[Sunnyways]

Will all venues have to become like airports eventually? Turn up in your shorts and tee-shirt or surgical greens? The future for clubbing does not sound very sexy if younger versions of me will be involved without an appropriate disguise. Having the credit card and keys functions in a watch might at least make some things easier. Anyway, for guys on the door a Kevlar vest might be an idea to start with.

[fifeboy]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

"Here are my words: I want gun control," said Susan Schmidt-Orfanos, her voice shaking with grief and rage. "I don't want prayers. I don't want thoughts."

Bodies aren't even cold, and mommy wants 'gun control'.

Jesus, can't miss 5 minutes to take them political points.

Yep, damn those mothers and their grief

[BeaverFever]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

"Here are my words: I want gun control," said Susan Schmidt-Orfanos, her voice shaking with grief and rage. "I don't want prayers. I don't want thoughts."

Bodies aren't even cold, and mommy wants 'gun control'.

Jesus, can't miss 5 minutes to take them political points.

Oh FFS why don’t you go tell this grieving mother you care more about her sons death than she does since you clearly think that’s the case. You’re the one making it political and once again just like Sandy Hook and Parklawn and everywhere else demonstrate the Hateful Right’s total lack of basic decency and respect for victims and their families l.

It’s not “political points” to speak out against the cause of her sons death anymore than the parent of a drunk driving victim speaking out against drunk driving or when Republicans tried to exploit the case of that girl killed by an immigrant.

[BeaverFever]

3 mass shootings in the span of 2 weeks, all by white male “responsible legal gun owners” and a number of the victims and survivors of the Thousand Oaks shooting were actually survivors of the Las Vegas mass shooting, which was also at the hands of a white male “responsible legal gun owner”. .

But America doesn’t have a gun problem. Just the price of freedom folks. Thoughts and prayers, etc. etc. Nothing to see or think about here.

[herbie]

Mocking the grieving mother of a victim. A new low, even for Martin...

[FieryVulpine]

Yet for all those screeching about "gun control," how do they propose to implement that? An outright repeal of the second amendment? That would require another amendment to the constitution, as per Article V, that would require a proposal in Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Even in the highly unlikely event of that happening, it would require three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50) to ratify it. Something that will never happen.

Granted, a repeal may not be necessary. While the Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia v. Heller did affirm the right to own firearms for purposes of self-defense, it does not state that it is an absolute as Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.

$1:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

If I am reading the bolded part correctly, the prohibition of selling firearms to felons and the mentally ill is still constitutional. Denying the sale of a firearm to a ex-convict would be easy considering they have a criminal record. Someone with an undiagnosed mental illness? Not so much.

Sorry, but the words of a bereaved mother aren't enough to move me without actual policy proposals.

[fifeboy]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

Yet for all those screeching about "gun control," how do they propose to implement that? An outright repeal of the second amendment? That would require another amendment to the constitution, as per Article V, that would require a proposal in Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Even in the highly unlikely event of that happening, it would require three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50) to ratify it. Something that will never happen.

Granted, a repeal may not be necessary. While the Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia v. Heller did affirm the right to own firearms for purposes of self-defense, it does not state that it is an absolute as Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.

$1:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

If I am reading the bolded part correctly, the prohibition of selling firearms to felons and the mentally ill is still constitutional. Denying the sale of a firearm to a ex-convict would be easy considering they have a criminal record. Someone with an undiagnosed mental illness? Not so much.

Sorry, but the words of a bereaved mother aren't enough to move me without actual policy proposals.

Sorry, but if the words of a bereaved mother aren't enough to move you... well... says quite a bit about you! The mother, having just lost her son is not in a position to offer up policy options, just at this moment in time she is expressing a plea for something (anything) to prevent it happening to other moms. Part of being human. Some here should try it!

[BeaverFever]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

Yet for all those screeching about "gun control," how do they propose to implement that? An outright repeal of the second amendment? That would require another amendment to the constitution, as per Article V, that would require a proposal in Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Even in the highly unlikely event of that happening, it would require three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50) to ratify it. Something that will never happen.

Granted, a repeal may not be necessary. While the Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia v. Heller did affirm the right to own firearms for purposes of self-defense, it does not state that it is an absolute as Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.

$1:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

If I am reading the bolded part correctly, the prohibition of selling firearms to felons and the mentally ill is still constitutional. Denying the sale of a firearm to a ex-convict would be easy considering they have a criminal record. Someone with an undiagnosed mental illness? Not so much.

Sorry, but the words of a bereaved mother aren't enough to move me without actual policy proposals.

As you say nowhere does it say the right to bear arms prohibits gun control. Closing the gun show exemption for background checks, imposing longer wait periods or more stringent licensing requirements , as well as restricting or banning certain types are all available options.

[Thanos]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

If I am reading the bolded part correctly, the prohibition of selling firearms to felons and the mentally ill is still constitutional. Denying the sale of a firearm to a ex-convict would be easy considering they have a criminal record. Someone with an undiagnosed mental illness? Not so much.

Sorry, but the words of a bereaved mother aren't enough to move me without actual policy proposals.

I technically don't disagree with you. The problem in the US really isn't the type of guns themselves, it's that the prohibition of firearms possession by the mentally ill is obviously not being enforced in any meaningful way by any police agency at any of the federal, state, or local levels. At this stage I'd say jaywalking is being taken more seriously by the police and politicians in the US than separating crazies from their guns is.

Most of the mass shooters turn out to be some vicious rotten bastard with some kind of domestic violence conviction on his record, or at least a domestic violence complaint being reported against them. Or, in the case of school shooters, some kind of perpetual troublemaker on record as causing disruption at home and of threatening other students at school. If they moved to confiscate firearms, and then also immediately ban these kind of "men" from acquiring new ones, they could probably cut the number of yearly mass shootings by at least a half. But the right-wing politicians won't do this, because of the influence of the NRA and because American "conservatives" simply don't take violence in the home against women & children seriously. Move pre-emptively against the kind of dangerously bitter and angry males that are most likely to shoot up a workplace, a public gathering, or a school and the problem could be solved PDQ, and without even coming close to violating the constitutional rights of firearms possession of the other kind of gun owners that don't behave that way.

[FieryVulpine]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Sorry, but if the words of a bereaved mother aren't enough to move you... well... says quite a bit about you! The mother, having just lost her son is not in a position to offer up policy options, just at this moment in time she is expressing a plea for something (anything) to prevent it happening to other moms. Part of being human. Some here should try it!

Given the enormity of the world and how many godawful things happen to countless people on a daily basis, I have only so much damns to give before I shrug my arms. I'm not some all-loving saint and unlike some, I make no claims of being one.

[fifeboy]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Sorry, but if the words of a bereaved mother aren't enough to move you... well... says quite a bit about you! The mother, having just lost her son is not in a position to offer up policy options, just at this moment in time she is expressing a plea for something (anything) to prevent it happening to other moms. Part of being human. Some here should try it!

Given the enormity of the world and how many godawful things happen to countless people on a daily basis, I have only so much damns to give before I shrug my arms. I'm not some all-loving saint and unlike some, I make no claims of being one.

You singled out a mother, fresh in the news of her son's death and say you don't care, because what... she's crying that some thing you hold precious killed her son and wants it controlled. Jesus dude.

Perhaps you can tell us who it is that claims to be 'some all loving saint?'