9 Killed in Black Church Shooting in South Carolina

[m>s]

With a billion guns out there, they couldn't possibly get into the wrong hands.

That settles it better start rounding them up right now. Who's going to go collect them first?

[boutons_deux]

"hold the seller more accountable if illegally sold."

any EFFECTIVE gun control, (getting the guns away from the bad guys and other suspects) has to be retroactive, no "grandfathering"

1. gotta have and show the bill of sale (which by BoS serial must match that the seller registered at time of sale)

2. gotta have and show liability insurance, PER GUN, and why not equal to $100K/$300K like cars? Homeowner/apartment contents policy won't cover.

3. if a gun carrier or owner can't show the above, then all the guns are confiscated and destroyed.

4. shooting ranges must demand all shooter show the above upon entry.

5. all guns have serial numbers, and registered in national database.

6. any gun w/o serial number is confiscated, destroyed, and the carrier arrested and fined on first offense, jailed on succeeding offenses.

7. Any gun used in a crime that was stolen from or lost by the certified owner makes the owner an accomplice to the crime.

8. stalkers, spousal abusers, patients under psychiatric care, alcoholics, DWI criminals, users of "crazy making" drugs like PCP, meth, all lose their right to buy and own guns.

etc, etc.

btw, the above pretty much parallels the same for buying, owning, operating a car.

Ya see, all y'all good guy gun fellators can have all the guns you want. It's the bad and suspect people ONLY who lose their right to guns.

[m>s]

Because it's not a slippery slope and we totally trust you asshole

[CosmicCowboy]

You're really reaching now...

Not really.

OMG! 9 people killed by a crazy ASSHOLE with a gun! Lets outlaw guns!!!!!!

Thousands killed by drunk and negligent assholes with cars. *yawn* so what?

You REALLY can't see the analogy?

[m>s]

Also requiring someone to pay for insurance to own a gun changes it from a right to a privilege and possibly bars those who need it most the right to have one. It's the people In poor areas who really need one. Boutons are you sure you're not a republican because your proposals favor the rich and give them more rights.

[Clipper Nation]

Not really.

OMG! 9 people killed by a crazy ASSHOLE with a gun! Lets outlaw guns!!!!!!

Thousands killed by drunk and negligent assholes with cars. *yawn* so what?

You REALLY can't see the analogy?

"But, but, cars weren't designed to kill!"

As if the design matters when both are often USED to kill.

[DMX7]

Not really.

OMG! 9 people killed by a crazy ASSHOLE with a gun! Lets outlaw guns!!!!!!

Thousands killed by drunk and negligent assholes with cars. *yawn* so what?

You REALLY can't see the analogy?

I see a massive straw man.

[boutons_deux]

Not really.

OMG! 9 people killed by a crazy ASSHOLE with a gun! Lets outlaw guns!!!!!!

Thousands killed by drunk and negligent assholes with cars. *yawn* so what?

You REALLY can't see the analogy?

bull , Ms of people, even Repugs, have been calling for stronger gun regulation for years, even decades.

and you push the "lone ranger", bad apple, mentally ill bull to justify keeping gun regs useless.

[Blake]

Not really.

OMG! 9 people killed by a crazy ASSHOLE with a gun! Lets outlaw guns!!!!!!

Thousands killed by drunk and negligent assholes with cars. *yawn* so what?

You REALLY can't see the analogy?

Who here is saying to outlaw guns?

[Ignignokt]

Who here is saying to outlaw guns?

Quiet cucky, the cucktainer awaits.

[Blake]

Quiet cucky, the cucktainer awaits.

post

[Blake]

"But, but, cars weren't designed to kill!"

As if the design matters when both are often USED to kill.

Well then hunters should just use dem trucks to kill deer

[CosmicCowboy]

I see a massive straw man.

Nope. That was an analogy, not a straw man.

[DMX7]

Nope. That was an analogy, not a straw man.

An irrelevant one... because no one is saying we should outlaw guns.

[Ignignokt]

post

in response to people.

[Clipper Nation]

Well then hunters should just use dem trucks to kill deer

Quiet cucky, the cucktainer awaits.

[CosmicCowboy]

An irrelevant one... because no one is saying we should outlaw guns.

So what are you proposing?

[DMX7]

So what are you proposing?

I might not go as far as B_DX, but you could start there.

[boutons_deux]

Charleston Church Massacre Raises Profile Of White Nationalist Group — And Its GOP Connections

In his manifesto, Roof has written about being influenced by a white supremacist organization known as the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). And on Sunday night, the CCC posted its own response regarding Roof’s “legitimate grievances.”

“The C of CC unequivocally condemns Roof’s murderous actions,” the group’s statement said.

“However, the council stands unshakably behind the facts on its website, and points out the dangers of denying the extent of black-on-white crime.”

The statement by group spokesman Jared Taylor also added (with all emphasis in the original):

Our society’s silence about these crimes—despite enormous amounts of attention to “racially tinged” acts by whites—only increase the anger of people like Dylann Roof. This double standard *only makes acts of murderous frustration more likely*.

In his manifesto, Roof outlines other grievances felt by many whites. Again, we utterly condemn Roof’s de able killings, but they do not detract in the slightest from the legitimacy of some of the positions he has expressed. *Ignoring legitimate grievances is dangerous*.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/charlest...p-connections/

A large majority of (gun) crimes are black-on-black, and white-on-white.

But CCC doesn't think blacks ing about being killed by blacks (or whites, esp policemen) and doesn't think whites ing about being killed by white are "legitimates" ings. As a racist hater, he only whines about whites being killed by blacks.

[CosmicCowboy]

Interestingly enough, the majority of drivers in fatal accidents are males 25-65. Should we ban them from driving cars?

[boutons_deux]

Interestingly enough, the majority of drivers in fatal accidents are males 25-65. Should we ban them from driving cars?

cars are transportation tools, not killing tools, your NRA/GOA/gun-industry-lobbyist bull is risible.

cars are insured, cars are registered, licensed, stored in many different databases, drivers are licensed, infractions are knowable to the car insurance companies who raise your insurance for years, some infractions can cause loss of driving privileges, etc, etc. Somebody borrows your car from totally innocent, to commit a crime, you're an accomplice.

Apply all that car stuff, and more, to guns, and we got a deal. and all you wonderful, righteous Good Guys With Guns still could have all the guns you want.

[Clipper Nation]

cars are transportation tools, not killing tools, your NRA/GOA/gun-industry-lobbyist bull is risible.

Both kill people.

cars are insured, cars are registered, licensed, stored in many different databases, drivers are licensed, infractions are knowable to the car insurance companies who raise your insurance for years, some infractions can cause loss of driving privileges, etc, etc. Somebody borrows your car from totally innocent, to commit a crime, you're an accomplice.

Apply all that car stuff, and more, to guns, and we got a deal. and all you wonderful, righteous Good Guys With Guns still could have all the guns you want.

Guns are already more strictly regulated than cars.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...cars-analogy/p

[Th'Pusher]

Both kill people.


Guns are already more strictly regulated than cars.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...cars-analogy/p

link to irrelevant article.

Btw- why won't you address the point about the founding fathers infringing on the right of pretty much any person they didn't want to own a gun? address that simple point cons ution boy.

[Clipper Nation]

link to irrelevant article.

Btw- why won't you address the point about the founding fathers infringing on the right of pretty much any person they didn't want to own a gun? address that simple point cons ution boy.

Is the truth making you emotional, got?

The Founders were very clear that anyone who was capable should be able to own a gun. Now, back in 1787, society was a lot less enlightened, so African-Americans weren't considered "capable." Times have changed, but that doesn't change the principle that anyone who wishes to own a gun should be able to so long as they abide by the rule of law.

[boutons_deux]

Is the truth making you emotional, got?

The Founders were very clear that anyone who was capable should be able to own a gun. Now, back in 1787, society was a lot less enlightened, so African-Americans weren't considered "capable." Times have changed, but that doesn't change the principle that anyone who wishes to own a gun should be able to so long as they abide by the rule of law.

there were LOTS of places that restricted guns in the 19th century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_po..._United_States

myth: Gun regulations are incompatible with America’s gun heritage.When we think of settlers of colonial America and the 19th-century Wild West, we often picture fearless frontiersmen defending hearth and home from predators. But while gun possession is as old as the country, so is gun regulation.

In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses.
(Imagine what the NRA would say if government officials went door to door today asking people how many guns they owned and whether they were functional.)

On the western frontier in the 19th century, to stave off violence, new towns and cities enacted laws to bar carrying guns. In fact, the typical western townhad stricter gun laws than many 21st-century states. Today, four states have completely eliminated permits for handgun ownership and carrying.

5. The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Cons ution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to “suppress Insurrections,” not cause them. The Cons ution defines treason as “levying War” against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance “against domestic Violence” under Article IV.

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as cons utional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a “legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted” because it would “defeat the whole Bill of Rights” — including the Second Amendment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...939_story.html


search "gun restrictions in the 19th century"

NRA used to be an honorable, harmless, even helpful org, then murderer Harlon Carter and his asshole posse pulled off a coup to change NRA direction into the silly, dangerous org it is today.