SHARE
Sawed-off shotguns: They're in the Constitution!
Sawed-off shotguns: They’re in the Constitution!

While we know guns had nothing to do with the tragedy today that took the lives of Virginia TV station WDBJ reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, in addition to the suicide of the shooter, a disgruntled former employee of the station, we thought we’d mention some other recent deaths in which guns had nothing to do with anything. Because while it’s far too soon to talk about guns in relation to the Virginia murders, maybe it’s not too soon to talk about these other shootings. (We are joking you, of course. It is never the right time to talk about guns.)

So, how has the Second Amendment been protecting all the others lately? In addition to stories we’ve already reported this month, like the responsible gun owner who murdered his two preschoolers or the Oklahoma gentleman who fired a gun into his own arm while protecting a “Muslim-free” gun shop from terrorists, we found a few other examples, all within the past month:

  • In Hoover, Alabama, 31-year-old Divine Chambliss was taking a nap on Aug. 18 when his 2-year-old son found a hidden gun and pulled the trigger, killing his father. The little boy told his mother, “I hurt my dad.” The family has not said whether it is comforted by the possibility that, had the federal government attempted to usurp the individual liberties enshrined in the Constitution at some time before he was killed by his own toddler, Mr. Chambliss could have used the handgun to remain free.
  • In Washington DC, 3-year-old Dalis Cox was shot to death by her 7-year-old brother on July 29, with an unregistered handgun that the boy had somehow gotten his hands on. It is believed that, under different circumstances, the gun used in this shooting could have been used to prevent the Obama administration from declaring martial law and canceling elections forever.
  • A 21-month-old boy in Hanley Hills, Missouri, was pronounced dead Tuesday after he shot himself in the stomach with a handgun that he found in his home. An arrest has been made in the case, although the identity of the person arrested has not yet been released. Yr Wonkette feels obliged to point out that an armed populace is the only thing that keeps us free to report this unfortunate event.
  • The shooting in Hanley Hills comes a week after eight-year-old Jamyla Boldenan was fatally injured by shots fired into her home in Ferguson, five miles away. The girl’s mother was also injured in the incident. While the criminal use of guns is unfortunate, this event does prove the wisdom of providing lots and lots more guns to good people to protect against such crimes, when they transpire so quickly that the victims are dead long before a responsible gun owner could reach for their gun. Eternal vigilance! Perhaps if Jamyla’s parents really loved her, they’d have carried at all times and been ready for whenever some unknown assailant might approach their home. And then they’d also be able to resist when jackbooted federal thugs come to take their guns in the prelude to the imposition of a hypothesized fascist dictatorship.
  • On Aug. 8, a Houston man broke into his ex’s home, then shot the woman, her husband, and six children to death, including his own son. Before their relationship went bad, the victim had at some point in the past called the man the “best father in the whole world,” at least until they broke up and she changed her locks in fear of him. While it’s true that he murdered eight people with his gun, we feel compelled to note that the only thing preventing Congress from revoking all of our rights is the fear of an armed populace, so it all balances out. Just think how many kids might be killed in the imposition of a tyrannical government.
  • An 11-year-old Detroit boy was charged with manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a 3-year old on Aug. 3. This seems like an excellent occasion to recall NRA’s CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre’s assertion in a 2014 speech that “we know something already has gone wrong. That’s why more Americans are buying firearms and ammunition.” To protect ourselves and our children. Who seem to keep finding our guns and shooting themselves, each other, and us.
  • And finally, some almost good news: A Miami 3-year-old who, on Aug. 5, grabbed a gun while rummaging around in a dresser drawer and shot himself in the head is expected to make a full recovery. His mother explained that she and the child’s father both kept firearms in their apartment for personal protection, and that the weapons were secured by being kept in dresser drawers where the child couldn’t possibly reach them, unless maybe he used a chair. Oh, he used a chair. The NRA actually doesn’t give two shits about any of this, or about Americans preserving their liberty, because they are a lobby for the firearms industry.

We could have listed many more stories — each one an isolated incident — that came up in a search of “child shot” within the last month, but we wanted to finish this piece sometime today. Also, we suppose it might be worth noting that despite the contention that the Second Amendment is inviolate because it is part of our Constitution and the Founders never wanted that fact to ever change, some Hollywood liberal posted this quote — carved into the marble of the Jefferson Memorial, even — to Twitter Wednesday morning:

Jefferson quote

This Jefferson guy sounds like a dangerous radical who doesn’t really love America or want us to stay safe.

$
Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • Me not sure

    Is this what’s meant by a coat of arms?

    • fka_donnie_d

      wtf does it say in your avatar anyway

      • Me not sure

        Not sure.

        • Villago Delenda Est

          (rimshot)

          • Me not sure

            I’d tell but then there’d be no mystery in it.

  • Skwerl King

    When one gun is implicated, they all are. #gunlivesmatter

  • bluicebank

    Wait, your headline seemed to suggest we’d get a list of all the tyrants in the world that were overthrown by its gun-toting citizenry.

    I’d do the listing right here, but all I got is Freedonia.

    • Biel_ze_Bubba

      Pitchforks don’t count?

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Weaponizing farm tools is a tried and true method of getting some attention.

      • nothingisamiss

        Beating plowshares into swords, isn’t that what the bible teaches? Oh, damn it all, that quote is the exact opposite in the bible. Stupid commie ancient peoples!

    • CognizantImpiety

      Maybe the oligarchy hasn’t taken complete control simply because of the armed populace.

      • bluicebank

        According to most the gun-toting crowd, the oligarchy already has. Thus the “I want my country back” complaint.

        But, of course, the notion that our armed-to-the-teeth citizenry could take on the US military is ludicrous on its face. And thus, so is the notion that a well armed populace could do well against tanks and gunships. Sure back in the day when a farmer and soldier both had the same type of firearms, the argument holds. That was then. This is now.

  • maman

    Can’t we keep track of the guns under the, “well organized militia” clause? ‘Cuz this shit aint organized near as I can tell.

    • Angry_Cop

      Supreme Court fucked us good on that one in Heller v. DC. “Well organized militia” not a requirement for gun ownership, Supremes found an individual right to own in that mess somewhere.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        All it takes is a bit of jiggery-pokery, and, SHAZAM! a new right that is directly contradicted by the clause before it is borned!

      • Biel_ze_Bubba

        Scalia the textualist – except for text he doesn’t like, which doesn’t exist for him, as the founders clearly intended.
        He’s a hypocritical ass whose only true talent is for rationalization. He can’t retire soon enough.

      • CognizantImpiety

        “The right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

        Yep, that first part’s a real mess right there, hard to understand why the framers might want the populace armed after having lived under tyranny their entire lives.

        • Angry_Cop

          Fortunately, no one gives a shit what you think.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      If we were true to the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment, the ammosexuals would be up in arms (even more!) that some government bureaucrat with three stripes on his arm would come around and check their toys for functionality and security.

      • willi0000000

        . . . and the mandatory 6am drills on the town commons every Saturday might bother a few too.

      • CognizantImpiety

        Please define ammosexual for me. I’m having a tough time figuring out if you are talking about people with hundreds of guns and thousands of rounds, or if you include responsible gun owners.

  • Angry_Cop

    #NRABUILTTHIS

  • ArgieBargie

    Sometimes, I just want to say “fuck this country and the half of the sick motherfuckers who live in it,” but today, I won’t say it.

    I will however, be renewing two of my three “anchor baby” passports next week, just to keep my options open.

    • MsAnthropesMr

      How can I get one of them Anchor Baby Passports? I am 45.

      • ArgieBargie

        Well, you could gay-marry some hot Yuropeen dude/gal, for instance.

  • dshwa

    Well if it wasn’t already beer o’clock, it would be after reading this.

  • Barley_Brains

    While I have not done the statistical analysis, I would be willing to bet significant sums of cash that this was a non-exceptional month in gun violence. Which is sickening. Gun humpers are such morans.

  • kindness

    The National Rifle Association would like us all to know how guns have saved us so much after all the recent mass shootings.

    Think of all the (now dead) children that won’t be in line in front of you at Disneyland.
    Think of all the air that is still unblemished from the slow moving targets now gone.
    Think of all the money saved at Christmas because no one had to buy expensive gifts for them any longer.

    Well, on second thought, maybe honesty isn’t the NRA’s best friend.

  • cousin itt

    I just couldn’t read the entire post. Can I get a kitten? I’d settle for even a bunny at this point in my long slide to the wine bar.

    • sw19womble

      *hugs*

      • SnarkOff

        You are so mean.

        • Msgr_Moment

          Bunnies need protection from tyranny, too!

      • SuspectedDemocrat

        Ain’t no fun when rabbit’s got the gun!

      • Jerry Noneofyourbizz

        Killer bunnies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Hmm…needs some revision of that ear protection…

    • natoslug

      Is a Soay/Katahdin mix close enough? He was born on on St. Patrick’s Day, 2011, so his name is Cabbage.

      • Takoma DC

        Adorable.

    • Callyson

      Here you go:

  • Doug Langley

    Off topic, but I wanted everyone to have an update on the nuttiness at my school. Rule: no adjunct may teach more than 12 contact hours per semester, and the three classes they want me to teach add up to 13. Admin won’t budge. So the bosses are juggling numbers, and will assign 12 hours to me for the three classes. Then spring semester, I get an extra hour.

    Everything’s working out great. I’m working for some wonderful people. Gonna be a fun semester.

    • Biel_ze_Bubba

      Rules v. Reality. Every now and then, Reality wins an upset victory.

    • MrBlobfish

      Nerd

    • Toomush_Infer

      Um….and paid minimum wage for the 12, if adjunctcy there is the same as anywhere else, sans benefits or anything percs…. and good luck saying hi to the “real” teachers you’re replacing…

      • Doug Langley

        I’m not replacing anybody. They just have a hard time finding qualified people and are thrilled I’m available. If I wasn’t there, they’d have to yank the classes.

        And if you feel I’m underpaid, you’re perfectly free to send me 90 grand a year. I won’t say no.

  • Bill Slider

    The Second Amendment, a mortician’s best friend ever.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Well, a close second to the black death. But they’ll try harder.

    • CognizantImpiety

      Are you sure that tobacco isn’t their best friend?

      • HogeyeGrex

        Fast food? The slowest bullet.

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    With guns in about 40% of homes, the NRA’s goal is to at least double the death toll.

  • Villago Delenda Est

    That Jefferson guy was a commie and an atheist. Also, too, had a copy of the Quran. Makes him suspect as a Muslin.

    • SnarkOff

      I hear he was born in Kenya.

      • OrdinaryJoe

        One thing fohshure, he was not born in the United States of America!!!

    • sw19womble

      SHOW ME HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

    • Tansy Geek

      Insert the standard false equivalency argument here: He owned slaves so hoopta, hoopta hoopta… Lobster. Sorry, that’s the Heimlich Maneuver according to Eddie Izzard.

    • mrpuma2u

      He had relations with blahs, probably smoked reefer, and would have been a hippie had he lived today. I heard he invented patchouli oil. Well that’s what I heard.

  • SnarkOff

    Dok, while the events you are reporting are beyond tragic, your sarcasm is worthy of celebration. Thank you. Outstanding!

    • doktorzoom

      Thanks! It was a labor of rage.

  • fka_donnie_d

    Hey look on the bright side – at least nobody blames vidya games any more

  • MsAnthropesMr

    cuteoverload.com

    ETA:

    THERE’S A WALLABY ON TINDER!!!!!

    • Tansy Geek

      In which we learn one of nature’s fiercest killers, the polar bear, enjoys a floral spa treatment.

    • elviouslyqueer

      I thought it was a wombat. #WombatsNeedLoveToo

      • MsAnthropesMr

        Well, it’s one of them Aussie W critters

    • Msgr_Moment

      How about on Grindr?

    • data_ninja
  • Olav_Pompatus

    “The only solution to a bad toddler with a gun, is a good toddler with a gun.”

    — Your friends at the NRA

  • Let’s look at the bright side: Death is the number 1 killer in the world.

    • Msgr_Moment

      Chloe,
      HINT: Go behind the mirror. It’s all there.

  • Whollyholeyholy

    As a Texas born lefty with a Facebook page, I am already anticipating epic deleted comments this week, and I’ve only read the title so far.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      The Banhammer of Loving Correction has been busy so far today. Not likely to slow down, either.

  • shastakoala

    The Miami 3 year should be very thankful that his parents owned a gun that didn’t kill him.

  • So much angst over fetuses, not a single tear shed by pro-life folks over the victim of guns.

    • Jerry Noneofyourbizz

      Hey, that’s what we need to do…insert a gun into the uterus of every expectant mother. What the world needs are good fetuses with guns, no???

  • AngryBlakGuy

    …the entire GOP platform is based on denial:

    -Guns aren’t a problem
    -Racism doesn’t exist
    -There is no gender pay gap
    -Minimum wage is only for teenagers
    -If you don’t talk to your kids about sex then they won’t have sex
    -Global warming doesn’t exist

    • Takoma DC

      Sarah Palin is attractive
      Huckabee is a Christian
      Michele Bachman is a patriot
      A lady’s body can shut that whole thing down
      Since lap-band surgery, Chris Christie has lost weight
      Majority of welfare recipients are black
      There’s a war on Christmas
      There WERE WMD’s
      Bush legitimately won 2000 election
      Scott Walker is electable
      Firoina is electable
      Ted Cruz is electable
      Jeb is electable
      Carson is electable
      Marco Rubio is 18 and an American citizen

      Mexcanz are stealin’ our jerbs and raping our ladies
      Immigrants have “anchor” babies – they’re extremely heavy and difficult to move
      Boehner’s tears can cure nephritis, gout, and hysterical blindness

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Fawkes the Phoenix libelz!

  • BigBoppa

    With all the talk from the thug party regarding a repeal of the 14th amendment I think it’s high time for a movement to repeal the 2nd.

    Bernie? Are you listening?

    • Steverino247

      Not going to happen. Takes too many states to repeal it. The focus needs to be indirect because without campaign finance reform, nothing much is going to happen here about anything that needs done.

    • CognizantImpiety

      How about concentrating on reestablishing the mental health system this country had before Ray-gun?

      • Querolous

        One Flew Over the Cookoo’s Nest was the norm. A compassionate and effective treat and, if possible, release system would be ideal. Of course that would mean tax money and government involvement. As much as we might wish that it could be, in today’s political maelstrom I just don’t see it happening.

        • Villago Delenda Est

          What Reagan did was slash the funding of out of institution treatment, because it was easy to just do that as part of the general GOP notion that neglecting the maintenance of infrastructure won’t hurt their short term political prospects, and by the time it’s noticed, most people will blame the Democrats who opposed neglecting the maintenance in the first place because they forgot who actually cut it.

          So, we basically transformed our warehouses for the mentally ill from buildings to the streets. All the care that was part of the plan for closing down the inhumane warehouses was chucked, leaving us with confused and sometimes dangerous people all around us not getting the care they needed.

          We’ve seen this play out in Minnesota, where a fucking interstate highway bridge collapsed and the general public didn’t blame the GOP for their decades of neglect because we needed tax cuts for the parasites of the 1% and couldn’t afford the maintenance.

          I could ramble on all day about how stupid this all is, but hey, American exceptionalism in all things.

    • CognizantImpiety

      Bernie knows the difference between guns in rural areas and guns in urban areas. He doesn’t see the point in bashing the “other side”. I agree.

      “As a nation, we can’t continue screaming at each other … we’ll have to find common ground,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Coming from a rural state, I think I can communicate with folks coming from urban states, where guns mean different things than they do in Vermont, where [they are] used for hunting. That’s where we have to go. We don’t have to argue with each other and yell at each other. We need a common sense solution.”

      “Nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, was involved in domestic abuse situations. People should not have guns who are going to hurt other people, who are unstable,” he said. “And second of all, I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people exclusively — not for hunting — they should not be sold in the United States of America.”

      Vote4Bernie!

  • Ghost Buggy

    Well, can you LIEberals prove these kids and other innocent victims weren’t ALSO Muslim terrorists? You can’t!

  • Callyson

    • SuspectedDemocrat

      We’ll do it live! (stomps outside into the nice sunny day among pleasant neighbors).

  • jjdaddyo

    Every time a kid gets hold of a gun and shoots himself or others SOME ADULT MUST GO TO JAIL. Period.

    • BigBoppa

      Hear hear! I nominate Wayne LaPierre.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        And the Nuge.

    • CognizantImpiety

      Possibly the person who owned the gun and did not put it away properly?

      • Celtic_Gnome

        We had a guy a few years back who kept a loaded shotgun on the back of the teevee next to the door. He went out to buy a pack of cigarettes while his four and six-year-olds were watching cartoons. Just before he walked out, he said, “Don’t neither of you touch that gun.”

        Wayne LaPierre would probably say it all worked out for the best for America.

  • Msgr_Moment
    • Callyson

      I need more:

      • BigBoppa
        • elviouslyqueer

          Celebri-dog with brunch face:

          • Villago Delenda Est

            “Are you going to eat those last few strips of bacon?”

          • elviouslyqueer

            He had already had one when this pic was snapped. The remaining two went in the go-box for later.

          • CognizantImpiety

            How did you know what my dog says every Sunday at breakfast? Are you watching us thru the intertubes?

          • eugeniajhernandez

            ☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣ì m makìng 75 bucks each hour workíng easy jobs for 2-3 hr in my free time over ìnternet – and it is a perfect way of maokìng some fast earníngs whelloch ìs exactly what ì have already been ìn search for for mathe big apple years now.. examine thís websìte by clícking my…tr……..

            …………..http://www.internationaljobscareersplan/work/spot... PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

        • sw19womble

          No everyone’s cup of tea, but my favourite animal, the aye-aye:

          • Villago Delenda Est

            Surprise! You’re on candid camera!

          • sw19womble

            To be fair, if you were a shy, nocturnal animal and someone suddenly shone a flash in your face….

          • BigBoppa

            Huh….I would have thought aye aye tea would be too bitter. Maybe with a spoon or two of honey?

          • The aye-aye was my favorite as a kid (still is, I suppose). A buddy and I in the seventh grade did a ‘Planet of the Apes’ comic book featuring an expanded universe with intelligent gibbons, monkeys, lemurs, and pro-simians. And one of my characters was a wizened, kindly old aye-aye college professor.

          • PubOption

            Aye-aye’s eyes are crazier than Michele Bachmann’s.

        • Alex Grey

          My brain swelling has gone down immensely…

  • Takoma DC

    Baby needs a new coat.

  • azeyote

    it’s not guns that kill people – but hey man – they sure help – give me a Hallelujah – and an Amen to that mother fu#ker

  • kaw143

    You aren’t actually suggesting that the study of history might need to include something other than the text of the Constitutional amendments we like, are you? Sheesh. You might as well suggest that Christians should read and follow the entirety of their holy book, or something.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Well, if they’re like Ned Flanders, they get kinda confused at the contradictory parts of the good book.

    • doktorzoom

      And in the case of the Second Amendment, of course, that would actually be “half the text of the Constitutional amendments we like.”

  • AntiDerpomeme

    Maybe some good news for today? (Apologies if already posted, but worth a repost regardless) http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/walmart-halts-sale-of-assault-weapons-20150826

    • Callyson

      Walmart, the nation’s largest selling of guns and ammo, announced that they would stop the sale of assault rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and other firearms commonly used in mass shootings when their stores restock with fall merchandise. The decision to halt the sale of the weapons was not made in response to Wednesday’s deadly shooting during a live news report in Virginia or public outcry from gun violence groups. Instead, the company will pull the firearms off the shelves for business reasons.

      Supplying the gun fondlers isn’t good business? The NRA isn’t going to like hearing that. Thanks for the good news!

      • CognizantImpiety

        I own guns. I like to shoot them at dangerous paper targets. That said, I’ve never been to a Walmart and don’t plan to do so in the future.

        Name calling isn’t going to help, and not all of us endorse the NRA.

        • Ghost Buggy

          Can’t hurt.

          • CognizantImpiety

            Unless you want to engage the other side and actually discuss ideas.

    • Steverino247

      “Walmart, the nation’s largest selling of guns and ammo, announced that
      they would stop the sale of assault rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and
      other firearms commonly used in mass shootings when their stores restock
      with fall merchandise.”

      I know times are hard at Rolling Stone, but there has to be at least one editor alive there who can figure out what word goes between “selling” and “of.”

      • Villago Delenda Est

        “the nation’s largest selling of guns and ammo,”

        THIS editor would just change the verb to a noun and call it a day.

    • Wombat

      Back up the truck. Walmart sold AR-15s? This is a thing I am glad I did not know.

  • weejee

    Needz moar pigs…

  • FZsdaughter

    Can we stop using the word “shooter”? It’s a fucking NRA word for a white gunman. Let’s say KILLER or MURDERER. “Shooter” is for TV or dirty cops. Let “shooter” go back to meaning something you buy 5 of for $20 in a bar, OK?

    • Steverino247

      I prefer “asshole.”

      • sw19womble

        Murdering asshole coward?

        • Villago Delenda Est

          Murdering asshole careless coward?

        • Celtic_Gnome

          Murding. It now ranks up there with moran.

          • Villago Delenda Est

            I beg to differ. The reason “moran” is a meme is that one of them used it. If we misspell something, it doesn’t have the same impact, because we’re doing it, ala Pee Wee Herman, on purpose.

        • Steverino247

          As long as “asshole” is in the description someplace, I’m happy.

          Not that you’re here to make me happy, of course.

      • Gleem-McShinez

        What bar is this where you can buy 5 assholes for $20? Asking for the GOP

  • https://www.facebook.com/rocky.ashby.923/videos/1393872397571115/?pnref=story

    Cats love their belly scratched…don’t believe old myths!

    • Dr.Zoidberg

      Kitty!

    • Jen_Baker_VA

      My cat would rip off my face if I even looked sideways at her tummy

      • Doug Langley

        We had a cat who was super affectionate, but just start to reach for his belly and you’d need stitches.

  • CognizantImpiety

    How come when cops kill with their guns, nobody says, it’s the gun’s fault?

    You can get rid of all the guns, but the killings will continue, humans kill.

    How about concentrating on improving mental health facilities, esp. for vets?

    Concentrating on the weapon instead of the “shooter” is not going to help.

    • Steven M. Harries

      “I’m no kin to the monkey
      And the monkey’s no kin to me . . .”

      • CognizantImpiety

        We are all great apes.

    • Ranina

      Oh yawn. Stop it already. This cliche has been debunked so many times it’s hardly worth replying to. Try THINKING instead of reacting…
      Read the story above and then come back and tell us how “concentrating on mental health issues” could have prevented small children getting their hands on guns.
      I own a gun, btw.

      • CognizantImpiety

        Why am I not thinking? I asked fair questions and your response is belittlement.

        What keeps kids from getting their hands on guns? The same thing that keeps kids from running into traffic, from drinking draino, from drowning in a pool. Talk about your strawman.

        • Ranina

          Let’s talk about YOUR strawman.
          Or not. It’s too absurd.
          How about we concentrate on your premise that “killers are going to kill”?
          And you focus on eliminating anything from our daily lives that could be used as weapons, but are not designed for that?
          And I will focus on eliminating anything from our daily lives that is designed just for killing?
          And then we’ll compare lists.
          Get the logic now? (if not, look up “false equivalence)

          • CognizantImpiety

            So you think killers are not going to kill without a gun? There were 14,196 murders last year, less than 10,000 were by guns. You gonna stop all the knife attacks in China where they have no guns?

            I focus on reminding people about the 500,000 US deaths from TOBACCO each year. That’s 50 times more deaths than murders by gun. These companies are based in the USA, and kill 6,000,000 people every year. An estimate 8 million people will die this year from tobacco.

            Sorry, your last point is moot. Guns are NOT designed just for killing. I shoot guns all the time, never killed anyone. My friends shoot guns all the time, they’ve never killed anybody. We go out of our way to be safe. We don’t hunt. We just like to shoot. We were all trained in the military and some people love to shoot.

            To us, firing guns is a way to test ourselves. Why do you own a gun if you think my questions/points are not salient?

          • Ranina

            You couldn’t rise to the challenge, could you? Guess you’ll have to go out and shoot off some guns to make you feel better.
            Just the fact that you have to use statistics like “murders” instead of actual “death by firearms,” is ridiculous.
            The latest statistics (irrefutable):
            “Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data.
            Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.”
            But this year gun deaths are expected to surpass car deaths. …CDC data shows guns will kill more Americans under 25 than cars in 2015. Already more than a quarter of the teenagers—15 years old and up—who die of injuries in the United States are killed in gun-related incidents, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

            You’re “trained in the military and love to shoot”? Great. Yet another rage-killing waiting to happen. Can’t you find another hobby? Or do you depend on this one to bolster your manhood?

            BTW: Nobody is sayin’ they want to take away your guns, Hon!

    • Major_Major_Major

      While you have successfully combined both false equivalency and straw man arguments, there is little to your comment that is either novel, or correct. Before I resort to ad hominem arguments…

      • CognizantImpiety

        Yeah, cuz answering my questions or cogently discussing my comments is too much for you.

        • Major_Major_Major

          Not quite, it is that you are making the same tired arguments. Yes, mental health needs to be addressed for all in need, but the core problem is EASE of access to firearms. Frankly, after the news yesterday (and the day before, and the day before ad infinitum), I initially felt like swearing uncontrollably at you. Today, I am a little calmer. SOOOOOOO, to address your points, in order:

          1) In case you have been living under a rock, there has been a significant amount of outrage in instances when police use their sidearms to kill. As a point of reference, see Ferguson, MO.
          2) Yes, killing will continue. The ease of killing, and the effectiveness of the weapon, are not the same. A person with a pistol can stand on a crowded crowded corner and kill people with minimal effort and training with an effective accurate range of 50-100 yards and 17 rounds per magazine. Compound that with a rifle, and both the range and the capacity increase. Not quite so easy to do with a bow (slow reload, minimized range), a knife (extremely reduced range), or a rock (short range, reduced effectiveness).
          3) Mental health care is a part of the puzzle, but just a part, as well as removing the stigmatism of mental health. Guess what another part is? I’ll give you a hint, see points 1 & 2.
          4) Concentrating on the “shooter”, and the motivating factors for the “shooter”, AAANNNNND the weapon are a combination of 1-3. Limiting the ease of access is an important FIRST step. Teaching people to notice warning signs, and address them, is also important, but not exclusive to gun violence.
          When the conversation devolves solely into an issue about the “shooter”, NOTHING changes.

    • doktorzoom

      But guns are just so much better at killing than any other weapon. If the goal is to eliminate murder, then yeah, give up on regulating guns. Murder is already illegal. But if the goal is to reduce the amount of slaughter, then tighter regulations would indeed help.

      Strangely, guns seem to be just about the only topic where people seriously argue that we’d have to completely eliminate bad outcomes in order for action to be worthwhile. People die in speeding-related crashes all the time, but nobody ever says, “hell, speed limits have failed. Repeal them.” (OK, nobody outside the Campus Objectivist Club says that)

      I lived for two years in Japan, where private gun ownership is largely banned (it would never work here; that genie’s out of the bottle). Good thing, too, because Japan has just as many violent crazy people as we do here. Since Japanese psychos are limited to attacking crowds of shoppers with kitchen knives now and then, the mayhem is limited.

  • Steven M. Harries

    Without the 2nd Amendment, how would rednecks learn how to count?

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Well, they can’t count beyond 2, so that explains much. Even though the often forgotten 3rd Amendment involves military matters, too.

  • Kakkeltje

    But wait! There was this bit of tyranny in a French train which was stopped…oh eh…without any guns… and then nobody died…
    Well, I am sure it would have turned out even better if all the passengers had grabbed their guns and started shooting!

    • cmd

      Or the teacher and then minister who talked down a 14 year old kid with a gun holding up his classroom in W. Va. yesterday.

  • VandeGraf

    If I hear once again that cars kill people, I’m gonna barf. NRA should change it’s name to National Homicide Association. “We bring good things to death!” (Allegedly.)

    • sw19womble

      The NRA’s new logo :

      ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    • gene108

      How much work has been put in place to make cars safer? How much work has been put in place to make guns safer?

      One of these things is not like the other.

    • gene108

      The NRA are bunch of limp wristed liberal panty waisted fags…

      That’s why real gun-rights groups exist like the Gun Owners of America (GOA) and yes it does have 300,000 members who think the NRA are wusses on gun rights

      • Villago Delenda Est

        OK, I take it back. The first outfit we go after if we’re serious about terrorism is the GOA.

        • gene108

          There is an intersection between rabid gun-nuts and white supremacists / racists, but what it is and where it is, I am not exactly sure.

          Randy Weaver, of Ruby Ridge, was selling sawed off shut guns to white supremacists.

          Cliven Bundy does not like the blacks and browns and is both well armed and attracted a lot of other well armed folks, who have no problem with his attitudes on race.

          I really do think that’s the dirty secret of the “gun rights” movement; to work as a front for white supremacists, so the folks at Stormfront can stockpile weapons for the coming race war they want so badly.

          • Villago Delenda Est

            The entire “gun rights” movement can trace its ancestry to the South, and the need for local bands of armed white folk to deal with slave revolts.

          • I thought that was the cops?

          • r m reddicks

            I’d go with ‘follow the money’. I imagine Sturm Ruger laughs at most of these folks so long as…. The intersection is where the money changes hands.

          • doktorzoom

            Let’s also not forget that racist wet-dream The Turner Diaries sold/sells quite well with the tag line “What will you do when THEY come for your guns?”

      • Msgr_Moment

        Splinters! We’re from the National Emergency Rifle Protection League (NERPL).

  • Time for “Babby in a Bag LOVES Kitty!” Break…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Jlm2gnKb8

    • gene108
      • Msgr_Moment

        Weed is one hell of a drug.

        • Villago Delenda Est

          Gas is one hell of a drug.

          • r m reddicks

            Drugs can be a helluva gas.

          • Villago Delenda Est

            So very true. A gas gas gas!

    • Tansy Geek

      That’s not a baby, that’s a starfish!

  • NotReveen

    Republicans and Democrats alike have no idea what the Second Amendment says or why it was written, so I’m going to explain it for you.

    The Second Amendment was largely based on Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration of rights, which was drafted in 1776 and reads as follows:

    That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    As you can plainly see, it has absolutely nothing to do with an individual’s right to carry guns. It was purely about declaring Virginia’s right to defend itself. Furthermore, the language clearly states that a “body of the people, trained to arms” should be heavily regulated by the state.

    When the Framers debated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, they were worried that some people might be forced to carry arms (because the Second Amendment was all about establishing state militias). To remedy this problem, one of the (few) early drafts of the Second Amendment reads as follows:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

    As you can plainly see (again), it has absolutely noting to do with an individual’s right to carry guns. But interestingly, it does say something about an individual’s right not to carry arms.

    This is the only reason the Framers ever debated individual rights with regards to arms and the Second Amendment. You see, they never would have proposed an amendment that gave individuals the right to carry guns wherever they wanted to. They would have been embarrassed to suggest such a thing. The Framers were not morons.

    In the end, they removed the religious exemption because it created all kinds of other problems, not the least of which was that it conflicted with the First Amendment. However, the final version is still very similar to the Virginia version, and it carries the same meaning and purpose:

    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.

    Don’t be embarrassed. Many people, from Sam Alito to Rachel Maddow, have been fooled by the NRA/Republican Party lies. The important thing is that you realize how badly you’ve been fooled.

    (I originally posted this on Media Matters an hour ago.)

    • Villago Delenda Est

      There you go, bringing inconvenient to our ideology history into this again, you vile PC Muslin.

      • Dr.Zoidberg

        And facts. Facts are not friends of the gun nuts.

    • Celtic_Gnome

      Deleted comment in 3, 2, 1…

      • NotReveen

        Why?

        • Wombat

          Not yours. The rabid responses that yours will invoke.

          • Villago Delenda Est

            We’ll probably see those a bit later on, during the evening hours. I’ll be off at dinner with friends so I’ll miss the live excitement, but hope to learn all about this on Sunday. Dok is going to be one busy banhammer wielder this evening, fer sure.

    • Me not sure

      Well said. There was also a fear that a religious exemption to serving in time if rebellion or war might end up being construed as a right not to be impelled to serve. As the Supreme court said in the WW I draft cases, there exists no constitutional right to conscientious objection. If it is to exist it has to be written into each draft law as an act of “legislative grace”.

    • Takoma DC

      Thanks for that. But then whatta’bout this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

      • NotReveen

        Yes, the Second Amendment stood strong for well over two-hundred years, but after George W. Bush appointed two hardcore fascists to the Supreme Court, they destroyed it. Republicans despise the Constitution with a passion.

    • gene108

      Founders also did not want the U.S. to maintain a standing military. John Adams had to push for the U.S. to build it’s own navy to protect its merchant vessels from pirates.

      I believe the Founders were basically standing army OR an armed citizen militia, but America can’t have both.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Jefferson felt that banks were more dangerous than even a standing army, and recall that the Founders were shaped by the 17th century experience of England with a standing army…and the civil war that took place then.

        So standing armies were not high on their lists of things to have. Just creating the USMA was a struggle.

      • NotReveen

        I think the main point is that the military, be it militias or standing armies, should be governed (“regulated”) by civilian representatives of the respective states, as to not become powers unto themselves.

        • Lazy Media

          “Well-regulated” in the historical context meant “properly organized and trained.” “Bear arms” meant “serve in the ranks.” The whole Second Amendment is an 18th century anachronism, made completely moot by the establishment of a large, standing army. Yet, we’re stuck with it.

          • Alex Grey

            Also “arms” were single shot muzzle loaders, not highly accurate, and lethal semi-automatics.

      • r m reddicks

        A militia of shooters of theaters, school campuses and domestic partners and such seems to be not well regulated.

    • Lazy Media

      Which is fine, and all; I pretty much agree with you. But SCOTUS in the Heller decision disagrees, so it’s a moot point.

      • willi0000000

        . . . or will be until we get a sane SCOTUS.

        • we’d need a constitutional amendment to overturn that. We need the state legislatures.

          • willi0000000

            we don’t need a constitutional amendment to overturn a SCOTUS decision regarding a personal right to own a gun.

            if we want to dump the whole amendment we need another amendment.

            the ‘original’ intent of the second amendment (take that, fat tony) was, and remains, to allow the formation of a well regulated militia.

            [ . . . and we need to regulate the fuck out of gun ownership outside of that well regulated militia ]

      • NotReveen

        It’s not a moot point once we get a majority of honest, decent Americans on the Supreme Court.

        • Lazy Media

          Maybe. Even Breyer’s dissent affirmed that an individual right to gun ownership for self defense is protected by the Second Amendment. Flipping the court would open up the possibility of stronger local gun control that is currently impossible, but you’d need a Democratic super majority in Congress to pass anything federal. And anything really effective (confiscation and a ban on handguns) would have trouble passing court muster because of precedent.

    • doktorzoom

      “The Framers were not morons.”

      That’s all well and good, but like that Jesus fellow, some of their noisiest fans seem damned intent on insisting they were…

  • Msgr_Moment

    The National Rifle Association, better known by its acronym, NAMBLA…..

    • aureolaborealis

      North American Man-Blunderbuss Love Association?

  • Celtic_Gnome

    Oh man, Dok. I can’t wait for the deleted comments of the week. There’ll probably be some murding threats in there.

  • DemmeFatale

    Happy Nice Time break:
    Anna Duggar’s brother Daniel, has called Josh a pig.
    He told her she should take the kids, leave, and live with him.
    Daniel can’t spell for shit, (probably all that home skooling), but it sounds like he loves his sister.
    (I know my brothers would have to be restrained.)

    • Jen_Baker_VA

      Good brother

  • Takoma DC

    I remember those halcyon days when we discussed Dolezal’s race and her unique hair-styles. Or “christians” who are fanatically anti-gay while raping their sisters and their sister’s friend. Good times. Yup. Great times.

  • Msgr_Moment

    BTW, a loud “Fuck You” to the smug soon-to-be-Deleted-Commenters who I’m certain are out there this afternoon.

    Now back to our regularly scheduled catness.

    • Bad Granny

      Good thing we don’t allow comments, cuz this here would bring out the crazies.

  • Dr.Zoidberg

    I feel so much safer now I never want to leave my house!

    • Markuserektus

      Like me, I heard that most accidents occur within two blocks of home…so I moved!

  • Bad Granny

    So, what you’re saying is that Dear Shit-Fe-Brains will be split into three parts, a la Lord of the Rings, this weekend.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      “The Fellowship of the Derp”

      “The Two Trumps”

      “The Return of Breitbart”

      • Querolous

        Don’t forget “The Sillmarillliderp”

    • marxalot

      Sheee-it, I bet we’ve got enough for a full run of Harry Potter. Including 7 and 7 Part Two.

      • mrpuma2u

        I hereby submit the titles “The Goblet of Derp” and “The order of the Phascists”

    • jmk

      There’s an awful lot of Shit-Fer-Brains material just volunteering on the post about Dead Breitbart’s Home for Sad Racists.

    • Major_Major_Major

      It’s early in the week still. I think the RWNJs are going for a full, and unabridged Enclycopedia Derpanica

  • D G

    I actually never heard/read that quote either.

    Thanks Our Wonkette!!!

    Also too- The 2nd Amendment wasn’t a huge “MY GUNZ” type of issue until the NRA and the Gun ManuFUCKturers decided they need to make some dolla$ in the early 90s.
    THEN and only then did gun sales skyrocket.

    Then they started pushing this BS in the courts, and had their pansy ass, owned politicians pass all those friendly liability protections.

    • mrpuma2u

      Fear sells. Heck they were saying the gubmint was coming for your gun stash back in the 80’s under Ronny the Raygun. I read my uncle’s guns and ammo mags back then and they has some fear based editorial about that subject in about every issue. In my defense I must say there was no internet as of yet.

    • aureolaborealis

      Wasn’t the 2nd Amendment originally a huge “THE NEGROES!!” issue, and that’s why the well-ordered militias were needed, to protect all those innocent, hard-working Southern whitefolk from marauding escaped slaves?

  • crunchyknee

    Well said, Dok.

  • proudgrampa

    Doktor, there is nothing I could add to your eloquence today. Tears come to my eyes thinking about those children (and the many others you haven’t listed). Someone earlier said that the conversation about guns is over. I hope they are wrong. Until we accept responsibility for this mess and do something about it, we must never stop talking about this.

  • Lazy Media

    Sigh. I’m all for sensible gun control. Heck, I’d be perfectly fine to have all my guns confiscated if that was the national policy. But that’s not going to happen, for political and constitutional reasons. And this particular case is one where the only way the victims could have been protected is by universal gun confiscation. The shooter wasn’t a convicted felon, wasn’t under a court protective order, hadn’t been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. There’s no plausible reform to help this. This will happen again, lots of times.

    • Dylan Black

      Actually its pretty simple. You outlaw the manufacture and import of new guns for non-military use, and institute a buyback program where guns become far more valuable when sold to the government than to keep them. It will take awhile, but eventually the many, many guns in current circulation will either be sold back or cease to function, particularly the cheap pieces of shit that most of them are today.

      Also think you skirt and 2nd amendment problems with that plan, by making guns almost impossible to buy but not touching the ability to possess them.

      Could also just outlaw ammunition, but that could get a bit more complicated.

      • Lazy Media

        The court, even the liberal wing of the court, have through long precedent established that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own firearms for self defense (in support of a well-regulated militia being the liberal interpretation). You’d have a hard time coming up with a legal justification for your manufacturing/sales ban that still preserves that right. You’d also need a super majority in Congress AND a president opposed to private gun ownership to pass any such laws. That’s not going to happen.

        • Dylan Black

          Its not a sales ban, its just a ban on new guns being created in this country or allowed into it through import. People would still be free to sell and resell every gun made before [insert Date law goes into effect] under the existing system. Like Cubans, I suspect real gun enthusiasts would simply find innovative ways of maintaining their existing guns, albeit with much grumbling.

          As for the political obstacles, yes, they are many. Just like they were in other countries that have generally banned guns for non-military use. Saying its impossible is just playing into the NRA’s game; its NOT impossible, its just very, very difficult and therefore IMPROBABLE at this time.

    • Ranina

      Sigh. “Lazy” is an appropriate moniker. With an attitude like yours, it won’t happen. It’s going to require a lot of work by a lot of people, employing a lot of means. Women could have just said “Sigh, well, I guess we’ll never get the vote.” But they literally died in the streets to make it happen. LGBTs could have said, “Sigh, let’s just keep hiding so we’re not persecuted…”
      I actually own a gun and I also know that there are plenty of “plausible reforms that will help this.”
      I declare my right not to live in fear for my life just because the NRA panders to paranoid lunatics.

  • DahBoner

    The idea of wingnuts with sporting goods holed up in their shacks taking on the full firepower of the US Army makes me smile…

    https://media0.giphy.com/media/l2Ctisvi6KnpC/giphy.gif

  • Takoma DC

    Baby needs a new coat.

  • The Second Amendment is a shitpile of words and bad commas, read narrowly for 225 years of this country’s history. It keeps saying the same thing – states have a right to organize militias and the government can treat private gun ownership as license, not liberty.

    The ammosexual legal scholar engages in creative reading and judicial activism with this Constitutional revisionism, working hard to make nonsense thoughtful as he reifies his failures, a softshoe of sentences that offer vain excuses and insipid, snickering substitutions – how DARE language mean what it says all along, how dare it mean what we’ve been saying it meant all along!

    We can and should take guns away from some people and do everything to discourage or prevent gun possession among, for instance, those who have been arrested for domestic violence.

    Your ammosexual’s arrest for DV is just another reveal for what is compuslively denied – words fail the ammosexual, so he takes to guns and violence when certain words cause certain hurt feelz.

    The ammosexual legal scholar is kicking up Constitutional monkey-dust hates because language itself is more certain than the average ammosexual pantload. You can see the resentment of text and speech in many ammosexual arguments. They speak only of and in threat, bankrupting the Second’s language. Fair is fair. Language can express so much of frustration and failure – so why oh why does it fail to hype the ammosexual’s inferiority complex?

    Concrete, concrete, ammosexual. You were there facedown on the sidewalk when your honey booted you out the house after one more soft-off mansplanation, your honor, moist, wilting, like a day-old soft taco.

    Yeah, concrete – the last hard WHITE thing you got real familiar with, ammosexual.

    • ThePuckStopsHere

      Let’s simplify it: “Fuck guns.”

      • I’m not down with the verb there. Sounds painful.

  • Sam Hain

    Children are dying so Ammosexuals can inflate their self-conscious masculinity.
    It makes me sick in my heart.

  • I bet it won’t be long before the local news starts running a special segment each night.

    “Okay folks…we have an interesting weekend shaping up. Friday will start
    up with a 25% chance of gunplay, but that will go up to around 80% with
    some sections experiencing a hail of bullets. So, if you’re going out,
    make sure to bring your flak jacket. And now, here’s Scooter with the
    sports!”

  • Dylan Black

    The thing is…I get it. I understand why guns are fun. I understand that shooting them, particularly shooting and actually hitting your target consistently, requires a level of skill that is impressive. I understand the visceral thrill of seeing your hero on the silver screen successfully wielding them against impossible odds, fighting for truth and justice.

    For all that, I’ve never once seriously considered owning one. I know the fact of the matter is that I’m more likely kill my wife, myself or someone else who doesn’t deserve death than I am to heroically defend my home and loved ones from a REAL threat. Thats why I confine my desire for shooting things to video games, which get more and more brutally realistic with every passing year.

    The problem is that people are flawed, and all too often lose their grip on reality, if only for a short time. Having such incredibly efficient instruments of death on hand during that time exacerbates the problem. Whether its ending the lives of former co-workers or killing themselves, if it were even a LITTLE harder to buy a gun those people might all still be alive today.

    Its past time to end loosely regulated civilian gun ownership. Let those who want to have guns join the military, where I’m told they are all too happy to train you on the use and care of firearms. Let the rest of us stop having to worry about being gunned down daily in what SHOULD be the most advanced, peaceful society in the history of the earth.

    Its not too much to ask, really.

  • Rutabaga64

    Honest to Pete (whoever Pete is/was), there are days when I really hate this country. Today Is definitely one of those days.

  • Charon_69

    O Hi America! It’s umm, your neighbours (yes that’s spelled correctly). Look, we love you and it’s time to talk about your gun ‘addiction’. You’re hurting yourselves and that makes us and everyone who cares about you very sad…truth is we need you to be healthy, how can we help?

    • amindofitsown

      You’re just against freedumb. We are a good Christian nation that happens to love everything the opposite of what our Preferred Religious Figure has taught, including guns. Why are you such a dirty Commie?

    • Dylan Black

      Unfortunately, like all addicts, attempts to help us before we’re ready to seek the help ourselves are only going to harden our irrational resolve that everything is HUNKY DORY. We need to hit rock bottom…the problem is every time I think we’re about to, we seem to find a new hole and just keep falling. It would be almost comical if it didn’t take the lives of 30k+ people every year.

    • Biff52

      Why do you hate America?!

  • Skaffin

    Love it. There’s so much sarcasm in this article, my knees are wobbly and I am short of breath. Also, I hate guns.

  • CJTX

    I absolutely love (and I really mean hate) the argument that public ownership of guns is somehow a protection against government tyranny. You wanna fight the power by barricading yourself inside your house with your “collection” and refusing to pay taxes or, ya know, follow laws? You are going to be surrounded by every police dept and sheriff’s office for thirty miles. Then the FBI – the most experienced and highly trained police force in the world – is going to show up, along with some agents from ATF and DHS. You are either coming out of that house with your hands up, your hands in handcuffs, or you are fucking dead. Okay, so what about a bunch of “patriots” banding together together to “take back” their country. Yeah, you’re going to get the above scenario too. And if you manage to get, say a few thousand people on board, they are just going to bomb your asses with flying rumbas armed with missiles. It’s not even worth sending a real plane to carpet bomb you. For better or worse, in 21st century america, “revolution” is only possible at the ballot box (or hackable Diebold touch screen voting machine).

  • Juan de Fuca

    Great article Dok. The TJ reference brought up some old memories of uni. College was the worst thing that happened to my conservative upbringing. For some reason my first university (UH-Manoa) insisted that I take classes in Poly Sci and Critical Thinking. Those two early courses changed my entire Worldview forever. My Poly Sci professor a was straight up hippy hold over from the 60’s but sharp as a tack. He taught class in shorts, an aloha shirt and rubber slippah’s.

    Long story short, he taught the fuck out of the Federalist Papers and Magna Carta and how they both helped to form our own Constitution and did so in a way that made us question a lot of what us right wing sheltered children had been raised to believe. That experience also taught me the reason why many on the right absolutely HATE the public education system. Many (not all) of these types of people HATE the very concept of critical thought.

    Long story short is I’ve debated politics with legions of RWNJ’s out here in the real world; mostly back in my military days and often against supervisors in a moderately respectful, sometime humorous manner. The one thing that I took away from many of those debates is the folks who claim to be the “strict constitutionalists”often give the deer in the headlights look when you bring up simple things like Jefferson’s letters to Madison. I’m not a strict constitutionalist but the lack of knowledge from many on the right has shocked me on more than a few occasions. To paraphrase a quote by Sen Franken:

    Conservatives love the Constitution like a four-year old loves her mommy. Liberals love the Constitution like grown-ups.

    Something like that…

    • Gregory Brown

      Well said.

      • Juan de Fuca

        Thank you sir. Apologize for the long post

        • BackDoorMan

          … when a long post is thoughtfully composed, grammatically correct, properly punctuated and formatted – as well as interesting, which yours is – no need to apologize. I enjoyed the read.

          • Juan de Fuca

            Thanks BDM. Much appreciated sir.

          • BackDoorMan

            You deserve it. I’ve been following you (in a non-stalker way) and you always get both my opposable thumbs up… when I’m not firing up the vape. ;)

  • savoy6

    So the in order to punish irresponsible parents and criminals you are advocating punishing those who are not irresponsible or criminal. Hmm. You should amend the Constitution to bring about the change you think you want..

    • Dylan Black

      Weird, I don’t see the word “punish” or “punishing” in dok’s whole article. Where do I get special sunglasses like yours than can reveal invisible words like that?

      • savoy6

        Therein lies the rub and one of the biggest obstacles.. what you undoubtedly view as “common sense” gun control, I see at punishment.

        • Dylan Black

          How so? I actually made a comment farther down this comment stream about one way to actually get rid of idiots owning guns, and it bares little resemblance to any actual proposed legislation I’m aware of (goes much farther, effectively). The problem is we can’t even have a conversation about it without people clutching their guns tight against the imagined boogeyman coming to take them away. Nobody actually wants to take your guns away, most of us just want to restrict the incredibly free flow of guns and provide INCENTIVES for people to give up their “arsenals of freedom” voluntarily. The truth is, if it came to a shooting war, nothing you’re legally allowed to possess is going to stop an armed drone or even light infantry from coming and taking/destroying everything you own. The possibility of a private citizen doing so is marginally higher than being struck by lightning. The possibility of your guns being MISUSED to kill someone you love is much higher. All that leaves is sport shooting and hunting, and I don’t see ANYONE calling for an end to hunting rifles or even shotguns, which for public safety purposes are much less dangerous as they can’t be easily concealed.

          • savoy6

            You are correct, we can’t have a “conversation” about firearms because, in fact, we’re not supposed to have what people might commonly describe as a conversation at all. We’re supposed to shut-up and listen as the liberal anti-gun crowd, barely masking their unseemly delight at the opportunity, try to pin the murder rampage of one degenerate creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong. The conversation is then supposed to end with us waiving our fundamental right to self-defense.

            Because, lets face it Dylan, that is what the goal is – a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. There’s always another “common sense” gun law which fails because it is targeted at law-abiding citizens and not criminals, thereby inviting another round of onerous new restrictions until finally no citizen is keeping or bearing anything more than a dull butter knife.

            Do you own firearms Dylan? Do you know how they function and the laws regulating them or do you get the majority of your information from the Daily Kos and Wonkette and MAIG?

          • Dylan Black

            There you go with inventing things again, there is no “fundamental right to self defense”. There is a right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia, which was pretty vital back when we were a tiny country and the british can and did burn down our cities with impunity. If you can show me where in the constitution the words “self defense” appear in the same phrase, I’ll gladly concede that your logic is superior to mine.

            As for owning guns, no, I see no need to do so. I get my fill of shooting things in the virtual world, not the real one. That does not, however, mean I am ignorant of how the laws governing them work. I’ve been treated to many an ill-informed rant on the subject, and have often spent time reading the actual relevant laws as a result.

            Finally, to your point that “laws don’t affect criminals”, even if I were to concede you are correct (having actually taken JPS 101, I don’t), my solution to the problem is to attack the disease, not the symptom. Make gun manufacturers include thumbprint coded locks, or even better restrict the manufacturing of new guns entirely. This would have ZERO effect on your existing arsenal, but it would also eliminate the ability of crazy people to go out and buy a Saturday Night Special at a gun show without any significant barrier.

            I…don’t even know what MAIG is…I’m familiar with MAG, which was a somewhat crappy PS3 shooter, but I’m sure thats not what you were talking about.

          • savoy6

            “there is no “fundamental right to self defense?” Oh.. ok. except, of all things, the right to defend yourself is THE most fundamental one there is.

          • Dylan Black

            Oh, I’m SORRY! I thought we were talking about rights actually enshrined in our beloved Constitution, not things we feel in our gut to be true. My Bad.

          • savoy6

            That doesn’t even make sense.

          • Dylan Black

            Which thing, that you’ve never actually read the constitution or that you think it says things it doesn’t actually say? I agree, both are pretty nonsensical.

          • Alex Grey

            Truthiness.

          • Dylan Black

            Indeed, its almost more upsetting that he isn’t getting all my CLEVER REFERENCES than the fact that he has such a myopic, intransigent viewpoint on the issue of firearm regulation.

            Almost.

          • Alex Grey

            That’s why I gave up on being clever, and just opted to point out his multitudinous logical fallacies…

          • dshwa

            What’s funny is he thinks he won.

          • savoy6

            What did I say that was in the Constitution that is not?

          • Alex Grey

            “there is no “fundamental right to self defense?”
            I took a gander at said Constitution, and didn’t see any of words. Very curious.

          • Dylan Black

            Now again, you’re doing that thing where you actually READ the constitution, instead of just glancing at the first 2 amendments and declaring it holy.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b56e0u0EgQ

          • savoy6

            Now your doing that thing where you pontificate about things you selectively read while having no actual practical experience with them.. like firearms. You admittedly have no experience with them or a use for them. Yet from you mothers basement you will prattle on about how they need to be banned or regulated based some vague notions and the actions of a murder.

            While intensely
            popular with basement dwelling trolls, metrosexual pundits, coastal liberals, and cultural bigots
            slobbering at the opportunity to stick it to those banjo –strummin’,
            God-believers out in the hinterlands, gun control remains poison to most Americans.. despite your wishful and obviously fearful thinking.. Good luck with your common sense gun-control.

          • Dylan Black

            Joke’s on you, my mom doesn’t even have a basement anymore, bucko. The last time I “lived” in a basement I was 16.

            Also who said I didn’t have any “experience” with them? I’ve fired guns several times. I just don’t see the point in owning any myself, because I’m not that great a shot and I don’t enjoy hunting. Way to infer incorrectly.

            I live in Winston-Salem NC, trust me I’m more than familiar with people who love guns, both reasonable ones and those who see any challenge to their supremacy as an assault on their person, as you seem to. Its funny because my buddy, a former Ranger Medic who served our country in Iraq and Afghanistan, is starting to think maybe we need some gun control in this country as well, and he loves guns.

            Its fitting you ended your comment with “good luck” because I have a WEIRD FEELING you won’t be allowed to comment here much longer. So, I wish you good luck as well, I sincerely hope you’ll never experience the pain so many of these families have in this post, where your precious boom sticks end up turned against you or a loved one.

          • savoy6

            “my buddy, a former Ranger Medic” Really? I was a Combat medic with the 1-227 AV RGT in Iraq, what unit was your buddy with?

          • Dylan Black

            Not sure why I would feel the need to give you that info even if I had it handy for some bizarre reason. I could say I’ll ask him tomorrow and get back to you, but since I can’t even “follow” your comments and you’re at most a few hours away from getting banned from this site, I’m not sure what the point would be. He’s certainly not fictional, if thats your implication, but as his friend why would I want to hand over information about him to random people on the internet without his consent?

          • savoy6

            “I have a WEIRD FEELING you won’t be allowed to comment here much longer”

            It’s kind of sad though, don’t you think? I never said anything cruel or threatening, or untrue.. I simply countered the anti-gun narrative. Yet even you think that the “tolerant” liberal intelligentsia here will ban me for my opinions.. because they don’t “fit the narrative.” …and that suits you just fine.. smh

          • Dylan Black

            True, all your various attacks and derogatory language towards commenters here is totally innocent.

            You’ve “countered” nothing, successfully. You’ve managed to “exhaust” a few people, thats the sum total of your accomplishments tonight. I hope you and your favorite gun (Betsy? Selma?) sleep better in the knowledge that you’ve once again defended your freedom on the internet, against the mean old liberals.

          • savoy6
          • Dylan Black

            That looks nothing like your avatar, maybe you should update it.

          • Alex Grey

            The real humor is that the irony was completely missed. “End The Fed, Ron Paul”

          • savoy6

            “various attacks and derogatory language” Really? Where?

          • Dylan Black

            Yes, I have no problems with you being banned by a private blog that disagrees with just about everything you’re arguing. That is their right as a private entity. Wonkette has no obligation to agree with you or continue to allow you to speak. Heck, I could be wrong about your impending doom, but when you use phrases like ” basement dwelling trolls, metrosexual pundits, coastal liberals, and cultural bigots ” in a clear derogatory reference to their actual customers, based on previous experience you’ll be lucky to get a mention on the weekly “people who said dumb stuff and got deleted” posts.

          • Alex Grey

            “Dear Shit fer Brains: The Uber Derp Edition”

          • savoy6

            And you simply cannot understand why free thinking people resist the tyranny of people like you. Stay out of trouble now ya hear?

          • savoy6

            ..You’re right, gotta keep up the progressive narrative. Even if it’s a lie.

          • savoy6

            The Bill of Rights was not designed to grant laws, like granting you the right to protect yourself.. it was designed to codify certain rights and limit government from imposing on them.

          • Alex Grey

            Once again…

          • savoy6

            You know, Google.com is an awesome way to find information. try looking up “The Bill of Rights was not designed to grant laws” It’s pretty cool.

          • Alex Grey

            Your logical fallacy is Burden of Proof. Next time try supporting your own argument, instead of telling other people to.

          • savoy6

            I don’t have any obligation to be your research assistant. I say it is a fact, want to disprove that? Look it up.

          • Alex Grey

            Hahah! The last defense of someone who can not support their own claims. “It’s true unless YOU disprove it.” Unfortunately in this place called, “The Real World,” the burden of proof is on the person making a claim.

          • savoy6

            Are you saying my statement is untrue? I actually think it rests on it’s own merits. But if you have sources, lets see them.

          • Alex Grey

            Spoken like a person who has never even written a High School research paper. Hint, if you wrote a paper and said, “these are facts, and if you don’t believe them you have to disprove them,” would fast track you to getting an epic F, on said paper.

          • savoy6

            Are you correcting my term paper now? lol!

          • Alex Grey

            yeah…

          • savoy6

            So you don’t have a right to defend yourself? You actually think you need a citation -or the government- to tell you it’s ok to protect yourself… jeezus.. lol!

          • Alex Grey

            I simply ask you to defend an argument, in which you say you are making the most fundamental point. Appeal to Nature is your logical fallacy.

          • savoy6

            The “argument” that a person has an innate right to life is hardly an argument at all. Simply saying that is an invalid argument shows your fundamental lack of understanding of philosophical principles.. you are dismissed. smh.

          • Alex Grey

            Your logical fallacies are Personal Incredulity, and Ad Hominem attacks.

        • Gregory Brown

          You know, Savoy, I have owned guns for nearly 50 years, and I once was a member of the NRA, back when it espoused actual sensible gun regulation, and before it became the cynical marketing department for the firearms industry, when it goes crazy when anyone suggests the very measures it once supported. So your robot-like NRA talking points are very apparent to me, since I seem to possess a long enough life to have been there, back in the days of sanity. And, by the way, since the NRA is against ALL gun regulation, what in your opinion now constitutes a “well regulated militia?”

          • savoy6

            Come on Greg.. you can google as well as I can.. You know that the NRA is almost exclusively funded by its membership, the NRA as a shill for Firearms manufacturers is an old canard. Don’t insult me. Is any resistance to the anti-gun crowd “robot-like NRA talking points?” Please Actually, this sound distinctly like robot-like Bloomberg talking points to me.

            You can google this too.. “The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.”

            The truth is out there.

          • Dylan Black

            http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

            Indeed, try some truth on yourself, sir.

          • savoy6

            The official trade association group for the firearms industry is the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Does the NRA get money from gun makers? Certainly. Do such gun makers have an interest in seeing gun rights defended? Of course. Is there anything sinister going on here? Not at all.

            Would you be surprised to find that a publisher made donations to groups that defend our right to a free press or to freedom of expression generally? Control advocates laugh at this question, but what that shows is the fact that they don’t really see gun rights as rights at all. This takes us back to the concept of framing the debate. Rights are rights. We don’t have second-class rights that aren’t effectively different from privileges to be granted by our betters.

            Whether or not the NRA gets significant contributions from companies
            that make guns isn’t really a meaningful question, unless we find a
            difference in the interests of companies and citizens.

            I’ve read Hickey’s article before and he runs through various figures on donations and spending.. that’s before he gets to asserting that the gun-rights group is in fact doing what the tobacco industry did a while ago—promoting their own bottom lines against the interests of ordinary -and by implication- non-greedy, Americans.

            Guns are not like tobacco and as is now a matter of public record that tobacco companies spent decades hiding facts from the public. By contrast, what a gun does isn’t in dispute. When properly functioning, a gun sends a chunk of metal down and out the barrel at speed. Where that bullet goes -presuming no mechanical defect- is up to
            the user. And not only are the vast majority of gun owners responsible
            and law-abiding, but hundreds of thousands of us defend our lives each year with a gun. And millions of us use guns in ways that make our lives better, whether that’s collecting them as a hobby, putting food on the table, or defending ourselves from a violent attack.

          • Dylan Black

            Nowhere in that do I see you refuting his point that the NRA gets over 50% of its funding from gun manufacturers, which does in fact make THEM, not YOU, the ones running that show. Its how money works. This idea that your interests magically align at all times is either hilariously naive or frighteningly fascistic, depending on how generous one wants to be.

            Basically the NRA is to Gun Manufacturers as Roger Goodell is to NFL owners. Getting mad at either is pointless, they are just a shield for the actual “villains”.

          • Gregory Brown

            First, there is no regulation that the NRA favors, even though it used to back a number of regulations. And you have no idea who is paying what to the people at the top of that organization. I have watched its stance change through the years, and the one it has now is insane. The society is on average no more dangerous now than it was in the 60s and 70s, and is less dangerous by some measures, yet nobody then was clamoring for the right to pack heat and strangely enough, there were virtually no mass shootings. Also, the NRA then was supported by hunters and sport shooters, not the large proportion of raving imbeciles of today.

        • Juan de Fuca

          “…what you undoubtedly view as “common sense” gun control, I see at punishment.”

          Here’s a question that I ask respectfully, without any condensation intended – why do people such as yourself act like victims anytime that any rational thinking person begins to talk about and question the gun culture in America?

          People such as yourself are the ones controlling the argument by playing to the lowest common fears of all Americans – tyranny. It’s not only an often unfounded fear but it is absolutely ludicrous in 2015 to think that you and I are gun owners because we are defending our republic against potential tyranny.

          People on the extreme pro firearm side are typically the first ones to scream about a stronger military. One of those things cancelled the other out generations ago. Do you ever think about the irony of that?

          • savoy6

            Why do people such as yourself assume you are the only rational
            thinking person talking about firearms in this country? There is some irony, don’t you think? What make my viewpoint irrational?

            By the way, what is “the gun culture?” You are going to have to mask your blatant anti-gun bias a little better.

          • Juan de Fuca

            Savoy6,
            I taught my daughter how to shoot when she was 13 (using old Army BRAS technique, no pun intended). I still keep her rifle in our home. I also keep the bolt removed from the rifle…sort of an extreme safety measure but one that was more in line with NRA that our fathers grew up with than the corporate NRA that it is today.

            The thing that makes your viewpoint “irrational” (your own word) is that you view any attempt to regulate a weapon designed to kill as a personal punishment. Actually, I would agree with you – it does appear to be more than a little irrational.

          • savoy6

            Funny, my firearms are not “weapons” nor are they designed to kill. That fact that you have a “weapon” designed to kill in your home, I view as irrational.

          • Juan de Fuca

            So…you’ve never served in the military then, have ya?

          • Donna Rail

            He’s a troll. A scared and angry troll. Probably has a Disqus alert for the word ‘gun.’

          • savoy6

            Neither scared nor angry.. In fact I usually like reading the Wonkette. But ill informed anti-firearm rhetoric is always an interesting discussion to have.

          • Donna Rail

            Firearms are not weapons?

            Wow, you are special.

          • savoy6

            A weapon, is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems. Firearms are designed to push a projectile down and out of a barrel. That’s it. It’s what you point it at and why that might make it a weapon.

          • Donna Rail

            Wow. He really can’t stop talking.

            Also, he thinks that because of his opinion of something, it becomes something other than what it is.

            Wonder what an abnormal psychology textbook would say about that.

            I’ll leave you to your fears, Michael.

          • savoy6

            ..you engaged me. Did you not want me to respond?

      • savoy6

        “Where do I get special sunglasses like yours than can reveal invisible words like that”

        Condescension and demonizing those who support gun freedom has always been intended as a weapon to silence them. It was also critical that we, law-abiding gun owners, become the “Other.” By dehumanizing us and painting us as evil, it is that much easier to strip us of our rights. Isn’t that right Dylan?

        • Dylan Black

          Haha, how can we silence you guys when your industry lobbying group is infinitely better at getting legislation passed to “silence” statistical evidence on gun deaths than we are at getting the word out about them?

          You inferred something in the article that IS. NOT. THERE. It was an expression of remorse and rage that we’re not allowed to even TALK about there maybe being a problem, because its always “too soon” and “disrespectful”. At no point does Dok talk about taking away guns, or any coherent policy positions whatsoever. If you were referring to something in the comments, then cool, but as my comment pointed out, it wasn’t in the article itself at all.

          I’m not trying to “Other” you, Savoy6. If anything, it was a joking reference to one of the greatest men of our time, Rowdy Roddy Piper, and his classic “They Live”, based on your avatar wearing sunglasses. If you want to engage in an actual conversation about how we could minimize mass shootings, and not a handwaving “thats the price of liberty, folks” exercise over the dead while they are barely cold, I’m all for it.

        • harryeagar

          It is really, really easy to paint you guys as evil.

          • savoy6

            Why would you ever disarm yourself with all this evil around you?

        • mgraca

          No need to paint you as evil. Simple carelessness would seem to cover most of the “responsible” gun owners in Dok’s article.

    • doktorzoom

      Pretty much. Like I think we should “punish” people who want to operate aeroplanes and automobiles by regularly certifying that they are at least minimally competent in operating their potentially deadly machines. And requiring them to purchase insurance to cover the cost of any damage resulting from the irresponsible use of those machines.

      • savoy6

        Except people don’t have a Constitutional right to operate aeroplanes and automobiles nor does the Constitution require one to purchase insurance to exercise their rights.

        • doktorzoom

          Nice goalpost-shifting there. The point is that regulating a thing is not the same as “punishment.” As Dylan Black noted, there isn’t a word in the article about confiscating guns. I don’t want to confiscate guns, but it sure would be nice if we could at the very least require their owners to be minimally competent in their use and storage. That would fall under the “well-regulated militia” clause.

          And all rights are subject to regulation, including my favorite one, the First Amendment, which does not protect libel, for instance.

          • Alex Grey

            How about licensed and insured as well, you know, like cars.

        • Beulah

          No, but that dependent clause immediately proceeding the one part of the amendment you hold so dear contains the clear and unambiguous phrase “well regulated”. But I’m sure you are perfectly willing to pretend that part of the constitution doesn’t even exist.

          • savoy6

            You should google “well regulated” and try reading some pro-gun positions on what that means.. since the SCOTUS agrees with that position.

          • Beulah

            In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”

            I see what you mean. Since you define any imposition of proper discipline and training as “punishment”, there’s no doubt you’d reject this interpretation.

          • savoy6

            One of our founders, Tenche Coxe, in writing about the militia and the RKBA, wrote this in a 1788 Pennsylvania newspaper article:
            “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?…Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

            In the Heller case the SCOTUS agreed with Heller and reasoned that the prefatory clause gave one reason for the Second Amendment, but it did not limit the right listed in the operative clause—the second part of the amendment—to own weapons only for militia service. “The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right…” The Court also reasoned that elsewhere in the Constitution, such as the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, the phrase “the right of the people” is used only to refer to individual rights—that is, rights held by people as individuals. It is this phrasing that is used in the operative clause of the Second Amendment.

            Finally, the Court reasoned that the right to own weapons for
            self-defense was an “inherent” (in-born) right of all people. “It has
            always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the
            right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”

            You’ve never read the Heller decision have you…

          • Juan de Fuca

            Dude…you’re using Tenche Coxe to support your argument? A guy who couldn’t decide if he was an American Patriot or a British loyalist during the revolution? Didn’t they call him “double face” or something similar back in the day? You’ve never been too much into American history and civics, have you?

          • savoy6

            Coxe spoke to the issue of discussion.. was he wrong? .

          • Dylan Black

            So would you like to abolish our “standing army” then? While we’re adhering to Coxe’s principles, thats a pretty important one.

          • savoy6

            Sure.. that’s sound reasonable. The founders were particularly troubled by “standing army’s.”

          • Alex Grey

            Once people were opposed to railroads because it was “unnatural” to travel at 15+ MPH…

          • savoy6

            Alex, you should definitely NOT defend yourself if someone tries to kill you. Really. I wouldn’t want you to violate any laws or anything.

          • Alex Grey

            I don’t live in constant fear of being attacked. I don’t live in constant fear of needing to use deadly force in order to stop someone from attacking me. I live in US America, not a third world country. Here we have specialists who enforce laws and, let me see what was the other thing they do, oh yeah, “Defend and Protect.”

          • savoy6
          • Alex Grey

            You logical fallacy is The Texas Sharpshooter, (also known as Cherry Picking.)

          • savoy6

            “I live in US America, not a third world country. Here we have specialists who enforce laws”

            You didn’t read the article I linked for you, did you.. The Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have a
            constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who has
            obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband.

            We are truly on our own. I personally choose to live, not hope a cop shows up to protect me. Why wouldn’t you?

          • Alex Grey

            Because I am not in danger, or perhaps because you are statistically more likely to die from gun related causes if you have a gun in your house. I choose safety, by not keeping a gun.

          • savoy6

            Good luck with that when someone is kicking in your door. But then you probably live in a safe Lilly white community where crime is just a distant inconvenience or “statistic”. Must be nice. Why won’t all us hillbillies in the hinterlands turn in their guns anyhoo?

          • Alex Grey

            Yep, I live in a city, and yes it is very nice. Do you, “hillbillies in the hinterlands,” have a terribly high crime rate? Do you have regular all out shoot outs with each other? Somehow, I tend to doubt that. Even the super elitist NYT, would have reported on such an event. How many people who intended you harm, have you had to shoot in the past?

          • Rasilom

            Oh My God… Kicking in your door…. Queue the melodramatic music and CALL FOR NCIS!!!! WTF?!?! Seriously, if you actually compare the number of people in a big city to the number of crimes committed against them on a daily basis I think you’d find you have a better chance of winning the lottery than being a victim. And as has been pointed out NUMEROUS times no one is advocating taking anyone’s guns.. Just maybe putting a little common sense into the regulation of buying and selling said weapons, and maybe requiring gun owners to carry insurance. We all know you are a responsible gun owner and have no mental illnesses, have never ever been convicted of assault, rape, armed robbery, hell I am even sure you have never even gotten a parking ticket , but how do I know that that extremely white-guy in a $1000 dollar tailored suit that walks up to your garage sale where you are selling a couple of your older model guns isn’t in fact a convicted felon who likes to knock over liquor stores? Please explain to me what is wrong with a background check and reasonable waiting period on all gun sales? I just don’t get it……

          • savoy6

            ..You who clearly can’t believe “I’m still talking” apparently wants me to still talk? You haven’t really read ANY of the things that have been discussed in this thread but this one. Have you.

          • Donna Rail

            Armies. Not a possessive.

          • savoy6

            I -stand- corrected. No pun intended.

          • Juan de Fuca

            I am all for discussion. It seems odd that you are using a man who “spoke to the issue of discussion” (your words) to support your attack against the topic of this discussion as a personal attack against you.
            You can’t engage in discussion without being open to others opinions. Since Coxe is your cited founder and I am open to others opinions (to a fault sometimes) let’s discuss why firearms shouldn’t be regulated. Can we come to a basic agreement of what their sole design is for? Can we agree on the fact they are designed to kill?

          • savoy6

            “Can we agree on the fact they are designed to kill?” No

          • Juan de Fuca

            Then there is nothing left to discuss. Best of luck to ya mate.

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            So the Founders wanted us to defend against tyranny with metal sticks “designed” to make smoke and scary noises? Sheeesh. The 2nd Amendment is 100% about deadly weapons, and you damned well know it.

            When logic forces you to fall back onto increasingly ridiculous arguments, it’s time to reconsider your original position.

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            LOL. As a Brit, Coxe would have known very well that this “ancient right” did not exist in England. Land owners had to have government permission if they wanted firearms — usually to protect their property against poachers.

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            Means nothing, according to geniuses like Scalia. Empty words – even though the Constitution doesn’t use the word “regulated” anywhere but this one amendment.

        • harryeagar

          We can change that.

          • savoy6

            2/3 of the state legislatures are all you need to amend the Constitution. Knock yourself out.

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            It will happen. The gun nuts are steadily losing ground.

        • Rasilom

          Sorry Dude, you have totally missed the point. The term “Well Regulated” means that “Some Authority” is “Regulating” the situation, be it local, state, or federal govt. I am a gun owner, I live in Alaska, I understand a need to carry a firearm for self-defenses better than you do most likely (For the record against Bears, not people, most people don’t weigh 900Lbs and want to eat you…). But I have absolutely ZERO problem with requiring background checks for ALL gun sales private or public (comes under “Well Regulated”), I have ZERO problem with requiring ALL gun owners to carry some sort of Firearms Insurance to cover the costs of accidents, OR, Intentional Bullshit committed by some fucktard with a gun that forgot it wasn’t his pecker and got stupid with it. Hell you need a license to drive a car for fuck sake. I have never seen an irresponsible ass conceal a car in his jacket pocket and then run down 3 innocent people in a Mall. Get Real, you want this type of stupid shit to become way less common? (Yeah I know, it will never ever be totally gone, crims will always find a way to get a gun, yadda yadda, yadda… But I don’t think an untrained idiot that will most likely kill some innocent bystander in the crowd behind the perp is the solution either…) Then get SERIOUS about background checks, waiting periods, certification of competence, regular requalification. I KNOW I can pass all of that and have no problem doing it, If you can’t or won’t I really think you really shouldn’t have free access to a gun.

          • savoy6

            “The term “Well Regulated” means that “Some Authority” is “Regulating” the situation, be it local, state, or federal govt”

            Actually that is completely untrue.. the SCOTUS in the Heller case made that very clear.

            You don’t have a Constitutional right to drive a car, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires “insurance.” There is nothing in the Constitution that says we have to take “gun lessons” or something. If you are careless with a firearm or commit a crime with one -it is a crime already- It is already a crime for a felon to own a firearm, it is a felony to sell one to a felon or a mentally ill person, it is a felony to sell a gun to a person who you are not sure is entitled to own a firearm.

            You should go ahead and take classes and get insurance or whatever if that makes you feel better. I think it is vast overreach by liberal do-gooders pandering to the willfully un-informed and fearful, with not a shred of evidence to prove it would do anything to reduce gun crime.

          • Rasilom

            Yes, they did say that a citizen has right to own a gun for al purposes such as self-defense in the home, and I totally agree that the removal of the restriction against owning a gun in D.C. was the right move. They said nothing about requiring a training course or insurance. I just happen to think that maybe, just maybe we shouldn’t be handing out guns to every Tom, Dick, and Harry with out at least making sure they are capable of handling their chosen weapon and proving that they have an ability to pay for any “Misshape” that happens as a result of their usage of their firearm. I know a person that was shot while hunting, It happens, Maybe you don’t want to loose your house and guns and vehicle and kids college fund to a law suit due to your inability to distinguish an orange vested hunter from a brown horny deer, as happened to the guy who shot him… Just sayin, you I am sure would have no problem getting and keeping a gun in your home for protection, I am also in favor of concealed carry permits for ANYONE that is not a felon and can legally own a gun, so long as they pass a combat pistol training course and have to requalify every couple of years, Come on man you are not a criminal, you are a God Fearing Gun Owner of the Good Ole USA!! You should be proud to show yours skills, and make sure you can prove you know DAMN WELL EVERTHING about the proper use of deadly force, when it can be applied, proper tactics to mitigate collateral damage, and most importantly….. When to leave your DICK in it’s holster so as not to escalate a situation unnecessarily.

          • savoy6

            You should run for a seat on the “whats appropriate training and way to own a firearm” committee.

          • Rasilom

            Proper? I am sure that there are plenty of firearms courses available that you, yourself would recommend, don’t really care where the course is held at as long as it covers all the NRA basics on gun handling and weapons safty, extra time if you want concealed carry, did I mention that the local NRA chapter teaches all these classes? As for the appropriate way to own a gun… drum roll please…. Pass one of these classes them pass the background check, then lord all mighty the hardest part of all, wait 3 days to pick it up. I sure you can wait that long to gt your new gun. And again, I don’t give a fuck about any guns you legally own right now or in the future, just prove you are not going to shoot yourself, or anyone else in the arm by trying cowboy twirling tricks while trying to protect a Muslim free zone in a backwards ass county in Oklahoma. That is really all I ask.

          • savoy6

            No I agree that everyone should do all these things as a matter of course, I just think that’s what a responsible firearm owner should do. But if they choose not to, or to postpone training till later or whatever.. that is their right.

          • Rasilom

            I must disagree, it is not their right to endanger me nor anyone else by having no demonstrated ability to safely handle their firearm. How do you not get that all the crap you get about owning weapons comes straight from the actions of a small percentage of gun owners, specifically the sub set that I don’t know refuses to get training then carries a totally inappropriately sized weapon for their situation around in public, and then generally causes a problem (reference again the idiot that shot himself while defending a Muslim free gun store in I a backwards ass county in Oklahoma. (And before you give me shit about dissing OK, I lived there for about 7 years.). If ALL gun owners work to keep weapons out of the hands of THOSE idiots… Then maybe we won’t have to keep hearing about shit like this, and maybe we won’t have to keep hearing about how ALL gun owners are murders, and my favorite that I responded to in another article, the only reason to own a handgun if you are not a law enforcement officer is because you want to kill someone. This is the crap I get to deal with because people like you want ANYONE know matter how screwed up of just plain irresponsible they are, to be able to get any weapon they happen to want at the time because it is their right.

          • savoy6

            If they do not endanger you in anyway, how can you pre-punish them for a crime or endangerment that hasn’t happened. You are only “afraid” something is going to happen. that is actually your issue that needs to be dealt with. isn’t it? Not everybody is an idiot and incapable of understanding firearms. Not everybody needs to satisfy you to own a gun.

          • Rasilom

            ROFL, Dude, you really don’t get it and have totally swallowed all the Kool-Aid. It is not pre-punishment to require someone to get checked out and trained to own a gun anymore than it is pre-punishment to make someone get checked out and trained on the equipment before driving a forklift. And for the record I know plenty of people that would totally qualify to own a gun, Training and background check that I would rather not trust with a rusty butter knife, but I would not get in their way of owning a gun. Also I’d be willing to totally drop the training aspect if we could just get the bg checks on all gun purchases, commercial and private, with a waiting period. Explain to me how that is a problem, making sure someone is not a felon, can legally own, and also waiting a couple days just in case they are currently having a really bad one, please explain how that would infringe on your rights?

          • savoy6

            You don’t have a Constitutional right to drive a forklift.

          • Rasilom

            Canned kneejerk teabagger response with no substance. I asked for an explanation as to how requiring a background (Something that has been upheld by SCOUTUS as constitutional) on private sales was an infringement. you answered by saying and I quote “You don’t have a Constitutional right to drive a forklift” This is like saying Bananas to the question what does 2+2 equal. So I ask you again, please explain how a bg check infringes.

          • savoy6

            It is in violation of federal law right now to sell a firearm to someone who you don’t know is lawfully permitted to own a firearm. If you don’t know, it’s a crime. If the guy buying it and isn’t entitled to, it’s a crime. the FBI manages the NICs system which is nationwide. every sale through a FFL dealer has to run it through the system. What background check are you talking about?

            The term “background” check is such a bullshit term it has a become meaningless mantra..

          • Rasilom

            I agree with you about what a sham the BG checks are, that’s why I am saying they need to be tightened up, I also agree about all sales through an FFL, what I am talking about is a sale between John Doe and Joe Blow. Private citizens, there is no requirement for a BG check. How does John know Joe can or can not legally own that gun that is being sold with out doing one, but more importantly how can you come back and say that John should have known if there was no requirement in the first place. With out that required check the only thing that that John has to go on is Joes word that yes he is allowed to own a gun. That is what I mean by private sales verses walking into Guns are Us (A commercial sale) and buying a gun from them, where their FFL will at least make them go through the current motions. All I am saying is that the same rules should apply.

          • savoy6

            A sale between John Doe and Joe Blow. Private citizens,without meeting the requirement I mentioned is a crime.. no different than a couple of gangsters selling guns on the corner. So you want to make it MORE illegal?

          • Rasilom

            Quite the opposite, I want to make it easier for John to find out if Joe can buy his gun. I want an 800 number, just like the one that the FFL uses to check out the buyer, made available to the general public I want it to be required to use it whenever you sell a weapon. That or some explicit definition of what exactly the due diligence required by the seller is to verify that the buyer can legally purchase. Is the seller supposed to contact 5 of the dudes friends, or call the local cops, or what? Just give everyone access to the current system, make it mandatory then suddenly, no more excuses and fewer problems. Unreasonable? No. Makes it more illegal? No. Just clarifies and makes it so no one can ever say again. Well gee I’ve know him for ever and he always had guns around so I never woulda figured he was a felon that wasn’t allowed to own one. Get it? Unless you have to actually check to see if it is legit there are a million reasons why you will have a hard time enforcing that part about “A sale between John Doe and Joe Blow. Private citizens, without meeting the requirement I mentioned is a crime.. no different than a couple of gangsters selling guns on the corner” unless it is a totally clear cut case of straw purchasing, and not a case of selling to someone who you thought was ok to own one as they have had them recently and seem to be a collector or what ever other reason they can come up with it will continue to be really easy to bypass a simple shitty background check. Lets just close up that one hole, like I said doesn’t make anything more illegal, just makes everyone follow that already existing law that you just pointed out.

          • doktorzoom

            Bananas!

          • YayConspiracy

            This contradicts what you stated later. Try and think an argument through before you post.

          • savoy6

            Hows that? I think courses are awesome, everyone should take them -if they want to- thankfully most do. You should pay attention.

          • YayConspiracy

            Later you said that mandatory is okay (if they don’t interfere with the right to bear arms, which they don’t; see driver’s licence).

          • savoy6

            Are you talking about taking a course that has no impact on me buying a firearm? Whats the point of the course, to harass? or maybe to extort money? Maybe make the courses so expensive that the average person can’t afford to take it and subsequently can’t buy a gun?

            I can see where that would go..

          • Dylan Black

            So by this logic, I take it you also reject restrictive voter ID laws?
            http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/26/3695404/alabama-is-about-to-make-it-much-harder-to-get-a-voter-id/
            it’s slightly different of course in that illegal voting is so rare that it’s statistically irrelevant, while the fact that 30k+ people die yearly from gunshots is just fact. Weird how there only seems to be an impetus in heavily gerrymandered state legislatures to deal with the fake issue over the real one, despite both of these rights being in our constitution.

          • YayConspiracy

            You cannot be in favor of mandatory and be against it. Make up your mind.

            And stop deflecting the point: Mandatory classes are an important step towards preventing accidents with guns; classes do not infringe your right to own a gun.

            Your insane blabbering point about going after criminals as prevention of gun violence is stupid. The crimes cost lives which cannot be prevented by prosecution of criminals.

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            “not a shred of evidence to prove it would do anything to reduce gun crime…”

            …except for the FACT that it does, as Australia has already proven.

          • dshwa

            They don’t need facts when they already know they’re right.

        • YayConspiracy

          What the fuck does that tired cliche have to do with the price of tea in China? There is constitutional right to freely move about. That right is clearly not restricted by requiring drivers of cars to have a driver’s licence.

          You’re not safer with guns and you’re not being repressed. Stop whining and let’s do something about the barbaric levels of stupid violence in the US.

          • savoy6

            I think the meaning is pretty clear; you do not have a constitutional right to drive or fly a plane. Feel free to move about, just not with a Constitutionally protect “right to drive,” How and why someone chooses to exercise their right to bear arms is none of your business. Barbaric violence needs to be dealt with at the source; by dealing with the criminals who commit it.

          • Alex Grey

            The Federal Government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce, implies a right to travel between the several states. And wow, you must be frothing mad, because your spelling and grammar just tanked. “Barbaric violence need to be dealt with at the source, by dealing with the criminals who commit it.”
            We could greatly reduce violent crime, by removing guns from the hands of the general populace, (at least until they take a test, and are licensed, insured, and registered,) like in the rest of the industrialized world. You know, places where violent crime is almost non-existent.

          • savoy6

            Am I supposed to be “mad” now too? Ha ha ha!

            The Commerce Clause (You used google! good for you!) Says you are free to move about unimpeded. It says nothing about a right to drive. Now mind you, there have been arguments that called for the removal of States forcing people to get drivers licenses for this very reason.

            Removing guns from the general populace to assuage your fears, isn’t going to happen. The rest of the industrialized world, I’m sure, would love to have you.

          • Alex Grey

            “Now mind you, there have been arguments that called for the removal of
            States forcing people to get drivers licenses for this very reason.”
            Please cite 3, and how they did not get smacked down.
            “Removing guns from the general populace to assuage your fears, isn’t going to happen.”
            It is not about removing guns, it is about making people responsible for their actions with their guns, including being responsible for not properly storing them.
            Licensing would force gun owners to prove a basic knowledge of gun safety, including safe storage. Insurance for gun ownership, would give the individual owner a financial incentive, to be a responsible gun owner. Registration of guns, would hold owners accountable when their guns are stolen, (and not reported,) or when minors get their hands on someone else’s gun. These regulations are all about personal responsibility. If you are responsible enough to own a deadly weapon, you should be responsible enough, to be held accountable for what is done with said deadly weapon.

          • savoy6

            1st, Your confirmation bias is strong. 2nd, “Please cite 3” http://tinyurl.com/5j9pzv and 3rd they are Firearms, not weapons.. you are assigning a use for a tool that hasn’t happened yet. My nail-gun is a tool but dangerous if used unsafely and is only “a weapon” if used to intentionally hurt someone.

          • Alex Grey

            1st, My “confirmation bias” is shared by every teacher and professor, in every school and University in this country, and many others. You don’t get to call something a fact without backing it up. I can say that it’s a fact that gravity doesn’t exist, that the world is flat, and that water is not made of hydrogen and oxygen. If I don’t back up these “facts” I’ll get laughed out of the building. I don’t get to say, “well they are facts unless you disprove them.”

            2nd, your link didn’t actually go anywhere. It took me to lmgtfy.com, and didn’t do a search, fail.

            3rd “they are Firearms, not weapons.” Excuse me if I missed the point here. You say “Firearms” (by the way the Second Amendment only mentions “arms” not “Firearms”) are not weapons, unless used as weapons. But you also think you need said “Firearms” to defend yourself? Pray tell, how do you use “Firearms” to defend yourself, without using them as a weapon? And if you don’t intend to commit a crime, or leave your gun out where a child can get their hands on it, why then are you against licensing, insuring, and registering guns?

          • savoy6

            I’m not a student in your school, and I get to say whatever I want. and lmgtfy.com, is “Let Me Google That For You” so you can look up any thing you’d like.

            “Pray tell, how do you use “Firearms” to defend yourself, without using them as a weapon?” I guess if I should choose to use them offensively they would become weapons.

            “And if you don’t intend to commit a crime, or leave your gun out where a child can get their hands on it,” Then why are you worried about me getting a license or insurance or registering it?

          • Alex Grey

            Thanks for that reply…
            I know what lmgtfy.com is and does, I said, I followed your link which took me to said website, and then it FAILED to Google anything for me. It just sat on the main page, with a mouse pointer, that didn’t Google anything to support your arguments.
            Secondly, “I’m not a student in your school, and I get to say whatever I want.” I never said you were a student at my school, I implied that you were never a student at any school in all of the US of A or any other industrialized country, (at least not at High School Level,) or else one of your teachers would have smacked you down, for thinking you can just announce a statement as fact, without backing it up. Yes you can say whatever you want, even claim it as fact; the rest of us will laugh at you, and assume you are uneducated, because you don’t know that it is your responsibility to back up your claims, if you want anyone to believe you.
            Thirdly, well you didn’t make a third point, just quoted me a bit, so I guess that means you must agree with me.

          • savoy6

            See if you type in a search query of your choice on the search query line in lmgtfy, and then click “google search” it will search stuff for you. very cool.

            In the real world where I don’t have to worry about grades, if it’s not work related; a paycheck, yes… yes I in fact can announce whatever i want as fact. You don’t believe it, a refer you to lmgtfy.com

            Lets try this again; pay attention. If a person doesn’t intend to commit a crime, or leave their gun out where a child can get their hands on it, then why are you worried about them getting a license or insurance or registering it?

          • Alex Grey

            Well if a person doesn’t intend to drive drunk, or get in a car accident, or teach their children how to drive in their car, why should they be licensed and insured?

          • savoy6

            You do not have a Constitutional right to drive a car.

          • Alex Grey

            You do not have a constitutional right to carry a 9MM.

          • savoy6

            Oh, but I do.

          • Alex Grey

            Where does it say in the Constitution that all people shall be allowed to carry repeating fire guns?

          • Alex Grey

            By the by, why can’t I walk around town with a sabre, or a bayonet?

          • savoy6

            Who says you cant?

          • Alex Grey

            Because I would get arrested, and where would the 2nd Amendment activists be then? Not defending me.

          • savoy6

            What would you be arrested for?

          • Dylan Black

            Hopefully you’re not also black in this scenario, or you might not make it to central booking…

            http://gawker.com/autopsy-cops-shot-black-anime-cosplayer-four-times-in-1652268367

          • savoy6

            What’s a repeating fire gun?

          • Alex Grey

            Any firearm that fires more then one round without being reloaded, you know, the kind the founding Fathers had. Clarification, I meant they had single shooters.

          • savoy6

            No I don’t know. Are you talking about automatic firearms, semi-automatic firearms, select-fire firearms, revolvers, muzzleloaders, shotguns (pump-action, semi-automatic or breach load) or bolt action?

          • Alex Grey

            Thankfully full automatics, aren’t in the hands of the public. I meant primarily semi-automatics, and revolvers.

          • savoy6

            Where does it say they can only carry muskets?

          • Tansy Geek

            Because some asshole can steal it and use it in a crime?
            Because it nice to know you can play with your guns doing non weapons things without accidentally injuring or killing yourself or others? Because why the fuck do you need guns in the first place unless you hunt for food? Because it’s a liability? You pay higher insurance rates if you have a swimming pool and yes, I know swimming pools are not in the Constitution.

          • savoy6

            .. of course it’s a crime to steal a firearm. and it’s a crime to leave them unsecured were others are at risk. Why someone “needs” a firearm is none of your business.. and that is codified by law.

          • Tansy Geek

            That’s like saying why someone needs OxyContin is no one’s business, except when it’s being abused or diverted, which is also codified by law. Which is why prescribers have Dea number, malpractice insurance and states have increased regulation on how to prescribe addictive medications. Which by the way have the legitimate uses, unlike handguns and assault rifles. Entertaining yourself by blowing shit up is a gray area for legitimate use. Like getting high on your Oxy instead of treating pain.
            More importantly but not suprisingly, you missed the point. Guns should be registered and licensed, like unconstitutional automobiles, partly because they can be stolen and used in a crime. That way they can tracked and the criminals who criminalized your guns can be prosecuted. Or you, the dumbass owner left the thing sitting on your bedside table could be prosecuted for being a dumbass.
            Who people have sex with and how they do that is something that is legitimately no one else’s business. Owning and operating something that can kill people is everyone’s business. And that is codified by law too.

          • savoy6

            You don’t have a Constitutional right to Oxycontin. What you think “should” be, is irrelevant as to what is and what the Constitution codifies..

          • Tansy Geek

            Ok so we have no rights other than what is specifically spelled out in a document written a couple hundred years ago. So I can vote, own a gun and what else? This is atedious dim witted arguement. You’re essentially saying”I know you are but what am I?” over and over. Question for you though,if all regulation and law and government not specifically spelled out in the constitution is bogus , why do we bother to have a government at all ? You are pretending not to notice that there are other equally valid laws including property ownership, right to medical care (so stuff your Oxy in your cake hole) and limits on constitutional issues like free speech. So why shouldn’t there be limits on gun ownership for everyone’s safety and well being? Damn I forgot the first rule of trolling. You’re not here to have a debate, you’re just here to piss people off by repeatedly saying tired nonsense. Well smack my noggin and call it Christmas. That’s what I get for deliberately doing fuck all on my day off.
            Wait, I know, you argue moving violations cuz cars aren’t in the constitution and you’re on the hook for back child support cuz neither is divorce. Feh, I say feh sir. good day.

          • savoy6

            You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and function of the Bill of Rights.. no offense, but are you actually a US citizen? The Constitution Codifies some basic rights where the Government cannot interfere.. Permissions granted by the state, like driving a car or buying a house are up to the state. Laws and rights are different things entirely. In the US the Constitution was specifically designed to keep aspiring tyrants -like you- from easily infringing on these important rights. In my mind the most important are the 1st, 2nd 4th and 5th Amendments.. though I do like the 10th and the 13th as well.

            The 1st Amendment doesn’t have limits.. yelling fire in a crowded theater isn’t protected speech the same way that firing off rounds in a mall is protected.

            Why are you so fearful of firearms? Is it because you are unfamiliar with how they function or the laws?

          • Tansy Geek

            Wait what the . Did you just say firing rounds in a mall is protected speech? There is just so much wrong with you dude. I just can’t even. Wow just wow. Either you are SuperTroll or very weird. Why are you afraid of limits on guns? What makes an aspiring tyrant? So what rights do I have again, under the constitution? Come on spell them out for me, us tyrants are to lazy to go look it up. Amuse me and I won’t flag your posts, since free thinkers like myself are all about censorship and shit. Dazzle me with your deflection and I will subscribe to your news letter.

          • savoy6

            “So what rights do I have again, under the constitution?”

            You have the right to be left alone.. to be happy. But so do I.

          • Tansy Geek

            Yes! Deflections! Right into the, well not the weeds exactly. More like a bald spot on the lawn. Or did I wear ya down? Blessed Bees. Waves and skips off to ruin society and eat all the cookies.

          • savoy6

            You said “So what rights do I have again, under the constitution?” and i answered you, deflection? Not so much. lol

          • Tansy Geek

            Also, too not answering the question. You must be very helpful if someone asks you for directions to your local pub. “Well first of all you don’t have constitutional right to be drinking at the local one, but you have certains enumerated rights to ask for directions as long as there are no limits on those directions. It’s Wednesday, have good time.”

          • savoy6

            You’re not an American citizen.. so why do you feel it necessary to opine about the US Constitution so vociferously?

          • Tansy Geek

            Prove that, Mr. aeroplane.

          • Tansy Geek

            And just cuz I am my mother’s spiteful daugher; it’s none of your business whether or not I may or may not afraid of people with guns. Although any sensible person ought to be at least cautious.

          • savoy6

            You should also be cautious with skill saws and welding equipment and nail-guns and most modern tools.

          • Tansy Geek

            Goes without saying. Everyone should. A round of safety glasses on the house!

          • YayConspiracy

            It isn’t me who is afraid. It is you.

          • savoy6

            But that’s just it, I’m not afraid, I’m armed.

          • YayConspiracy

            Bullshit, why do need to be armed, when you’re not afraid? And don’t try the ‘sports’ argument.

          • savoy6

            “why do need to be armed” All lawful purposes of course …and it’s my right and none of your business. How that?

          • Alex Grey

            “I know you are but what am I!?”

            How’s that?

          • YayConspiracy

            You are the one who connected not being afraid with being armed. I don’t care why you are armed. And I am saying you are afraid.

          • YayConspiracy

            There is ls no constitutionally protected “right to shoot”. There may be a right to bear arms, just as there is a right to freely move about. The right to move about is not hindered by some regulation, just as he right to bear arms will not be infringed by some regulation.

            You haven’t read the article did you? There is much accidental violence related to guns, nothing to do with criminals.

            Connect the dots, sheeple.

          • savoy6

            …leaving a firearm where a child can get at it is a crime.. handling a firearm in an unsafe manner is also a crime. Committing a crime with a gun ..is a crime. And if a person must protect the lives of themselves or others by shooting, it is in fact constitutionally protected. A firearm that doesn’t shoot is a club.

          • Dylan Black

            Good thing the NRA doesn’t spend large amounts of time and effort to make those things perfectly legal…

            http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121632/why-are-states-so-reluctant-prosecute-gun-negligence-crime

            Will you ever tire of being wrong?

          • savoy6

            Because reckless endangerment, child endangerment, unsecured firearms, unlawful use of a firearm etc etc.. aren’t crimes? Looks to me like the problem is prosecutors aren’t prosecuting the cases.

          • YayConspiracy

            The right to defend yourself is not the same as the “right to shoot”. The constitution has no provision saying it is okay to shoot somebody.

            By the times the accidental crimes referred to in the article are committed it is too late. Such accidents can to be solved by schooling people in the safe and correct use of firearms. Unfortunately, people you oppose such schooling by a lame appeal to the constitution. As if schooling is an infringement. It isn’t for driving, and your constitutional right to move about, why should it be for firearms.

          • savoy6

            I think firearms safety courses and marksmanship courses are essential. Virtually all gun owners take them. and again, the right to travel is protected, the right to drive is not. Here is a interesting little article I found regarding this subject: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/driver_licensing.htm

          • Alex Grey

            If you are in favor of “safety courses and marksmanship courses,” what is your problem with having them legally mandated, for gun owners?

          • YayConspiracy

            you beat me!

          • YayConspiracy

            I am glad you think schooling is essential, but they should be mandatory, just like getting a driver’s licence. Such schooling does not infringe anybody’s rights and should, therefore, face no constitutional hurdles.

          • Alex Grey

            savoy will next say that driving is not Constitutionally guaranteed.

          • YayConspiracy

            Yeah, I guess so. Savoy does appear to listen to arguments. He comes closer and closer to our position

          • Alex Grey

            Repeat a talking point over enough times and people will shockingly expect it in the future.

          • savoy6

            Look Alex.. YOU DON’T HAVE A RIGHT TO DRIVE. It is a privileged granted by the state. The analogy is wrong.

          • Alex Grey

            So is it wrong for states to require permits for “concealed carry?”

          • savoy6

            Well how do you move a firearm from point A to B, openly carried or in a holster under your jacket out of sight and out of mind?

          • Alex Grey

            Way to not answer the question.

          • savoy6

            I answered with a question. I think it’s allowed.

          • YayConspiracy

            No, your analogy is wrong. The analogy is with freedom of movement, as Dok correctly pointed out. You have conceded this point earlier where you write that there have been arguments to abolish the need for driver’s licences on exactly these grounds

            And there is no need to shout.

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            Wanna bet? If a state were to ban driving, you’d have a Supreme Court case on your hands in no time.

          • savoy6

            Alex is right.. but taking “courses” mandated by some state entity should not be a impediment to lawful firearm ownership.

          • YayConspiracy

            See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

          • savoy6

            Who decides the curriculum, can I get a gun first, do I have to pass a test?

          • Alex Grey

            The state you live in I imagine would be the place to start, for who can pass laws. If you prefer there could be a Federal regulation though. Maybe administered by the ATF. That is why they exist.

          • savoy6

            Why not have the gun experts decide then? The NSSF, the NRA or GOA? Or even some of the gun manufacturers run courses like SIG, they are awesome.

          • Alex Grey

            I am done picking out the glaring flaws in your arguments. Enjoy the rest of your summer vacation. After you start High School, you may learn that you actually have to back up your “facts” or no one else will actually believe them. May God have mercy on your teachers though.

          • savoy6

            Study hard Alex, someday you’ll be able to move out of your moms basement and maybe even get a firearm of your own! Good luck!

          • YayConspiracy

            It’s a democracy. You decide everything.

          • Tansy Geek

            Why not? Let me, guess… The Constution? Do I win?

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            “…leaving a firearm where a child can get at it is a crime”

            Yeah, try making it a crime, without the NRA howling about gub’mint tyranny.

          • savoy6

            It’s already a crime.

          • YayConspiracy

            It is irrelevant if it is a crime or not. If a child shoots another child by accident it is too fucking late. Something needs to be done to prevent such accidents from happening. But any prevention is shouted down with an appeal to the constitution. And by doing so, you have blood on your hands. These accidents are your responsibility too.

            All you have to say about these accidents is that we should prosecute the criminal who mishandled their guns, which clearly does zilch to prevent them from happening.

          • BackDoorMan

            … have any of these negligent parents people – sorry, ‘responsible gun owners’ – been charged with the crime of “leaving a firearm where a child can get at it”? I can’t recall that ever being reported… children finding firearms with tragic consequences (as illustrated in the article above), yes.

          • Tansy Geek

            Weren’t you just whining about infringing on noncrimimals by regulating or limiting firearms? Also stop ignore the well regulated militia portion. And unfortunately being a dangerous and irresponsible gun owner isn’t always criminalized. It seems to a local thing.

          • savoy6

            This is from the Heller case:

            “The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).”

          • Tansy Geek

            All that says to me is that the right to bear arms is related to the need, a no longer relevant need by the way, to have a well functioning, controllable militia as a means of defending the then newly formed nation. How having unlicensed, untrained, unregulated people wandering about with lethal weapons does not contribute in any way to the function of a militia. Or a healthy society. Which, yeah, I know is not in the constitution. Bite me, you yahoo.

          • savoy6

            The SCOTUS says otherwise. “Bite me, you yahoo.” So what are you 10?

            Typical ‘progressive’ prattle. smh..

          • Tansy Geek

            No, bored. Byeeyee!

          • savoy6

            Of course you are.. free thinking must tire you.

          • dshwa

            If, by your own argument, “How and why someone exercises their right to bear arms is none of your business,” and therefore cannot be restricted; if there is a constitutional right to move around, as you have conceded, then it is nobody’s business how you exercise your right to move around, therefore the means of moving around, such as driving, also cannot be restricted. Which means that there is in fact a constitutional right to drive by your argument.

          • Lord-Nash

            Actually it is my fucking business. Because I have a right not to be shot by your dumb ass.

          • savoy6

            Do you work for the “pre-crime” division? Because there are more than 300 million guns in the US with law abiding owners who have done nothing to harm you nor will they ever.

            Your fear of firearms is an irrational one. I suggest becoming familiar with them, proficient in their use and utility, how they work and familiarize yourself with the law. Then maybe your irrational fear of them will be lessened and at the very least you might be able to see where people with views similar to mine are coming from.

          • Lord-Nash

            No thank you. Guns don’t bother me. People who need them to feel safe and happy frighten me. This isn’t the old west.

          • Lord-Nash

            “there are more than 300 million guns in the US with law abiding owners who have done nothing to harm you nor will they ever.” and until Wednesday, Bryce Williams was too. How much did that help?

          • BackDoorMan

            … I always thought that a person’s right to “bear arms” stopped at my right to not be murdered by some arms-bearing asshole. “Pursuit of Life…” and all that shit.

          • Lord-Nash

            I’m still fairly certain that it was supposed to mean “well-regulated militia” and not “open carry your AR-15 into a family restaurant”. Seriously, if I saw that I’d probably start yelling and make the whole restaurant panic.

        • SuspectedDemocrat

          What an interesting and original argument! Please expand on it and explain the reasoning the Founding Fathers used for not granting a constitutional right to fly an airplane.

          • Tansy Geek

            Especially since, according to a post upstream, they foresaw automatic weapons and smiled upon them.

        • Tansy Geek

          Flying Lesson – Monty Python’s The Flying Circus – YouTube
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1oMhMwUbgc

    • Biel_ze_Bubba

      We probably shoud repeal the 2nd Amendment. And all the gun nuts will be perfectly OK with it if we do, because they just lurve the Constitution, right?

      • savoy6

        2/3rds majority of the states.. good luck! and you do realize that the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, right?

        • Biel_ze_Bubba

          Duh. So was the 18th.

  • Cismontane

    I humbly suggest that Congress resolve our national gun debate by drafting and passing a bill that fully acknowledges the framers’ intentions for the implementation of the 2nd Amendment, in a strict constructionist, conservative kind of way: allow the unrestricted ownership by citizens of such firearms as existed on December 15, 1791 – the date of ratification of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd – and disallowing any weapons not conforming to this standard. And I do mean literally this standard, with everything from rates of fire, reload speeds, ball sizes, ammunition capacity (one shot), muzzle velocity, misfire and backfire rates, etc, of late 18th century weaponry.. And we’ll see just how many people get blown away when only flintlock pistols are available to use for homicidal purposes. And we won’t even need to amend the Constitution. See, I totally get conservatives.

    • Dylan Black

      Does this mean I can finally realize my dream of owning one of these?

      http://www.redriverrenegades.com/Deluxe_18Th_Century_Naval_Cannon.gif

      • doktorzoom

        Yes, particularly at that scale.

        • Juan de Fuca

          Not in Oklahoma. You can own the real deal over there (regulated but not well enough) and fire a round through the roof of someones house because America

        • Beulah

          My neighbor had a carbide cannon that looked just like that. He’d set it off every 4th of July.

          • mtn_philosoph

            When we were kids we made these out of coffee cans. We bought a can of carbide pellets at the local hardware store. The cannon itself was simple as dirt to make, involving nothing more than punching a tiny hole in the bottom of a large coffee can and finding a soft rubber ball that was a close fit in the can without being too tight.

          • proudgrampa

            Wow. That brought back the memories. Dad did that when I was a kid. I miss Dad.

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            Carbide is fun stuff. Especially if you have 50 tons of it in a warehouse, and the local fire dept. comes along and hoses it down. (The neighbors, of course, will complain.)

        • Alex Grey

          Fine, I want one of these then…

      • Cismontane

        Sure.. Why not? Most physically sedentary Americans probably can’t even load one of those… Then there’s the lead poisoning :)

        • Dylan Black

          I also plan to stop consuming anything containing vitamin C for weeks at a time, for authenticity.

          • ryanmrichardson

            That’s preposterous – you need to get yourself well and liquored up on grog before firing off your cannon.

        • Alex Grey

          Why not load it with sedentary Americans; it takes the lead out of the equation, and they weigh more then cannon balls. (Or Trucknutz)

      • Alex Grey

        You can kill more people with an AR-15.

        • Dylan Black

          Possibly, but you’ll have a hard time sinking an entire boat with it, and what if the boat is FILLED WITH PEOPLE?!?! Can you get incendiary rounds for an AR-15?

          Of course, there is a reason british ships had a 100 of the damn things, sinking the ship with just one was pretty challenging :)

          • Alex Grey

            White phosphorus maybe? I doubt a cannon would have any effect on a modern ship other then going *clang.*

          • Dylan Black

            http://www.midwayusa.com/product/953715836/federal-american-eagle-tactical-tracer-ammunition-556x45mm-nato-64-grain-xm856-full-metal-jacket

            I didn’t think you could actually get these for non-military use but I guess you can. Jokes on them though, using them more than occasionally will destroy your shitty AR-15’s barrel over time.

          • Alex Grey

            Holy crap, I didn’t know you could either, I was guessing. Although I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. You never know when a well regulated militia, may need incendiary rounds that can burn through metal.

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            If you’re in a situation where you “need” those, you’re pretty well fucked anyhow.

          • Alex Grey

            Better off going with depleted uranium…

      • Cismontane

        Are we sure that there’s actually anything in the CFR that currently outlaws or limits ownership of a functional cannon? I mean, I’m sure there are laws prohibiting the use of ignited powder to physically hurl a giant metal ball at somebody, but I think you might be good-to-go if you want to keep one of these in your garage.

        • Dylan Black

          A little research shows you are indeed correct, traditional powder cannons are legal to own federally, though restricted to fire in most states. Should have gone with the Stinger Missile joke instead :p

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            Those state restrictions are unconstitutional, if the gun nuts are to be believed.
            Not to suggest that ALL the words in the 2nd have meaning, but maybe “bear arms” means it applies only to the biggest gun you can physically carry? Call it the “Rambo interpretation.”

        • Tansy Geek

          They don’t load the the freaking things, it’s just powder charges. Eye roll.

    • savoy6

      The Framers had witnessed the evolution of weaponry from pike, to bow to powder. They knew quite well that the development of arms would continue. What makes you think that they thought technology would stop at the flintlock? With that line of reasoning, the government should be free to eavesdrop and hack our computers and read our text messages because clearly our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure should end at wax sealed posts carried by couriers.. right?

      • Objectifer

        Exactly so. Welcome newfriend!

      • Cismontane

        That sounds reasonable, but I’m just trying to think like a conservative…

      • Alex Grey

        Your logical fallacy is, *drum roll* composition/division. Thanks for playing.

        • savoy6

          Are you trying out new concepts from freshman Philosophy? You need to read more.

          • Alex Grey

            Your logical fallacy in this post is, Ad Hominem Attack. Thanks for trying again.

          • savoy6

            Ha ha ha! I like the referential link to “back up” your claim.. are you that uncertain that you need to reference the topic?

          • Alex Grey

            Easier then explaining what they mean to others.

          • dshwa

            As usual, our troll friend is very dismissive of references and evidence. He knows he’s right, so he has no need fr either.

          • Alex Grey

            Trolls and facts, are like matter and anti-matter….

          • BackDoorMan

            … if by “others” you mean savoy6, then yes.

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            Admitting that it’s freshman philosophy is your second mistake.

          • savoy6

            High School? Shouldn’t you be in bed..

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            And it’s back to ad hominem.
            You aren’t very good at this.

          • savoy6

            Oh good, you are using your philosophy 101 flash cards!

          • Biel_ze_Bubba

            Nice try. Still failing, though.

      • Lord-Nash

        Heysoos H. Kryst doing a kegstand, do you REALLY think the framers had any inkling, the slightest idea that our weapons would ever evolve like they have in the last century? Pike to bow to flintlock, still pretty low rates of fire. We’re talking about owners of weapons with rates of fire that are so high they have to be measured in seconds. And there is no sane argument that anyone right now can make for private citizens to own those types of weapons. Not fucking one. You really think the founding fathers planned for that contingency 130 goddamn years before it happened? You are seriously the dumbest ass in captivity.

  • workfaster

    I’m so sick of 2nd Amendment Terrorists.

  • Alex Grey

    It’s just like that Farside comic with “What your dog hears”

    What the Second Amendment says, “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.”

    What wingnuts hear, “Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

  • Donna Rail

    I have an interview today, and I can’t afford to go drunk. But boy, do I need a drink.

    • Alex Grey

      You could smoke the Conservative juju. Side effects may include: being out of touch with facts, being out of touch with reality, saying incredibly stupid things without thinking about them, doubling down on teh stupid, offering a non-appology after being caught by a reporter saying stupid things, bloating, gastrointestinal distress, heart burn, bloviating, watching Fox News, hair loss, voting against your own interests, priapism, spontaneous head explosion, sexual attraction to minors, money laundering, increased rage, the inability to not felate the NRA, slandering God by saying rape babies are a gift from said God, abusing the English language, not realizing that Liberalism and Fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and alienating anyone that is not part of your rabid base.

      • Donna Rail

        Thank you.

        • Alex Grey

          I may have forgotten to mention “Mouth breathing”

      • Biel_ze_Bubba

        Sounds like “falling-down drunk” would make the interview go better.

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    Fun fact to shoot at gunfuckers (don’t worry; they’re fact-proof):
    If we had the same auto fatality rate today that we had in 1921, car crashes would be killing 715,000 Americans every year.

    That’s been reduced by 95% by REGULATIONS. The tyrannical gub’mint did not come to take our cars away.

    • savoy6

      But of course, you don’t have a Constitutional right to drive..

      • dshwa

        You want to try to outlaw driving and then try that argument in court? Because not even Scalia is going to buy that.

        • MintDragon

          Once the robots take over driving they might ban it except in emergencies. But nothing Constitutional there.

          • dshwa

            Even with Robots, it wouldn’t win in court.

          • sw19womble

            Genius Robot Lawyer Libel!!!beep!!boop!!!

          • Tansy Geek

            Now, Bender, I KNOW that’s not you.

          • sw19womble

            Bite my fluffy pink ass!

          • Tansy Geek

            My mistake.

      • Lord-Nash

        All his statement is saying is that laws and regulations CAN be used to make peoples lives better (and existent).

        And guess what? Car crashes are a horrible side effect of getting us where we need and want to go, and our society wouldn’t exist as it does without it. Your precious guns do nothing but kill things. No redeeming qualities.

        • savoy6

          My firearms do nothing illegal.. nothing at all in fact, they sit locked away until I need them and they only function for what I want them to function for; they provide food, security, target, competition and skeet shooting… I spend lots of quality time with friends and family with firearms, they have lots of redeeming qualities, i’d say.

          • vivian

            Is it possible to imagine spending that quality time centered around another interest, or are guns requisite for you to enjoy your family?

          • savoy6

            Sure.. why not? Exercising a right and enjoying it doesn’t preclude enjoying other things. Does it for you?

          • sw19womble

            Absolutely. My right to keep crocodiles in my swimming pool (properly fenced and with appropriate signage) should not be infringed either. After all, they do nothing illegal… just sit floating away, until I need them and they only function for what I need them to function for – they provide some wrasslin’ competition, scare off burglars and rapists, security and cuddles… I spend lots of time with friends and family with reptiles, they have lots of redeeming qualities, I’d say.
            If only _I_ had a badly-worded amendment to the constitution too, then I wouldn’t need to worry about all that extra signage and boring, ridiculous paperwork and licensing.
            It’s a police state, I tell thee!

          • savoy6

            You don’t have a Constitutional right to keep crocodiles in your swimming pool. That would be a -privilege- granted by the state.

          • sw19womble

            Try… reading… my… post… again… slowly… this.. time….
            I know it’s complicated, with all those big, clever words. But do try.

          • Tansy Geek

            Sorry man, but Oregon drug dealer libel?! needz more rainbow puking gnomes.

          • vivian

            When exercising that right and enjoying it results in 30,000 homicides a year, then it precludes a great many things.

          • savoy6

            My rights and my exercising them have nothing to do with any crime.. why do you think conflating the two justifies infringing my rights? I haven’t done anything wrong, nor have millions of other Americans.

          • sw19womble

            Then you have nothing to fear. ;)

          • savoy6

            “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” -Goebbels

          • sw19womble

            Well, to be honest these Jews I’ve got stashed up in the attic are getting a little annoying….

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            I don’t even think Goebbels actually said that. That was more what people were preaching over the entire government spying on its own people thing wasn’t it?
            Seems weird a nazi would say something like that

          • sw19womble

            It was certainly something the Bush administration appropriated during the Patriot Act and wiretapping times. Since 2001, successive Labour and Conservative governments in the UK, as well as Harper over the border have used the same line to justify their endless snooping addiction.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            Bizarre to have it flung into a conversation about guns then, eh?

          • vivian

            It’s not a principle we are arguing. People are being killed. The fact that many people are responsible doesn’t account for those who are not. If gun owners only killed other gun owners, I’d be fine with you all enjoying your rights. But your exercising your rights puts my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in jeopardy.

          • savoy6

            How many law abiding gun owners have killed people? Shooting people unlawfully is a crime alredy and so is murder. Do you seriously think it is the responsible law abiding gun owners out there shooting people? Come on.

          • vivian

            Every gun owner is responsible and law abiding until they aren’t. That’s one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever heard. “No one’s a murderer until they kill someone.” No shit. That solves it. The great thing is, we always know who the criminals are before they use their guns right? So you’ll have no problem stopping this problem then.

          • savoy6

            So every gun owner is simply just a murderer that hasn’t killed yet? You do realize their are millions of them in this country, right? Are you going to disarm them Vivian?

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            Oy, this again.
            No one wants to take your gunz. Well, except maybe that russian/chineese made bullshit that can off 20 kids in 5 minutes.
            We just want laws to keep crazy people from using them to kill everyone else. Sort of like we have laws to keep assholes from drunk driving, you know? We’d also like to see the gun nuts to stop allowing their children to shoot themselves, that would be GREAT.

          • savoy6

            Oh.. Ok I’m convinced.

          • vivian

            That would be the gist of your argument, not mine. You were saying all guns owners are law-abiding and responsible except for those who aren’t. I pointed out that you can’t know the difference until it’s too late. As for disarming, I can be rather, but that is for better company than this.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            I’ve always found you absolutely disarming, Vivian <3
            In a totally not creepy stalker way*

            *standard disclaimer when I get creepy

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            How many? How about the lunatic who just shot those two people yesterday? He got it legally.
            How about the guy that shot the cop last week? Also legal. How about Roof and the 9 in NC? Legal buy there too.
            How about the nutcase in Sandyhook? Oh, look, legal law abiding gun owners.
            How many of these guys are NOT law abiding gun owners is the better question.

          • savoy6

            The real question should be -How many law abiding gun owners didn’t commit murder like these guys; the answer to that is about 100 million Americans who lawfully and peacefully own firearms.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            Right and how many car owners did not get drunk and go kill somebody? Lots of them! Yet, we have laws. We do. Lots and lots and lots of laws.
            What do people get for when they “accidentally” shoot someone again? Or when their kids do? Or hell, when their kids purposefully take their guns to go kill someone? They get a stern finger shake and an insta-free rep from the NRA because people will just use this to take our gunz.
            We need regulation, well regulation, just like the 2nd says.

          • BackDoorMan

            … I’m still trying to figure out if savoy6 means his “friends and family” or “firearms” have “lots of redeeming qualities”… because I doubt either is true.

          • sw19womble

            Great, then you have nothing to fear from keeping your paperwork up to date, etc…

          • savoy6

            “You papers please” What tragic irony for Liberals, that the U.S. government increasingly compels us to identify ourselves, to “register” ourselves and our things, and they express nary a whimper… And it’s an even greater tragedy that this command no longer terrifies Americans, let alone goads them to protest, but that they would actually encourage it.

            Enjoy your police state sw19womble.

          • sw19womble

            I’m personally not a Liberal, and thanks to idiots like you I’m no longer a Libertarian.
            *gun nut complains about police state interference but doesn’t see the irony in that*

          • savoy6

            Irony… I don’t think it means what you think it means.

            So your are no longer a libertarian or a member of the Libertarian Party? because there is a big difference between the two, I assure you.

            So what does a former libertarian -someone who believes in maximum freedom- go to? The polar extreme of “minimum freedom” Is statism your think now? I know, you want to be a cop. Ha ha ha!

          • sw19womble

            reductio ad absurdum argument is absurd.

            Go play in the shallow end, I truly think you’re out of your depth here.

            Oh and do enjoy your guns, honestly, and your inalienable right to your *well-regulated* pastime. Oops! Sorry! A bit of nuance crept out there and probably confused you.
            Never mind *hug*

          • Lord-Nash

            So do a lot of peoples guns. Until someone chooses to use one or more of them for violence. Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people. People without guns kill people but it’s a lot more difficult and a lot less efficient. Ergo, it’s time to render killers less efficient. We have to find a way to keep them away from the mentally handicapped (might have prevented Sandy Hook) we need more comprehensible background checks (no more getting around the BC at gun shows or over the Internet) ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and track ammo sales.

      • NYCFCFan

        Our constitutional rights are not absolute and are regulated. Take the right to vote: to vote you must be 18 years old and register. Or the right to free speech: as the old example goes, you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded movie theater just because you feel like it, because doing so would endanger others; further, slander and libel laws regulate free speech as well (though, as I understand it, the standard of proof is high). Such regulations do not violate or diminish our rights in any meaningful way. These regulations help, on the one hand, our political system and, on the other, our society to function smoothly, and no reasonable person would argue that we shouldn’t have them. Why, then, should regulation of the 2nd amendment right be so intolerable?

        • Laffing Crow

          Yes. Your First Amendment rights END at the point of merely endangering lives. Your Second Amendment rights? Not so much.

        • Tansy Geek

          My guess is he is:
          A. not reasonable
          B. As they say here, A Idiot
          C. Pure troll although at least he isn’t spewing the racist crap like the tools from yesterday.
          Anyway, your response is very well put but will fall on deaf ears.

      • sw19womble

        You didn’t have a constitutional right to produce, transport or sell alcohol in 1920….. oh look, but then you had the constitutional right altered back again in 1933.

        Funny thing, those amendments….

        • savoy6

          Interestingly, the Bill of Rights is a specific part of the Constitution; the first 10 enumerated (I would include the 13th amendment as well). But all Amendments are subject to change, assuming you can get a 2/3 majority of state legislators to agree with you. Good luck with that.

          • sw19womble

            Why, thank you kindly! I shall redouble my efforts this very instant!

  • Shanghai61

    If people insist on exercising their constitutional right under the 2nd amendment, they should be limited to the firearms of the period it was passed.

    Your ‘model year’ 1791 options are a five foot long, flintlock, single shot, smoothbore musket, or ‘easy carry’ flintlock pistol.

    • King Honkey

      Just got a visual of ‘Straight Outta Compton’ with a musket drive-bye. ROFFL

    • Alex Grey

      Just wait until I get my horse and cavalry sabre out!

    • Vae Victis

      Yes, and freedom of the press only applies to the printing press.

      The government can shut down any news website they don’t like whenever they want, because the constitution is limited to the technology of the period.

      • Tansy Geek

        John Adams is that you?

        • Vae Victis

          Nope, Thomas Jefferson.

          #BanAssaultWebsites
          #NobodyNeeds30Mbit/s
          #WebSense

          • Juan de Fuca

            Jesus H. Christ…

          • Tansy Geek

            Wait, he’s here too?!

          • Juan de Fuca

            Apparently so and he came in riding an ass named non-sequitur. BTW, and more importantly I just upvoted your comment – can you see it? Because every time I up vote on Disqus, it vanishes after I refresh my screen. I may have to find another DNS addy…

          • Tansy Geek

            I have that problem too. I’m never sure if I have up voted the same comment multiple times.

          • sw19womble

            Hmmm.. I thought I was just being clumsy/becoming far-sighted and missing the little arrow thingy.

          • Juan de Fuca

            Same here! haha

          • Vae Victis

            I know right?

            All these assault websites are spreading hate and inciting violence! We need website control.

          • Juan de Fuca

            Boring…sorry dude – not judging you personally. Go away for a while and come back with a logical argument or at least some decent snark.

          • sw19womble

            I agree. Look, I went away for just a few minutes and found a pretty decent shar… oh, bugger :/

          • Juan de Fuca

            I would upvote that awesome fish if upvotes were allowed.

          • BackDoorMan

            … upvotes are allowed, comments are not. Of course, an upvote on a non-existent comment is a whole different conundrum, but I will leave that to you to figure out.

      • SuspectedDemocrat

        Just say it. You need firearms to use against politicians you disagree with, and to express your disagreement with anyone and everyone. Just like a printing press or modern web site.

        • Vae Victis

          It’s just another check on state power in general. Same with all the other amendments.

          What’s your point?

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            The point is that people who think they need to check democracy with fire power are generally called terrorists.

          • Vae Victis

            Not democracy, despotism.

            Not saying we live in some despotic regime or anything, just saying the 2nd was originally drafted as a “break glass in case of tyranny”.

            Just quit it with the emotional hyperbole and think rationally for a second.

          • sw19womble

            To misquote the late, great Kenneth Williams. “Tyranny! Tyranny! They’ve all got it Tyranny!”

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            Yeah probably not going to happen. I’m cool with emotional, since it seems so stupendously emotional to you people that you have to necro a board to come teach us tree huggers a lesson.

            But anyway, you are incorrect. The 2nd was not a “break glass in case of tyranny.” The 2nd was all about “we do not want a standing army, but just in case England tries again we should be ready.”
            And they did try again, and we were ready, but now we have a standing army so, bluntly speaking, we do not need an armed civilian militia marching down main street.
            The only reason to, now in these days, keep the civilians armed is in case the government turns on its people which is, I am afraid, precisely like saying we live in some despotic regime.

          • sw19womble

            Personally, I’d be all for any and all self-styled militiamen to yomp it over to the ISIS-controlled areas of the Middle East and have a blast, literally.
            After all, those religious fundamentalists apparently represent the biggest risk to our Western Democracies going. A lovely little ‘well-regulated’ militia (or twenty, you know how these factions tend to break away and want to be left to do things their way) giving their all for Common Good and protecting our way of life.
            Good luck, sirs and ladies, all the best out there defending our Freedom from the yoke of true, and very real, Tyranny!

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            Precisely, that is why I consider these people cowards in the finest sense of the word. If they were serious about protecting freedom and democracy, they would join the dang service, or barring that, volunteer to go help people over there fight some real terrorists, instead of saber rattling and declaring that their guns are god.

          • Vae Victis

            Hey, man. I’m a pretty big tree hugger myself.

            Now look, I don’t want to get into a big quote-fest and show you the intent of the 2nd. The founders intentions are abundantly clear. Just look at what they said themselves.

            They also really, really hated the concept of large standing armies. I thought you lefties were fellow travelers on that note? “military industrial complex blah blah blah 800 billion on bullets and bombs is 800 billion not spent on the poor” right? They were mostly staunch non-interventionists, like modern lefties.

            “The only reason to, now in these days, keep the civilians armed is in
            case the government turns on its people which is, I am afraid, precisely
            like saying we live in some despotic regime.”

            See, you’re missing the point. A well armed populace is a deterrent. You don’t have to live in a despotic regime to want to own firearms.

            Plus, there are other reasons. Most people don’t own guns ‘b’cuz duh gooberment’. Hunting, home defense, fun etc. are all valid reasons.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            Valid reasons yes. So, you need an AK47, say, to defend your home? To hunt?

            Or is it just the fun thing?
            Because really, I want to have fun is a piss poor argument to keep letting people own those things, and especially, people who are mental cases and should not even own a pea shooter, let alone anything stronger.

            However, I agree that the founders were very clear on the 2nd- it is simply your interpretation of it that is way off base.

            As for lefties and the military- many of our members here have served, and served proudly. Maybe it is YOU who do not understand what a “modern lefty” is?

          • sw19womble

            It’s that very interpretation which is the heart of the problem.
            If people want to play militiaman and dress it up as a constitutional (amendment) right, then huzzah for them.
            And FTR I don’t personally care if someone owns a wall filled with AK47s, kalashnikovs, hunter-squibleys, glocks, berettas and even bazookas. As long as they’re “well-regulated”. Cos that’s some fucking dangerous shit they’ve got up on that wall there!
            IYSWIDT,AITYD

          • Vae Victis

            Actually, AKs are used to hunt all the time.

            I know guys that use AKs to hunt wild boar. Rugged, reliable, good sized caliber for that sized game and semi-auto in case a male charges.

            I don’t see why you couldn’t use it to defend against human intruders, either. That’s what it’s designed for.

            And I’m not saying lefties are anti-military. I’m saying lefties are anti-military industrial complex. Most on the left abhorred the Iraq and Afghanistan wars(as did I).

            And I think most on the left recognize their valor and support our troops, too. They just don’t support the war or those who started it.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            You have no conception of what the “left” is. Just because we abhore endless and futile war, does not mean anything else, especially not whatever your preconceptions seem to preclude.

            But aside from that, if you are using an AK to hunt boar you are a lazy pos who can’t aim.

            Edit: Also, you are anti-patriotic buying that not made in the USA crap

          • Vae Victis

            Oh my lord, now you’re just being silly.

            I never said it meant anything else. Re-read what I said.

            And like I said, there are good reasons to use AKs, not because anyone’s lazy. I don’t see how that’s even relevant.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            It is relevant because once again, you are incorrect. There are no good reasons for those pieces of shit.
            The only reason you guys want your high capacity kill sticks is because you find it fun, and once again, “Fun” is not a valid argument.

            Edit: And you /did/ say it meant anything else. You explicitly said “I thought all you modern leftists” blah blah blah”
            Stop pulling a Jeb and backtracking, it does not work here, unless you edit your post

          • Vae Victis

            “high capacity kill sticks”

            HAHAHAHAHA, I’m done.

            No seriously, I can’t anymore. You’re trolling, you have to be.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            What part of snark mob did you not get when you came here? We are ALWAYS trolling.
            Mostly we like to poke your paranoia and see how you respond. It is an ongoing research study deviously devised to see how many of you we can push over the edge and into some bunker up that way *waves a vague hand*

            But yeah, high capacity kill stick stands. That is what it was designed for you know. You do know that right? Because the Russians were too cheap to bother training their soldiers to actually be sharpshooters, other than a few select ones, so they gave them something that will obliterate anything in a certain range?
            That is the entire reason those particular joy toys came into existence.

            Edit: OH and it gets better. Do you know what our military’s response to the things were? That they were pieces of shit they did not want to emulate. Imagine that?

          • sw19womble

            You know, I thought “high capacity kill sticks” was very poetic.
            Maybe ‘creative writing’ is their achilles heel?

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            I was being literal but I will take poetic *puffs up*

          • sw19womble

            No, wait, come back and tell us off for calling them bullet-jacket holdy things, magazines or clips, or whatever.
            WE NEEDZ TO LEARN!!!!!!

          • Vae Victis

            I actually think those guys are pretty funny.

            I troll the fuck out people like that all the time, it infuriates them.

          • Juan de Fuca

            I can still remember a time not that long ago when reasonable gun owners and members of the NRA would have laughed at anyone who thought about using an AK or AR for home defense, because you are just as likely to kill your daughter sleeping down the hallway as you are the intruder.
            Do you know anything about the max effective range of an AR compared to a shotgun? Do you know how that translates into being fired through drywall? Are you guys really being serious? Defend your home with an AK? Hunting with an AK? How in the fuck did we get to this point? Serious question…

          • sw19womble

            Doubling down on the doubling down, I suspect.

            Even I know an AK47’s more likely to hit the pigeons on your roof than the burglar coming through your window. But the poor dears seem increasingly terrified of a ‘wedge issue’ like that.

          • Juan de Fuca

            They are terrified of everything. White victimization is an epidemic down here lately. I’m logging off because you and Jen_Baker_VA rule and I don’t want to get in the way. Popcorn time! Poor lad…

          • Vae Victis

            Who would’ve laughed at that? Find me an example.

            It works for both purposes. And all effective home-defense guns, including shotguns are capable of over-penetrating. That’s like.. The first rule of gun safety, be sure of your target and what’s behind it.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            Right, but unlike with say, a shotgun, you can’t disintegrate an entire wing of a house in 30 seconds you see, as you wildly spray at whatever it is you are trying to hit.
            It is, btw, an ineffective home-defense weapon, which is the point.

          • Vae Victis

            “disintegrate an entire wing of a house”
            “ineffective”

            Pick one.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            pst, it is not the wing of the house you want to slaughter. Hence, ineffective.

          • Vae Victis

            Really, that’d be too effective.

            But I’ve never heard of somebody with an AK accidentally destroying their house during a home invasion… Maybe you could enlighten me.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            I’ve been enlightening you allllll night long, man, that you are not receptive to it is hardly my problem is it?

            http://www.rawstory.com/2015/01/my-house-got-blown-up-by-an-ak-47-no-charges-for-florida-deputy-who-shot-up-womans-home/

            There is one, google the rest on your own. Also, for your edification and because you so pointedly ignored it to backtrack up here, a repost for you.

            Repost:But yeah, high capacity kill stick stands. That is what it was designed for you know. You do know that right? Because the Russians were too cheap to bother training their soldiers to actually be sharpshooters, other than a few select ones, so they gave them something that will obliterate anything in a certain range?

            That is the entire reason those particular joy toys came into existence.

            Edit: OH and it gets better. Do you know what our military’s response to the things were? That they were pieces of shit they did not want to emulate. Imagine that?

            Extra edit: OH and also, do you know who looooovvves their AK 47s? Isis! Wow! You haz something in common with Isis :) Are you not proud? And Patriotic? And American? To love a foreign weapon like that?

  • Alex Grey

  • SC

    Very well written!

  • Tansy Geek

    Holy fuck toads! I figured it out. savoy6 is not Super Troll but Clarence Thomas. This is what he does to make up for not contributing during cases. He would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for strict Constitutionalism.

    • Dylan Black

      That WOULD explain why he remains unbanned, somehow.

      • sw19womble

        He’s just very very stupid and shoehorns the same dull single-tone thought into every post.
        “Weeee! I can do whatever I like with my unregulated guns! But I’m responsible! But there’s nothing you can do about it, suckas! And if you do, you’re a fascist! Grrrr! That’s why I need ma guns! Which I’m totally responsible with, so what’s your problem?”
        Yawn….

        • savoy6

          Guns are actually heavily regulated. I encourage you to jaunt on down to the local gun store and buy one. Seriously. see how unregulated it is. Ha ha!

          • sw19womble

            Ha ha!

          • savoy6

            You don’t own a firearm, you have never purchased a firearm.. I would even suggest you have never shot or even handled one before. Yet you think you know so much about them that you want to impose “commonsense gun control.” It is so stereotypical.

          • sw19womble

            So stereotypical that you think I’ve “never shot or even handled one”, either. Or that I’m against you owning as many firearms as your little heart desires.
            It’s a shame that your attitude is precisely why I don’t bother defending the issue on here. You know there are some fucking bell-ends out there with guns, and that resale and grey market (not to mention the black market) is woefully disorganised. But yeah, you’re okay, so ooooh “constitution”
            Try being a part of the solution, instead of propping up the problem end of your “hobby”.
            Until then, good luck.

          • savoy6

            You’re not even a US citizen, why do you care?

          • sw19womble

            Because Trump hasn’t promised to build a bulletproof 300 foot high wall along the 49th Parallel to keep the “bad men with a gun” from spilling over the border yet.
            Ooh now you tell me how responsible you are, and would never, ever transport a weapon over international borders!
            Or, you know, mix it up a little….

          • savoy6

            Being a teenager is hard for you. I understand.

          • sw19womble

            Well, now you mention it, my teenage years were very difficult. As a painfully shy introvert, I slowly began to feel a remoteness – a separation, if you will – from the rest of the world. My younger days were spent happily exploring on my own, down on the beach, travelling to grandparents and visiting cousins. Learning to build fires and even fire a rifle, under strict supervision, you’ll be glad to hear. However, as I hit puberty, things began to change – made all the worse by a change of school. I can’t blame my parents at all. They were solid, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth working class, who had made it their mission to give both me and my brother the best education possible. Put into a very good private school, ironically, this increased the feelings of isolation – as I was now deemed too “clever” by a lot of my former schoolfriends when I went back home for the holidays, and we drifted apart – save for one good friend or two. However, I also felt alienated by my new school, with its harsh pecking-order and sometimes violent dog-eat-dog nature. The first couple of years was a truly horrible, stomach-churning period. A trial by fire, which all the new pupils went through, until they rose up.
            Drawing back, I lost myself in music, and reading, and learning, listening to teachers, to other people’s conversations, taking it all in: happily, and quietly, absorbing myself in history, philosophy, foreign languages, literature, stories, maths, politics and the arts. I slowly found my place, a niche – although always the painfully shy type….
            But anyway, that was a good thirty years or so now. I slowly found my “center”, and kept an appreciation for listening and understanding other people’s point of view – an attempt to find a middle ground, and to compromise…
            Anyway, enough about me: how about you?

          • BackDoorMan

            … as you sound like a teenager yourself, I’m sure you do.

          • sw19womble

            PS “You’re”
            as in, You’re welcome! :)

          • Juan de Fuca

            The irony of any American asking a friendly neighbor why they care about what’s going on down the street while we’re looking for any reason to bomb the fuck out of people in a different time zone is priceless.

          • vivian

            Maybe you can also buy a mop for the blood spilled in the name of enjoying your right to play with guns.

          • savoy6

            “Think of the children” or “if it saves one life” right Vivian?

          • vivian

            What the fuck are you on about? Why a sudden string of dipshit clichés? Are you trying and failing to construct a straw man?

          • savoy6

            “Maybe you can also buy a mop for the blood spilled in the name of enjoying your right to play with guns.”

            …dipshit clichés

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            That would be a metaphor, not a cliche.

          • vivian

            I’m telling you to clean up your mess, fucktard. If you can’t get gun owners to stop killing people, no more guns. Is that too hard to for you to get?

          • savoy6

            No, I get it..

          • BackDoorMan

            … really? Based on what you’ve posted so far, I doubt it. I doubt you get anything, no matter how forcefully the fish of facts smacks you across the face. Repeatedly. Unwilling to admit defeat? Bless your heart…

          • sw19womble

            Oh vivian, don’t be silly! savoy6 is so very very well-behaved all by himself that his ultra-responsibility can count towards all the naughty gun-owners too!
            Nothing to see here! Move along!

        • Tansy Geek

          Should we tell him it’s not all about him? Or just let him mumble until he gets tired and goes away?

          • sw19womble

            No, no.. I’m actually fascinated by his solipsism.

          • Tansy Geek

            I almost want keep pushing to get an answer to my question about what rights DOES the constitution grant me besides guns,votes and liquor, but he’s like a stubborn pimple. I want to squeeze til it pops but nothing good will come it.

          • BackDoorMan

            … not to mention his stupidism – which is on full display in this thread, on a blog, which doesn’t allow comments.

        • Dylan Black

          Yeah…and we’ve seen Shy and Dok ban people for doing that, exactly. Yet here he is a day later still responding repetitively to every comment, and reveling in our incredulity that it continues to be allowed.

          • sw19womble

            I don’t mind too much. It’s boring and repetitive, but I’ve been on the other side of the fence on different topics, so I quite appreciate that the more polite ones are left on from time to time.
            It is a bit boring and one-dimensional tho – and I’d like to think my arguments would be slightly richer and nuanced.
            But then these types don’t do nuance and compromise. QED.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            There is no middle. It is all or nothing. And since they are on one side we MUST be on the other.
            Whatchagonnado

          • sw19womble
          • Dylan Black

            Thats the thing, while I’m perusing this latest round of heavy grade derp, I’m also on another chat window discussing this with one of my INTELLIGENT conservative friends, who while he disagrees with me on the specifics of gun regulation is able to see the logic in my points and debate them directly, rather than consulting his “what to say next” binder the NRA provided him.

          • Juan de Fuca

            They are letting us debate them and they aren’t being totally offensive so…look at it as a fun exercise because there are many out here who bring a much stronger argument from their POV.

            Actually, I made that last part up.

            This is basically the best counter arguments we are ever going to see. White victimization is on the rise in America, so much that I’m thinking about printing out a hundred or so of these to hand out in the real world.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            This is basically the best counter arguments we are ever going to see.

            Which again, begs the question, WHY THE FUCK DO WE NOT HAVE BETTER GUN LAWS. Seriously.

            If the best they got is because it is fun and because of some very liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment (and by liberal, I mean freebased, not actually the “modern Leftist”) how have we not been able to throat cram them more effectively, like they keep saying we are doing?

          • Juan de Fuca

            I have no idea Jen. Scratch that, I have some idea and I think it’s because of an emotional attachment that we have in America with the 2nd. There is something about the revolution that makes people in 2015 self-identify with the founders and other types of right-wing propaganda that ties “liberty” with the 2nd amendment which is a bullshit argument from people who have no idea how this country works. That conversation would take an entire blog to cover.

            You and I are gun owners and I taught my daughter how to shoot a rifle when she was young – it was a regular weekend outing for us back when I was stationed in BFE, N.M. At this point in time, I would be more than willing to support a national gun buy-back program and much stronger regulation because our gun culture has gotten crazier than it ever has been – ever.

            I would sell my firearm back tomorrow because I’m tired of it – the entire culture of gun ownership. That and I actually spent a lot of time and money learning how to defend myself without a weapon but that took physical effort. Some people simply want to go the lazy route and just put a cap in someone’s ass without ever considering – do you really want to shoot somebody point blank in the head? Seriously?

      • savoy6

        Yeah.. ban people who don’t hold your world view. How progressive. lulz!

        • sw19womble

          lulz now! You are so very proud of your own comments, aren’t you! ;)

        • Jen_Baker_VA

          It is not that we do not share your world views. It is that we find you vile, repetitive, hopelessly ignorant and willfully stupid. And we like our little haven free of “You haz to tolerate my intolerance, hypocritez, lolz” because it is pretty done to death. Like, get some new material, or something
          That is what it mostly is.

          • savoy6

            “It is that we find you vile, repetitive, hopelessly ignorant and willfully stupid.”

            I imagine you find that with anyone not touting the narrative. Have I been “intolerant?” I don’t think so. I think by intolerant you mean “I don’t agree with you.”

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            Which is precisely what I said by “You are intolerant by not tolerating my intolerance” yes. Thank you for explicitly stating it. And yes, you have been, repeatedly, attacking, intolerant, abusive even in your “just stating your opinion you damn libtards!!!!” but you know that so shut up. Your very first post was, in point of fact, a repetition of the theme that you think different so we must be all dumb.
            Which is why, by the way, you were received with less than a standing ovation.

            It is not the narrative, chuckles. If you bothered, at all, to read what any of these good people say you would see that many of us are law abiding gun owners.
            We like our guns. We use them responsibly. We support the right of people to own the things. We’re cool with hunters, and marksmen. The responsible ones.
            Do note the key word there, responsible. It is important.
            We do not, however, support the right of every idiot with a hard on to shoot stuff up to buy whatever they want because guns R precious. 30,000 people a year, many of them children. 30,000 a year. If it were a disease knocking off that many, we’d be wearing a ribbon on our lapels.

            Just because you cannot separate your ammo sexual fantasies from reality does not mean that the rest of the country should have to continue to suffer for them.

          • savoy6

            “you think different so we must be all dumb.”

            Meh, but I find the most vociferous anti-gun people to be the least informed about them; in how they work, the law and the reasons people fight so hard not to have what they deem as a fundamental right, chipped away.

            I have heard from no-one who sound remotely like they are gun owners, just gun banners parroting that overplayed ill-informed hand.. ”

            “your ammo sexual fantasies”

            and yet you wonder why people like me so strongly resist your attempts at “reasonable gun control.”

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            So you find anti gun people to be the least informed and yet, you come and claim that WE are intolerant, we do not listen, we do not understand and we won’t listen to reason.

            Look, in the grand scheme of things, you do not need your gun to live. You don’t. I do not need mine either. The difference is, if it were for the good of my country of which I am extremely proud, I would give mine up in a heart beat. Would you? If your country asked you to lay down your gun for the good of your country, do you have enough patriotism to actually do it?

            Also, you are an ammo sexual. If you were not, you would not be /here/ right now trying to tell everyone how stupid they are because you want your guns

          • savoy6

            “The difference is, if it were for the good of my country of which I am
            extremely proud, I would give mine up in a heart beat. Would you?”

            My Country would never ask me to disarm.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            Your country is begging you to disarm. Or at least, allow us to pass some common sense laws curbing the ability of mental cases to buy the things

            edit: oh, and I take that as a resounding no then?

          • sw19womble

            Jen I wholeheartedly agree with the second part. Unfortunately, you won’t find any middle ground with these types.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            It was mostly the second part, I should not have stuck in the first part, which was snark, because he is not going to get it and tell all his buddies that “SEEEE? The librulz want to take our gunz”
            But oh well, I could not help it

          • sw19womble

            No, I understand – it’s that sort of frustrated snark that they’re dying to squeeze out of us tho.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            You are right, I will behave.
            Maybe *waggles brows*
            I think next I may have to claim to be a commie gay lesbian illegal alien though, just to watch what happens.

          • sw19womble

            Hey, I’m an imaginary pink flufflepuff pony… who am I to judge!

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            I myself am a bazooka sheeple this week. I mean I have to be a sheeple, I keep being told I am, so I might as well accept it.

          • sw19womble

            Become one with your bazooka-sheepleness. Do not fear it. Nor make fun of it. Embrace it, for it is truly part of your psychogeographical make-up. But only part. Do not allow yourself to become fully bazookified, nor a mindless member of the sheeple people. We are all made of stardust. I’m very sleepy. Time for the short walk up to bedlington terrace for me. I had fun tho. Good night! :)
            zzzzzzzz…..

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            lol night

          • sw19womble

            DING DING!

          • BackDoorMan

            … so, you live in A Country that lets you do whatever you want without any oversight whatsoever? Where is this magical Country you live? (inside your head doesn’t count, sorry).

          • Dylan Black

            The hilarious thing, as I pointed out in my initial response to his very first comment, is that nowhere in this article does Dok propose taking away any guns from anyone. Its like he came into it with a preconceived notion of what the purpose of the article is, read about three sentences and then stopped reading, confirmed that this was the “Other” he so fears.

          • Jen_Baker_VA

            It is ALL preconcieved notions with these guys. They assume we want to take their guns. They assume we hate the military. They state quite clearly over and over about “most lefties” and “you liberals” without bothering to read what we are saying at all.
            Like I said, vile and repetative and they need new material.

          • Villago Delenda Est

            Yet SOME of us are prior military, and amazingly, have a totally different outlook than he’s got. He can’t figure that out.

          • sw19womble

            Nail. Hammer.

          • doktorzoom

            Any attempt to regulate guns is just code for “total confiscation.”

            Like how registration of cars has led to the confiscation of cars.

            SHUT UP, CARS ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION

          • Historicat

            YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRIVE!!1!

          • BackDoorMan

            … ah, Dok… how I love thee. If we’re going to go by stuff that isn’t specifically mentioned in the Oh SO Holy Sacrosanct Constitution, then we gots us a whole mess of laws to get rid of. For example – DEA, OSHA, USDA and a bunch of other acronyms I can’t be arsed to Go-Ogle. Let’s just pretend an over-a-century-old document is inviolable, that’ll work.

          • Jack Hagan

            We want our freedom. People like you just want a king.

          • vivian

            You imagine a great many things. Therein lies the problem. We are talking about real lives. People. People like me. People like you (not very many). [You can read that both ways, right?] And when you exercising your rights ceases to result in the death of people who do not share your views, then and only then are you worth taking seriously. You want to end the conversation on guns? Get your fellow guns nuts to act responsibly. It’s on you to solve this, not us.

          • sw19womble

            rAmen.

          • savoy6

            “It’s on you to solve this, not us.”

            Fair enough.

          • BackDoorMan

            … yeah, except you’re not qualified. Accept your “I Participated!” ribbon and go back to whatever gun-masturbation site you came from. Then you can brag about how you “smacked the Wonkette into shape” – and we wont have to read it, and we can conserve our laughter.

          • Jack Hagan

            220+ million murdered by the adherents to your vile religion of envy and slavery. We are not giving up the guns. Try and take them. Please.

          • BackDoorMan

            … No. By your criteria, intolerant means not tolerating a POV that differs from your own. And, on that score, you have been. And continue to be.

        • BackDoorMan

          … I’ve been to RWNJ sites, and yes, that’s exactly what they do. So… fair is fair?

  • vivian

    Tonight on Wonkette: Dancing With the Trolls! With Clarence Thomas’ footstool as Special Guest Troll.

    • Dylan Black
      • Jen_Baker_VA

        Thank you for the pinky, we needed that ^.^
        NARF

    • doktorzoom

      Yeah, we’re done. Leaving Savoy’s stuff up because for the most part he was polite-ish, if repetitive, but ultimately he just got tiresome and repetitive.

      Gosh, we’re so intolerant and hypocritical

      • Alex Grey

        I suppose the, “Commenting Rules for Radicals,” do not include a rule against being A Idiot. Based on my back and forth with “him” last night, I am going to guess there were plenty of, “The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to drive a car,” arguments. When I asked for sources to be cited, “he” said something along the lines of, “It’s a fact because I say it is, and you have to disprove it.” I guess it is hard to hard to argue against logical fallacies, when you are committing them. It should probably be a non-issue though, since school is starting up about now. Maybe “he” will even learn about citing sources, though that may not be until Sophomore year of High School.

        • doktorzoom

          Actually, Rule 5 is the one in effect here:

          Sometimes someone who works here — one of our moderators or perhaps the dogs — will ban you or delete your comment or laugh at you publicly, even though you didn’t break a stated rule! That is because they’re in charge here, and they’re sick of your shit.

          • Alex Grey

            Not at me I hope… I’m just trying to radically point out all the logical fallacies…

          • BackDoorMan

            … “sick of your shit” SHOULD be a stated rule. It could go a long way to cutting down a near 700-non-comment thread (although the non-existent replies to such shit would be a shame to miss).

      • BackDoorMan

        … polite-ish… maybe, derp-ish, definitely. Tiresome and repetitive.. of course. savoy6 is like a one-trick pony that got trotted out too many times.

  • Jack Hagan

    “Gun Control” is so ONLY the king and his minions have weapons. Nothing more. Tyranny, the enslavement of mankind. The work of evil people who are not to be trusted.

    • Laffing Crow

      Or it could just be an effort to keep people from killing themselves and each other. So not evil or enslavey at all!

      • Jack Hagan

        220+ million murdered in the name of Marxism/Maoism/Communism, whatever other names you want to give. I will take my chances with an armed free society.

        • doktorzoom

          Banhammered, but not deleted, because so stupid it’s good for a laugh.

          Still, it’s a pretty compelling argument: the possibility that we might launch a successful rebellion against a purely hypothetical imposition of tyranny is well worth the price of tens of thousands of murders, suicides, and accidents a year. It’s not iike civil society, the rule of law, and voting are anywhere as effective at preventing tyranny as your owning a Glock.

          • SOMEGUY7893 .

            Plus what the hell is a handgun or rifle gonna do against a tank or fighter plane?

          • Harry Tuttle

            You’re not the coldest beer in the fridge.

          • EarlyMedievalSerf

            uh? Iraq or Afghanistan or ISIS? and you have the right to vote. God help us all

          • EarlyMedievalSerf

            just think for
            Syria banned guns it would still be an awesome place to live!

          • SOMEGUY7893 .

            They did have open but look at how it did shit all to help them overthrow their gov’t alone they needed the pressure of foreign nations to get anywhere. Even if a thousand civilians in a country of 3200 had guns if a tyrannical gov’t with military support ended up at war with only 300 soldiers the civilians would lose, simply because of the difference in weapons and military vehicles.

          • SOMEGUY7893 .

            Second Amendment doesn’t included IED’s and not one plane has been lost so far.

          • Harry Tuttle

            Tens of thousands of murders, suicides, and accidents happen every year from that evil four wheel contraction in your driveway. I say we ban driving. Remember, driving is a privilege, firearms are a right. If we are out to save lives, I say we start with the banning of incompetent driving. If every gun owner is a killer then so is every driver…

  • BackDoorMan

    This article. I… can’t… even…

  • jacktheleper

    The same reason Obama travels with a small army of guns wherever he goes is the same reason I can have a weapon to protect my home. And it is not your business to tell me what to do, especially when it is a constitutional right.

    • fargsnalt

      Hopefully we can vote out those in office who block gun legislation. We can then put in office those who will push for the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

      • Harry Tuttle

        Once that pesky 2nd amendment is gone, then we can get rid of the rest of the amendments. When a soldier is in your house banging your wife or daughter against their will, you’ll wish you had a gun.

  • EarlyMedievalSerf

    I found hundreds of stories of people dying in car accidents. ban cars!!!!

    11 people died in Texas from tornados. ban tornado!

    • gotosleep

      1. You need a license to drive a car and there are restrictions and a
      myriad of laws in place in an effort to reduce the number of people
      killed in car accidents.
      2. If it were possible we would “ban” tornadoes because, why not?

Previous articleHow We Will Not Be Talking About The Murder Of Two Virginia Reporters
Next articleIt’s National Dog Day. Pretty Sure We Could All Use Some Doggies About Now