Many questions, few answers on gun control
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20140416/OPINION/140419384/1065/many-questions-few-answers-on-gun-control&template=fairfaxTimes

Seven years ago, as a senior at Virginia Tech, my campus was under siege for nine terrifying minutes. Shots rang through the air, students and teachers watched in fear as the grisly scene unfolded, police forcing their way through chained doors, wounded victims being carried to safety. Thirty-two fellow students and professors were killed that day – the largest mass shooting in American history.

Yet after seven years we continue to witness unfathomable tragedies – Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Newtown, shootings this past weekend that left three dead at the hands of a white supremacist. Can nothing be done to spare the lives of innocents?

Despite what partisan rhetoric would lead us to believe, much can be done to prevent the senseless slaughter of 30 Americans everyday, while ensuring a safer marriage between our right as law-abiding citizens to own firearms, and our right to safety from gun violence in our communities.

First, we must expand background checks to all firearm sales. Since the enactment of the Brady Law, background checks have stopped more than two million prohibited purchasers from obtaining firearms through federally licensed firearms dealers. How many lives did those background checks save?

But up to 40 percent of transactions do not occur through federally licensed dealers, and therefore do not require a background check. A gaping breach used by felons, domestic abusers, and drug addicts alike.

In the absence of federal legislation and political will, many states have taken it upon themselves to expand background checks. But without a national standard, dangerous people can evade stricter background check requirements by crossing state lines, and return to wreak havoc in their own communities.

We must also improve the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (NICS) by ensuring that states are providing disqualifying records to the database. Seung Hui Cho passed a background check, despite a 2005 adjudication of mental illness, because the record was never submitted to NICS. Millions of disqualifying mental health records are missing from the system – as of May 2012, 19 states had reported fewer than 100 records, 14 less than ten, and Rhode Island had reported zero.

Just as important, though often overlooked, is the availability of mental healthcare. Our system is woefully inadequate, and inaccessibility to treatment results in jails overcrowded by many who should be in treatment facilities. Seventy percent of youth in the juvenile justice system, and more than half of adult inmates suffer from mental illness. A 2010 study found that in 1955, there was one bed in psychiatric wards per 300 Americans. Today there is one bed per 3,000.

We will never stop every violent act committed with a gun, just as we can’t prevent every death caused by drunk drivers with police checkpoints, but we STILL HAVE TO TRY. It is our duty as Americans to make our nation stronger, safer, and to leave a better world for future generations. We owe it to the victims of April 16th, and every life lost by gun violence.

Jamie Haynes, Fairfax Station

Go shoot yourself!

Oh, and Happy Easter from FFXU!

So what you're saying is background checks will not be effective until the mental people in society are reported and banned from Bying guns?

That I agree with.

The problem will not be solved until the small and typically rural minority of Americans that actually owns guns is able to figure out that guns are a big and expensive problem in other circumstances, coming in the process to learn that restrictions on guns and gun ownership are part of a very legitmate right of self-defense.

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem will not be solved until the small and
> typically rural minority of Americans that
> actually owns guns is able to figure out that guns
> are a big and expensive problem in other
> circumstances, coming in the process to learn that
> restrictions on guns and gun ownership are part of
> a very legitmate right of self-defense.


Incorrect. Try again.

We should outlaw the insane. Millions of people legally and lawfully own guns. It is the insane that are the core problem....I ADVOCATE INSANITY CONTROL....

We must not give up the battle against guns. Hopefully, through educating our young within another generation, there will be enough support to move for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. In today's world, citizens do not need guns of any type.

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem will not be solved until the small and
> typically rural minority of Americans that
> actually owns guns

?????????????????

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argues compellingly that for most of U.S. history the right of the federal and state governments to regulate firearms was unquestioned, and he proposes a small revision to the Second Amendment to clarify its intent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

Makes sense to me.

>In today's world, citizens do not need guns of any type.

I am sure the Ukrainians are "OK with that".

I am in Fairfax Station, too, but that's where our similarities apparently end.

- I support the Second Amendment, as drafted.
- There is no reason to change it (or amend).
- Enforcing existing gun laws on the books before another gun law is a start, but that's just a thought.

But since I am tolerant of everyone, you have the right to not own firearms, is that's right for you...

There is a very simple process to ammend the Constitution and reword the 2nd ammendment...Go for it...

Democrat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We must not give up the battle against guns.
> Hopefully, through educating our young within
> another generation, there will be enough support
> to move for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. In
> today's world, citizens do not need guns of any
> type.


Not happening. The fastest growing groups of buyers are women and minorities, both primarily for self-protection purposes. And younger male buyers continue to increase with a mix of sporting and self-protection purposes, the latter being an increasing share with greater urbanization. All of which appear to disagree with your assessment. Even in the case of so-called "assault weapons:"

Quote

Reason/Rupe poll finds the majority of Americans--particularly young Americans--support the right of people to own so-called “assault weapons.
”
Of the 1,000 adults surveyed, 51 percent of respondents support the private ownership of “assault weapons,” while 44 percent were opposed. It may come as a shock to the public that the strongest advocates for private ownership are young Americans, the same age demographic that overwhelmingly supported the President in his reelection.

The poll found that 70 percent of young Americans ages 18-24 agree that Americans “should be allowed” to own "assault weapons," while only 27 percent believe they should be prohibited. A recent study conducted by American University also showed that 60 percent of young Americans either already plan to or are considering purchasing a firearm for their home in the future.

The Reason/Rupe poll showed that the majority of respondents under the age of 54 believe that Americans should be able to own “assault weapons,” while older Americans believe they should be prohibited (58-36 percent).

Sorry.

Hey, I'm in Fairfax Station, too Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> - I support the Second Amendment, as drafted.
> - There is no reason to change it (or amend).
> - Enforcing existing gun laws on the books before
> another gun law is a start, but that's just a
> thought.
>
>
Great. What is your argument against universal background checks? When anyone buys a firearm from a licensed dealer, he completes a short form and the dealer conducts an instant background check. Most buyers take their guns with them immediately, but the checks catch thousands of felons and other ineligibles every year. But somebody selling guns out of his trunk in an alley doesn't run any checks. Who do you think buys and sells guns that way? How does requiring a private seller to follow the same laws that bind licensed dealers infringe on anybody's rights? Even the NRA supported universal background checks a few years ago. Their recent turnabout is just incomprehensible.

In a quick, 30 second search, I came across this rather interesting piece where it seems your name was lent to an editorial rebuttal to the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/figuring-out-our-fiscal-future/2012/12/02/c805109a-3a37-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_story.html

"...I am 27 years old, have a master’s degree from Johns Hopkins University and have completed more than 300 job applications — and I’ve been an unpaid intern for two years. And I’m one of the “lucky” ones.

Our leaders must realize that the longer they simply “play the game” in these negotiations, the more they hurt the people they swore to serve.

Jamie Haynes, Fairfax Station"


Now, perhaps in the past year and a half, you have escaped your internship and are making good with the degree(s) your parents (or taxpayer grants) paid for and have landed a job. But seeing as how you were posting the same name/location then, as you are now, it stands to reason you might be posting from your parents home in Fairfax Station - not yours.

Anyways, good luck with the job search, and changing the Constitution.

>Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argues compellingly that for most of U.S. history the right of the federal and state governments to regulate firearms was unquestioned, and he proposes a small revision to the Second Amendment to clarify its intent.


John Paul is a babbling old man. He adds 5 words to give the State the right to have armed militia.

The State does not need a Bill of Rights to arm itself. It was all covered in the Constitution any way with the President as Commander in Chief War powers the Navy Army ect.

The 2nd admendment of the Bill of Rights allows the citizen to bear arms. John Paul Stevens is wrong. Good thing he is retired.


As said here amend the Constitution and reword /remove the bill of rights ..Good Luck and dont hold your breath. Until then observe the lawfull rights of the people to bear arms

So OP thats the road you need to travel. But first ID the real problem the insane that have access to guns. And observe how many insane people commit the crimes.. Not many ..most ..the great majority of gun crimes are commited by simple common criminals and thats why the right to bear arms is so important.

I and all Americans HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO DEFEND OUR LIVES . DONT TRY TO TAKE THAT AWAY.

The VT tragedy was very unfortunate. I'm affected. My family is affected. However, I think there's much bigger issue that's being overlooked at the campus because these "events" occur not all at one time, it's easy for them to go about without much attention.

The subject is rape, rape attempts and sexual assaults. The numbers in the VT page that I've linked to are a bit out of date, but still disturbing none-the-less. 350 cases of rape or attempted rape each year? Where is the outrage? Having a female member in the family bloodline attending there has me quite upset. Yet these issues don't get much attention due to all the constant rhetoric on trying to ban guns. It is for this very reason, I will aid my female family member as much as I can this coming summer to get the person qualified with a weapon and apply for a concealed carry permit.

Out of those 350, how many have their lives turned upside down? How many are horribly effected by these instances? What is the on-going effects for these 350 people each year? One would think that performing some extensive studies might be quite beneficial so we could see how bad situations such as these actually turn out.

http://www.stopabuse.vt.edu/statistics.php

>How does requiring a private seller to follow the same laws that bind licensed dealers infringe on anybody's rights? Even the NRA supported universal background checks a few years ago. Their recent turnabout is just incomprehensible.


It is not supported because the Democrats want to saddle this with much more BS then the current Instant Checks.

Sales to family should be exempt for these checks.

Load to Heavy For This Horse Wrote:

> Sales to family should be exempt for these checks.

Why? Suppose the family member is ineligible to buy a firearm legitimately? Straw sales are illegal. When you sell your house or your car to a family member, you have to follow the same legal steps that you would for anyone else. Why should firearms be different?

WVYKG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Load to Heavy For This Horse Wrote:
>
> > Sales to family should be exempt for these
> checks.
>
> Why? Suppose the family member is ineligible to
> buy a firearm legitimately? Straw sales are
> illegal. When you sell your house or your car to a
> family member, you have to follow the same legal
> steps that you would for anyone else. Why should
> firearms be different?


You undercut your own argument. As noted, straw buying already is illegal. As are any other sales to ineligible buyers family or not.

That doesn't stop anyone from doing so illegally. Nor will it ever regardless what law is passed.

Debbie Downer Democrat XDD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The VT tragedy was very unfortunate. I'm
> affected. My family is affected. However, I
> think there's much bigger issue that's being
> overlooked at the campus because these "events"
> occur not all at one time, it's easy for them to
> go about without much attention.
>
> The subject is rape, rape attempts and sexual
> assaults. The numbers in the VT page that I've
> linked to are a bit out of date, but still
> disturbing none-the-less. 350 cases of rape or
> attempted rape each year? Where is the outrage?
> Having a female member in the family bloodline
> attending there has me quite upset. Yet these
> issues don't get much attention due to all the
> constant rhetoric on trying to ban guns. It is
> for this very reason, I will aid my female family
> member as much as I can this coming summer to get
> the person qualified with a weapon and apply for a
> concealed carry permit.
>
> Out of those 350, how many have their lives turned
> upside down? How many are horribly effected by
> these instances? What is the on-going effects for
> these 350 people each year? One would think that
> performing some extensive studies might be quite
> beneficial so we could see how bad situations such
> as these actually turn out.
>
> http://www.stopabuse.vt.edu/statistics.php

Your faux concern for women is disingenuous at best, given your other posts. How very kind of you to offer a gun to your female relative. Let's just hope that she doesn't take aim at some poor kid that she mistakenly perceives to be a threat. Your hypocracy makes me sick.

>Why? Suppose the family member is ineligible to
> buy a firearm legitimately? Straw sales are
> illegal. When you sell your house or your car to a
> family member, you have to follow the same legal
> steps that you would for anyone else. Why should
> firearms be different?

Thats Why there are no universal background checks.. You are 1 of the reasons.
Now go Blame yourself and lay off the NRA. You want to load the proposed law up with too much BS. Keep It Simple Stupid.

Cut Me a Break Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your faux concern for women is disingenuous at
> best, given your other posts. How very kind of you
> to offer a gun to your female relative. Let's just
> hope that she doesn't take aim at some poor kid
> that she mistakenly perceives to be a threat. Your
> hypocracy makes me sick.


Get over yourself. I simply pointed out another issue that's certainly affecting more students - yet is getting little, if any attention. Apologies if my reality is getting in the way of your agenda on getting guns banned.

Debbie Downer Democrat XDD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cut Me a Break Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Your faux concern for women is disingenuous at
> > best, given your other posts. How very kind of
> you
> > to offer a gun to your female relative. Let's
> just
> > hope that she doesn't take aim at some poor kid
> > that she mistakenly perceives to be a threat.
> Your
> > hypocracy makes me sick.
>
>
> Get over yourself. I simply pointed out another
> issue that's certainly affecting more students -
> yet is getting little, if any attention.
> Apologies if my reality is getting in the way of
> your agenda on getting guns banned.

Apples and oranges - guns and rape. I know enough about the latter to realize how despicable it is to justify your pro gun agenda under the guise of protecting women.

Good Try - But Fuck You Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Apples and oranges - guns and rape. I know enough
> about the latter to realize how despicable it is
> to justify your pro gun agenda under the guise of
> protecting women.

WELL SAID! From someone who KNOWS about rape. (And NOT because he is a rapist who is afraid of getting shot!!!!!)

And cogently argued!

As one of the Democrat leaders in a state much more progressive than this backwater called Virginia, rightfully said ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiSuaW6VnBc

... while arguing in favor of House Bill 13-1226 to prohibit concealed carry of firearms on Colorado college campuses, Salazar rebuked critics who said the law would remove a female college student's ability to "level the field" and legally protect herself from potential attackers.

"It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles," he explained. "Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at."

He continued: "And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop a round at somebody."

WELL SAID!, Mr. Salazar. And well summarized, 'Good Try - But Fuck You.'

Women can not be trusted to know whether they're about to be raped. The guy who's followed the woman's every move-as the woman crossed the street, and then back again, out of concern about the tall, stocky person following her-the dark parking lot, is just lost, or out enjoying the air. And if the woman should be overpowered and raped by that guy ... well, the woman will just have to get over it.

If she survives, that is. LOL!

Perhaps we need to look elsewhere for a good gun control model?

Mexico's gun control laws: A model for the United States?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/16/mexicos-gun-control-laws-a-model-for-the-united-states/

The most recent issue of the Texas Review of Law and Politics includes my article with the aforesaid title. This is the first law review article to examine in depth Mexican gun laws, and related empirical data.

The article begins with an examination of the right to arms in the Mexican Constitution, and of predecessor versions of that right. Former versions recognized a right to carry, but the current version recognizes only a right in the home. In practice, the Mexican government ignores the right.

The next part of the article details the operation of Mexico’s federal gun control statute, which dates from 1972. The statute itself is very strict, and enforcement tends to be oppressive and corrupt. Accordingly, many Mexicans obtain firearms outside of the very narrow channels (only one legal gun store in the entire country) which the government permits. Fourteen percent of Mexican households have a firearm, including 50 percent of poor households in high violence areas. In many parts of Mexico, the government does not reliably protect citizens from violence, so citizens must protect themselves.

The final part of the article describes some of the past and present cross-border trade in arms between the United States and Mexico, and potential legal ramifications–such as the various fora where the Mexican government might bring a civil lawsuit against American gun manufacturers or sellers. Politicians such as President Obama, former Secretary of State Clinton, and various Mexican officials have asserted that 85-90 percent of Mexican crime guns come from the United States. But the actual figure is much lower. Jorge G. Castañeda, who served as Foreign Minister of Mexico from 2000 to 2003, and Rubén Aguilar, who served as the Press Secretary for the President of Mexico from 2000 to 2006, estimate that 18% of Mexican crime guns can be conclusively determined to have come from the United States. They argue that the higher figures are invented and used for domestic political purposes by Mexican government officials.

Whatever the exact percentage, it is incorrect to assert that purchases from American gun stores for the purposes of smuggling into Mexico are the prime source of American guns in Mexico. To the contrary, of the Mexican guns that are successfully traced to the U.S., the average firearms age is fifteen years, according to data compiled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. The age of these guns is strong evidence that they were legal American guns that were stolen and then sold into the black market–and not guns which were bought at a gun store as part of a plan for them to be immediately transported to Mexico.

Of course there are exceptions, including the “Fast & Furious” and “Wide Receiver” programs run by the Phoenix BATFE office, to facilitate the export of new American guns to Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

The Appendix of my article provides a English translation of the Mexican federal gun control statute. The Appendix also offers some explanatory footnotes to the statute when appropriate for better understanding.

Various officials in the Mexican government have urged that American gun laws be made more like Mexico’s, and President Obama at various times in his career has endorsed several proposals which would make American gun laws much more like Mexican ones. These proposals including banning almost all gun stores, universal gun registration, elimination of the right to bear arms, and the prohibition of many common firearms.

WTF!?! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps we need to look elsewhere for a good gun
> control model?

EXACTLY! We don't need to worry about the American Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the other amendments ... or even laws that have been passed by Congress.

We Democrats just want to create our own little Nirvana, within which such realities as defending oneself from the actions of predatious criminals shall never intrude. In our Nirvana the police will protect everyone from bad things happening. In our Nirvana, all the police are trusted and honest.

Our Nirvana MUST be more like Mexico. Mexico has done such a good job of stopping criminals and protecting the weak. And the Mexican law enforcement authorities are virtuous beyond belief!

Another plus will be our Nirvana won't have a so-called problem of immigrants without documents. Come one, come all. Welcome! Enjoy the handouts! Free borders! Multiple languages! Any culture, even those that are intolerant of all but their own! Welcome!!

As one of the Democrat leaders in a state much more progressive than this backwater called Virginia, rightfully said ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiSuaW6VnBc

... while arguing in favor of House Bill 13-1226 to prohibit concealed carry of firearms on Colorado college campuses, Salazar rebuked critics who said the law would remove a female college student's ability to "level the field" and legally protect herself from potential attackers.

"It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles," he explained. "Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at."

He continued: "And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop a round at somebody."

Mr. Salazar would be well-suited as a legislator in Mexico, with his honorable stance on gun control ... as well as the esteem he places in women.

Everyone knows that women can not be trusted to know whether they're about to be raped. A woman whose worried about some guy who happens to follow the woman's every move has watched to much TV. So what if the woman crossed the street, and then back again, because she was concerned about some tall, stocky person following her. That guy who coincidentally was also walking through the dark parking lot was out enjoying the air. And if the woman should be overpowered and raped by that guy ... well, the woman will just have to get over it.

If she survives, that is. LOL!

Viva los Gun-Controlos! Viva la Fearful-Senoritas!

Jamie Haynes, Fairfax Station Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many questions, few answers on gun control
> http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20140416/OPINI
> ON/140419384/1065/many-questions-few-answers-on-gu
> n-control&template=fairfaxTimes
>
> Seven years ago, as a senior at Virginia Tech, my
> campus was under siege for nine terrifying
> minutes. Shots rang through the air, students and
> teachers watched in fear as the grisly scene
> unfolded, police forcing their way through chained
> doors, wounded victims being carried to safety.
> Thirty-two fellow students and professors were
> killed that day – the largest mass shooting in
> American history.
>
> Yet after seven years we continue to witness
> unfathomable tragedies – Congresswoman Gabrielle
> Giffords, Newtown, shootings this past weekend
> that left three dead at the hands of a white
> supremacist. Can nothing be done to spare the
> lives of innocents?
>
> Despite what partisan rhetoric would lead us to
> believe, much can be done to prevent the senseless
> slaughter of 30 Americans everyday, while ensuring
> a safer marriage between our right as law-abiding
> citizens to own firearms, and our right to safety
> from gun violence in our communities.
>
> First, we must expand background checks to all
> firearm sales. Since the enactment of the Brady
> Law, background checks have stopped more than two
> million prohibited purchasers from obtaining
> firearms through federally licensed firearms
> dealers. How many lives did those background
> checks save?
>
> But up to 40 percent of transactions do not occur
> through federally licensed dealers, and therefore
> do not require a background check. A gaping breach
> used by felons, domestic abusers, and drug addicts
> alike.
>
> In the absence of federal legislation and
> political will, many states have taken it upon
> themselves to expand background checks. But
> without a national standard, dangerous people can
> evade stricter background check requirements by
> crossing state lines, and return to wreak havoc in
> their own communities.
>
> We must also improve the National Instant Criminal
> Background Checks System (NICS) by ensuring that
> states are providing disqualifying records to the
> database. Seung Hui Cho passed a background check,
> despite a 2005 adjudication of mental illness,
> because the record was never submitted to NICS.
> Millions of disqualifying mental health records
> are missing from the system – as of May 2012, 19
> states had reported fewer than 100 records, 14
> less than ten, and Rhode Island had reported
> zero.
>
> Just as important, though often overlooked, is the
> availability of mental healthcare. Our system is
> woefully inadequate, and inaccessibility to
> treatment results in jails overcrowded by many who
> should be in treatment facilities. Seventy percent
> of youth in the juvenile justice system, and more
> than half of adult inmates suffer from mental
> illness. A 2010 study found that in 1955, there
> was one bed in psychiatric wards per 300
> Americans. Today there is one bed per 3,000.
>
> We will never stop every violent act committed
> with a gun, just as we can’t prevent every death
> caused by drunk drivers with police checkpoints,
> but we STILL HAVE TO TRY. It is our duty as
> Americans to make our nation stronger, safer, and
> to leave a better world for future generations. We
> owe it to the victims of April 16th, and every
> life lost by gun violence.
>
> Jamie Haynes, Fairfax Station

My daughter was a freshman at Va. Tech during the incident and as far as I am concerned you can go fuck yourself. Conceal/carry on campus is the only way to go. She feels the same way. Marxist gun control sucks.

Never Forget VT Tech! Massacre, April 16, 2007
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/1512612/1514283.html#msg-1514283

Never Forget VT Tech! Massacre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Never Forget VT Tech! Massacre, April 16, 2007
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/15
> 12612/1514283.html#msg-1514283


I don't think anyone is "forgetting", but please tell me, did failed (existing) gun laws fail, or did society? given what was reported, I don't think *more* "laws" would have prevented anything.

And "Sandy Hook", those were stolen guns, true?

And, and, and...

Hey, I'm in Fairfax Station, too Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Never Forget VT Tech! Massacre Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Never Forget VT Tech! Massacre, April 16, 2007
> >
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/15
>
> > 12612/1514283.html#msg-1514283
>
>
> I don't think anyone is "forgetting", but please
> tell me, did failed (existing) gun laws fail, or
> did society? given what was reported, I don't
> think *more* "laws" would have prevented
> anything.
>
> And "Sandy Hook", those were stolen guns, true?
>
> And, and, and...

Sandy Hook guns were stolen from the mother, who under law, was not allowed to have any in the house with the shooter. Laws and enforcement of laws make the difference.

WTF!?! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps we need to look elsewhere for a good gun
> control model?
>
> Mexico's gun control laws: A model for the United
> States?
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspira
> cy/wp/2014/04/16/mexicos-gun-control-laws-a-model-
> for-the-united-states/
>
>

No, perhaps if you want Mexico law(s), you should move to Mexico.

The United States of America has clearly written laws. Of course, it seems the (D) political party likes to push for change, and when they don't get it, they push, and push, and push. Reminds me of how my brother acted, growing up... Mommy...

Hey, I'm in Fairfax Station, too Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTF!?! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Perhaps we need to look elsewhere for a good
> gun
> > control model?
> >
> > Mexico's gun control laws: A model for the
> United
> > States?
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspira
>
> >
> cy/wp/2014/04/16/mexicos-gun-control-laws-a-model-
>
> > for-the-united-states/
> >
> >
>
> No, perhaps if you want Mexico law(s), you should
> move to Mexico.
>
> The United States of America has clearly written
> laws. Of course, it seems the (D) political party
> likes to push for change, and when they don't get
> it, they push, and push, and push. Reminds me of
> how my brother acted, growing up... Mommy...

I think it has more to do with people not liking their kids being shot. Call me old fashioned...! Retard.

Never Forget VT Tech! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Sandy Hook guns were stolen from the mother, who
> under law, was not allowed to have any in the
> house with the shooter. Laws and enforcement of
> laws make the difference.


Stolen guns, shocker... Mother shouldn't have had them to begin with (due to her son), perhaps go after the lawbreaker(s), using existing laws? Nah, that's common sense.

Never Forget VT Tech! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it has more to do with people not liking
> their kids being shot. Call me old fashioned...!
> Retard.


Wow, resorting to name calling? Is that you, bro?

Anyways, as a parent with two kids in Fairfax County Public Schools, I am not afraid to send them to school each and every day. Perhaps if my kids went to Westfields, kidding...

Hey, you have your right to own a gun, or not. That's a great part of America!

Stricter Gun Control
http://www.teenink.com/opinion/current_events_politics/article/529533/Stricter-Gun-Control/

Did you know that all handguns are semi-automatic? This means that all that stands between you and death is the pull of a trigger. Limited access to handguns would decrease violence, as has been proven in the past by numerous laws. In addition, the mass killings that throw a blanket of loss and sorrow upon our nation can only be done with guns.

The opposing argument – that the Second Amendment applies and gives us the right to possess guns – is not supported with evidence, and is plain hogwash. When the amendment was adopted in 1791, the general public made up the militia to which the amendment refers. By this definition, only the military and other state security groups, such as the National Guard, should possess the right to bear arms.

Many including Kurt Eichenwald of Vanity Fair, believe that “America needs to repeal the Second Amendment.” Those who do not support gun control believe the solution is to allow everyone to have guns for self-defense. Consider, though, how many brawls break out every day. If everyone has a gun, these fights might not end with just concussions and black eyes; more people would die. On the other side of the argument, with more sensible ­reasons, gun control advocates believe firearms should be taken away from the mentally ill and criminals. The endless debating, conflicts and deaths caused by guns is why my state of Michigan should limit access to handguns.

Quite simply, guns cause violence and death. Even though the U.S. populates only five percent of the world, we own almost 50 percent of civilian guns worldwide. Gun control laws help keep the public safe from heavy artillery weapons. Although the laws in place should be stricter, there is sufficient proof that they succeed in protecting the public. According to the Macmillan Social Science ­Library, the 1994 Brady Law, which required background checks and a five-day waiting period for all handgun sales, prompted a ­drastic decline in violence. Aggravated assaults involving guns dropped 12.4 ­percent, violent crimes from guns decreased by 35 percent, and more than 500,000 convicted felons were prevented from purchasing firearms. After the 1989 ban on importing assault rifles, the number of rifles used in homicides fell by 45 percent the very next year!

The number of people affected by gun violence in America is devastating. Their slogan perfectly summarizes the need for stricter gun control laws. “There are too many victims of gun violence because we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in America.” Their research showed that in 2011, one-fifth of the 100,000 people shot in the United States were children and teens. Currently, background checks do not ­include charges in non-criminal offenses such as domestic violence and mental health. Creating stricter gun control laws would keep guns away from those who may become violent with the possession of a dangerous weapon.

Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Columbine. These mass shootings were all performed with semi-automatic handguns. The shooters had psychological issues. In addition, there have been 70 mass shootings since the attempted assassination of Senator Gifford two years ago. In fact, disputes involving guns have become more and more frequent.

Other devastating outcomes can result from the ­severe trauma of a shooting. In Houston, Texas, several people had cardiac arrests from the stress of a shooting situation. Another consequence is the very grave ­incidents of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). The victims of the Columbine incident had reactions after the killing at Sandy Hook. After a near-death experience, and likely physical injuries, victims are also hindered by psychological issues.

The most important and core democratic value, the right to life, has been violated by loose, lethargic gun-control laws. Since this core democratic value is a right we all possess, each person has the right to the protection of his or her life. Guns endanger lives and deprive us of the first natural right listed in the Declaration of Independence. “We … are endowed … with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Guns have compromised this right to life, and have also deprived us of feeling safe and secure.

As John F. Kennedy put it, “Change is the law of life.” It is time we changed the laws that made it possible for 20 first-graders to die. We must make it much more difficult for anyone with an untreated mental illness, or someone who has been in prison, to buy a gun. Many others are affected by the effects of these mass shootings including those who have lost loved ones. Even if those killed are not our acquaintances, our spirits are struck by a brutal blow. After the killing of five- and six-year-old children, we cannot help but think: What if? What would their lives have been like? What will they never experience? This is why we must limit access to handguns and make stricter gun-control laws, in the state of Michigan, and the rest of the country.

Before we start looking at making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase guns, we should be focusing on the aspects that Jamie brought up as the second and third points.

Enhancing NCIS and upgrading state systems for background checks would be an easy step to do that doesn't infringe upon anybody's rights. The mental health system reforms are something that have been needed for a quite a long time, regardless of the gun issue, and those also need to be taken care of. Unfortunately, both of those require state and/or federal funding, so that makes it harder to implement them.

Expanding background checks to private sales just adds an extra layer of bureaucracy to the transfer process. I don't know where you got the 40% number, but that seems unsupportably high to me.

Sending your kids to public school is like hoping they get killed. Only parents that hate their children send them to public school. What a joke.

VaTechDad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jamie Haynes, Fairfax Station Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Many questions, few answers on gun control
> >
> http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20140416/OPINI
>
> >
> ON/140419384/1065/many-questions-few-answers-on-gu
>
> > n-control&template=fairfaxTimes
> >
> > Seven years ago, as a senior at Virginia Tech,
> my
> > campus was under siege for nine terrifying
> > minutes. Shots rang through the air, students
> and
> > teachers watched in fear as the grisly scene
> > unfolded, police forcing their way through
> chained
> > doors, wounded victims being carried to safety.
> > Thirty-two fellow students and professors were
> > killed that day – the largest mass shooting
> in
> > American history.
> >
> > Yet after seven years we continue to witness
> > unfathomable tragedies – Congresswoman
> Gabrielle
> > Giffords, Newtown, shootings this past weekend
> > that left three dead at the hands of a white
> > supremacist. Can nothing be done to spare the
> > lives of innocents?
> >
> > Despite what partisan rhetoric would lead us to
> > believe, much can be done to prevent the
> senseless
> > slaughter of 30 Americans everyday, while
> ensuring
> > a safer marriage between our right as
> law-abiding
> > citizens to own firearms, and our right to
> safety
> > from gun violence in our communities.
> >
> > First, we must expand background checks to all
> > firearm sales. Since the enactment of the Brady
> > Law, background checks have stopped more than
> two
> > million prohibited purchasers from obtaining
> > firearms through federally licensed firearms
> > dealers. How many lives did those background
> > checks save?
> >
> > But up to 40 percent of transactions do not
> occur
> > through federally licensed dealers, and
> therefore
> > do not require a background check. A gaping
> breach
> > used by felons, domestic abusers, and drug
> addicts
> > alike.
> >
> > In the absence of federal legislation and
> > political will, many states have taken it upon
> > themselves to expand background checks. But
> > without a national standard, dangerous people
> can
> > evade stricter background check requirements by
> > crossing state lines, and return to wreak havoc
> in
> > their own communities.
> >
> > We must also improve the National Instant
> Criminal
> > Background Checks System (NICS) by ensuring
> that
> > states are providing disqualifying records to
> the
> > database. Seung Hui Cho passed a background
> check,
> > despite a 2005 adjudication of mental illness,
> > because the record was never submitted to NICS.
> > Millions of disqualifying mental health records
> > are missing from the system – as of May 2012,
> 19
> > states had reported fewer than 100 records, 14
> > less than ten, and Rhode Island had reported
> > zero.
> >
> > Just as important, though often overlooked, is
> the
> > availability of mental healthcare. Our system
> is
> > woefully inadequate, and inaccessibility to
> > treatment results in jails overcrowded by many
> who
> > should be in treatment facilities. Seventy
> percent
> > of youth in the juvenile justice system, and
> more
> > than half of adult inmates suffer from mental
> > illness. A 2010 study found that in 1955, there
> > was one bed in psychiatric wards per 300
> > Americans. Today there is one bed per 3,000.
> >
> > We will never stop every violent act committed
> > with a gun, just as we can’t prevent every
> death
> > caused by drunk drivers with police
> checkpoints,
> > but we STILL HAVE TO TRY. It is our duty as
> > Americans to make our nation stronger, safer,
> and
> > to leave a better world for future generations.
> We
> > owe it to the victims of April 16th, and every
> > life lost by gun violence.
> >
> > Jamie Haynes, Fairfax Station
>
> My daughter was a freshman at Va. Tech during the
> incident and as far as I am concerned you can go
> fuck yourself. Conceal/carry on campus is the only
> way to go. She feels the same way. Marxist gun
> control sucks.

You want all the drunken frat boys at a state u. packing heat? And you think that would make your daughter safer? And you think Canada, Britain, Australia etc. must be "Marxist" You are a big part of the problem.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Before we start looking at making it more
> difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase
> guns, we should be focusing on the aspects that
> Jamie brought up as the second and third points.
>
> Enhancing NCIS and upgrading state systems for
> background checks would be an easy step to do that
> doesn't infringe upon anybody's rights. The mental
> health system reforms are something that have been
> needed for a quite a long time, regardless of the
> gun issue, and those also need to be taken care
> of. Unfortunately, both of those require state
> and/or federal funding, so that makes it harder to
> implement them.
>
> Expanding background checks to private sales just
> adds an extra layer of bureaucracy to the transfer
> process. I don't know where you got the 40%
> number, but that seems unsupportably high to me.

I believe the revisions to the Mental Health plan (for VA anyway) include some stricter requirements following the attack on Sen. Creigh Deeds by his son, correct? Didn't those improvements pass?

uWKkF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
>
> You want all the drunken frat boys at a state u.
> packing heat? And you think that would make your
> daughter safer? And you think Canada, Britain,
> Australia etc. must be "Marxist" You are a big
> part of the problem.


Hey shithead, learn to use quote properly. You don't need to quote multiple long-assed posts when replying to the last one. Geez, what a moron. No offense.

I own a gun, and love to shoot.

I know, I know, that means I'm a racist in Liberal think-logic terms.

uWKkF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VaTechDad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jamie Haynes, Fairfax Station Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Many questions, few answers on gun control
> > >
> >
> http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20140416/OPINI
>
> >
> > >
> >
> ON/140419384/1065/many-questions-few-answers-on-gu
>
> >
> > > n-control&template=fairfaxTimes
> > >
> > > Seven years ago, as a senior at Virginia
> Tech,
> > my
> > > campus was under siege for nine terrifying
> > > minutes. Shots rang through the air, students
> > and
> > > teachers watched in fear as the grisly scene
> > > unfolded, police forcing their way through
> > chained
> > > doors, wounded victims being carried to
> safety.
> > > Thirty-two fellow students and professors
> were
> > > killed that day – the largest mass shooting
> > in
> > > American history.
> > >
> > > Yet after seven years we continue to witness
> > > unfathomable tragedies – Congresswoman
> > Gabrielle
> > > Giffords, Newtown, shootings this past
> weekend
> > > that left three dead at the hands of a white
> > > supremacist. Can nothing be done to spare the
> > > lives of innocents?
> > >
> > > Despite what partisan rhetoric would lead us
> to
> > > believe, much can be done to prevent the
> > senseless
> > > slaughter of 30 Americans everyday, while
> > ensuring
> > > a safer marriage between our right as
> > law-abiding
> > > citizens to own firearms, and our right to
> > safety
> > > from gun violence in our communities.
> > >
> > > First, we must expand background checks to
> all
> > > firearm sales. Since the enactment of the
> Brady
> > > Law, background checks have stopped more than
> > two
> > > million prohibited purchasers from obtaining
> > > firearms through federally licensed firearms
> > > dealers. How many lives did those background
> > > checks save?
> > >
> > > But up to 40 percent of transactions do not
> > occur
> > > through federally licensed dealers, and
> > therefore
> > > do not require a background check. A gaping
> > breach
> > > used by felons, domestic abusers, and drug
> > addicts
> > > alike.
> > >
> > > In the absence of federal legislation and
> > > political will, many states have taken it
> upon
> > > themselves to expand background checks. But
> > > without a national standard, dangerous people
> > can
> > > evade stricter background check requirements
> by
> > > crossing state lines, and return to wreak
> havoc
> > in
> > > their own communities.
> > >
> > > We must also improve the National Instant
> > Criminal
> > > Background Checks System (NICS) by ensuring
> > that
> > > states are providing disqualifying records to
> > the
> > > database. Seung Hui Cho passed a background
> > check,
> > > despite a 2005 adjudication of mental
> illness,
> > > because the record was never submitted to
> NICS.
> > > Millions of disqualifying mental health
> records
> > > are missing from the system – as of May
> 2012,
> > 19
> > > states had reported fewer than 100 records,
> 14
> > > less than ten, and Rhode Island had reported
> > > zero.
> > >
> > > Just as important, though often overlooked,
> is
> > the
> > > availability of mental healthcare. Our system
> > is
> > > woefully inadequate, and inaccessibility to
> > > treatment results in jails overcrowded by
> many
> > who
> > > should be in treatment facilities. Seventy
> > percent
> > > of youth in the juvenile justice system, and
> > more
> > > than half of adult inmates suffer from mental
> > > illness. A 2010 study found that in 1955,
> there
> > > was one bed in psychiatric wards per 300
> > > Americans. Today there is one bed per 3,000.
> > >
> > > We will never stop every violent act
> committed
> > > with a gun, just as we can’t prevent every
> > death
> > > caused by drunk drivers with police
> > checkpoints,
> > > but we STILL HAVE TO TRY. It is our duty as
> > > Americans to make our nation stronger, safer,
> > and
> > > to leave a better world for future
> generations.
> > We
> > > owe it to the victims of April 16th, and
> every
> > > life lost by gun violence.
> > >
> > > Jamie Haynes, Fairfax Station
> >
> > My daughter was a freshman at Va. Tech during
> the
> > incident and as far as I am concerned you can
> go
> > fuck yourself. Conceal/carry on campus is the
> only
> > way to go. She feels the same way. Marxist gun
> > control sucks.
>
> You want all the drunken frat boys at a state u.
> packing heat? And you think that would make your
> daughter safer? And you think Canada, Britain,
> Australia etc. must be "Marxist" You are a big
> part of the problem.

You are obviously oblivious to CCW laws. If you were you'd know you
have to be 21 to obtain a permit. (Read grad students and faculty)
It's also against the law to carry while under the influence of
alcohol or drugs. Please read up before commenting again.

Gerry's kids Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Incorrect. Try again.

Stupid. Try again. Better yet, don't. Nothing you post is actually worth reading. But putting aside the bleating nonsense of brain-dead no-accounts and know-nothings, much of the modern problem with guns boils down to rural interests versus urban interests. In Wyoming for instance, there are not quite 6 people per square mile. In Manhattan, there are more than 70,000 people per square mile. Guns mean a VERY different thing in those two environments. It is presumptively stupid to assume that any single set of laws will be appropriate in each of those circumstances. Firearms extremists need to start recognizing that very simple fact.

By the way, people see the word "militia" in the 2nd Amendment and they start thinking of the Minutemen and all those brave patriots picking off the Redcoats while hiding behind trees and bushes. That's not the correct context, howwver. The 2nd Amendment arose as part of the compromises related to slavery. The southern states were fearful that the northern states would ultimately seek to abolish slavery by using the newly-established central authority of the federal government to disarm the state militias of the south. Those militias -- more akin to lynch mobs and gangs of vigilante thugs actually -- were what kept the lid on a vast population of mostly enslaved blacks. The militias were all that stood to defend the flower of southern womanhood and the scalps of southern slave-owners from potential revolts and uprisings by all these savages. The militias consisted of every able-bodied white male carrying a gun and swaggering about town with a sneer on the lip as a means of reminding the unarmed darkies of just what awaited them if they were ever to step out of line. Concrete examples were of course savagely provided from time to time. This is the "right" that gun-crazies actually rise to defend today.

In further expansion of this history lesson that the NRA will not be passing on to you, the words "keep and bear arms" were used in a purely military context on more than 90% of the occasions where it is found in then-contemporary literature. When the founders' generation wished to speak or write in a non-military context, they most frequently used the term "carry weapons". Citizens were often urged for instance to carry weapons with them to church or when they walked or rode along country paths and trails. The 2nd Amendment does not speak of this right to carry weapons. It addresses only the then separately understood right to keep and bear arms. Originalists might wish to take note.

= I'm afraid of my own shadow, so ban guns and other hurty things so the world will be peaceful. Like in prehistoric times. Or something.

sockpuppet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ?????????????????

About 30% of Americans currently own a gun. The rate has been falling inexorably for some decades now. The distribution of gun ownership is meanwhile not uniform. I'd advise that you look into that, but you may have trouble not also encountering the uncomfortable fact that the distrbution of murder and suicide follow very much in the same patterns as those of gun ownership.

I just pull crap out of my ass and hope it sounds okay. Otherwise, I cut and paste from any leftist site I can find.

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerry's kids Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Incorrect. Try again.
>
> Blah, blah, blah uninformed nonsense...


Too bad the actual words in the 2nd Amendment don't say "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms..." huh? Moron

There are plenty of answers on the gun violence issue. The problem is that the debate is controlled by the extremes. For example it is possible to devise a workable solution that would permit the free exchange of firearms between law abiding citizens while reducing the chances those firearms end up in the wrong hands. The NRA wouldn't like it because it would allow additional regulation of firearm transactions. The gun-control crowd would not like it since it would not further their agenda of ending private ownership of handguns. That is why nothing is done.

xMVGF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am sure the Ukrainians are "OK with that".

Do you ever look at countries that have a history as economically successful democracies? You know...countries that are sort of like us? Don't you think that looking at England & Wales for example might be a better comparison than the Ukraine or Somalia or some other such historically violent and disorderly place? Why a body might come to think you were engaging in deliberate deception by choosing such examples as you do. As for England and Wales, they have 6 guns per hundred residents and we have 90, or 15 times as many. Our gun-related murder rate is 17 times theirs. Our gun-related suicide rate is 28 times theirs. Our gun-related accidental death rate is 42 times theirs. Gunhs are good at causing death and serious injury. The more guns there are, the more of those there will be as well.

I always thought the following exchange summed up the gun control debate nicely:

"Gloria: Daddy, did you know that sixty percent of the people murdered in this country in the last ten years were killed by guns?

Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"

The question is are we a violent society because we have guns, or are we a violent society that uses guns as its instrument of choice? If it is the former, then gun control has more validity. If it is the latter then best case scenario gun control would simply alter the patterns of violence.

Hey, I'm in Fairfax Station, too Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, you have your right to own a gun, or not.
> That's a great part of America!

According to the controlling USSC decisions (Heller and McDonald), there is an individual right to own a gun for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. That's it.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always thought the following exchange summed up
> the gun control debate nicely:
>
> "Gloria: Daddy, did you know that sixty percent of
> the people murdered in this country in the last
> ten years were killed by guns?
>
> Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better,
> little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"
>
> The question is are we a violent society because
> we have guns, or are we a violent society that
> uses guns as its instrument of choice? If it is
> the former, then gun control has more validity.
> If it is the latter then best case scenario gun
> control would simply alter the patterns of
> violence.


Guns have been part of the culture of this country since before it was a country. Violent video games, overly-medicated kids and copious amounts of voilence in movies and TV have more to do with our prediciment than access to guns. Yet the left willing accepts the complete shit our kids see and hear and the pills they give them so parents don't have to actually raise their kids and rabidly go after guns. Insane.

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, I'm in Fairfax Station, too Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey, you have your right to own a gun, or not.
> > That's a great part of America!
>
> According to the controlling USSC decisions
> (Heller and McDonald), there is an individual
> right to own a gun for traditionally lawful
> purposes such as self-defense within the home.
> That's it.


I guess the SCOTUS didn't buy into your bullshit about the militia either then huh? LOL

e6jpU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill.N. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I always thought the following exchange summed
> up
> > the gun control debate nicely:
> >
> > "Gloria: Daddy, did you know that sixty percent
> of
> > the people murdered in this country in the last
> > ten years were killed by guns?
> >
> > Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any
> better,
> > little girl, if they was pushed out of
> windows?"
> >
> > The question is are we a violent society
> because
> > we have guns, or are we a violent society that
> > uses guns as its instrument of choice? If it
> is
> > the former, then gun control has more validity.
>
> > If it is the latter then best case scenario gun
> > control would simply alter the patterns of
> > violence.
>
>
> Guns have been part of the culture of this country
> since before it was a country. Violent video
> games, overly-medicated kids and copious amounts
> of voilence in movies and TV have more to do with
> our prediciment than access to guns. Yet the left
> willing accepts the complete shit our kids see and
> hear and the pills they give them so parents don't
> have to actually raise their kids and rabidly go
> after guns. Insane.

I don't have to think because I'm a Democrat. So there!

hdXMK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I own a gun, and love to shoot. I know, I know, that means I'm a racist in
> Liberal think-logic terms.

No, but the fact that you think such a thing might mark you as being among the intellectually deficient when viewed in what you call "Liberal think-logic terms".

In fact many liberals also own guns and enjoy shooting and/or hunting. They tend however to adopt themselves and encourage others also to adopt safe practices with respect to gun ownership and handling while also supporting sensible laws to address the fatal and other disastrous consequences that guns have on particularly urban society.

actually, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just pull crap out of my ass and hope it sounds
> okay. Otherwise, I cut and paste from any leftist
> site I can find.

Ah yes...the unmistakable call of the shrieking right-wing asswipe! The fact that you are unaware of reality and therefore refuse to deal with it on any level at all is one of the things that marks you as a shrieking right-wing asswipe. There are others of course, and I'm sure you will soon enough exhibit many of those as well.

nCUFC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Too bad the actual words in the 2nd Amendment
> don't say "...the right of the militia to
> keep and bear arms..." huh? Moron

Pick up a book one day, you ignorant hick. I mean an actual book by an author of some actual stature. You've apparently never gone there before, leaving yourself thereby as nothing more than a doltish yahoo destined for a lifetime of perpetualy humiliating yourself. Enjoy that, hoser.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are plenty of answers on the gun violence
> issue. The problem is that the debate is
> controlled by the extremes. For example it is
> possible to devise a workable solution that would
> permit the free exchange of firearms between law
> abiding citizens while reducing the chances those
> firearms end up in the wrong hands. The NRA
> wouldn't like it because it would allow additional
> regulation of firearm transactions. The
> gun-control crowd would not like it since it would
> not further their agenda of ending private
> ownership of handguns. That is why nothing is
> done.

Really weak, Bill. The screamers have indeed made it clear that they will tolerate no sort of gun regulations at all. The other sides however have no wish to end private ownership of handguns. That's a massive and inexcusable strawman. You should be taken out and caned for it. Many strokes are owed you. What the non-screamers seek is HARM-REDUCTION. How can the staggering toll of gun-related death and destruction be reduced? That is the objective and that is the question.

6jECp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey, I'm in Fairfax Station, too Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hey, you have your right to own a gun, or
> not.
> > > That's a great part of America!
> >
> > According to the controlling USSC decisions
> > (Heller and McDonald), there is an individual
> > right to own a gun for traditionally lawful
> > purposes such as self-defense within the home.
> > That's it.
>
>
> I guess the SCOTUS didn't buy into your bullshit
> about the militia either then huh? LOL


Zing!

 
Attachments:

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nCUFC Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Too bad the actual words in the 2nd Amendment
> > don't say "...the right of the militia
> to
> > keep and bear arms..." huh? Moron
>
> Pick up a book one day, you ignorant hick. I mean
> an actual book by an author of some actual
> stature. You've apparently never gone there
> before, leaving yourself thereby as nothing more
> than a doltish yahoo destined for a lifetime of
> perpetualy humiliating yourself. Enjoy that,
> hoser.


Mein Kampf was an actual book written by an author of some actual stature. Would that suffice? Moron.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The question is are we a violent society because
> we have guns, or are we a violent society that
> uses guns as its instrument of choice? If it is
> the former, then gun control has more validity.
> If it is the latter then best case scenario gun
> control would simply alter the patterns of
> violence.

Wake up, fer chrissakes! How van anyone fall for Archie Bunker crap? It was written as sarcastic ridicule, you know! The problem with guns is that they are so effective and so easy to use. No matter how mad you are at him or her, you can't so easily push someone else up several flights of stairs and then shove him or her out an open window. In a split-second of anger that you'll regret for the rest of your life, you can easily snuff out the life of anyone else at all with a gun. Then there are the suicide and oops problems. Archie didn't have an answer for those either.

6jECp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess the SCOTUS didn't buy into your bullshit
> about the militia either then huh? LOL

You mean the actual history and ourposes of the 2nd Amendment? Let me assure you that the Justices (and their clerks and anyone else familiar with the creation and evolution of the Constitution) are well aware of all that. You on the other hand would apparently be completely clueless without my help.

Iggy Poop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Zing!

FAIL!

But you can just join the rest over there. Quite the gaggle of humiliated losers has been gathering. The wages of utter ignorance.

3d93w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mein Kampf was an actual book written by an author
> of some actual stature. Would that suffice?
> Moron.

Only an ignorant dickwad would ask the question. Does that answer it for you?

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Iggy Poop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Zing!
>
> FAIL!
>
> But you can just join the rest over there. Quite
> the gaggle of humiliated losers has been
> gathering. The wages of utter ignorance.


Uh huh. LOL


 
Attachments:

Hmmmm... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe the revisions to the Mental Health plan
> (for VA anyway) include some stricter requirements
> following the attack on Sen. Creigh Deeds by his
> son, correct? Didn't those improvements pass?

Those were a good first start, but you're going to need to do more than increasing the time for emergency protection orders and greater communication between agencies. There need to be some long term solutions for folks with chronic problems, as well as an increase in the number of beds, etc. All of that is going to take money and more legislation.

It remains a real problem. But the Deeds legislation was a good step in the right direction.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmmmm... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I believe the revisions to the Mental Health
> plan
> > (for VA anyway) include some stricter
> requirements
> > following the attack on Sen. Creigh Deeds by
> his
> > son, correct? Didn't those improvements pass?
>
> Those were a good first start, but you're going to
> need to do more than increasing the time for
> emergency protection orders and greater
> communication between agencies. There need to be
> some long term solutions for folks with chronic
> problems, as well as an increase in the number of
> beds, etc. All of that is going to take money and
> more legislation.
>
> It remains a real problem. But the Deeds
> legislation was a good step in the right
> direction.

I think the big issue is on the patient's rights. Finding that fine line. NPR had a radio show on about it and discussed on the Kojo Nomdy show.

Your foul language anti self defense commie rants are so predictable.

More Guns= Less Crime

Liberals have slobbered over John Paul Stevens recent piece about fixing the Second Amendment by just adding five words.

I'll pull an end run around the Leftists by pointing out that the militia is comprised of every able-bodied citizen of the United States of America, needed to fight enemies abroad, and enemies here at home.

The Second Amendment doesn't say Army, or Navy, or Air Force, or Marines, or Coast Guard, or Reserve Force, or National Guard, or State Guard, or ROTC, or whatever.

And, think about how absurd it would be for James Madison to come to the other states who had already signed the Constitution, and said, "Hey, Virginia won't sign on until the federal government permits the Army to possess guns."

Liberals are just plain stupid.

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, I'm in Fairfax Station, too Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey, you have your right to own a gun, or not.
> > That's a great part of America!
>
> According to the controlling USSC decisions
> (Heller and McDonald), there is an individual
> right to own a gun for traditionally lawful
> purposes such as self-defense within the home.
> That's it.

Yea, right. pick and choose, narrowly focus, and twist to suit...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Kennedy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberals have slobbered over John Paul Stevens
> recent piece about fixing the Second Amendment by
> just adding five words.
>
> I'll pull an end run around the Leftists by
> pointing out that the militia is comprised of
> every able-bodied citizen of the United States of
> America, needed to fight enemies abroad, and
> enemies here at home.
>
> The Second Amendment doesn't say Army, or Navy, or
> Air Force, or Marines, or Coast Guard, or Reserve
> Force, or National Guard, or State Guard, or ROTC,
> or whatever.
>
> And, think about how absurd it would be for James
> Madison to come to the other states who had
> already signed the Constitution, and said, "Hey,
> Virginia won't sign on until the federal
> government permits the Army to possess guns."
>
> Liberals are just plain stupid.

Agreed, but quite possibly, liberals could be more than just stupid.

Va Tech has banned guns on campus for decades. That's a TOTAL GUN BAN. All it did was ensure there'd be a lot of defenseless victims. Every gun control nut has blood on their hands from this.

DC has strict gun control laws, as does Chicago, Detroit, and all of Mexico. How's that been working?

Why are libs so fucking blind and stupid?

pwDkG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh huh. LOL

Typical total asshole. All the photos in the world will not be enough to paper over your complete ignorance of the history of the 2nd Amendment. If you do not wish to look like a total fucktard, it is important to go learn about something before you try to talk about it. Being a total dumbfuck and proud of it is never a good idea.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It remains a real problem. But the Deeds
> legislation was a good step in the right
> direction.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. THe problem is that after you take it, there are still almost a thousand miles to go amd too many already want to sit down and rest.

Actually AKA LOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your foul language anti self defense commie rants
> are so predictable.
> More Guns= Less Crime

I'd tell you to go fuck yorurself, but you already have. What a useless, clueless fucktard. Just another impotent right-wing asshole

Kennedy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberals have slobbered over John Paul Stevens
> recent piece about fixing the Second Amendment by
> just adding five words.

Really? Liberals? All I've seen is the usual gaggles of dumbass right-wing fucktards all up in arms over something that isn't going to happen anyway. It's all just part of a fucking book tour. But We do know how prone to upset over the entirely imaginary these asshat right-wingers are. Chicken Little had nothing at all on these absolute morons.

> And, think about how absurd it would be for James
> Madison to come to the other states who had
> already signed the Constitution, and said, "Hey,
> Virginia won't sign on until the federal
> government permits the Army to possess guns."
> Liberals are just plain stupid.

Most of the delegates/drafters signed the Constitution as the Philadephia Convention of 1787 neared its end. After the amendments were referred to them by Congress, states then either ratified or didn't. Quite a different thing there, Sparky, but right-wingers are so fucking stupid and so fucking ignorant of their country's history that they don't know anything about any of that. Staggering stupidity is what this lot brings to the table, and very little more.

Hey, I'm in Fairfax Station, too Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yea, right. pick and choose, narrowly focus, and
> twist to suit...

Yo, fucktard, learn some actual history. Pick up like a book or something. Do you know what books are? The 2nd Amendment was part of the compromises over slavery. The "militia" were the ones and twos and gangs of armed white folk swaggering about the streets of the southern states, protecting the property and other interests of whites by seeking to intimidate by whatever means necessary the large and ever-growing black populations away from any ideas of revolt or uprising. The "militia" were the stick that enforced the brutal repression of the slave-based plantation system. There wasn't any carrot. The Constitution could not have been ratified without promises of a bill of rights and that bill of rights that had to include protection for southern militias.

Hey, I'm in Fairfax Station, too Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed, but quite possibly, liberals could be more
> than just stupid.

Like your opinion counts for anything. Fucking uneducated asswipe loser.

VT Gun Control Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Va Tech has banned guns on campus for decades.
> That's a TOTAL GUN BAN. All it did was ensure
> there'd be a lot of defenseless victims. Every
> gun control nut has blood on their hands from
> this. DC has strict gun control laws, as does
> Chicago, Detroit, and all of Mexico. How's that
> been working?

They all have laws against speeding as well. Do you have any idea why? Right-wingers are SO FUCKING CLUELESS!!!
>
> Why are libs so fucking blind and stupid?

I have an IQ of over 140, tested multiple times. I plan on buying at least 3 guns over the next 6mos, maybe all of them at the gun show. I will do this because under no circumstances will I live without recourse under the half wits that liberalism has prompted to go into government. I invite all with any semblance of sanity to do the same.

>Like your opinion counts for anything. Fucking uneducated asswipe loser.


Filthy mouth one, there are children here. Wash your mouth out now with soap.

Your Gun Grabbing ways have never worked. Va Tech is a good example. Students over 21 who could have had a CCW permit but not allowed to carry on campus. The blood of the slain is upon you.

Now go read the SCOTUS Ruling on Michigan affirmative action and stick your filthy head in the oven and turn on the gas.

>The "militia" were the ones and twos and gangs of armed white folk swaggering about the streets of the southern states, protecting the property and other interests of whites by seeking to intimidate by whatever means necessary the large and ever-growing black populations

Oh... I hardly think so. There is considered opinion that the 2nd amendment supports the opposite:

"The majority opinion quoted Spooner from The Unconstitutionality of Slavery as saying that the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery."

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pwDkG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Uh huh. LOL
>
> Typical total asshole. All the photos in the
> world will not be enough to paper over your
> complete ignorance of the history of the 2nd
> Amendment. If you do not wish to look like a
> total fucktard, it is important to go learn about
> something before you try to talk about it. Being
> a total dumbfuck and proud of it is never a good
> idea.


Brawhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...


 
Attachments:

If you can justify taking guns from everyone because of the actions of a few, why not take cars away from everyone because of the actions of drunk or reckless drivers?

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> They all have laws against speeding as well. Do
> you have any idea why? Right-wingers are SO
> FUCKING CLUELESS!!!


Yeah, and nobody speeds as a result. I mean it's just completely shut down speeding. Especially by people involved in illegal activities. They wouldn't dare speed.

What we really need are some MOAR laws against speeding directed toward people who typically don't speed anyway. That will make sure that the people who don't speed don't! Maybe some more drug laws while we're at it. They work well too. Right to the root of the problem ya know?

Speak of Your Self Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Filthy mouth one, there are children here. Wash
> your mouth out now with soap.

Go fuck yourself. Fuck your kids too. If you can't keep them out of here, their learning what a total asshole the old man is will all be on YOUR fucked-up head.

> Your Gun Grabbing ways have never worked. Va Tech
> is a good example. Students over 21 who could have
> had a CCW permit but not allowed to carry on
> campus. The blood of the slain is upon you.

Moron. You turn 30,000 drunken Hokies loose with the type of gun I'm sure you'd want them all to have, and events such as those of 04/16/2007 wouldn't even make the morning paper. Gun-nuts are SO fucking dumb!

> Now go read the SCOTUS Ruling on Michigan
> affirmative action and stick your filthy head in
> the oven and turn on the gas.

The papist majority assures us that the case was about jurisdiction. Do you even know what that is???

UDVMV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh... I hardly think so. There is considered
> opinion that the 2nd amendment supports the
> opposite:
>
> "The majority opinion quoted Spooner from The
> Unconstitutionality of Slavery as saying that the
> right to bear arms was necessary for those who
> wanted to take a stand against slavery."

Nice history, asshole. Lysander Spooner was an abolitionist writing in 1845. He had no effect on the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 or on the subsequent drafting of the 2nd Amendment in satisfaction of deals made in compromises on slavery at the time. Feel free to try again, though I doubt very much that you can do any better.

YJjpW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brawhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

What's that they say about doing the same thing over and over an expecting a different result? Neither you nor any of these other god-forsaken pathetic goobers around here has any idea AT ALL of any of the history of the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You are all alike in your infantile tabula rasa ignorance of anything material that actually happened at that time. So go pat yoruself on the back for being a complete and worthless know-nothing.

jjw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you can justify taking guns from everyone
> because of the actions of a few, why not take cars
> away from everyone because of the actions of drunk
> or reckless drivers?

What??? Who has called for taking your guns away again? Do you know what paranoid delusions are? The NRA does, and they rejoice in creating as many of them as they possibly can.

Actually... you're an idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, and nobody speeds as a result. I mean it's
> just completely shut down speeding. Especially by
> people involved in illegal activities. They
> wouldn't dare speed.

Proving yourself clueless. Is that a hobby or something? Speed limit laws exist so that there is something to enforce. It's the enforcement that serves to deter speeding. So-called gun free zones serve the same basic purpose as extra fines for speeding in a highway work zone. Or is all that too complicated for you?

> What we really need are some MOAR laws against
> speeding directed toward people who typically
> don't speed anyway. That will make sure that the
> people who don't speed don't! Maybe some more
> drug laws while we're at it. They work well too.
> Right to the root of the problem ya know?

So you're a total dumbshit. No need to belabor the point.

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YJjpW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Brawhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
>
> What's that they say about doing the same thing
> over and over an expecting a different result?
> Neither you nor any of these other god-forsaken
> pathetic goobers around here has any idea AT ALL
> of any of the history of the US Constitution or
> the Bill of Rights. You are all alike in your
> infantile tabula rasa ignorance of anything
> material that actually happened at that time. So
> go pat yoruself on the back for being a complete
> and worthless know-nothing.


 
Attachments:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/22/carson-when-government-looks-more-like-foe-than-fr/?page=all#pagebreak

The senator readily referred to the Bundys and their supporters as “domestic terrorists,” but the current administration is reticent about applying the same term to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who admitted slaughtering more than a dozen people in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas. What does this tell us about our government and its perceptions and alignments?

The massive show of federal force in the Bundy case is frightening because it gives us a brief glimpse of the totalitarian regime that awaits a sleeping populace that does not take seriously its voting responsibilities, and places in public office (and returns them to office) who do not represent traditional American values.

The fact that the ranchers were well armed and willing to literally fight for their rights probably tempered the enthusiasm of the federal forces to engage in further aggression. It was clear from the body language and some of the reported verbal responses of the government forces that they were not prepared to engage in lethal combat with fellow Americans.

Those Americans who are concerned about the possible future imposition of martial law after a financial collapse or some other event should take solace in knowing that many military and law enforcement personnel would likely refuse to obey commands inconsistent with freedom and American values. Such commands could emanate from any political party in the future, but it is likely that such a party would be one controlling an administration that selectively enforces laws and ignores or excuses corruption.

PHOTOS: Armed and liberal: Left-leaning celebrities who are pro-gun

Another important lesson from this incident is the value of a well-armed citizenry. The Second Amendment was crafted by wise citizens who recognized how quickly an enemy invasion could occur or how our own government could be deceived into thinking it had the right to dominate the people.

Such domination is considerably more difficult when people have arms and can put up significant resistance. This is the reason that brutal dictators like Fidel Castro, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler and Idi Amin tried to disarm the populace before imposing governmental control. Such domination could occur in America in the not-too-distant future if we are not vigilant.

We must be reasonable and willing to engage in conversation about how to limit the availability of dangerous weapons to criminals and very violent or insane people. In light of past worldwide atrocities committed by tyrants, though, to threaten the Second Amendment rights of ordinary American citizens is itself insanity. Those wishing to ban all assault weapons fail to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment.

Just as insidious as the attempt to limit weapons and ammunition to law-abiding citizens is the incessant invasion of privacy by the government. Unless there is reasonable cause for suspicion as determined by a court of law, there is no need for the government to know all the intimate details of our lives, including who we talk to, where we spend our time and money, or which weapons we own, provided we’re not purchasing tanks or fighter planes.

People only need guns to defend against our tyrannical government, but now that Obama has turned DHS into a homeland military and armed them to the hilt no one can stop the government or defend themselves against it.

Fairfax County Police now execute husbands to stop domestic disputes and then use their military equipment to destroy the property. No one with a gun can beat the FFCP so why bother having a gun.

America has a problem with gun violence
•One in three people in the U.S. know someone who has been shot.1
•On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.2
•Every day on average, 51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun.3
•The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.4
•A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.5

Gun Violence Takes a Massive Toll on American Children
•More than one in five U.S. teenagers (ages 14 to 17) report having witnessed a shooting.6
•An average of eight children and teens under the age of 20 are killed by guns every day.7
•American children die by guns 11 times as often as children in other high-income countries.8
•Youth (ages 0 to 19) in the most rural U.S. counties are as likely to die from a gunshot as those living in the most urban counties. Rural children die of more gun suicides and unintentional shooting deaths. Urban children die more often of gun homicides.9
•Firearm homicide is the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle crashes) for young people ages 1-19 in the U.S.10
•In 2007, more pre-school-aged children (85) were killed by guns than police officers were killed in the line of duty.11

Gun Violence is a Drain on U.S. Taxpayers
•Medical treatment, criminal justice proceedings, new security precautions, and reductions in quality of life are estimated to cost U.S. citizens $100 billion annually.12
•The lifetime medical cost for all gun violence victims in the United States is estimated at $2.3 billion, with almost half the costs borne by taxpayers.13

How many children are killed every year in their own driveway by an automobile driven by a family member?

How many people stop an attempted rape, burglary, attack in their own home every year?

How many unarmed women are raped every year?

How many unarmed people are beaten or killed by a spouse every year?

How many unarmed children are abused by someone they know every year?

How many people are stabbed during an altercation every year?

How many tax dollars are generated by the sale of weapons and amunition every year?

How many people survived a fatal automobile accident by the use of airbags but are serously impaired for the rest of their life, creating a huge cost of medical care?

How many of the children that die every year from gun shot wounds are from single parent families and were unsupervised?

How strict are the gun laws in those municipalities with highest per capita gun caused death rate?