Repeal the Second Amendment

Lennon buddy

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/s960x960/12239216_945562982182354_3900654855168197761_o.jpg

written in the first person by the people who posted that. but links to all the actual news stories on their facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/ParentsAgainstGunViolence/photos/a.416647195073938.95672.413407645397893/945562982182354/?type=3&theater

what is wrong with these people there must be something in the water

i am normally willing to at least half-assedly defend a right to gun ownership but those stories, i mean, jesus wept

i assume you've all seen this article going round fb in light of recent events:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

where guns are mostly banned. shotguns are available to the public but this is the process to acquire one:

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

But it's good to keep in mind bc we have normalized mortality to an extent.

― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau)

it's called "death," right?

i would call it murder. death is something that happens naturally.

i am normally willing to at least half-assedly defend a right to gun ownership

tbh it's people who equivocate on this issue -- liberals who should know better -- who are as big of a problem as any of the NRA people. there are a lot of people who you would otherwise think are smart who say with a straight face that having guns around to shoot gophers in their backyards or "protect their family" outweighs the enormous costs guns have on society at large

http://www.terrierman.com/kerryhunt.bmp

love the hayseed in his bro's mouth

tbh it's people who equivocate on this issue -- liberals who should know better -- who are as big of a problem as any of the NRA people. there are a lot of people who you would otherwise think are smart who say with a straight face that having guns around to shoot gophers in their backyards or "protect their family" outweighs the enormous costs guns have on society at large

― k3vin k., Friday, December 4, 2015 2:40 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

enh so. i'm british? and every time something of this sort happens i end up having variations of conversations like:

'man, americans are stupid and dumb and hilarious, aren't they? with their guns.'
'well, actually there's some weird historical reasons and you can see why people would not see gun ownership as an unmitigated evil blah blah blah'
'no, you're wrong, americans are stupid and dumb and hilarious with their guns.'

there are plenty of reasons why many people still cling to idealized fantasies of gun ownership, they're just dumb reasons

^^^

So in terms of what would actually prevent gun violence, short of making guns disappear, it seems like the best thing would be to make them much harder to get, right? Like basically we need to (1) massively increase the difficulty of the process to get guns legally and (2) choke off the avenues like gun shows that enable black market dealers to easily get guns to sell illegally?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVZIHHLUwAI2gqF.png

kinda sold out with 'happy holidays' tho

The fetishization of "gun rights" has taken such bizarre turns. I love the first amendment but you don't see me making family holiday cards with us gathering around a printing press.

why are the babies unarmed?

how does santa get in and out unharmed?

xpost they have hand grenade in their diapers

grandma's the only one ready for action, though the li'l tyke at center has the right wariness, checking the perimeter like a pro. stay frosty, snowman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0

the NYT runs an editorial on its front page for the first time since 1920, but takes a pretty weak stance. banning assault weapons is obviously necessary, but it's not going to put a dent in firearm deaths

yeah "assault weapons" is a bit of a red herring. Everything needs to be much harder to get.

i really love weird quaintly formal times writing in general but it is kind of unbearable that they went to the effort of making this gesture & left it so limp & indirect. to refer to other countries reducing massacres to like once-every-twenty-years outliers as "at least they tried" is so confused & unhelpful. frustrating.

and the times' last front-page editorial (inveighing against the nomination of warren g. harding for president) was so seismically effective!

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/12/gun-activists-are-planning-stage-mock-mass-shooting

Gun rights activists in Texas are planning to stage a mock mass shooting at the University of Texas this weekend in protest of both gun-free zones and President Barack Obama's continued calls for tougher gun control legislation.

According to the website Statesman, gun rights supporters will begin the day by marching through Austin with loaded weapons and conclude their walk with a "theatrical performance."

A spokesman for the two participating gun rights groups, Come and Take It Texas and DontComply.com, told the site the event will involve using fake blood and bullhorns to mimic gun shot noises.

what could possibly go wrong

lol exactly what my facebork source said

wait, is the the mock mass shooting to be mock stopped by mock heroes?

doesn't say but i guess that would be the 'most sensible' thing???

y'know if I was planning a mass shooting in Texas and was having trouble deciding on a venue...

bush-cheney family christmas gathering?

hey now, I'm not lookin to get shot in the face

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/13/3731412/mock-mass-shooting-by-pro-gun-advocates-drowned-out-by-farts/

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/11583034/story.html?__lsa=ac17-42c5

this vigilante law enforcement shit is why I fear gun ownership. this lady's response to being sentenced is gross too.

guns are for self-defense, not vigilante law enforcement!

guns are for shooting people

well, yes, and I guess that's the problem. giving itchy-triggered finger civilians the right to decide when shooting at people is appropriate.

buns are for pooting people.

farts, not guns

Saying "Guns are for self-defense" is like saying "Landmines around my house are for self-defense", in that it requires a very narrow construal of self-defense, & a willingness to regard the unintended harmful consequences of one's choices as unforseeable & unavoidable accidents, rather than predictable probabilities to whose weights should be factored into the process of making decisions about the best way to protect oneself & one's family, community, etc

I'm anti-gun btw. was just pointing out that she was irresponsible in using the gun in that scenario in that she was shooting at criminals that didn't put her in harm's way in an attempt to 'help' somebody that didn't ask for it, in a scenario that was solved without her help days later anyway.

the claim that they didn't know civilians were in the area is kinda hilarious. they tend to be in shopping centers, that's how commerce works.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/11583034/story.html?__lsa=ac17-42c5

this vigilante law enforcement shit is why I fear gun ownership. this lady's response to being sentenced is gross too.

guns are for self-defense, not vigilante law enforcement!

― Neanderthal, Monday, December 14, 2015 8:54 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this person should go to prison for attempted murder IMO

promising development: http://www.sfgate.com/local/article/Sandy-Hook-suit-against-gunmakers-lives-7248610.php

I kind of hate Newsom but stopped clock etc.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Strict-state-gun-control-measure-close-to-making-7382147.php

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court says people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Thursday.

The panel says law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or otherwise have a good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.

The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel.

Opinion here as a PDF: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971%206-9%20EB%20opinion%20plus%20webcites.pdf

oh wow

damn straight

what are the ramifications of this (assuming it is upheld on appeal)?

NRA kills everyone

Only appeal is to SCOTUS. We all know how the SCOTUS stands these days, with 8 justices, frequent 4-4 splits and the next president to fill the vacant seat. Odds are mighty good atm that any appeal would not overturn!

Hard to say. The opinion notes that the 2A may or may not protect a general right to carry openly in public but that that wasn't the question before them and that Heller did not go that far.