge at the end of the 18th century, and it gained a stronghold in the early decades of the 19th century. The passage of the first true gun control laws in the 19th century, a response to the proliferation of cheap handguns for the first time in American history, actually helped strengthen this new gun rights ideology. Then, as now, gun violence was largely a problem about handguns, not long guns. Not surprisingly, the efforts to ban guns back then led to the first clear defenses of a modern-style Second Amendment right to bear arms unconnected to the militia. Some of the new state laws wound up in state courts, and judges divided over how to interpret them. Some jurists saw them as unconstitutional, while others upheld them. The dysfunctional modern debate over firearms was born out of this struggle and has nothing to do with the original Second Amendment. The notion that regulation is antithetical to the Second Amendment has no basis in history or law. As long as there have been guns in America, guns have been regulated. Even at the height of the Wild West in Dodge City, gun regulation was a fact of life.
Given that Americans have been debating the merits of gun rights and gun regulation since the era of Andrew Jackson, one might wonder if there’s any hope for progress on this contentious issue. Ironically, the recent decision of the Roberts court to reinterpret the Second Amendment as an individual right that guarantees access to a workable handgun in the home for self-defense might help change the terms of debate. In the face of this, the old slippery slope argument that regulation is the first step toward confiscation simply has no meaning anymore. (Never mind that the slippery slope metaphor was always backward; it was always an uphill battle for gun regulation, not a slippery slope.) The decades-old handgun bans enacted by Washington, D.C, and Chicago have been taken off the table. Even more critical to the future of the gun debate are new insights from more than 30 years of academic research on gun policy. The future of gun policy in America rests on two incontrovertible facts: Guns are deeply rooted in American culture, and guns have always been subject to robust regulation. The real question, then, is what sort of regulation is likely to produce a meaningful reduction in gun violence without imposing undue burdens or costs on gun owners. This is where the new research on guns in America offers some hope — if, that is, we can summon the political will as a people to enact any new gun laws.
The European-style handgun bans recently struck down by the Supreme Court reflected three-decade-old policy thinking about guns. But two generations of academic research have pointed us toward a new paradigm for gun regulation. Most of this innovative gun research looks to the marketplace, not bans, as the primary means to reduce gun violence. Rather than simply banning handguns, an unpopular policy in most parts of the country, the new research suggests a more targeted strategy, with the primary goals being to prevent guns from moving into the black market and to restrict the access of dangerous people — including those with mental illness — to firearms. Rather than ban handguns, the new model only uses bans for a very narrow range of particularly dangerous items not essential for sport or individual self-defense: high-capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons and a few highly unusual weapons such as high caliber sniper rifles. Many would also argue for providing tax incentives to encourage responsible gun ownership practices, like enrolling in gun safety courses or purchasing gun safes. The goal would be to provide both carrots and sticks to gun owners.
The gun debate has long been dominated by slogans, including this perennial favorite: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. The standard argument of the gun rights movement is that criminals will not obey gun laws, so why penalize law-abiding citizens? But this assumes that criminals are the only non-capitalist actors in our economy. Given that most criminals are not Zen Buddhists, blissfully unaware or unconcerned about material things, the argument is clearly false. Criminals are not immune to the market, and policies can be crafted that take advantage of this fact to reduce, but not eliminate, all gun violence.
[snip]
As long as there have been guns in America, they have been regulated -- even in Dodge City
BY SAUL CORNELL
http://www.salon.com/2011/01/15/saul_cornell_guns/
Dodge City, 1878
The public debate over gun policy has fallen into a somewhat predictable pattern. A tragic shooting — like Jared Loughner’s rampage in Tucson, Ariz., a week ago — prompts outrage from across the political spectrum. After an immediate cathartic and emotional response, the two sides in the gun debate fall into their familiar postures. Proposals for new gun regulation are made, prompting push-back from gun rights advocates, who circle their wagons, issue warnings about the threats to our Second Amendment rights, and — in a more recent twist — begin calling for a relaxation of existing gun regulation so that citizens can more easily defend themselves.
Although the Second Amendment is often invoked in this debate, the dynamics of America’s battle over guns have almost nothing to do with either the historical Second Amendment bequeathed to us by the framers, or even the more individualistic Second Amendment conjured by the present-day Supreme Court of John Roberts in two controversial decisions. The original Second Amendment was the product of a world in which a well-regulated militia stood as check against the danger of a professional standing army. The framers certainly believed in a right of self-defense, but most viewed it as something that was so well-established under the English common law that there was no need to write it into constitutional law. Even among those eager to secure a bill of rights, the dominant view (with a few notable exceptions) was that the right of self-defense was best left to the care of individual states to regulate as part of their criminal law. Even the more expansive modern notion of the Second Amendment popular today (an interpretation endorsed by the Roberts court) permits ample room for reasonable regulation. American courts are still wrestling with how to implement this new model, but most legal schools of thought agree there’s plenty of room for regulation.
If not from the founding generation, where did our modern notions of the Second Amendment come from? A more individualistic conception of the right to bear arms did emerge at the end of the 18th century, and it gained a stronghold in the early decades of the 19th century. The passage of the first true gun control laws in the 19th century, a response to the proliferation of cheap handguns for the first time in American history, actually helped strengthen this new gun rights ideology. Then, as now, gun violence was largely a problem about handguns, not long guns. Not surprisingly, the efforts to ban guns back then led to the first clear defenses of a modern-style Second Amendment right to bear arms unconnected to the militia. Some of the new state laws wound up in state courts, and judges divided over how to interpret them. Some jurists saw them as unconstitutional, while others upheld them. The dysfunctional modern debate over firearms was born out of this struggle and has nothing to do with the original Second Amendment. The notion that regulation is antithetical to the Second Amendment has no basis in history or law. As long as there have been guns in America, guns have been regulated. Even at the height of the Wild West in Dodge City, gun regulation was a fact of life.
Given that Americans have been debating the merits of gun rights and gun regulation since the era of Andrew Jackson, one might wonder if there’s any hope for progress on this contentious issue. Ironically, the recent decision of the Roberts court to reinterpret the Second Amendment as an individual right that guarantees access to a workable handgun in the home for self-defense might help change the terms of debate. In the face of this, the old slippery slope argument that regulation is the first step toward confiscation simply has no meaning anymore. (Never mind that the slippery slope metaphor was always backward; it was always an uphill battle for gun regulation, not a slippery slope.) The decades-old handgun bans enacted by Washington, D.C, and Chicago have been taken off the table. Even more critical to the future of the gun debate are new insights from more than 30 years of academic research on gun policy. The future of gun policy in America rests on two incontrovertible facts: Guns are deeply rooted in American culture, and guns have always been subject to robust regulation. The real question, then, is what sort of regulation is likely to produce a meaningful reduction in gun violence without imposing undue burdens or costs on gun owners. This is where the new research on guns in America offers some hope — if, that is, we can summon the political will as a people to enact any new gun laws.
The European-style handgun bans recently struck down by the Supreme Court reflected three-decade-old policy thinking about guns. But two generations of academic research have pointed us toward a new paradigm for gun regulation. Most of this innovative gun research looks to the marketplace, not bans, as the primary means to reduce gun violence. Rather than simply banning handguns, an unpopular policy in most parts of the country, the new research suggests a more targeted strategy, with the primary goals being to prevent guns from moving into the black market and to restrict the access of dangerous people — including those with mental illness — to firearms. Rather than ban handguns, the new model only uses bans for a very narrow range of particularly dangerous items not essential for sport or individual self-defense: high-capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons and a few highly unusual weapons such as high caliber sniper rifles. Many would also argue for providing tax incentives to encourage responsible gun ownership practices, like enrolling in gun safety courses or purchasing gun safes. The goal would be to provide both carrots and sticks to gun owners.
The gun debate has long been dominated by slogans, including this perennial favorite: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. The standard argument of the gun rights movement is that criminals will not obey gun laws, so why penalize law-abiding citizens? But this assumes that criminals are the only non-capitalist actors in our economy. Given that most criminals are not Zen Buddhists, blissfully unaware or unconcerned about material things, the argument is clearly false. Criminals are not immune to the market, and policies can be crafted that take advantage of this fact to reduce, but not eliminate, all gun violence.
[snip]
Closing the gun show loophole, better training for first-responders, armed security in schools - who is against these things, and why?? The very idea that people can go to a gun show and buy all sorts of weapons without any background check or paperwork makes every other attempt at gun regulation MEANINGLESS.
Blaming so-called assault weapons for what happened at Sandy Hook is like blaming airplanes for 9/11.
- Status
Similar threads
