HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » 14-year-old boy dies afte...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:13 PM

14-year-old boy dies after West Homestead shooting

By Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Monday, December 19, 2011
Last updated: 6:44 pm

A 14-year-old boy who was shot in the back this afternoon in West Homestead died while undergoing surgery at a Pittsburgh hospital , according to the Allegheny County Medical Examiner's office.

Police Chief Christopher Deasy said officers responded to a call for multiple gunshots at around 2:40 p.m. and found the victim face down in the street.

The teenager, who was not identified, was conscious when he was transported by ambulance to UPMC Mercy, Uptown, authorities said. He died in the operating room at 4:22 p.m., according to the medical examiner's office.

Investigators found 15 shell casings and three guns near where the shooting took place at the intersection of Locust Way and Sarah Street.

Read more: 14-year-old boy dies after West Homestead shooting - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_772786.html#ixzz1h27d0tEW

176 replies, 19772 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 176 replies Author Time Post
Reply 14-year-old boy dies after West Homestead shooting (Original post)
ellisonz Dec 2011 OP
ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #1
ellisonz Dec 2011 #2
rrneck Dec 2011 #5
ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #6
ellisonz Dec 2011 #9
ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #12
ellisonz Dec 2011 #13
gejohnston Dec 2011 #14
ellisonz Dec 2011 #15
gejohnston Dec 2011 #17
ellisonz Dec 2011 #18
gejohnston Dec 2011 #21
ellisonz Dec 2011 #23
gejohnston Dec 2011 #36
ellisonz Dec 2011 #38
SteveW Dec 2011 #75
Straw Man Dec 2011 #20
ellisonz Dec 2011 #22
hack89 Dec 2011 #27
ellisonz Dec 2011 #30
hack89 Dec 2011 #33
ellisonz Dec 2011 #37
hack89 Dec 2011 #42
gejohnston Dec 2011 #43
SteveW Dec 2011 #76
ellisonz Dec 2011 #82
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #85
gejohnston Dec 2011 #93
ellisonz Dec 2011 #94
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #99
ellisonz Dec 2011 #100
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #106
one-eyed fat man Dec 2011 #143
ellisonz Dec 2011 #145
Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #170
SteveW Dec 2011 #142
ellisonz Dec 2011 #146
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #148
SteveW Dec 2011 #173
ellisonz Dec 2011 #174
SteveW Dec 2011 #175
Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #171
Straw Man Dec 2011 #32
ellisonz Dec 2011 #34
hack89 Dec 2011 #39
ellisonz Dec 2011 #41
hack89 Dec 2011 #44
ellisonz Dec 2011 #47
hack89 Dec 2011 #54
ellisonz Dec 2011 #62
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #63
ellisonz Dec 2011 #65
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #67
ellisonz Dec 2011 #69
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #77
ellisonz Dec 2011 #80
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #90
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #110
ellisonz Dec 2011 #118
oneshooter Dec 2011 #126
ellisonz Dec 2011 #127
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #134
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #147
ellisonz Dec 2011 #153
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #156
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #158
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #160
ellisonz Dec 2011 #162
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #163
ellisonz Dec 2011 #168
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #165
ellisonz Dec 2011 #167
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #169
hack89 Dec 2011 #70
ellisonz Dec 2011 #71
hack89 Dec 2011 #72
ellisonz Dec 2011 #78
hack89 Dec 2011 #87
ellisonz Dec 2011 #92
hack89 Dec 2011 #96
ellisonz Dec 2011 #97
hack89 Dec 2011 #98
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #103
hack89 Dec 2011 #89
hack89 Dec 2011 #73
gejohnston Dec 2011 #46
SteveW Dec 2011 #79
hack89 Dec 2011 #88
gejohnston Dec 2011 #95
SteveW Dec 2011 #139
hack89 Dec 2011 #26
ellisonz Dec 2011 #28
hack89 Dec 2011 #29
ellisonz Dec 2011 #31
hack89 Dec 2011 #35
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #40
Straw Man Dec 2011 #45
ellisonz Dec 2011 #48
gejohnston Dec 2011 #49
Straw Man Dec 2011 #50
X_Digger Dec 2011 #52
ellisonz Dec 2011 #84
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #91
ellisonz Dec 2011 #114
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #135
X_Digger Dec 2011 #109
PavePusher Dec 2011 #113
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #57
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #111
SteveW Dec 2011 #81
X_Digger Dec 2011 #51
ellisonz Dec 2011 #53
hack89 Dec 2011 #56
ellisonz Dec 2011 #117
hack89 Dec 2011 #120
ellisonz Dec 2011 #123
hack89 Dec 2011 #124
ellisonz Dec 2011 #125
hack89 Dec 2011 #130
ellisonz Dec 2011 #131
hack89 Dec 2011 #132
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #133
gejohnston Dec 2011 #164
ellisonz Dec 2011 #166
one-eyed fat man Dec 2011 #144
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #58
aikoaiko Dec 2011 #61
ellisonz Dec 2011 #116
aikoaiko Dec 2011 #121
X_Digger Dec 2011 #108
PavePusher Dec 2011 #55
aikoaiko Dec 2011 #60
ellisonz Dec 2011 #66
SteveW Dec 2011 #83
ellisonz Dec 2011 #86
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #112
ellisonz Dec 2011 #115
SteveW Dec 2011 #136
ellisonz Dec 2011 #104
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #107
ellisonz Dec 2011 #119
SteveW Dec 2011 #137
ellisonz Dec 2011 #155
SteveW Dec 2011 #172
aikoaiko Dec 2011 #101
ellisonz Dec 2011 #102
aikoaiko Dec 2011 #105
ellisonz Dec 2011 #151
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #149
ellisonz Dec 2011 #150
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #152
ellisonz Dec 2011 #154
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #157
Fair Witness Dec 2011 #159
ellisonz Dec 2011 #161
SteveW Dec 2011 #74
Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #64
russ1943 Dec 2011 #122
Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #129
gejohnston Dec 2011 #128
rrneck Dec 2011 #138
Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #140
rrneck Dec 2011 #141
ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #16
ellisonz Dec 2011 #19
Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #176
Remmah2 Dec 2011 #24
ellisonz Dec 2011 #25
rl6214 Dec 2011 #3
ellisonz Dec 2011 #4
rl6214 Dec 2011 #7
ileus Dec 2011 #8
ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #11
We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #59
ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #68
gejohnston Dec 2011 #10

Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:24 PM

1. Since what you posted was the whole article, what was it that you wanted to discuss?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:27 PM

2. Where do you think the three guns came from?

Care to hazard a guess? I'm willing to bet they weren't legally owned. How did they go from probably being legally bought guns to illegally possessed? What can we do to prevent things like this form happening?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:30 PM

5. Good questions.

How you fixed for answers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:40 PM

6. I KNEW you had some comments just waiting to be attached.

Guessing serves no useful purpose.

Odds are that at least one of the sales in the chain of ownership was illegal. The buyer, seller, and shooter(s) all need to be prosecuted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:17 PM

9. Would you care to consider any root causes?

And how gun control plays into their effect? Why is the system failing so badly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:23 PM

12. I am game for considering. What are you offering?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:26 PM

13. Sure.

Common sense measures to reduce gun theft and criminal access. Limiting the number of firearms that a private citizen may keep in one place, and requiring them to be kept under lock when not in use, having local police department ensure this basic safety requirement has been met before allowing someone to buy a firearm. Limiting ammunition sells to only those who have passed a mental health screen and received license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:46 PM

14. how about checking out some of the laws

of other countries. Mental health screens, no. It is hardly an exact science and can be subjective. While they vary widely, they range from maybe reasonable to stupid and everything else in between. The nearest example of number of guns limits would be Italy, although at one time France allowed only three machine guns but unlimited number of anything else.

If you want a licensing scheme, how about it also being your CCW, like the Czech Republic?
Or Canada, where your mail order gun comes to your door (even across provincial lines. You give your PAL number on the web site's order form. Of course the verify it with the RCMP.) Or both? Or Canada before 1977, pistols need licencing and registration, machine guns just need registration, other long guns same as Wyoming?
Amend NFA so silencers are regulated the same way they are in Finland, Norway, France, and New Zealand?

UK style laws, oh wait, UK has the highest violent crime rate in Europe. You can also pick up a submachine gun for 200 pounds if you know where to go.
Or Jamaica's, Oh wait their murder rate is 60/100K compared to our4.8/100K

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:49 PM

15. If the police don't think you need a gun...

You probably don't. Tough shit. It's not an absolute right. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:02 PM

17. so you want the elitist system like NYC

where racist coke head Don Imus gets a gun, but working class person gets told no for no reason.
LA County where the sheriff gives CCWs out to campaign contributors.

The police are inherently authoritarian and right wing. They should have no arbitrary power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:06 PM

18. "The police are inherently authoritarian and right wing. They should have no arbitrary power."

You just lost whatever credibility with me you may have had with that one

They're the one's who are going to have to deal with problems - it's consistent with the Second Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:29 PM

21. you lost credibility when

when the inner authoritarian came out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:32 PM

23. Bahahaha...

Nothing could be more authoritarian than allowing every fool in the country to run around with a gun whenever they want - that is a society of fear.

Edit: It's okay. You've made clear you have no respect for law enforcement. How about not calling them when you need them? Since you're such a rugged individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:06 PM

36. I have respect for cops

have enough of them in my family. Just that they should not have any control over civil liberties or arbitrary authority.
As for LAPD and LACSD, that has been documented.

Hardly a society of fear. Where I grew up, most households have guns. We never locked our doors and I could ride my bike anywhere in the city in complete safety. Your viewpoint is closer to conservative or reactionary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:07 PM

38. They already do...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:59 PM

75. Well, you implied deference to the police, after all. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:21 PM

20. Sure -- let's just give the police the right of refusal on ALL our rights.

None of them are absolute anyway, right? Fire, crowded theaters, etc.

Chilling. Absolutely chilling. Do you consider yourself a progressive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:31 PM

22. I'm a Liberal. What are you?

I'm not sure you're understanding "absolute." I also kinda doubt you can be reasoned with; I'm not prepared to cede this country to the quickest draw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:50 PM

27. Yet you want to give the police the final say in my civil liberties? That's a liberal position? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:01 PM

30. ...

People - Police - Courts - Legislature - Executive - cycle and repeat.

Gun control is a liberal position. Keeping guns out of the hands of crazies and White Supremacists is a liberal position. Why are their rights more important than mine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:04 PM

33. So why do so many liberals here at DU disagree with you about gun control?

I am not a crazy or a white supremacist - why are your rights more important than mine? I pose no threat to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:07 PM

37. I'm not restricting your rights.

I'm simply ensuring that they're exercised in a responsible fashion. Your gun, in the wrong hands, does pose a threat. You wouldn't have any problem getting a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:10 PM

42. No - you are restricting my rights

you don't get to define what a responsible fashion is.

Fortunately you are on the losing side of history - you will never turn the tide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:10 PM

43. not really

if you believe stereotypes and propaganda, so be it.
Sociologist Raymond Kessler spent a lot of time studying the issue. He came to the conclusion your viewpoint is conservative to reactionary. It has served their purposes different times and places in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:05 PM

76. Gun-control is NOT liberal, it is recent pop politics...

The Platform of the Democratic Party didn't even mention guns until well after the Zombies charted with "She's Not There."

But if you just add water, something might pop up, and you can call it liberal.

Incidentally, the gun-control laws we have seen (including the many dispensed with) are founded on the "White Supremacist" gun laws in the South. After the mid-1960s, Jim Crow was rousted from his nest -- but found a warm place to shit in the "liberal" big cities of NYC, Chicago, SF, Baltimore, and a very few others.

Some "liberal" position!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:10 PM

82. ...

"Incidentally, the gun-control laws we have seen (including the many dispensed with) are founded on the "White Supremacist" gun laws in the South. After the mid-1960s, Jim Crow was rousted from his nest -- but found a warm place to shit in the "liberal" big cities of NYC, Chicago, SF, Baltimore, and a very few others."

You really can't be taken seriously after that...

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/did-democrats-give-up-in-gun-control-debate/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:13 PM

85. Why not? Is there something untrue about it?

 

Do you have actual, you know, FACTS to dispute it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:20 PM

93. don't know much about history do you?

didn't think so.
Why did Florida ban open carry in 1893? (hint: Watson v Stone 1941, Florida Supreme Court)
Why did Texas require a licence to own handguns in the late 19th century?
Why did South Carolina repeal their handgun ban in (passed in 1902) in 1965?
Check out North Carolina's handgun law, see when it was enacted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #93)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:21 PM

94. I'm not an expert on gun law history.

Care to explain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #94)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:39 PM

99. No kidding....

 

...we kinda noticed that even before you said a poster lost credibility by noting all gun control laws stem from racist policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #99)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:40 PM

100. But at least I know about child safety seats...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #100)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:56 PM

106. I do too.

 

And I pointed out to you that your claim was incorrect.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #100)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:11 PM

143. yea, you're still in one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one-eyed fat man (Reply #143)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:51 PM

145. Nothing left but personal attacks...

Sad.

Here, have another cartoon:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #145)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 03:31 AM

170. Having only a superficial knowledge of the gun restriction issue (at *best*)


you are obviously unaware that the NRA pays royalties to these cartoonists to reprint their "work". The result is the best motivation that money can buy for more support - a reminder to firearm owners that pro-restriction supporters hold them in contempt.

The NRA utilizes these cartoons in the same way a martial artist utilizes the force of his/her opponent -- as a means to turn the energy of their opponent against them.

So sincere thanks, ellisonz, for aiding our cause by undermining your own!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:15 PM

142. Check-mated again, eh?

Thanks for the link.

I had read the NYT editorial/analysis earlier this year, but had not perused the Platforms link mentioned therein. My memory still serves me well: The Zombies got there first!

I don't much care if you wish to take me seriously or not, but for your own benefit, you should read up on how gun-control laws came about in the cities mentioned; of particular note is NYC's "Sullivan Laws." These restrictions on firearms, including the corrupt "may issue" provision still in effect within the City, were based in large part on anti-Italian hysteria, promoted by NYC's boss-mayor (Irish? Couldn't stand the competition?). In fact, the '68 Gun Control Act, the first allusion to gun control in the Party Platform, and described by many as a response to high-profile assassination) was seen in a different light by some, including this gun-control advocate:

" shut off weapons access to blacks, and since they (Congress) probably associated cheap guns with ghetto blacks and thought cheapness was peculiarly the characteristic of imported military surplus and the mail-order traffic, they decided to cut off these sources while leaving over-the-counter purchases open to the affluent."

http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

"Affluent." Indeed.

There is much more, of course.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #142)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:02 PM

146. No.

The whole argument is predicated on the idea that Americans before the Civil War did not engage in any form of regulation before the modern gun industry.

It requires a sort of construction of early America is a a vacuum. It's like people who believe there was a Garden of Eden.

So you're saying everyone should be able to afford as many guns as they want and not bear any additional social responsibility for the burden they inflict: gotcha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #146)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:10 PM

148. Fact is,

 

There really were no restrictions before the Civil War.

Yes, people absolutely should have as many guns as they want and can afford. One who commits no crime has no responsibility for those who do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #146)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 03:28 PM

173. Yet another cartoon ripe for NRA royalty payments...

Actually, there was noticeable regulation: In the South. Many of the cases cited by gun-controller/banners are from court-rulings, both antebellum and Jim Crow era in Southern states. But we know what those were about.

Other regulations pertained to citizens only when they were called for militia duty, which required the citizen to bring his OWN firearm, suitable for service, and that he should know how to use it; otherwise, there was rather spotty regulation of firearms. Why? For the most part, people were not called up for militia service.

I really don't care how many guns a law-abiding citizen purchases. And "any additional social responsibility for the burden they inflict" (whatever "they" is) will be considered in a court of law, and not based not speculation, prediction, common sense, or for some in this forum, anxious anticipation. That's the way due process works, ellisonz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #173)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 03:52 PM

174. For the most part people didn't own dozens of guns...



You also don't seem to care how many guns make into dangerous and criminal hands...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #174)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 07:25 PM

175. Yet ANOTHER NRA royalty check! Well, that's one way to defund the NRA...

I cannot make out your "text." Could you clarify, please.

BTW, I oppose the possession and use of guns by criminals and those adjudicated as mentally incompetent. Glad I cleared that up for you. Again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 03:37 AM

171. "Gun control is a liberal position"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:04 PM

32. I'm a left-libertarian and a registered Democrat.

I'm not sure you're understanding "absolute."

No, actually I'm agreeing with what you said. No rights are "absolute." Hence your "crowded theater" analogy. But I'm disagreeing with your premise that some of them should be left up to the whims of the police. That's way too authoritarian and anti-democratic for my blood.

I also kinda doubt you can be reasoned with; I'm not prepared to cede this country to the quickest draw.

Show me where I said we should cede this country to the quickest draw. You "kinda doubt" that I can be reasoned with? I would submit that you really haven't tried. All I've seen from you are broad-brush condemnations of all those who don't share your opinions. You really don't like to be disagreed with, do you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:05 PM

34. It's already up to the whims of the police...

They're just not consistent. Ever done something illegal and been let go by the police on a whim? I have; my problem with the police is that they're not doing their job.

That's what it will come to; the Wild Wild West.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:07 PM

39. Wild Wild West = historically low rates of gun violence? Really. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:09 PM

41. If you get rid of the current gun controls...yes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:10 PM

44. So lets leave things exactly the way they are.

OK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:17 PM

47. Or we could make them better! n/t

You know, every day I find myself disagreeing with Rick Perry is a good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:36 AM

54. Why tilt at windmills? There are more important and easier things to do. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:48 PM

62. Why accept this level of gun violence? n/t

This is an important issue to most communities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:55 PM

63. The problem is not the guns

 

The problem is the criminals.

Has nothing to do with acceptance and everything to do with an effective solution that does not rely upon either violating the rights of the law abiding, technology which does not yet exist, or a combination of the two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #63)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:10 PM

65. We have the technology. n/t

What we don't have is common sense or political will.

The problem is criminals getting their hands on legal guns. Go listen to the Bloomberg tapes, seriously do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:22 PM

67. What technology do you believe we have?

 

All of your proposals require violating the rights of the law abiding indiscriminately. I am grateful nobody has the "political will" to be an outright dictatorial tyrant.

Yes, the problem IS criminals - not the law abiding. At least you got THAT part right.

"The Bloomberg Tapes"? Oh puhleeze. Why would I want to listen to a bunch of staged bullshit by a known anti-gun politician who has already committed numerous legal violations - any one of which would get a private citizen arrested and thrown under the jail...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #67)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:26 PM

69. Then you're in willful denial.

You don't care about the victims enough to do anything productive about it. That is the height of selfishness.

We have trigger locks, safes, tracking technology, a well trained mental health profession, and a police force that desperately wants to stop seeing the tragedy doing nothing further is producing.

Try putting yourself in a NYC police officers shoes in the Bronx for a minute. Please get a grip on somebody other than your own ego.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:05 PM

77. Excuse me?

 

Since when are my rights dependent upon the feelings of a crime victim? Why the fuck should I care about the feelings of an NYC employee? Are you fucking serious? Do you REALLY believe my rights should be restricted so as to make some government functionary feel better? Are you insane?

I don't give two shits WHAT the police force wants. Really. Don't care. They work for me, not the other way around


My suggestion to you my friend is to get down from your statist horse and realize the people do not answer to the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:07 PM

80. Hope you never need the police...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #80)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:16 PM

90. Whether or not i need them is irrelevant

 

A cop who thinks his feelings supersede my rights has no business on the force.

There are a few ex-police officers who discovered that I have zero tolerance for cops who hold such beliefs. Yes - I got them terminated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #80)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:14 PM

110. The police have neither the ability nor obligation to protect citizens.

 

The first is a patently obvious fact and the latter is the upshot of several Supreme Court decisions. Where I live, police response is typically on the order of 30 minutes...but the old canard still applies everywhere: When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away. You're more than welcome to try to disarm me...there are thugs much closer who'd like to try as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #110)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:00 PM

118. They have the obligation to uphold the law - to protect and serve.

You sound like you live in the boonies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #118)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:19 PM

126. The police have no obligation to protect you, unless you are in their custody. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #126)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:21 PM

127. That's not true - they have an obligation to public safety.

I'm a member of the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #127)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:09 AM

134. Nope - they dont

 

Facts are a bitch ellisonz. I realize you don't like them, but so be it.

The cops have no obligation to public safety. None. Squat. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #118)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:09 PM

147. I do live more or less in the "boonies"...as do millions of Americans. I hope you are not

 

suggesting that's a reason to have us forfeit our rights to self-defense...if you are, you sound like you live on Mars. Perhaps you can regale us with some actual evidence that police are "obligated" to "protect and serve". I assure you we are not holding our breaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #147)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:41 PM

153. I'm suggesting you consider others rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

...as required by the Ninth Amendment. I'm suggesting no such thing - what I'm suggestion is that we take responsibility for our actions.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

What do you imagine the duty of the police are if not that? BTW I cam across some disturbing material from the gun lobby that's basically making the same baloney claim - why have police at all if everybody can just use a gun to defend themselves?

Seriously, consider what life is like in the slums of American cities - what it's like to hear gunfire in your community and know that someone is using a gun to take someone's life for nothing, and that tens of millions of Americans consider there imaginative version of the Second Amendment to be more important than your basic human rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #153)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:00 PM

156. They are considered

 

My ownership of a firearm in no way harms another. It does not affect your rights in any way.

As far as the police and their duties, I hate to tell you, but your idea that they have to protect you is wrong. That is settled law. Simple as that. End of discussion. It isn't a baloney claim, it is plain fact. You've been provided with the relevant citations. Read them.

We have the police because they arrest those who commit a crime. They do not protect anyone.

As far as "life in the slums of American cities", that in no way justifies restriction of my rights. Period. How you feel about it is utterly unimportant, and as usual, your feelings don't mean a thing in the face of reality. Once again, my ownership of firearms does not in any way harm you or anyone else. I am not responsible for a couple of recreational pharmaceutical salesmen shooting at each other. Nothing you can say is going to change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #153)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 06:24 PM

158. Your knowledge of civics is abysmal. "...life, liberty and the pursuit..." is from the Declaration

 

of Independence which is of course an interesting and important historical document but which has absolutely NO bearing on civil law or rights. I notice you once again fail to produce any evidence that police are legally obligated to "protect and serve". I was a policeman myself for a while and I know firsthand that depending on them for protection is something only a fool would entertain, much less adopt.

If you're so worried about what happens in the slums, I suggest you work to eliminate the factors that produce them instead of attempting to subvert my rights and those of millions of other Americans to satisfy your UNprogressive agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #158)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 06:34 PM

160. But he feels so strongly....

 

doesn't that count for something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #158)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:04 PM

162. The Nineth Amendment is quite clear...

...your right to firearms does does not surpass others rights to life and freedom.

I've never denied the right to self-defense. I've simply denied the right to irresponsible gun ownership as being inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

I'm just going to hazard that you were not a policeman in a major urban city. My old roommate was a police officer and EMS technician for the City of Chicago. He can tell you stories about gun violence that would pierce your shell of the belief in an absolutist rendition of the second amendment. Where do you think criminals get their guns?

Also, you discredit yourself when you say I have an "UNprogressive agenda," if you believe that to be true please go have some conversations with the majority of DUers who are in opposition to such ridiculous notions as the idea that your rights are "subverted" by reasonable measures to protect the public. What exactly was your purpose if a police officer if not to "protect and serve?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #162)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:41 PM

163. I wrote reports on crimes that had already been committed. This was a semi-major urban city.

 

Population about 230,000 at the time. As to where criminals get their guns, how is that germane to the discussion? Where do stabbers get their knives? And are you actually proceeding through life harboring the delusion that you are going to somehow disarm me or the other 20 million Americans who fully intend to continue exercising our Constitutional rights? Ain't gonna happen, cupcake.
\

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #163)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:40 PM

168. "As to where criminals get their guns, how is that germane to the discussion?"

Really...you must be pretty jaded to not ask that question...because it is the key question.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self sustained."
- Mahatma Gandhi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #162)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:22 PM

165. But you *do* have an "UNprogressive agenda"- you support the Patriot Act.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721786#post56

Response to ellisonz (Reply #53)
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:54 AM
hack89
56. The Patriot Act was to ensure public safety

it gave the cops the kind of powers you feel they are capable of using in a responsible manner. Do you support the Patriot Act?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721786#post117

Response to hack89 (Reply #56)
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:35 PM
ellisonz

117. Yes. Next question.

I'm not going to get in a debate about it other than to say it was overwhelmingly approved and maintained for good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #165)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:37 PM

167. You can debate with these Democrats who voted for the extension...

I'm not a absolutist on civil liberties. Sorry to burst your bubble. I'm a Barbara Boxer liberal...you can hate me now.

"“Law enforcement officers are never 'off duty.' They are dedicated public servants who are sworn to protect public safety at any time and place that the peace is threatened. They need all the help that they can get.” - Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat - California

Democrats who Voted FOR the Patriot Act:

Bennet (D-CO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/26/senate-democrats-for-the-patriot-act-may-26/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #167)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 03:21 AM

169. I am debating with *you*, and I stand with Bernie Sanders and these Dems in opposition:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murray (D-WA)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Wyden (D-OR)

And I repeat- your agenda is unprogressive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:37 PM

70. Every years it declines further - you have never been safer

and the solution is simple - end the war on drugs and legalize recreational drugs.

Until you make gangs irrelevant they will continue to fight for turf and territory. And they will always have guns. If they can smuggle coke by the pallet load getting all the guns they want will not be a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:41 PM

71. Reducing the supply of illegal guns through common sense measures would go a long way.

BTW you're not seriously advocating legalizing meth and heroin are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:45 PM

72. Why not? It is a public health issue - lets take the criminality out of it

so that addicts won't need to victimize others to feed their habits. Of course drug rehab will be offered free to all that want it. And by legalizing we can stop spending billions on prisons and spend that money on education and health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:06 PM

78. "Of course drug rehab will be offered free to all that want it"

Well if we can afford to fund that, we can certainly afford to require/subsidize mandatory gun safes/trigger locks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #78)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:14 PM

87. If you want to buy me a gun safe go ahead.

a medium sized one would be perfect - big enough to hold 4 rifles and 3 handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #87)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:19 PM

92. Several of the other posters here have them...

I suggest making the investment lest your 4 rifles and 3 handguns get swiped while you're out of town.

Seriously...you probably should have bought at like number 2.

This is why it needs to be law - and yes, there are ways it could be subsidized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #92)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:24 PM

96. They are locked up - just angling for a bigger safe so I can grow my collection. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #96)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:30 PM

97. Good.

So whats so bad about requiring owners to take such a measure? What's so bad about keeping the mentally ill from buying weapons? What's so bad about requiring common sense measures that all evidence suggests could reduce gun violence dramatically? Why do you need to be as well armed as your average National Guardsman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #97)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:37 PM

98. Storage requirements not a problem providing they don't interfere with home defense.

mental health requirements already adequate - just need to be funded and enforced.

Draw the line at banning semi-automatic rifles and pistols.

Support expanded CCW with training requirements.



Since I am not a criminal and pose no threat to you, what difference does it make how many guns I have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #97)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:43 PM

103. Requiring it?

 

Well you'd be requiring someone spend additional funds to exercise a right. Would be not unlike requiring someone to pay a poll tax before voting.

The mentally ill (at least those adjudicated mentally incompetent) are already forbidden from owning firearms.

What "common sense" measures do you want enacted? Nothing I have seen so far is "common sense".

Frankly, I'm better armed than the average National Guardsman. They only carry a single medium power rifle and maybe a 9mm handgun. I've got access to a lot more than that. Has nothing to do with need, it has to do with what I choose to own. Sorry you don't get that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #78)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:16 PM

89. I'll pass on the trigger locks - at least for my self defense gun. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:56 PM

73. Since this decline coincides with a general relaxing of gun control laws

perhaps that connection you allude to is non-existent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:11 PM

46. the wild wild west

was not so wild outside of Ned Buntline novels and B westerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:06 PM

79. Wasn't that a T.V. show? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #79)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:15 PM

88. One of my favorites. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #79)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:21 PM

95. Yeah it

was about a couple of US Secret Service agents with really cool gadgets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #95)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:39 PM

139. Yeah, I saw the series frequently -- quite a jump-the-shark fantasy...

Perhaps the only T.V. series or movie which put Grant's presidency in a positive light.

I wonder how many folks who invoke the specter of The Wild West in regards gun laws, but use "Wild Wild," have inadvertently picked up on the show's title; modernizing their stereotypes in the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:49 PM

26. Police are the biggest threat to your civil liberities

racial profiling, warrant-less wire taps and searches, entrapment, beating OWS protestors - any of those ring a bell? And you want to leave your Constitutional rights to their discretion? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:52 PM

28. Wrong.

Criminals enabled by a failed gun control system are the biggest threat - your civil liberties don't matter when your dead. I think it also might behoove you to think about why the police are so militarized...it has a whole lot to do with guns.

The courts of course would have supremacy over the matter. Think you've been wronged, take it to court, but otherwise you're just ignoring the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:01 PM

29. They are militarized because of the war on drugs

why don't you start there?

Gun violence is on a steady decline - I have never been safer. Everyday the police have a less of a reason to be militarized.

But lets get back to the main issue here - with their history of racism, illegal searches and violence to protestors, why do you think the police will make the right choices when it comes to access to guns? But that is the point, isn't it? You know the police will do everything to restrict gun ownership - which is what you want. Police states are bad except when it comes to guns - right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:03 PM

31. They're militarized because the war on drugs coincides with a massive...

...influx of black market weapons to the streets.

Damn right, I do - and the Constitution allows for it - you already have to pass a criminal background check. Isn't that already police determining that right, just in an indirect fashion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:06 PM

35. As long as the police have no discretion I have no problem with a background check

the police should not have the power to deny basic civil rights on a whim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:09 PM

40. No, that's the *courts* determining that right, via due process

A point you seem to have missed. Would you leave it to the police to decide what forms of protest are acceptable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:11 PM

45. Fundamental misconception...

you already have to pass a criminal background check. Isn't that already police determining that right, just in an indirect fashion?

No, it's the legal system determining that right. Big difference. When a NICS check is run on me, no police are involved. No police official gets to say, "No, not him." The only thing that carries any weight is what a court may have decided about me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:18 PM

48. ...

Then how do people get to jail to be charged for a crime - the police

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:22 PM

49. being arrested for

and being charged with a crime is different than being convicted.
You seem to be confusing charging with convicting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:23 PM

50. Do you really not get it?

Then how do people get to jail to be charged for a crime - the police

They don't get to decide the final disposition of your case. It's not a police state. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:29 AM

52. Umm, please re-take 10th grade civics.

Police don't convict you, a jury or judge does.

A police officer may detain you given probable cause, and a judge issues an arrest warrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:12 PM

84. The police decide who gets arrested and then charged in the first place.

Do you really think this plays out like the civics book?

You seem to have an idealized view of the police force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #84)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:18 PM

91. The police do not always decide who gets arrested.

 

Further, they NEVER decide who is charged. That is a function of the DA's office.

You seem to have a insane view of the police force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #91)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:23 PM

114. I have a reality based view of the police force.

Seriously, ever ask yourself why the prisons are disproportionately populated by minorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #114)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:11 AM

135. Does not appear that you do but whatever.

 

Cops do not charge people. That's the DA's job. Cops don't find them guilty or imprison them. That's the court's job. Cops don't tell the courts what to do.

THAT is reality. What you have is some imaginary view based upon some idea that the police department has universal authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #84)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:25 PM

109. You've never been in a warrant court, have you?

Police routinely get smacked down for overreaching.

Judges refuse to issue warrants, DA's refuse to indict, or judges dismiss cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #84)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:54 PM

113. No, the police only arrest. The DA charges.

 

Perhaps you need to review that civics book...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:37 AM

57. They go to court

 

Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

there the evidence is presented and if the state has enough evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt, the individual is found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced by the judge.

The only involvement the police have in the matter is arresting the guy - and the arrest itself means precisely squat without a conviction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:21 PM

111. The police perform arrestd based on either witnessing a crime, having a warrant or

 

a "reasonable suspicion" (a legal albeit oft-misapplied concept) of a crime. Actual criminal charges are officially filed by civilian officials, usually the office of the 'district' attorney functioning under the auspices of the local judiciary. The cops are just taxi drivers. I'm a little surprised you don't know that since you're so exercised about civil liberties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:09 PM

81. Funny how prohibition works...

...and pretending that gun prohibition is a policy by any other name gets you TWO (2) prohibitions in one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:18 AM

51. If the police don't think you need to vote? If the police don't think you need to demonstrate?

What other rights would you leave up to the local cops?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:17 AM

53. They are responsible for public safety.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over the state of things such as unlawful assembly, disorderly conduct, and such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:54 AM

56. The Patriot Act was to ensure public safety

it gave the cops the kind of powers you feel they are capable of using in a responsible manner. Do you support the Patriot Act?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:35 PM

117. Yes. Next question.

I'm not going to get in a debate about it other than to say it was overwhelmingly approved and maintained for good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #117)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:11 PM

120. So you support the Patriot Act? That explains a lot. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #120)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:47 PM

123. So does the President, Congress and the Courts...

Do I think it's perfect, no; I think more oversight would be better, but I've never bought the idea that someone has an unlimited right to privacy and that law enforcement can only often be effective if it is expedient.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43180202/ns/us_news-security/t/obama-europe-signs-patriot-act-extension/#.TvFIceZyciw

Do you support the Sovereign Citizens movement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #123)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:00 PM

124. No unlimited right to privacy?

Police should have the discretion to deny Constitutional rights. Is there any thing about a police state that doesn't appeal to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #124)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:04 PM

125. Don't answer my question.

Are you for or against the Sovereign Citizens movement...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #125)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 06:37 AM

130. No - of course not. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #130)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:31 AM

131. Then please denounce the idea that...

...government does not have the right to maintain "a well regulated Militia" and that doing so "infringes" on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Clearly, the Second Amendment does not provide for an individual right - it provides for a civic right and authorizes government to establish it as such including placing restrictions on private property use and exercise of the Second Amendment thereof i.e. limitations on possession and purchase.

In 1992, Warren E. Burger, a former chief justice of the United States appointed by President Richard M. Nixon, expressed the prevailing view.

“The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all,” Mr. Burger said in a speech. In a 1991 interview, Mr. Burger called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #131)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:51 AM

132. So the Scalia of his day has the final word? Burger was a conservative Republican.

1. You support the Patriot Act
2. You think that police should have the discretion to deny people civil liberties
3. You agree with conservative republican judges


Interesting trend here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #132)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:50 AM

133. The ends justify any means, for some...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #123)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:03 PM

164. You are the first liberal

or progressive to support the Patriot Act. Are you saying Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann, et al are "Sovereign Citizens".
I was going to ask how restoring a theocracy is "freeing" some place, but maybe now I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #164)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:32 PM

166. I'm not saying that at all.

I'm a Barbara Boxer liberal.

On the renewal:

54 House Democrats supported it and over half of Senate Democrats.

Bennet (D-CO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/26/senate-democrats-for-the-patriot-act-may-26/




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #120)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:25 PM

144. That's why he was so offended by

allusions to Buchenwald or the East German Secret Police. He holds the tactics of the Gestapo and the Stasi in high regard. Doubtless if he had lived in East German he'd have gleefully been one of the Stasi's inoffizielle Mitarbeiter. He loves the Patriot Act and thinks police should be able to arrest people he doesn't like and they just disappear...

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/koehler-stasi.html

"Worse than the Gestapo." —Simon Wiesenthal, Nazi hunter

Using Wiesenthal's figures for the Nazi Gestapo, there was one officer for 2,000 people. The ratio for the Stasi was one secret policeman per 166 East Germans. When the regular informers are added, these ratios become much higher: In the Stasi's case, there would have been at least one spy watching every 66 citizens! When one adds in the estimated numbers of part-time snoops, the result is nothing short of monstrous: one informer per 6.5 citizens. It would not have been unreasonable to assume that at least one Stasi informer was present in any party of ten or twelve dinner guests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:38 AM

58. No, actually they arent.

 

Don't let facts get in the way though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:48 AM

61. I can understant why you wouldn't want discuss the other civil liberties protected under the BoR.


But please realize that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil liberty where many believe it should protected strictly. It is not an absolute, as we all agree, but arbitrary rules and arbitrary evaluators are no way to protect a civil liberty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #61)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:32 PM

116. The whats the opposite?

No rules and no protections = anarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #116)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:15 PM

121. the opposite of arbitary rules is rationale rules


not anarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:14 PM

108. That's not an answer. Care to take another swing? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:30 AM

55. And we come to the police state.

 

Because they know what's good for us and how to apportion our Civil Rights.

Holy fucking shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:52 AM

60. In general, the police are not qualified to make mental health judgments....


...any more than they are qualified to judge who is competent to vote in elections. And yes, as we've seen, voted the wrong person in can lead to many hundreds of thousands of unwarranted deaths.

I agree with you that the 2nd is not an absolute right, but this is too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:16 PM

66. What about a police psychologist?

Until we do something about this, the Jared Lee Loughners are going to do their thing - and we're letting it happen because we're terrified of our fellow citizens. "A well regulated Militia" - please tell me what that means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #66)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:11 PM

83. Do rank-and-file police like to use their own psychologists?

Using the wild & wooly science of psychology to pass muster on a constitutional right is bad enough. But for some reason you want a "police psychologist" to determine who should or shouldn't own a gun is very peculiar, if you are a "liberal."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #83)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:13 PM

86. They could rotate departments...

Do you think the mentally ill should have guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #86)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:37 PM

112. There are plenty people who consider liberals to be "mentally ill", per se.

 

Are you sure you want to delegate that determination to them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #112)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:25 PM

115. And most of them agree with the shared opinion of the pro-gun crowd in this forum...

I say actually give the community the right to regulate itself instead of playing games. You don't trust the police to make ethical decisions when subject to review? Hint: They do it every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:33 PM

136. My answer is in the law: If one is adjudicated mentally incompetent, no. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #83)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:43 PM

104. Do you care about the victims of gun violence enough to want to do something real about it? n/t

Answer that question, and you'll have a leg to stand on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #104)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:59 PM

107. Not at the expense of my rights

 

Why do you believe I need to give up my rights to make a victim feel better?

How about you answer THAT question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #107)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:01 PM

119. "to make a victim feel better?"

To make less victims like this 14-year-old boy who was shot 15 times by three gunmen. How about you start thinking about people's rights other than your own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #104)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:35 PM

137. My answer is in the law: If one is adjudicated mentally incompetent, no.

The Fifth Amendment: It's not just for dinner.

My legs are fine, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #137)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:52 PM

155. So basically you're for leaving a loophole Jared Lee Loughner could drive a truck through?

The same could be said of the Ninth Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #155)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 03:16 PM

172. No loophole at all. Just a relative of "unfunded mandates..."

If states/localities cannot (or will not) take the steps to adjudicate someone as mentally incompetent, then passing yet another law to "burden" these agencies will not do a thing.

If people are so fearful of the Lougners of the world; if they are so concerned that they will get a gun and commit mass-murder, then why do they mumble and walk away when one of these spittle-flying self-conversing insane people? Are they intimidated? Are they waiting for an effortless government mandate to clean up the problem when such does not exist?

BTW, Cho WAS adjudicated mentally-incompetent; yet the findings were not pushed upstream and recorded in the NICS records. In this case, probably because of over-worked bureaucracies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #66)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:41 PM

101. Any forensic clinical psychologist could, but there aren't many of them

We can do something about the Jared Loughners. We can improve our mental health safety nets in this country. We can use existing law to help better get the mental help they need or involuntary commit them.

A well regulated militia general refers to a well ordered militia.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #101)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:43 PM

102. So why not have a real net. Clearly, people are getting through the way its currently designed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #102)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:44 PM

105. Some are, but the safety net I'm talking about is not just about gun possession.

Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2011, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm talking about identifying the truly mentally ill, providing them treatment, and/or keeping them safe from all dangers.

Just preventing them access to a firearm is not sufficient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #105)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:32 PM

151. I disagree with none of what you said there.

We are failing the mentally ill miserably in this country; we are failing ourselves, and we must do better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #102)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:21 PM

149. By the way, how would you suggest to accomplish "free Tibet" without armed force?

 

Just ask the Chinese politely to butt out? You have some very strange ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #149)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:28 PM

150. I'll nibble.

How did the Indians get the British out of India?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #150)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:40 PM

152. The Brits were being gentlemen

 

And they realized the cost of keeping India would far exceed anything they could get out of it.

You REALLY think that's going to work with China?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #152)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:49 PM

154. Again, stop butting in on other peoples discussion.

You seem to have a keyboard warrior syndrome because this is like the third time you did so in the last five minutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #154)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:01 PM

157. Does it bother you?

 

Good. Do I care? Nope. This is what happens in an open forum, son. If you cannot back up your bullshit, that isn't anyone's problem but yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #154)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 06:26 PM

159. Are you fucking serious?

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fair Witness (Reply #159)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 06:39 PM

161. Does he speak for you?

At this point I'm just finding his contributions to be disruptive and not worth engaging - that's might right as a DUer - I don't believe that poster has any real interest in discussion and just interested in launching personal attacks. I'm done with him. Dude quite clearly states that his rights are more important than others rights and frankly I find that to be a disturbing position

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:57 PM

74. I don't defer to the police when it comes to my rights...

You seem willing to defer to the police, however. Peculiar for a liberal site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:02 PM

64. Just to bring you up to date a little

Here's a recent link on UK crime stats. Big improvement on the right-wing rags like Daily Mail and Telegraph.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:37 PM

122. Newspapers, blogs and their websites are secondary sources, try the primary source o get up to date.

The Guardian may be “better” than the rags like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph but if what the reader is seeking is information re crime stats for England and Wales then why not the source for those statistics, The Home Office?

Eg.
Provisional figures on police recorded firearm offences show a 13 per cent fall between 2009/10 and 2010/11. Firearm offences have shown a downward trend following rises between 2002/03 and 2005/06. Much of the fall over the last year was due to decreases in offences involving handguns (down 17%). However, provisional figures show 55 fatal injuries from firearm offences in 2010/11 (including the 12 homicide victims of the Cumbria shootings in June 2010), compared with 40 in the previous year. Serious injuries were down from 337 to 298 and slight injuries up from 1,537 to 1,593.

England Wales crime stats avail at;
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #122)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:51 AM

129. Thank you sir for your diligent research

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:05 AM

128. I am glad they are improving

just like ours and Canada's

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:38 PM

138. Hey! I think I figured it out!

Why don't we just have the entire population of Great Britain immigrate to the United States. We will settle them in all the high crime areas and their natural tendency toward peaceful cohabitation will solve the problem of gun crime in America.

Problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #138)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:02 PM

140. Good idea, but unfortunately it wouldn't work

Problem being the fact that Brits and guns don't go well together. You can't let the working class have access to guns, except when fighting the Hun. For some reason they hate the Hun even more than their own officers. Probably something to do with tea and soccer.
But I'm glad you're finally starting to think about solutions. Good on yer, mate.
And have a great Yule!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #140)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:14 PM

141. Of course by the same token

if we just institute a four o'clock tea time in the United States it might give everyone a chance to take a break and think about what they're doing.

Also, maybe we should just send all the rednecks over there. It wouldn't be hard. We could just tell them there is a new stock car race; something like the Piccadilly 500. If we tell them there will be free beer and Moon Pies they'll all be over there in twenty four hours.



Googled "moon pie Christmas". Google can find anything but I can't find my ass. Sheesh.

Happy Holidays backatcha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:56 PM

16. An engaging set of ideas.

Most do not pass the sniff test for "common sense", but ignoring that....

> Limiting the number of firearms that a private citizen may keep in one place,

What is your number? Odds are it will be far lower than my number. When the number is exceeded, we then need to store the "extra" guns elsewhere? Securing multiple locations seems like a security risk.


> requiring them to be kept under lock when not in use

Secured storage is a good thing. On this we agree.


> having local police department ensure this basic safety requirement has been met before allowing someone to buy a firearm

Not a bad concept, but the problem is always in the implementation details, which were not specified.


> Limiting ammunition sells to only those who have passed a mental health screen and received license

The details in the implementation will be problematic, especially the "license" part. However, using the NICS system for the ammo purchases might get the job done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:10 PM

19. Thank you.

1. Let's say 2 per person unless you get a further permit with a valid reason i.e. target shooting, hunting, not just for toys sake.

2. Yeah, I mean I'm not saying not stored in a convenient place, just stored when it's not in use.

3. I think the police would be glad to do this. They're the one's who get called when someone decides to abuse their privilege.

4. Especially, if the NCIS were improved and mental health screening was done - why should someone with an illegally possessed firearm be allowed to walk in and buy ammunition. It boggles the mind - just consider that Jared Lee Loughner had to go to two Wal-Marts because the first one wouldn't sell him ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:09 PM

176. "common sense measures"

 

We've discussed these "common sense measures" countless times.

Here we go again:

Limiting the number of firearms that a private citizen may keep in one place

What, exactly, would be the limit you had in mind?

And how, exactly, does preventing a person from having more guns than he can use at one time actually contribute to public safety?

and requiring them to be kept under lock when not in use,

I agree that people, at least people with children in their homes, should keep their firearms locked up. But you need to understand, as I have explained to you before, that the kinds of safes currently required by places like California do not offer much protection against theft. This is the one that I own:

http://www.stack-on.com/categories/security-cabinets-gun-cabinets/products/67

It meets the requirements of law set by the California Department of Justice for safe firearm storage. I bought it for about $150. It is nothing more than a lockable filing cabinet. Anyone with a crowbar could get into the safe within minutes. All it is really good for is keeping my children away from the firearms.

Is this sufficient for you?

having local police department ensure this basic safety requirement has been met before allowing someone to buy a firearm.

This is pretty much a waste of time. Anyone who wants a firearm who doesn't want to lock them up will simply lock them up for the police visit, and then unlock them again after the police visit. A better option is to simply have penalties for people who don't secure their firearms and then something bad happens with them as a result.

Limiting ammunition sells to only those who have passed a mental health screen and received license.

I don't have a problem with licenses so long as they preserve firearm ownership anonymity. I have explained how to achieve this before. Simply have a licensing system similar to what Illinois does, except make it opt-out, rather than opt-in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:37 PM

24. Make it illegal to steal other people's stuff? nt

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:41 PM

25. Lock up your guns? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:27 PM

3. And, do you have a point or

 

are you just the latest that likes to post spam about shootings and dance in the blood of the victims?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:30 PM

4. See post #2.

Also, I'm so not dancing. Are you dancing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #4)


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:05 PM

8. WWM2kD? hidden criminals, gun show loophole, private sale, stolen guns.

Before we decide guns need to be banned are there other questions that need to be asked? Do my rights need destroyed so this doesn't happen? Hardly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:20 PM

11. Need a translation: WWM2kD


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:43 AM

59. Its a play on WWJD...

 

What Would Mikeb2(k)000 Do

Read some of Mikeb2000's posts and you'll understand...


Just to clarify for the rules lawyers, this is not a callout or anything of the sort. I am simply explaining an obscure reference to another poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #59)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:22 PM

68. Yah, the M2k part had me confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:17 PM

10. sounds like a business dispute

over market share or employee theft. How do Pittsburgh's bong owners feel about funding capitalism at its worst? Their hands are not exactly clean (unless they grow their own or buy certified violence free)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread