Howard Dean is right. This is the year that gunfuckery begins to end.

[onehandle]

I was surfing TV. Came across the worst Indiana Jones film.

Note the logo. The MSM is fully in.

Gun culturists, the tipping point is here.

Hug your AR-15s and say bye-bye.

[img][/img]

[BeyondGeography]

1. You mean, "But it was a Sig Sauer Whateverthefuck!" isn't going to cut it anymore?

Go figure.

[villager]

33. +1

nt

[Thinkingabout]

2. Action is needed, some people do not need to have weapons in their possession.

In San Bernardino and Orlando the weapon was acquired to kill people.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Rights are NOT ABOUT fucking NEEDS.

I don't know how many fucking times it needs to be said.

What you think I NEED, affects my RIGHTS nary a whit.

[LanternWaste]

45. because this right is predicated on thousands of innocent deaths annually, needs are not.

because this right is predicated on thousands of innocent deaths annually, needs are not.

[Demit]

59. No right is absolute.

As many times as you imply that your rights trump every other human value, that will need to be said to you. None of your rights is an absolute right. There are valid & rational & reasonable limitations.

As Tom Tomorrow pointed out in his cartoon today, there are two halves to the 2nd amendment. Not just the half that you like.

[Cassiopeia]

3. What makes you think that?

Seriously.

A few, we can count them on two hands and still hold a beer, have spoken out against guns in any meaningful way.

Sorry, this will just be another massive boost to sales. Nothing will change. Change is not coming and this election doesn't offer it.

[deathrind]

4. Hopefully.

The piece that just got aired on 60 Minutes about smart guns shows just how far out the pro firearm side is. The contortions the lobbyist made to sound cogent was increadible. One second he is saying that smart weapons should "not" be sold. The next second when asked if it should be the market place that decides if smart guns should be sold he says "yes" the market place should decide...which is it yes or no...

Unbelievable.

[Duckhunter935]

29. Let the marketplace decide

And only mandate police must use them

[Kang Colby]

5. The tipping point...

New federal gun control laws aren't going to come true, no matter how much hopolophobes whine about it.

[onehandle]

7. Being against mass murder of LGBTs is a made up 'condition?'

Cool story, bro.

[Kang Colby]

9. Hopolophobia is very real.

Gun owners are just average people, the kind of folks who continue to mourn the victims of the Orlando attack. But "gun control" just won't be the answer, thankfully.

[Agschmid]

21. The guy who came up with that word...

Cooper held strongly conservative political opinions.[16] In 1991, he wrote in Guns & Ammo magazine that "no more than five to ten people in a hundred who die by gunfire in Los Angeles are any loss to society. These people fight small wars amongst themselves. It would seem a valid social service to keep them well-supplied with ammunition."[16][17] In 1994, Cooper said "Los Angeles and Ho Chi Minh City have declared themselves sister cities. It makes sense: they are both Third World metropolises formerly occupied by Americans."[18]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper

Classy huh?

[jack_krass]

65. Incredibly over-simplistic thinking

[w4rma]

15. Wow. That gif says it all about the direction that gun-control is trending. (nt)

[linuxman]

24. Blue means they banned guns, right?

[Kang Colby]

25. ;)

Yup

[scscholar]

34. That's a sad map, and...

it shows why the US is so damn dangerous.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. Only in your mind, as violent crime and murder rates have dropped

[uponit7771]

46. Cause people own devices that kill massive amounts of people? no.. that's silly on its face

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. What's silly on its face is your denial of reality- see Caetano v. Massachusetts

Whatever your professors at the University of What Someone On The Internet Said School
of Law told you, a 8-0 Supreme Court decision is decisive:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

I pointed out in another thread:

Also, don't count on this being overturned anytime soon:

Even if President Clinton names two or three utterly anti-gun justices to the SC, that would still
leave it with six or seven justices that signed their names to the above...

[uponit7771]

67. USSC said these devices can be regulated, not law that they can't

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. But they cannot be banned entirely, which is what you've advocated elsewhere:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7932084

No non-sworn civilian should own any device that is DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans efficiently

[Crunchy Frog]

37. Every time there's another mass shooting, we get closer to the gun humper utopia.

Always nice to see the barely concealed gloating.

[Kang Colby]

40. What?

That statement doesn't make sense.

[uponit7771]

47. Yes it does

[hack89]

6. You have been telling us that for over a decade

yet here we are - smack in the middle of a golden age for gun rights. I suspect you will be telling us that for a decade to come.

[peace13]

8. Please tell how you plan to stop the killings.

This 'us' you speak of. I would love to see the racial make up of that group!

[davidn3600]

10. You can't

Human beings have been killing each other violently, savagely, and senselessly for centuries before guns were ever invented.

Guns make it easier to kill, no question. But anyone who thinks passing gun control laws will "stop the killing" is incredibly naive.

[peace13]

20. You know it has worked in a few civilized countries don't you?

We have brought on our own misery by respecting one right over the others. Letting one group of people endanger and kill others is uncalled for. Have the guns but figure it out. It is the gun owner's obligation to work to solve this problem.

[villager]

35. What's even more naive is to think long overdue action won't matter at all. nt

[uponit7771]

48. Few upstanding governments aided in people killing each other randomly in massive numbers

[hack89]

12. I am open to most proposals with two exceptions

I don't support AWBs or registration. But that leaves a lot that can be done.

[blue neen]

17. "Golden age for gun rights"=

"Gloomy age for avoiding death or injury from gunshots".

[hack89]

18. We have cut our murder and manslaughter rates in half over the past 20 years

gun deaths have declined steadily for over 20 years.

As you were saying?

[peace13]

22. Tell it to the dead children of Sandy Hook.

Holler it out to the gay community of Orlando. Maybe send a note to the church people in Atlanta. You sound like someone who would only understand if his own family were shot dead doing an activity that should be totally safe from massacre! People are trying to have you avoid the heartache. Pull your head out and take a breath!

[hack89]

26. Do you expect the murder rate to drop to zero overnight?

Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:44 AM - Edit history (1)

a serious question. If so - how do you plan to do it.

[peace13]

36. I expect that we get the automatic type of gun off the street!

I expect that people should be allowed the safety to move around this country with the expectation that they won't be mowed down at any moment. Most murders are committed by people who know each other. That is a problem but not the one we're talking about!

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Nothing like 'solving' a moral panic with hastily-conceived ideas...

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court just put the kibosh on your idea, 8-0

I give you Caetano v. Massachusetts, published in March of this year

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

I pointed out in another thread:

Also, don't count on this being overturned anytime soon:

Even if President Clinton names two or three utterly anti-gun justices to the SC, that would still
leave it with six or seven justices that signed their names to the above...

[blue neen]

31. Not all gun deaths and injuries are caused by murders.

Many "unintentional" deaths are occurring among children. Are you okay with that? Many suicides could have been prevented if there wasn't a gun so very available. Tell the grieving families that the gun was more important than their loved one's life.

109,000 people are shot in this country every year. 35,000 will die. Of the ones who will survive, many will never be functional again.

"As you were saying?" Here's what I'm saying: I think the phrase "in the middle of a golden age for gun rights" is callous and hard-hearted and ludicrous.

You are correct about one thing, though. Guns do have more rights than human beings in this "age".

[hack89]

32. Accidental deaths are at historic lows too

there are many more things we can do. I was just questioning the notion that gun violence has been increasing.

I have no problem, for example, setting up a system whereby mental health professionals report patients who are potentially dangers to themselves or others so their guns can be temporarily taken away. As long as it is not permanent and respects due process, such a system can save lives.

[blue neen]

44. No one was mentally ill for this tragedy, although they probably will be now:

"A 15-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself in Allegheny Township last week has died."

"Nicholas Ursiny, of Leechburg died at UPMC Presbyterian Hospital Sunday afternoon, according to the medical examiner."

"Police said Friday the shooting was an accident that occurred while Ursiny and his father, Patrick, were target shooting along Melwood Road. The gun went off while the teen was trying to reload it and a bullet struck him in the head."

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/10661737-74/ursiny-accidentally-allegheny

This just happened. It occurred during that "harmless" and "relaxing" activity known as target shooting.

[hack89]

50. We can trade long lists of kids being killed using legal objects.

if you want to go down that road, why don't we rank them by the number of accidental deaths and start at the top of the list?

I introduced my kids to shooting sports when they were 12 - not a single accident. I was more nervous putting them behind the wheel of a car because that is what kills teenagers where I live.

[uponit7771]

49. Please link and quote that being because people own mass death devices

[hack89]

51. I don't think gun ownership rates and murder rates are linked.

it is impossible to say that more guns reduced gun violence. All we can say is more guns did not increase gun violence.

[uponit7771]

52. Devices meant to kill massive amounts of humans have increased the number of mass killings though

... before the ban vs after the ban... numbers are clear

[hack89]

53. I am not sure that is the case

handguns are still the preferred weapon for mass killers.

[uponit7771]

54. Post ban? tia

[hack89]

55. I am willing to look at your data. Please post the link. nt

[uponit7771]

56. I didn't make the claim that most of the mass killings post ban was made with hand guns....

[hack89]

57. So neither of us knows for certain.

so why the focus only on rifles? What if you are wrong?

[uponit7771]

58. No... not true at all.. link inside

Clinton's statement might be questionable but this is not

What is an undeniable truth is that we have seen an incredible uptick of mass shootings since the ban expired on September 14, 2004. To be fair, it also is a small sample size, and 2012 was an exceptionally tragic year, but the fact remains that the number of shootings has gone up over 200 percent since the ban expired.

and this

So, was Clinton accurate? Have half of the nation’s mass shootings occurred since the Assault Weapons Ban expired? No, it’s more like a quarter.

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the-assault-weapons-ban-did-it-curtail-mass-shootings/

[hack89]

60. There is a significant flaw in that logic.

namely that during the AWB there was a significant increase in the sale of military style semi-automatic rifles. AR-15 sales peaked during the AWB. If you remember, the original AWB was a flawed law that focused on how many cosmetic features a rifle had. The manufacturers simply removed those features and continued selling rifles. And all the fuss over the AWB ensured that sales went through the roof. The best example is the rifle Adam Lanza used - it was not legally an assault weapon according to CT's strict AWB and would have been legal to buy during the original federal AWB.

So wouldn't you have expected an increase in mass shootings well before 2004 since rifle sales had skyrocketed since 1994?

And one other thing - the link presents no breakdown as to what weapons were used in these mass shootings. Can you show an increase in mass shootings using rifles since 2004?

[uponit7771]

61. Then I stand corrected, it was high capacity magazines seeing the ban was mostly costmetic

... and people still bought the mass human killers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/data-point-to-drop-in-high-capacity-magazines-during-federal-gun-ban/2013/01/10/d56d3bb6-4b91-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html?tid=a_inl

Banning the magazines seemed more specific so it had a more specific effect...

[hack89]

62. "mostly handguns and, to a smaller extent, rifles "

handguns are the problem to be solved. They kill many more people than rifles by an order of magnitude.

[Jerry442]

11. Shun the gun

We should have learned by now that government is too compromised to take any meaningful action against the gun insanity. (Prove me wrong and make me happy.)

Want to do something about guns? Ostracize the gun people.

* Don't socialize with them.
* Don't hire them.
* Don't do business with them.
* Don't spend money in gun-insane states.
* Don't pass up opportunities to mock them for their irrationality, their corrupt politics, their fearfulness, and their indifference to bloodshed, and yes, their embrace of weapons as compensation for their inadequcies.
* And don't engage them in debate. Don't feed the trolls.

People should hang their heads in shame to have any connection to guns.

[hack89]

14. I shoot with doctors, lawyers, professors- a whole slew of educated professional people like me

i don't think your shunning will work.

[Abq_Sarah]

19. Good luck with that

Calling people names and then refusing to engage them in conversation doesn't make them the moron in the equation.

[Odin2005]

28. So basically you think all of us out here in Flyover Country are subhuman scum. Got it.

I bet you think hunters are evil monsters, too.

because this is what the "gun debate" really is about, "sophisticated" people in the big cities finding another reason to demonize us "dumb hicks".

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. THEM? How, pray tell, do you spot "THEM"? I don't wear strange clothes. I don't talk funny.

I don't carry a gun in public. I don't wear Hobo Kelly sunglasses. I don't wear black socks with birkenstocks nor do I carry a camera around my neck. I don't wear denim bib-overalls, straw hats, or cheap sunglasses.

I also have a nasty habit of not talking in public about what guns are in my locked gun case at home, or how many thousands of rounds of practice ammo I have on-hand.

How the fuck are you going to finger ME, the Operations Manager of a corporation, as one of "THEM"? You're NOT. You'd do business with me all fucking day long... ALL. FUCKING. DAY. LONG. Do I seem irrational to you? Do I seem fearful? What the FUCK do you know about what inadequacies I may or may not have? You don't. You. Do. not.

Mock me. Just don't engage me in a debate. You're not up to the task if your post says anything at all about how you think.

I own eight guns. Five are heirlooms; three I bought. Two 9mm pistols (one for me and one for my Wife), three .22s (one circa 1936 and one circa 1960 and one brand new), one .30-30 circa 1959, one .30-06 circa 1960, and a 20 gage pump shotgun. Four of the long guns have actually FED ME. How the fuck would you ever know they were in my house in a locked up cabinet? I'd certainly never tell you.

You be sure and avoid those "gun-insane" states now, ya hear? Some people "shun guns", others shun fools. Guess which one I am?

[Silver_Witch]

16. And who shall stop the GunFuckery?

Clinton? Nope.....
Senators? Nope....
Representatives? Nope...

The Gun Slaughter will continue...if kills 20 children did not stop it NOTHING will....

[Jerry442]

42. We will.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7933456

[linuxman]

23. Doubtful.

I'll be shooting and enjoying my guns years from now while you're still telling me "IT's COMING!".

Have fun promoting speculative gun purchasers in the mean time. The industry and the enthusiasts thank you.

[flvegan]

27. That logo, that screengrab...what are those folks holding in their hands?

Fail? Yep, it's strong here.

[onehandle]

43. Objects of antiquity. nt

[Iggo]

63. Choppers.