Senate Gun Control

Ezekiel 25:17

 

Yes. We've never been more ****ed up, srsly.

I totally agree, and I'm a gun owner. There are too many fidiots out there doing stoooopid things

 

Eh, everything after 1492 was awful.

 

My people had the rule of the roost, so I am biased on that particular point...and we use pretty colors.

 

How many more angry songs will Eddie Vedder have to write before people get that gun culture is bad?

It's still mind blowing that the solution many have is to simply use more gun. When in doubt, the liberal application of gun is apparently a sure fire way to problem solve.

 

i would consider turning in my grun if eddie vedders wrote a grun control song that was around two hours long and featured layered, cacophonic swells of distorted bass guitar strings being pummeled with the screams of children piercing through the sludge, a my little pony-style fantastical section, a section featuring the howls of wolves amongst howls of wild-ass feedback. it would need an orchestral section that builds and builds in half-steps of pitch and volume, an ambient section with twinkly stars and the audio from that guy murdering those trespassers on his property from that other thread, a section with tibetan singing bowls and the sounds of spray bottles going off, with alternating male/female moaning sounds surging back and forth in the mix, a scooby-doo section, a section that covers the song "funky town" with blast beats, a section made up of jack shephard clips/dialogue. and a bunch of other things i haven't thought of yet.

 

real funny stuff, dude. keep up the good work

 

but i really want to hear this, michael! or something approaching it at least. i guess i'll have to just make it myself.

 

How about we take the guns away from mentally ill people who are reported to the cops at least? Surely that is not a bridge too far?

 

Someone's going to argue that they have a constitutional right to these firearms, guys.

 

Yes but even the US Supreme Court has stated that the second amendment has boundaries and limits. Mental illness is one such boundary.

 

As soon as we let our guard down, will have the British in our back yards!

 

*we'll*

(Damn auto correct)

 

"We'll" was not the error in your post.

 

Yeah, well, I happen to listen to a higher authority than the Supreme Court. Jesus. Jesus gave man rights, and only He can take them away.

Check and mate, pinko.

 

It's OK, you are a nation of over 300 million. If you take the guns away from the mentally ill, the convicted felons and the racists, then you will still have over a million people to defend yourself with.

 

I wish we could afford a process that included a mental evaluation/assessment for a gun purchase. Maybe you need to have two independent assessments that you shouldn't have a gun in order to deny a purchase. I think it's a much more precarious problem to come up with a reliable process that would identify the mentally ill whose guns should be taken away, but I'd be interested in working on that problem, too.

 

Like the idiot from the family research council on MSNBC earlier today.

 

And a "promise/cross my heart" that said purchaser won't become mentally ill for at least 50, no make that 70 years, after the date of purchase?

Even then that doesn't address the folks that obtain fire arms illegally.

 

I can't think of a single proposal that would address the folks that obtain fire arms illegally.

Edit: Or, in fact, the issue of people who were rational who become irrational and homicidal.

 

I think it is far easier to take the guns away than it is to deny a purchase. To take the guns away, all you would need is a simple risk assessment criteria which is used as a baseline against the facts in question. For example, if the facts are that the subject of the enquiry is posting youtube videos about unleashing his vengeance upon the world and the subject is being treated for a mental illness or other condition then you would tick 'unacceptable risk' and take away the guns and take away the subject for more intense therapy/scrutiny. So long as your risk assessment criteria included a very low threshold for 'unacceptable risk' then it would work OK. Of course, the subject has to be reported in the first place in order for the assessment to be conducted.

 

I just see that being a very bureaucratic process. And it's harder to flag those people without some ridiculous surveillance state put in place.