What do we do about this online order for 6000 rounds of ammo, an assualt rifle, an automatic handgun and a shotgun? We fill it -- cain't do no harm. Those people have rights too
Somehow I don’t think the seller was at all concerned about ‘Rights’. All he cared about was PROFITS. What IS the markup on a 100 round magazine for the AR-15 – 100% – 200% – 1000%?
Assult rifles were once regulated, controlled and mostly illegal. Why aren’t they now? Thanks NRA! Sure he still would have attacked the same movie theater without an assult rifle BUT about 1/4 of those shot and killed would not have been with much less firepower!
Michelle was being sarcastic, which is somewhat different than joking. One problem is that the data bases of problem cases (copyright by your humble servant) aren’t anything close to being up-to-date, which always makes me wonder how many crooks and cranks are buying lethal weapons when they should be flagged.
If only the wording of the Second Amendment was indisputably clear./
On one hand, the Founders apparently wanted a Republic under the legislative control of selected qualified citizens, not a complete Democracy; and therefore couldn’t have trusted all ordinary citizens with firearms unless they were under strict supervision. However, hand-held firearms were relatively feeble in those days, and maybe they weren’t worried about them; guns were fine for hunting and for protection from varmints./
One of first things to do with a Time Machine (my ubiquitous fantasy) is to go back and bring Washington, Jefferson, and others to modern day America to show them the eventual consequences from their basic Constitution — things they could never have imagined allowed by legal interpretations through the years: Industrial pollution; internet pornography; abortion; test-tube babies; PACS; the ménage a trois of business, politics and entertainment; sexual promiscuity; and various sexual orientation issues. I think they might have to be held back from marching with indignation into each of the branches of government to kick ass./
I think they would have been aghast at many things, and the eventual present outcome of gun ownership rights as so loosely interpreted perhaps high on the list. They couldn’t have dreamt that anyone could eventually own and hold in two hands a weapon with the destructive firepower of each of their contemporary cannons. /
And so the result of this they admit (in my fantasy) that as written the Second Amendment has been grossly misunderstood and misapplied. The misunderstanding lies in archaic syntax — and upon their return to their own time they put a corrected version in place that makes things clear:/
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.”/
And then suddenly, the change ripples down the timestream, and many thousands of people were never killed through the years. And those people further affected society, some reproduced as they previous did not — and the whole country is different, perhaps better.
For the record, Washington and Jefferson had little to do with the crafting of the Constitution.It was Madison’s work – in concept, in drafting and in steering the (contentious) debates.
There’s no profit like arms profits. Go ahead kill, maim each other. CaChing! More money in the pockets of gun dealers and makers, and the NRA, and chickenhawk Reeps. That’s how you run a country like a business, eh, Mittens?
Remember that president Obama gave washington DC the right that the constitution said they had to own guns. Previously they were not allowed. Remember that when you hear the silly theories about him wanting to take your gun.
“Remember liberals, your forefathers in the post-Confederate south created gun control laws to disarm Black people.”People really need to study actual American history. The Democratic Party – founded by Thomas Jefferson – was originally the party of ‘states rights’ (in opposition to Hamilton’s Federalist party.)As such, it was pro-private property, ie, slaves.During the lead-up to the Civil War, the Democratic Party remained the party of choice for conservative southern slave holders, while the new, radically liberal Republican Party called for complete emancipation.The Republican-backed Union armies conquered the South, cementing the allegiance of blacks to the Republican, and white southerners to the Democratic parties.It stayed this way until the Democratic Truman began to desegregate the military, followed by by Kennedy’s and LBJ’s enactment of civil rights. Nixon saw an opportunity . . . and everything flipped.
You’re missing the point. The bottom line is money. So the question is: who is making a profit from guns and ammunition? Answer: 1) armament makers. Ok, but what do armament makers use to make guns?2) Steel3) ExplosiveCan steel be regulated, i.e., not sold to armament makers? Yes, perhaps. What goes into explosive? 4) Ultimately, it’s OIL which underlies the chemicals making explosives.Therefore, it’s not only armament makers who are profiting here, but steel and oil companies. Can oil companies be regulated so that they don’t produce explosives or chemicals that make explosives?
NO, of course not. They control the Republican party, and much of the Democrats. What can be done, then?Um… I have no ideas here. Elect honest officials…? Right, sure.
Hello Neighbors,Hunting and shooting for recreation has been a big part of my 54 years of life. Skeet shooting was my first ‘video game’, and bird hunting was my first ‘first person shooter’. However, the Second Amendment reads thusly-
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
Well Regulated. That means people with firearms, particularly military grade firearms, need to be part of the community in which they live. Owners of military grade firearms, extended magazine clips, or exotic weaponry become weapons of mass destruction when they become angry, unbalanced, or fearful of their community and/or government. My state of Virginia allows gun shows at public venues where all of the federal laws get thrown out the window. No background checks, no waiting periods, pick your weapon of choice, exit to your vehicle.
This is not well regulated. The Aurora shooter bought everything he had legally. Aurora police should have recieved notification from the gun seller when that machine gun and extended clip magazines were ordered and the recipient should have had to go to the police station to make his ownership and possession of these weapons legal. I also support a yearly ‘class’ for owners of military grade weapons and ammunition so the community can make sure owners know how to use their weapons safely as well as to just get a look at who has these things.
I love to shoot guns. I do not want to have to carry one to movie theatres and restaurants in order to protect my family in those settings. Regulation is not a bad thing, and the police, given the pay, respect, and opportunity, truly are our friends. Why must we treat this issue as if we give up something by working together? Militias work together. They worked together at Concord and Lexington, and they can work together now. Respectfully,C
Until politics and social engineering thereby are completely made scientific as a circle constructed to the 12th decimal of pi, I think that all laws — even if based on sacred government documents — need to be re-examined and corrected as their directions go awry. The errors of some laws show up in unacceptable body counts.
I never call people names that I disagree with, unlike you. It’s a bad habit that you should try to break. It taints your entire comment.
The Colorado nutcase bought 2 of his weapons legally at a Bass Pro Shop in Denver, one at Gander Mountain legally in Thornton, Co and one legally at Gander Mountain in Aurora, Co. Each purchase included a background check that he passed. You cannot purchase modern weapons online and Oliphant is wrong to imply that you can.
And don’t ask no questions! We only had 31,000 men, women and children killed by gunfire in the US in 2011. Maybe we can pass that record this year. And of course, someone has to contend that what was needed was more guns in the movie theater — so they could shoot in the dark, teargass filled room at a man dressed in black who was wearing full body armor to protect himself from just such an occurence. Too bad you couldn’t be there buddy, you could have shown us all how it is done.
PlainBill almost 12 years ago
Somehow I don’t think the seller was at all concerned about ‘Rights’. All he cared about was PROFITS. What IS the markup on a 100 round magazine for the AR-15 – 100% – 200% – 1000%?
tsukyomy almost 12 years ago
Can a weapon dealer be concerned about the rights of the people who are shot with the guns he sold?
STLDan almost 12 years ago
Assult rifles were once regulated, controlled and mostly illegal. Why aren’t they now? Thanks NRA! Sure he still would have attacked the same movie theater without an assult rifle BUT about 1/4 of those shot and killed would not have been with much less firepower!
Fuzzy Thinker Premium Member almost 12 years ago
Toon is spot-on!
Godfreydaniel almost 12 years ago
Michelle was being sarcastic, which is somewhat different than joking. One problem is that the data bases of problem cases (copyright by your humble servant) aren’t anything close to being up-to-date, which always makes me wonder how many crooks and cranks are buying lethal weapons when they should be flagged.
emptc12 almost 12 years ago
If only the wording of the Second Amendment was indisputably clear./
On one hand, the Founders apparently wanted a Republic under the legislative control of selected qualified citizens, not a complete Democracy; and therefore couldn’t have trusted all ordinary citizens with firearms unless they were under strict supervision. However, hand-held firearms were relatively feeble in those days, and maybe they weren’t worried about them; guns were fine for hunting and for protection from varmints./
One of first things to do with a Time Machine (my ubiquitous fantasy) is to go back and bring Washington, Jefferson, and others to modern day America to show them the eventual consequences from their basic Constitution — things they could never have imagined allowed by legal interpretations through the years: Industrial pollution; internet pornography; abortion; test-tube babies; PACS; the ménage a trois of business, politics and entertainment; sexual promiscuity; and various sexual orientation issues. I think they might have to be held back from marching with indignation into each of the branches of government to kick ass./
I think they would have been aghast at many things, and the eventual present outcome of gun ownership rights as so loosely interpreted perhaps high on the list. They couldn’t have dreamt that anyone could eventually own and hold in two hands a weapon with the destructive firepower of each of their contemporary cannons. /
And so the result of this they admit (in my fantasy) that as written the Second Amendment has been grossly misunderstood and misapplied. The misunderstanding lies in archaic syntax — and upon their return to their own time they put a corrected version in place that makes things clear:/
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.”/
And then suddenly, the change ripples down the timestream, and many thousands of people were never killed through the years. And those people further affected society, some reproduced as they previous did not — and the whole country is different, perhaps better.
corzak almost 12 years ago
For the record, Washington and Jefferson had little to do with the crafting of the Constitution.It was Madison’s work – in concept, in drafting and in steering the (contentious) debates.
joe vignone almost 12 years ago
There’s no profit like arms profits. Go ahead kill, maim each other. CaChing! More money in the pockets of gun dealers and makers, and the NRA, and chickenhawk Reeps. That’s how you run a country like a business, eh, Mittens?
pam Miner almost 12 years ago
Remember that president Obama gave washington DC the right that the constitution said they had to own guns. Previously they were not allowed. Remember that when you hear the silly theories about him wanting to take your gun.
corzak almost 12 years ago
“Remember liberals, your forefathers in the post-Confederate south created gun control laws to disarm Black people.”People really need to study actual American history. The Democratic Party – founded by Thomas Jefferson – was originally the party of ‘states rights’ (in opposition to Hamilton’s Federalist party.)As such, it was pro-private property, ie, slaves.During the lead-up to the Civil War, the Democratic Party remained the party of choice for conservative southern slave holders, while the new, radically liberal Republican Party called for complete emancipation.The Republican-backed Union armies conquered the South, cementing the allegiance of blacks to the Republican, and white southerners to the Democratic parties.It stayed this way until the Democratic Truman began to desegregate the military, followed by by Kennedy’s and LBJ’s enactment of civil rights. Nixon saw an opportunity . . . and everything flipped.
ravettb almost 12 years ago
You’re missing the point. The bottom line is money. So the question is: who is making a profit from guns and ammunition? Answer: 1) armament makers. Ok, but what do armament makers use to make guns?2) Steel3) ExplosiveCan steel be regulated, i.e., not sold to armament makers? Yes, perhaps. What goes into explosive? 4) Ultimately, it’s OIL which underlies the chemicals making explosives.Therefore, it’s not only armament makers who are profiting here, but steel and oil companies. Can oil companies be regulated so that they don’t produce explosives or chemicals that make explosives?
NO, of course not. They control the Republican party, and much of the Democrats. What can be done, then?Um… I have no ideas here. Elect honest officials…? Right, sure.
chazandru almost 12 years ago
Hello Neighbors,Hunting and shooting for recreation has been a big part of my 54 years of life. Skeet shooting was my first ‘video game’, and bird hunting was my first ‘first person shooter’. However, the Second Amendment reads thusly-
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
Well Regulated. That means people with firearms, particularly military grade firearms, need to be part of the community in which they live. Owners of military grade firearms, extended magazine clips, or exotic weaponry become weapons of mass destruction when they become angry, unbalanced, or fearful of their community and/or government. My state of Virginia allows gun shows at public venues where all of the federal laws get thrown out the window. No background checks, no waiting periods, pick your weapon of choice, exit to your vehicle.
This is not well regulated. The Aurora shooter bought everything he had legally. Aurora police should have recieved notification from the gun seller when that machine gun and extended clip magazines were ordered and the recipient should have had to go to the police station to make his ownership and possession of these weapons legal. I also support a yearly ‘class’ for owners of military grade weapons and ammunition so the community can make sure owners know how to use their weapons safely as well as to just get a look at who has these things.
I love to shoot guns. I do not want to have to carry one to movie theatres and restaurants in order to protect my family in those settings. Regulation is not a bad thing, and the police, given the pay, respect, and opportunity, truly are our friends. Why must we treat this issue as if we give up something by working together? Militias work together. They worked together at Concord and Lexington, and they can work together now. Respectfully,C
emptc12 almost 12 years ago
Until politics and social engineering thereby are completely made scientific as a circle constructed to the 12th decimal of pi, I think that all laws — even if based on sacred government documents — need to be re-examined and corrected as their directions go awry. The errors of some laws show up in unacceptable body counts.
I never call people names that I disagree with, unlike you. It’s a bad habit that you should try to break. It taints your entire comment.
rfarris58 almost 12 years ago
The Colorado nutcase bought 2 of his weapons legally at a Bass Pro Shop in Denver, one at Gander Mountain legally in Thornton, Co and one legally at Gander Mountain in Aurora, Co. Each purchase included a background check that he passed. You cannot purchase modern weapons online and Oliphant is wrong to imply that you can.
William Bednar Premium Member almost 12 years ago
If gun dealers were concerned about people being shot and killed with the weapons, the dealer would not sell any weapons or ammo!
lindz.coop Premium Member almost 12 years ago
And don’t ask no questions! We only had 31,000 men, women and children killed by gunfire in the US in 2011. Maybe we can pass that record this year. And of course, someone has to contend that what was needed was more guns in the movie theater — so they could shoot in the dark, teargass filled room at a man dressed in black who was wearing full body armor to protect himself from just such an occurence. Too bad you couldn’t be there buddy, you could have shown us all how it is done.