Senate Gun Control

Firing someone for a Facebook post should be against the law anyway.

 

I can so easily think of examples of Facebook posts that would make me fire an employee and make you agree that it was a very good idea to fire him/her.

 

Agreed. I think if someone is putting something out there publicly it's not unreasonable for an employer to judge, based on that, whether or not they think that person is the kind they want working in their establishment. That's kind of why I keep my Facebook private and I don't add coworkers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I guess that's a danger of the invasiveness of pop culture/media in general. On the last Survivor, there was someone who called herself a nuclear technician. She was one of the most unstable goats of the show. Granted, it's just stupid reality tv full of editing, but my only thought was if I was the nuclear plant supervisor, the first thing I would do when she got voted off and returned to the plant is fire her. There would be no way I would want anyone who acted so irrationally anywhere near nuclear anything.

 

This is why I don't have Facebook.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cellphones-laptops-flights-bound-America.html

So, one smartphone/tablet used in a bomb, and all are subject to checks.

Americans get shot, you need MOAR GUNS! MOAR FREEDOMS!

 

I guess it's par for the course for the Daily Mail, but that's weeeeee bit of an over-alarmist article isn't it?

Here's how the story is actually being covered in the US:

Passengers taking international flights into the United States now must have their cell phones and other electronic devices pass additional inspection before boarding planes, as part of the Transportation Security Administration’s most recent strategy to protect against the threat of a new type of terror attack. The United Kingdom also said it is increasing security measures “in conjunction with international partners and the aviation industry.” Officials also said they don’t anticipate significant disruptions for passengers and that they will not raise the terror-threat level.

The TSA said Sunday it is requiring only some overseas airports to conduct the additional inspections. The agency also said devices that fail to power up won't be allowed on planes and that their owners might have to undergo extra screening before boarding.

Hmmm. Hardly one step away from anarchy, now is it.....

 

blue collar ender

 

Closer and closer to a return to the Wild Wild West

 

Jeffries is actually dead on. He's also mocking Kimball et al

EDIT: Kimball_Kinnison, watch the vid

 

I've freely admitted on numerous occasions that my views on guns are multifaceted. There is a significant component related to self-defense (with guns being the best option for dealing with the primary known threat I've received and potentially avoiding violence, for reasons I detailed via PM with you, Ender). There's also a significant component of it that comes from an appreciation for the engineering and historical aspects of firearms.

As I've said before, I own both an AK-47 and an AR-15. I find them both absolutely amazing examples of engineering because of how well they were designed for very different use cases. I love the 1911 not just because it's great for self defense (it's what I carry), but because it is an incredible design that has withstood the test of time. It's also what my grandfather carried in World Ward II, and my own father trained on in the Navy. I also own a revolver of a similar design to the one that my grandfather carried as a cop in Los Angeles. One of the firearms that I want to get is a Colt Single Action Army (aka Colt Peacemaker). Why? Because as near as I can tell, that's what my great-great-grandfather (for whom my younger son is named) likely carried as a marshal in the Indian Territory (now known as Oklahoma). Many of these firearms provide a link back to my own family history, and I look forward to sharing them with my children to help them better connect with and understand their ancestors.

I am a big supporter of self-defense, in large part because of my own experience as a survivor of spousal abuse and having received specific threats of violence against my safety, not to mention two significant security related incidents that have happened literally on my doorstep in the last 5 years.

I am a big supporter of hunting, and am looking forward to the start of deer season in November. Venison is extremely tasty, and it's also quite healthy. I own firearms devoted towards that purpose as well.

Are guns for everyone? No, and I've never claimed that they are. But, they can be a useful tool for many legitimate purposes, ranging from hunting, to collecting, to self-defense.

I do oppose gun control, mostly because 99% of the proposals are either disingenuous (i.e. not targeted at their stated purpose) or would be completely ineffective, or would disproportionately affect law-abiding gun owners without a significant impact on criminals. (For example, requiring gun registration can only affect law abiding citizens, because the Supreme Court has held that forcing criminals to register firearms would violate the Fifth Amendment.) If anyone want to suggest a form of gun control that would actually address the problems it claims to address, doesn't disproportionately target law-abiding citizens, and can be shown to be effective without violating constitutionally-protected rights, I would gladly consider it or even support it. None of the existing proposals would do any of that.

Whether Ender likes it or not (and we know he doesn't), the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, constitutionally-protected right. I am opposed to any infringement upon any of the fundamental, constitutionally-protected rights, whether it is free speech, the right to due process, or the right to bear arms.

 

he is. he's quite funny and persuasive (im still skeptical of the efficacy of legislative strategies of gun control in the united states for the cultural reasons he himself cited)

i rather align with kimball kinnison in wrt legislation, (oppose because they're generally silly half-measures/ineffective) while firmly believing in sort of humiliating gun fetishists, particularly those who believe pretend gun ownership makes them and their loved ones safer.

the cultural change is too far off yet for legislative change to be appropriate/effective, and the legislative change rather serves to provoke and retrench the idiots

 

Whether gun ownership makes you and your family safer really depends on many factors. In my case, I had received specific threats from someone who has an almost pathological fear of guns, but a very strong affinity for knives. Even with a significant height and weight advantage, I would not want to go up against an opponent with a knife if I were unarmed.

Most of the studies that get cited about people being more at risk from a gun in their own home come from two categories. First, a lot of the gun violence out there happens among people who are already involved in criminal acts (gangs, drugs, etc) or involved with people who are involved in those acts. In fact, a study done recently in Chicago indicated that simply knowing someone who was a victim of gun violence made you over ten times more likely to become a victim of gun violence yourself.

Second, much of the rest of the "gun violence in the home" in those studies come from domestic abuse. Having a gun in a home where abuse is ongoing can be extremely dangerous for all those involved. Sometimes it's more dangerous for the abuser, but unfortunately sometimes it's also more dangerous for the abused.

For people that don't fall into those two categories, a gun in the home can help make it a safer place. As with any other aspect of life, each individual needs to look at their own situation and evaluate the risks and benefits that they face. Your mileage may vary, so it's simply not possible to make a blanket statement for everyone and have it be accurate.

 

More things that never happened.

 

Speaking of fetishists, MSNBC ran an article about roving bands of private citizens "protecting America" with guts and guns. Ladies and Gentlemen, meet "Huggie Bear" (yes, that's the name he uses) and his merry men:



No matter where they go, 4 meters in every direction around them is the safest place in the country.

 

They should get real jobs.

 

Superhero can be a full time job. Any tips received from grateful citizens would have to be claimed on their 1040 form.

 

I look at them and I just see Cletus from GTAV type people

 

Mr44 - safest and most freedom filled part of the country at any time, I think you mean.

 

Filled with more freedom than even a chocolate covered Twinkie.

 

where did u get this picture of me?