Senate Gun Control

But wouldn't it make more sense to sue those who actually sell/give away the guns? Unless it can be shown that the specific manufacturers also provide the guns to the killers, of course.

 

Yes, I've never been completely sold on the idea of suing manufacturers themselves. That's not to say that I agree with the premise of the PLCAA---I think it should be repealed and lawsuits should be allowed to succeed or fail on their individual merits. But I don't think they're a panacea, or justified in all cases. In many cases there's just too much separation between the original manufacturer and the, er, "user" to make the case that they are liable for specific actions.

But that's something that should be decided in court, not preempted by Congress.

 

Donor to GOP: Ban Assault weapons or I won't write you another check.

To be honest, that's probably the best way to reach the GOP on this issue, re: their pockets.

 

Thank you all for your devotion.

 

Some of the are old enough to vote this year.

 

That's the pro-gun crowd for you.

 

So, what stamps are filling up your passport, out of interest?

 

Black people killing each other and mentally ill people killing themselves. No crisis then. Got it.

Seriously, dude, if the only thing gun control did was make it harder for people suffering from mental illness to commit suicide, that would be reason enough for it. You're not going to convince me that we shouldn't have gun control because guns are usually used by people suffering from depression or other mental illnesses to kill themselves. I was suicidal for almost a year once; thank Christ I didn't have a gun and couldn't get one. Other suicidal people weren't so lucky; they found a gun. And you seem to think that's not a reason to have gun control.

It troubles me how quickly we've adjusted to this kind of phraseology. "You've made your school a soft target." "We need to make schools hard targets." A school isn't a target. I refuse to refer to a school as a target. I'm not normalizing that; I'm not helping you create that reality. No school of any kind should ever be a target for any kind of violence ever.

In all honesty, I have to applaud the guy who made the FaceBook post a couple of pages ago who was actually honest enough to finally admit what I've always suspected: a gun gives him a bigger erection than any woman ever has*. I'm not stereotyping or kidding; he said it himself, right out there in front of everybody. I mean, it's a seriously twisted pathology, but at least he admitted it. And now no pro-gun nut can say that I'm strawmanning when I say that's what it is. I'm saving that post and using it every time pro-gun people try to argue that there's nothing weird about owning a bunch of guns.

*To be fair, maybe there just haven't been that many who've tried.

 

I see a great deal of fear and anxiety more than anything else. It must be very difficult to live like that.

Still, we're seeing children who have been actual victims face that fear rather bravely.

 

I'm not sure how to reconcile concern about "soft targets" with the dismissal of the notion that America is an extreme outlier when it comes to gun-related homicides.

If you need to worry about schools being "soft targets", clearly there is a problem with gun-related homicides.

 

U.S. culture is mentally ill. Massive gun prevalence is a solvable problem that we simply cannot solve, because our mental illness precludes us from effectively seeking treatment for our mental illness. If we weren't so mentally ill, we'd go to therapy, take the meds, do what had to be done to heal. But we can't do any of those things because we're so mentally ill.

 

Good one. I bet such douches do exist. Poor kid

 

I've seen a few libertarians come out with the "defend yourself against the gubmint" idiocy too.

Let's take a look at the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Tellingly, the US hasn't ratified this into domestic legislation. Imbeciles will tell us this is because the Constitution protects most of those rights anyway, so it's redundant.

Except, of course, the Constitution doesn't protect the economic rights in the Declaration and you have to conclude the decision not to ratify is deliberately because of those rights.

Let's have a look though at a very brief, selective history of American government tyranny. And take a moment to remember those Brave Patriots who defended liberty and pushed back against this tide of oppression:

"Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

I mean, wholesale torture of Gitmo detainees deined their basic rights.

"Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."

Here's a UN Special Rapporteur noting how that right doesn't exist:
http://www.ohchr.org/.../Docum.../A_HRC_35_28_Add.2_AEV.docx

"Article 23.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests"

https://en.wikipedia.org/.../History_of_union_busting_in...

"Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control"

We hear stories of the effects of America's pissweak attempt at a minimum wage - people working 7 days, 2 jobs, and not being able to take sick pay. We hear stories of the horrors of a system of insured risk, instead of free health care - people walking around managing pain symptoms or with tumourous growths because they can't afford to have them treated. And statistically we know unless you're a billionaire tech entrepreneur you are better off in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Finland etc than you are in the USA.

The US has failed, deliberately and often, to discharge the most basic obligation of the state - protection of the quality of life of its citizens. So tell me again how you need an AR-15, 20,000 rounds and seven handguns to defend against tyranny, please?

 

I said words to this effect to a family member a while ago and the look of utter consternation she gave me was genuinely terrifying.

 

....and then there are THESE ********s.

Spoiler: Video - Language Warning

The "No Lackin' Challenge", where your friends point a gun at you and you're expected to respond with your own gun.
If you don't, you're "lackin'", and the video of your shame goes onto YouTube.

As you can probably guess, the Spirit of Darwin has already descended upon these folks...

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2018/01/26/internet-leads-shooting/1070597001/

 

It's a pretty standard response in the developing world, tbf.

 

I feel like when people say that they need guns to ovethrow the government, the reason they want to overthrow the government is so that they can replace with a segregationist evangelical theocracy.

 

Almost makes you want them to go back to eating Tide Pods instead.

 

I do like that for a country that likes to rub one out mythologising and reinventing its revolutionary past as something more than base economic desires, there's a reluctance to go it again when things are messed up.

 

TFW your gun collection cannot stop a tank, airstrike, drone or a heavily trained military unit from 'taking your liberty'