namelesstavern.net

Evermore, I'm actually with them on requiring some form of training and certification procedure for someone to take guns home. Would love you to answer some of the stuff I've commented on a couple times, with no response.

I don't much care who owns guns if they're stored at a firing range, but when they're taken out into the greater world by irresponsible individuals where they can cause major harm to innocent people, that's where I have a problem. Furthermore, I have a problem with any random Homer being able to obtain weapons capable of slaughtering large numbers of people in a short amount of time. That is a FAR cry from having an issue with hunting weapons, you understand.

I am for background checks before being able to buy a firearm to begin with. This is just to make sure that the buyer isn't a known violent felon, and isn't someone exceedingly mentally unstable, like the guy who killed all the people at Virginia Tech. I can't see anyone objecting to not allowing gun purchases by dangerous criminals or crazy people, yes?

Now, for public safety reasons, I feel that someone who wishes to take their guns home should be trained and certified as safe in doing so. Hell, don't even require the class, for those that already really know what they're doing, if you can pass the test, you're golden. I can't see why an responsible owner would have any issue with proving they're responsible, or with the idea of not letting irresponsible owners be in a position to harm innocents.

Furthermore, as a public safety issue, I would like to see clips of anything over 5 rounds banned. Clips are bulky, and it would be a much bigger hassle to go carry and go through 20 separate clips than it would be to go through 4 25-rounders. Internal tube magazines could be 10 rounds, because they take a lot longer to reload than a clip. Anyway, you certainly don't need reloadable clips of > 5 rounds for any conceivable hunting purpose, so that change is only going to impede those wanting to kill large groups of people.

Lastly, those who can demonstrate above-and-beyond levels of responsibility, safety, etc. can qualify for higher-level permits/licenses, like we have now for automatic weapons, etc.

Basically, it does make for extra hoops to jump through, but it in no way prevents ANY non-criminal or insane person from OWNING however many guns they want, and furthermore doesn't prevent any proven responsible owner from keeping them at home. Having nearly seen my little brother killed by the actions of an irresponsible gun owner, you will understand my utter lack of sympathy for any "oppression" irresponsible gun owners might feel. Anyway, the only people I want to take guns away from are criminals and those too irresponsible to own them safely. How can you have a problem with that?

-Arlos

evermore is to gun control as mindia used to be to jesus


you're just pure comedy

In all fairness Ever is to gun control what Mindia USED to be to Jesus. He's really mellowed out and is pretty cool.

ClakarEQ wrote:

Narrock wrote:Lueyen knows how to break it down, yo.

Yes she broke it down well but missed the point, typical it seems (don't recall if if Lue is a she or he). No contribution to how one could even attempt to solve the problem. Taking points out of context or missing them altogether, etc.

You don't think our GOV could do such a thing, perhaps you should review our history, we've done things like this before and we continue to do them. Look at alcohol, cigarettes, "drugs", etc. You make it sound like it is so fucking difficult to tax round making materials out of your market. It could be done easily with one signature from The Man. I'm not suggesting it is the best fix, but something is better than nothing. I'm trying to propose ideas and have a discussion, I'm not trying to say this is the "only" way. Be productive in the discussion, you seem smart enough, offer up something, please.

Lue, What would you do to reduce gun violence?

Evermore, I don't get your point when you say you don't want someone telling you what gun you can or can't buy, you're being told that today, go buy a fully automatic firearm, or send me a link where I can buy one, not trade or transfer, I want a new machine gun (you can't BTW, it isn't legal in our country). So you do get told what you can and can't buy re: firearms and ammo.

I'm a man to clear that up (it's a pain typing he/she all the time when you don't know). I didn't contribute to the idea you put forth simply because I feel that in general it is largely faulty on so many levels and that even if it could be legally accomplished it couldn't be feasibly realistically accomplished. I do fail to see where I took points out of context, I responded to what you wrote. I did not quote what I wasn't responding to in a couple of cases, but the inclusion of the omitted words wouldn't change the meaning as what I omitted was not part of the same subject. I'm not all knowing as you snidely remarked in another post, but having grown up around firearms, re-loading and keeping tabs on current events concerning them I do have a fair amount of knowledge on the subject and when you start stating a bunch of fallacy as fact due to your own ignorance on the subject I'm have no problem pointing it out. If you look to being a little more educated as a result of this discussion, then I would think you'd want it pointed out when you state something that is factually completely incorrect.

While I was skeptical about the merits of the idea you put forth, I thought there might be more to it then a simple tax ammunition out of circulation approach. It appears I was wrong (an unfortunate result of not being all knowing). Since you don't have any profound detailed ideas on how to accomplish what you've set forth I'll illustrate the reasons I see it not merely not working but not even being an attainable goal. As per your request I'll also offer what I consider to be the most likely effective ways to reduce gun violence.

First lets address if government taxing ammunition out of the affordable price range would be legal or even feasible. You've cited taxes on other products as your rational. I submit to you that all specially taxed items are not taxed out of the price range of the average individual. The purpose of taxes is not to control commerce, but to fund government.

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

The last part of the bold section in the above quote is commonly referred to as the general welfare clause. It was not the intent of our founding fathers for this to be used as a justification for a black check for congressional powers and appropriation of funds.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

It's pretty obvious that the founding fathers did not include the general welfare clause for the purpose of being used as a vessel by the congress to circumvent the inability to pass certain laws... which is pretty much what you are advocating, because it would be just as much a violation of our civil rights to make ammunition illegal as it would be to make fire arms illegal.

Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution:

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.

I submit to you that fire arms are quite useless without ammunition. Enumerating the right to keep and bear arms would be utterly pointless if the intent was not to protect the right to own the consumable employed in their use. I don't see any rational person arguing that because ammunition is not specifically mentioned that it does not fall under the same protection, however even if someone argues that we also have the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

While the framers when discussing the powers of government wanted to confine those powers in a limited fashion, when it comes to the subject of the rights of the people they wanted it open ended and broad.

Now putting all that aside, and assuming we were still somehow able to accomplish pricing ammunition out of the price range of the average individual, the resulting black market would still be subject to the base economic supply and demand model without government interference in artificially inflating the value of products. In other words just because a round costs $500 at the local Wal-mart, the street price isn't going to be anywhere near that. Because the black market would be immune to the artificial monkeying with pricing, the price would be based on the demand and what people could afford to pay.

All that and I haven't even addressed the fact that if you instead inflated pricing on the components used to make ammunition you would also be inflating the prices for other areas of use of said products. I won't even address brass and lead as I think the ramifications would be blatantly obvious. But lets take gunpowder for example. There are other uses for it besides ammunition, and even if you were willing to accept the effects it would have on other non firearm related industry, people were making black powder well before the development of most modern technology. IE if medieval man can make it chances are you could too... well maybe not you, but a lot of people, hell I made it as part of a lab in high school.

Now you want my ideas on reducing gun violence? That somewhat depends on the type you are talking about. For brevity's sake in an already long post I'll deal with the subject of the thread, mass shootings.

It is by no coincidence that the vast majority of these incidence that result in large numbers of people killed have tended to be perpetrated in "Gun free zones". The interesting angle here is that the number of victims and the duration of these incidents vastly decrease when despite the rules of no guns, someone who isn't there to perpetuate these heinous acts happens to be armed. Trolley square in Salt Lake, Last weekend in Colorado are perfect examples on how effective a mass shooter is when people are armed, these incidents ended with less deaths and much sooner then when the shooter was allowed to perform their actions without resistance. I would not suggest that you get rid of all restricted areas, but that when you are going to have an area where the general public is not allowed to carry firearms, that you require armed security to be present. In this way you actually accomplish having a secured area instead of giving lip service to it and bringing a false sense of security to the ignorant.

Of course this doesn't address the core base of the problem, and so is not a complete solution. You do need to address the individuals who act out these crimes, as preventing them from carrying them out via firearms will not prevent them from using other weapons (such as bombs). No, we do need to work toward identifying and getting help for these individuals, and while this may be out of the scope of how to deal with gun violence I feel it is important to mention.

A side note on this: As I recall Brinstar's field of employment is at least partially in dealing with troubled children and teenagers, and I think it is safe to say by virtue of that fact he is a lot closer to these situations via proxy then most people here are, and he's also doing a lot more toward preventing this sort of thing then other people here puts things in Omaha on a much more personal level. That this happened in his back yard, when he is quite literally on the front lines battling this sort of thing in some form makes it no surprise that it hit him very hard... fuck anyone who was condescending toward him for breaking down at the news.

Jay wrote:In all fairness Ever is to gun control what Mindia USED to be to Jesus. He's really mellowed out and is pretty cool.

erm, that's exactly what I said

Oh snap I missed it.

Tikker wrote:evermore is to gun control as mindia used to be to jesus


you're just pure comedy

Just do us a favor and stay in canada when it comes to matters of our consitiution. It's way too easy for you to sit out of reach and totally uneffected by this and pass uneducated and unrealistic judgements. Frankly this doesn't effect you or Chief at all so who really gives a fuck what either of you think? really? Read Lue's post and MAYBE you might start to get a true feel for this.


You 2 are just pure idiocy.

I didn't realize we needed to be of a certain nationality to offer our opinions.

I guess you're all for controlling people after all. As long as you get your way, right hypocrite?

Hasn't this thread topic turned to porn or the use of hairnets or something else yet?

I think it's an NT record...the thread is 12 pages long and still on topic...

Martrae wrote:Hasn't this thread topic turned to porn or the use of hairnets or something else yet?

I think it's an NT record...the thread is 12 pages long and still on topic...

Here's a funny Smilie I saw from abother board.

You are one twisted individual.

Zanchief wrote:I didn't realize we needed to be of a certain nationality to offer our opinions.

I guess you're all for controlling people after all. As long as you get your way, right hypocrite?

Nice try at a twist. I didnt say you had to be a certain nationality I said this doesnt effect you so your opinions mean jack and shit. that statement just shows you really dont have the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

Evermore wrote:

Zanchief wrote:I didn't realize we needed to be of a certain nationality to offer our opinions.

I guess you're all for controlling people after all. As long as you get your way, right hypocrite?

Nice try at a twist. I didnt say you had to be a certain nationality I said this doesnt effect you so your opinions mean jack and shit. that statement just shows you really dont have the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

You really don't know how to be pleasant, do you?

You bring out the best in people. It must be something in the water in Canada, or the lack of real Negroids.

Lyion wrote:You bring out the best in people. It must be something in the water in Canada, or the lack of real Negroids.

The idea that neither he nor you would be a douchebag if you didn't have me to argue with is flattering but a little unrealistic.

Zanchief wrote:

Lyion wrote:You bring out the best in people. It must be something in the water in Canada, or the lack of real Negroids.

The idea that neither he nor you would be a douchebag if you didn't have me to argue with is flattering but a little unrealistic.

amazing. lol

Zanchief wrote:

Lyion wrote:You bring out the best in people. It must be something in the water in Canada, or the lack of real Negroids.

The idea that neither he nor you would be a douchebag if you didn't have me to argue with is flattering but a little unrealistic.

Or perhaps the problem isn't everyone else.


Nah.....

Lyion wrote:Or perhaps the problem isn't everyone else.


Nah.....

Says the man who's blaming his corrosive personality on someone else.

Aren't you one of those take responsibility for your actions types? Or is that just another part the walking hypocrite that is Lyion?

Jay wrote:

Harrison wrote:

Jay wrote:Harrison totally suffers from Munchausen's and paranoid delusions.

Stick to your dayjob. Psychology is clearly not your forte.

Tell that to UIC in Chicago. They gave me a paper that says I'm good at Psychology Mr. I have this rare life threatening disease that no ones knows about but I'm ok now.

Gastroparesis is hardly something that "no one knows about". I'm ok now because it was treated you stupid fuck.

For the first time since I can remember I can eat like a normal human being and function on a day to day basis without being in pain. It still shocks me to this day to be honest. I've dealt with it since I was in middle school and it never got properly treated until now.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... is&spell=1

I still take erythromycin now and then to this day when symptoms pop back up. Reglan caused me auditory hallucinations...


P.S. I hope you get something "no one knows about" and suffer for the next 10+ years, and then die in a fiery car crash after it's treated. Fuck you "I made it up".

I can't take erythromycin....it makes my stomach bleed.

I don't mean to be the asshole here, but honestly just googling from your link and looking at the top ones it doesn't sound nearly as serious as you used to make it out to be (non stop emergency room visits, etc), and i think that's the point he's getting at

Gastroparesis
This tough looking word, pronounced gas-tro-par-EES-is, is simple enough in its meaning. Gastro means stomach. Paresis means weakness. Gastroparesis is a weak stomach. This condition is very common. It can be the cause of a number of abdominal complaints. It is usually not a serious problem and there are effective treatments available.

I didn't read any of them really, I know what it did to me. If not treated it gets worse.

Quickly checking two more links it even says that.

Harrison wrote:Gastroparesis is hardly something that "no one knows about". I'm ok now because it was treated you stupid fuck.

For the first time since I can remember I can eat like a normal human being and function on a day to day basis without being in pain. It still shocks me to this day to be honest. I've dealt with it since I was in middle school and it never got properly treated until now.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... is&spell=1

I still take erythromycin now and then to this day when symptoms pop back up. Reglan caused me auditory hallucinations...


P.S. I hope you get something "no one knows about" and suffer for the next 10+ years, and then die in a fiery car crash after it's treated. Fuck you "I made it up".

And what about your mysterious chest pains and all that shit. The one that made you quit your job? Maybe I'm wrong and you don't have Munchausen's. Maybe you're just a giant pussy who quits jobs over tummy aches.

I believe it's safe to say medicine isn't your forte either, dipshit.

The chest pains was a hiatl hernia, of which, was caused by the aforementioned condition. The progression of this over the course of 10+ years of going untreated gradually got worse until my body couldn't take it.

Lyion wrote:

Zanchief wrote:

Lyion wrote:You bring out the best in people. It must be something in the water in Canada, or the lack of real Negroids.

The idea that neither he nor you would be a douchebag if you didn't have me to argue with is flattering but a little unrealistic.

Or perhaps the problem isn't everyone else.


Nah.....

QFT