Slog Comments

 

Comments (54) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
This is a great idea.

And it will certainly make it easier for the Easterners to swoop in when the End Days roll around......
Posted by Prostrate Yourself Before Your New OverLords on December 18, 2012 at 6:15 AM · Report this
2
Requiring guns to do microstamping is a fairly deficient measure. Better, would be requiring ammo makers to serialize all rounds, on bullet and brass, preferably inside, and retailers to record all sales.

While we're at it, can we set an upper limit for how many rounds a person can own at one time? Make them bring back spent brass to buy more? And, by limit, I don't mean per weapon, I mean per person.

One more thought... If the Second Amendment is going to be such a stumbling block to doing anything sensible to secure a civil peace, can we repeal the damned thing already? Whatever it started off being, it's mutated into something else, along with our weapons technology, national mindset, and individual purchasing power. (When the amendment was passed, a single-shot black powder muzzle-loader cost most of an average working person's annual income.) A "right" to live in a wild west, shoot-em-up society is one I would happily forego.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on December 18, 2012 at 6:51 AM · Report this
Amnt 3
Microstampting technology doesn't work and doesn't help. Trigger lock and storage requirements are unenforceable at best. CT has an "assault weapon" ban and that obviously didn't work. I guess we'll see what they want to include in that category here, but it isn't a meaningful distinction and has essentially no effect on crime. Magazine size limits aren't particularly relevant, they aren't hard to change. The "gun show loophole" only exists in the same way there is a "sidewalk loophole" to buying illegal drugs, and won't affect the criminals it is intended for.

As I've said previously, if you want to reduce gun violence, focus on education, poverty, mental health, and ending the war on drugs. Chipping away at gun rights isn't an effective way to reduce crime.
Posted by Amnt on December 18, 2012 at 7:21 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 4
@2: Keep in mind that legally speaking, the right to bear arms is just as protected and important as the right to free speech. So simply repealing one of our basic, inalienable rights is not something done flippantly.

Academically/legally speaking, anyway.

Also, this whole idea of microstamping and serializing bullets seems pointless to me. People comitting these massacres want people to know who they are and what they did, and the suicide/domestic gun deaths are either accidental or crimes of passion that can not be deterred through punishment. The daily death toll from handguns has continued unabated despite any enforcement procedures, and often involve illegal guns anyway.

Bullet control itself seems like a good idea, but how in the hell are you going to enforce that? People having more/less bullets or even more/less guns is not really a factor in these kinds of things. It is who gets that gun or those bullets.

I just do not see how that is a viable solution.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on December 18, 2012 at 7:30 AM · Report this
5
right amnt, that's why in japan, england and australia, gun control didn't work.how can you be so stupid, is it deliberate ignorance, or calculated?

you repeat the meme that a state level ban doesn't work, knowing full well that someone can drive into CT from NJ in about 30 minutes. you know or should know that japan england and australia did NOT dramatically lower their rates of gun death and massacre through what you propose and no nation has done so as what you rpopose is "more guns all over america, even semi automatic weapons all over!" and btw, how do you focus on mental health, are we going to take every troubled teenager and intervene? focus on poverty, how is that a program? what nation are you positing as an example?

if you allow semi automatic weapons to be all over, then oyu're going to have more small kids murderd and shot down like this guy lanza did, and the reason will be, people like you who stand up for widespread availability of assault weapons of mass killing. you are the enablers of folks who hunt little children and shoot them down by the dozens. you ought to be ashamed of your ignorant proposal.
Posted by another gun worshipping idiot on December 18, 2012 at 7:31 AM · Report this
6
@4 legal fail. just like some speech is regulated, see defamation, contracts, I do, agreement to conspire, etc., we can regulate arms. we do so already, banning assault weapons, so we can ban semi automatic weapons, too. no rights are unlimited. your right to religion does not let your religion define murder as okay dude. anyway states with an individual right to bear arms even uphold bans on handguns ...just because there is an individual right doesn't mean you can have any kind of arms or it can't be regulated, particularly where there is a well regulated clause in the very provision you cite. tell me this ted, how come we can ban automatic weapons consistent with the second amendment, but not semi automatic weapons? answer, please. are you saying you ahve a right to keep and bear mustard gas, tanks, and nuclear arms, too?
Posted by more gun worshipper nonsense on December 18, 2012 at 7:35 AM · Report this
Amnt 7
@4 Yes, "bullet control" is certainly not a solution. Aside from not being enforceable, people who buy the most ammo tend to be serious hobbyists and target shooters, the people that in my experience are the most responsible of gun owners. What most people who don't own and have never fired a gun don't understand is that in a busy day at the range it's not hard to go through over a hundred rounds in a day, a lot more if you are shooting .22 because it's so cheap.

Whenever the news reports on how "thousands of rounds" were found at a criminals home I roll my eyes. .22 is usually bought in boxes of 525, so it's hard hard to get to a thousand. Ammo can get pricey and prices fluctuate, so it's cheaper to buy in bulk and stockpile a bit.
Posted by Amnt on December 18, 2012 at 7:40 AM · Report this
8
saying people having more/less guns is not a factor in these kinds of things is arrant nonsense, it ignores the fact that nations with lower rates of death by gun like japan, england walres ireland germany france etc. all have .......less guns. they really do. england banned handguns and only about 4% of the population has rifles. they have few deaths. to say things like less guns is not really a factor is as ignorant and stupid as saying things like "the earth is flat" or "dinosaurs walked with man" and anyone who repeats that nonsense is either stupid, or lying.

if guns don't kill, then let's save lots of money and take them away from the us army......
Posted by lanza's bushmaster killed on December 18, 2012 at 7:41 AM · Report this
9
amnt -- impressive knowledge of guns, you are in the same leage as ms. lanza it seems.

if you stockpile ammo and guns at home, how do you assure us that your 18 year old kid who knows where the key is hidden won't show off your guns to his pal you never met, when you're not at home?

also, tell us how those guns are kept out of the hands of a thief who enteres your home with a gun and points it at you. do yo sleep with the safety off and the guns by your side?
Posted by less technical questions on December 18, 2012 at 7:48 AM · Report this
Per Bernstein 10
Just because we have a constitutional right to something doesn't make it RIGHT. I don't think the framers had automatic weapons with high cap magazines in mind when they drafted the second amendment any more than they had Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist church in mind when they drafted the first amendment.

Liberties shouldn't be taken to the nth degree simply because they can. Sadly, we should probably look at super violent video games as well. I know some will cry censorship (will u come for my porn, heavy metal and Tarantino next?), but is it OK to have a video game called Sandy Hook Shootout where the players take target practice at first graders in a school? It's probably protected by the constitution, but does freedom mean we can do whatever we want regardless of the effect it has on others?

With rights come responsibility. We all have individual rights but it's about time we start to think about what's best for all of us, not just what's best for ME.
Posted by Per Bernstein on December 18, 2012 at 8:03 AM · Report this
11
Nate Silver serves up tasty slices of data cake this morning. Here's his closer:
But after moments of healing, the partisan divide in attitudes toward guns has seemed only to accelerate after similar past events, as in Columbine, Colo. It might seem strange that ownership of a single household object is so strongly tied to voting behavior and broader political attitudes in America. But America is an outlier relative to other industrialized nations in its gun ownership rates. Whatever makes this country so different from the rest of the world must surely be reflected in the differences in how Democrats and Republicans see the nation.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com…
Posted by gloomy gus on December 18, 2012 at 8:05 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 12
How the Second Amendment went from it's explicit militia meaning to "arm everyone to their teeth":

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/co…
Posted by Matt from Denver on December 18, 2012 at 8:10 AM · Report this
13
@4 If all the amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights are so equally important, how come you can't name the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th or 10th without looking them up?

If the Constitution is so sacrosanct, how is it we've amended it 27 times? How is it we've already repealed an amendment?
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on December 18, 2012 at 8:25 AM · Report this
Amnt 14
@9 - My guns are kept in a locked steel storage locker with locks through the action of each concealed in a home. I don't have kids so I'm not worried about that. Proper storage is the responsibility of every gun owner, and is partially dependent on what the gun is intended for. Anyone in the house should be educated on them to a level equal to their age/maturity, and know how to behave around them appropriately. If there is somebody in the house who can't be trusted around guns the guns should be doubly secured or preferably removed until the issue is resolved.

@10 - Lots of big questions there, but I would urge you not to be quick to throw away a right just because you personally don't use it. Constitutional rights must have a high bar to clear to be altered in any way or they are meaningless. I don't think it's the exact details are of what the framers had in mind is crucially relevant, but in their time it was legal for individuals to own field cannons, essentially the most powerful guns at the time. They didn't think about the internet either, but that's no reason to say the internet isn't protected by the first amendment. Rights do come with responsibilities and I could even support a safety class requirement for guns similar to a drivers license IF it was done in a fair and equitable way, rather than an intentional barrier to exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right. I would certainly agree that there are some stupid and irresponsible gun owners out there, and education is important.

In my experience the most anti-gun people tend to have the least experience with guns. I've taken a few of my fellow lefties (yes, I voted for Obama, am an ACLU member, marched for gay marriage, marched against the Iraq war, etc etc) out to the range. They have all had a great time and came away with new respect and understanding for firearms instead of emotionally driven fear reactions. Once you realize that guns are tools with no will of their own, it becomes much easier to think about them rationally.
More...
Posted by Amnt on December 18, 2012 at 8:35 AM · Report this
Amnt 15
@13 - If we want to talk about a constitutional amendment, let's do it. I'd greatly prefer that conversation to dishonest efforts to chip away at the edges on the state level from people that don't recognize the 2nd.

Also, I'd love to see a debate on repealing the 3rd Amendment. It would be quite entertaining.
Posted by Amnt on December 18, 2012 at 8:39 AM · Report this
16
@10
"I don't think the framers had automatic weapons with high cap magazines in mind when they drafted the second amendment ..."

They specifically allowed for "Letters of marque" which authorized civilians owning ships and cannons to use those ships and cannons to hunt "enemies".
They may not have specifically considered high capacity magazines (30 rounds?) but they certainly had no problem with cannons being owned and used.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 17
@13: All I said was that from a legal/academic standpoint, each amendment is equal, and should require just as much rigor to repeal/amend as any other.

Also, please do not project your ignorance of our Constitution on me. Just because you do not know something does not mean that no one does.

But yes, we do amend it. But we do not do it flippantly based upon personal and individual desires and ideas.

In your rush to label me as an enemy to your viewpoint, you missed the point of what I said, and simply made up what you wanted to dispute. I never said there was not a case for a change, or that the 2nd amendment intrinsically means no limits to gun ownership.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on December 18, 2012 at 9:02 AM · Report this
18
@17 Now who's projecting? No one said it would be easy to repeal an amendment, any more than it is to pass one in the first place. It is, however, a conversation we should have as a nation. Too long, we've just taken it for granted, without even thinking through what the implications are, what our needs are, nor who needs protecting from whom or what and why.

I do, however, reject your explicit argument regarding equivalency of the amendments and their inseverability. Free speech and direct election of legislature are far more important than an inalienable right to possess tools of mass slaughter.

Repealing the Second Amendment does not imply banning all guns, but it does allow the states to pass reasonable regulations that they couldn't otherwise enforce now.

By the way, if you can describe each of the first 10 amendments by heart, you're one of only a tiny percentage of non-school-age Americans who can. The 1st, 2nd, and 5th are in the news often enough, and the 4th and 6th occasionally, that many remember those, but not so much the others.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on December 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM · Report this
Per Bernstein 19
@16
Let's be honest, the framers specifically allowed these things because our civilians were our army (i.e. Minutemen) much like Switzerland allows/mandates its civilians to carry firearms in case of attack by an outside army. I get that. I understand the intent there. But seeing as how we have the world's strongest army with the world's biggest arsenal, do I still need a field cannon/Bushmaster .223 to hunt enemies? Again, I think the framers had what was best for the country, at that time, in mind.

We can argue over intent all day, but my point had more to do with taking into account what was best for the whole. When the framers laid out these liberties, was their intent that citizens should be allowed to take these liberties as far as they could (i.e. Fred Phelps or a Sandy Hook Shootout video game) or did they envision them being exercised in a responsible way that benefitted the group?

I don't have a problem with you owning guns in a responsible manner. But not everyone with automatic weapons acts as responsibly as you or can be forced to act as responsibly as you.

@14
I agree with most of what you say and I don't want to get rid of rights per se, I'm more interested in why we feel the need to take every right to the nth degree. I have fired automatic weapons and yes, it is fun, but I would never own one or keep one in our home with my 5-year old even if it was safely stored.

The Westboro Baptist Church would surely make the same argument you made about people who want gun control have the least exposure to guns. Fred Phelps would insist that if people were truly exposed to his teachings instead of making knee-jerk assumptions based on what the left-wing media says about him that people would warm to him immediately.
More...
Posted by Per Bernstein on December 18, 2012 at 9:30 AM · Report this
20
Bravo, Tim and the City Council. This is a legislative start and many of us are happy you're taking the lead.
Posted by Sandman on December 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM · Report this
Lew Siffer 21
Does anyone actually think the 2cnd ammendment could be repealed w/o a civil war? This country would fracture badly.
Posted by Lew Siffer on December 18, 2012 at 9:38 AM · Report this
22
@19
Now you're trying to shift the discussion.
As written, the Constitution specifically allows for civilian ownership of the most powerful weapons of the time (ships equipped with canons).
So the people who wrote the Constitution did not seem to have a problem with it at that time.

Now whether you think that civilians owning different weapons now is "okay" or "not okay" because we also pay a large military is something else. But don't try to use the Constitution for that. They had very clear ideas on keeping weapons so that the government could not use the army to oppress the citizens.

And a 3rd something else is "... intent that citizens should be allowed to take these liberties as far as they could ...".
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 23
@1: "In my experience the most anti-gun people tend to have the least experience with guns... Once you realize that guns are tools with no will of their own, it becomes much easier to think about them rationally."

I have a ton of experience with guns. I spent ten years in the army and have fired everything from pellet guns to 105mm howitzers. I absolutely undertstand that guns are tools with no will of their own. Tools for killing.

That is what they are designed to do, and when used correctly that is what they do, very very efficiently.

Because I understand that a gun is simply a tool for killing, I fail to understand why it is necessary for people to have so damn many of them, or why reasonable regulations (safe storage, no concealed carry, limitations on types and ammunition capacity) are seen to be such a problem.

You know what else is a tool that I learned how to use in the army? High explosives. A damn useful tool, and for more than just killing folks. So, if a gun is just a tool and therefore there should be no restrictions on gun ownership, how about explosives? Should someone be able to drive around town with a few pounds of C4, a couple blasting caps, and a line of safety fuse in the glove compartment? Hey, you never know when you might need that sort of thing!

(I know what's coming next: "Second Amendment!" But ask yourself: if the only justification that you can think of for not restricting guns in 2012 is twenty-seven words written two hundred and twenty-one years ago, perhaps your argument is not a strong one.)
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on December 18, 2012 at 9:59 AM · Report this
24
@21 You're being just "a little" hyperbolic. First of all, passing or repealing any amendment requires that 3/4ths of the states (that's 38) would have to ratify it. Should that come to pass, after the many years that would take, each state would then be free to amend their own constitution to guarantee whatever they'd like. (Removal of a governmental power or restriction from our federal Constitution devolves it to the states.) Or to pass whatever reasonable laws their voters would support. Nowhere in this scenario is a civil war, except in the romantic minds of those Southerners wishing to relitigate the last one.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on December 18, 2012 at 10:15 AM · Report this
Per Bernstein 25
@22
I'm really not trying to "shift the discussion" at all. Under your reasoning, there is a specific constitutional right allowing civilians to keep thermonuclear bombs ("the most powerful weapons of our time") in our garage to "hunt enemies".

Now because the constitution (under your reading) allows us to keep nuclear weapons in our garage, does that mean that we should? Or should we think about the common good and use common sense when doing so?

Posted by Per Bernstein on December 18, 2012 at 10:23 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 26
@4

Freedom of the press is just as protected as freedom of religion, and just as protected as freedom of assembly. The Second Amendment is worded much differently, and treats the right to bear arms in a different way.

The First Amendment makes no mention of "well regulated" speech. The right to bear arms is limited by the requirement to be "well regulated". If the speech and arms were just as protected, the Bill of Rights would use the same wording for each.

The biggest mistake gun nuts make is the decision to ignore the words in the Second Amendment as if they were thrown in there as decorations with no purpose. The phrase "well regulated militia" was put there for a reason. The Constitution wasn't written by thoughtless dilettantes, it was written by people who meant what they said.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 18, 2012 at 10:55 AM · Report this
27
@25
"Under your reasoning, there is a specific constitutional right allowing civilians to keep thermonuclear bombs ..."

Yeah. Why don't you come back when you've grown up a little bit and can do your own research?
It's obvious that you're too immature to even handle this discussion.

What I posted was: As written, the Constitution specifically allows for civilian ownership of the most powerful weapons of the time (ships equipped with canons).
So the people who wrote the Constitution did not seem to have a problem with it at that time.

Grow up and stop beating on that straw man.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 28
@16

If the Second Amendment is all you need to get military hardware, then the letters of marque were redundant. Were they issuing the letters because they were bored and wanted to piddle away their spare time writing unnecessary letters?

No. They knew civilians had no clear constitutional right to weapons of war. In special cases where it became necessary, specifics authorization had to be issued. Because they knew that it was their job to ensure that bearing arms was well regulated.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 18, 2012 at 11:07 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 29
@27

"Yeah. Why don't you come back when you've grown up a little bit and can do your own research?"

All you have is insults.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 30
@18: OK, march yourself into a courtroom and try to explain to a judge that Law A is really, really important and should be followed, but because you have differing opinions on Law B, that one is not as important, and does not need to be followed. See what the judge tells you.

I will try to make this even simpler for you: just because you personally do not think that one law is more important than another, does not change the legal status of that law.

Again: just because you personally do not think that one law is more important than another, does not change the legal status of that law.

This is not an argument. It is a simple fact.

And nowhere did I claim that the second amendment makes any gun control measures legally invalid. You seem to have made that up completely.

Posted by Theodore Gorath on December 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM · Report this
Per Bernstein 31
@27
Why are you losing your shit?

It's funny that you accuse me of "beating on that straw man" whilst making an ad hominem attack (I'm too immature, I need to grow up) but hey, to each their own when it comes to fallacious arguments, right?

God forbid someone try to "shift an argument" to get to a real understanding of a serious problem. It's far more important to concentrate on semantics especially in light of all the little children that were slaughtered by those "powerful weapons" needed to hunt enemies.

And by the way, I would love to see more "ships equipped with canons" as a canon is "the books, music and art that has shaped our culture"...cannons, not so much.

"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
Posted by Per Bernstein on December 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM · Report this
32
@31
"Why are you losing your shit?"

I don't think you understand what that means.
Did you hear your daddy using it and you feel like a big boy now that you've used it too?

Because nothing you just posted contradicts my previous points in any way.
Grow up and learn to do your own research.

The Constitution (and BoR) specifically allowed for civilian ownership of the most powerful weapons of the day.

And little baby you wants to talk about nuclear weapons. Poor little baby you.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 18, 2012 at 11:33 AM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 33
@32: "Losing your shit" means that when people ask you difficult questions, you start insulting them. Calling them stupid, or babies, or telling them to grow up.

Hope that helps.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on December 18, 2012 at 11:48 AM · Report this
Per Bernstein 34
@32
Why do you complain about people being insulting on other threads, yet resort to doing the same thing here?

That's what my 5-year old does. And then he throws a tantrum.
Posted by Per Bernstein on December 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM · Report this
35
@34
Did you or did you not post this:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
"Under your reasoning, there is a specific constitutional right allowing civilians to keep thermonuclear bombs ('the most powerful weapons of our time') in our garage to 'hunt enemies'."

Yes, that way you, wasn't it?
thermonuclear bombs ... in our garage

Poor little baby.
You can't even do your own research and now you'll complain about having your own posts quoted back to you.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM · Report this
Per Bernstein 36
@35
Did you or did you not post this at 8:03 pm yesterday:

"@18
Anything other than insults?"

Then you insult me and posted this an hour ago on the "What I would do about guns" thread:

"@60
Did you have to take the special bus to school?
Does your mommy get mad when people call you retarded?"

Keep exercising that jawbone. :)
Posted by Per Bernstein on December 18, 2012 at 12:25 PM · Report this
37
@30 You seem confused. No one was talking about ignoring or violating a law. We're talking about repealing one, or in this case, repealing an amendment.

It has nothing to do with a court of law, only the court of public opinion, and a ton of legislative process.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on December 18, 2012 at 12:34 PM · Report this
38
@36
It is possible that I did post that.
You don't know how to make a link, do you?
So I cannot say for sure. And I'm not going to look it up.

Here's your comment for you:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
"Under your reasoning, there is a specific constitutional right allowing civilians to keep thermonuclear bombs ('the most powerful weapons of our time') in our garage to 'hunt enemies'."

Yes, that way you, wasn't it?
thermonuclear bombs ... in our garage

Are you now denying that you made that comment or are you hoping that the extreme stupidity that it demonstrates can somehow be mitigated by dragging this thread on and on and on?
Because in case you haven't noticed, I have no qualms about cut and paste.

Yes, that way you, wasn't it?
thermonuclear bombs ... in our garage
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM · Report this
Per Bernstein 39
This is what YOU wrote:

"As written, the Constitution specifically allows for civilian ownership of the most powerful weapons of the time (ships equipped with canons).
So the people who wrote the Constitution did not seem to have a problem with it at that time."

The point that I made in response was that nuclear bombs are NOW "the most powerful weapons of the time". My point is that it is ridiculous to surmise that it makes sense for civilians today to own "the most powerful weapons of the time" whether the framers allowed for it or not. I guess you missed that.

I also made the point that the framers who allowed for freedom of religion didn't envision Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist church.

But we both know you don't care about anything that I write as this is all just an exercise in mental masturbation for you and you aren't even honest enough to confirm something you posted not even 24 hours ago. And I guess that speaks the loudest about how much you care about what you spew.

And yes, that way me.

Posted by Per Bernstein on December 18, 2012 at 12:56 PM · Report this
40
@39
That's the straw man that I pointed out that you were beating.

You had ORIGINALLY posted:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
"I don't think the framers had automatic weapons with high cap magazines in mind when they drafted the second amendment ..."

Then I showed that, when they drafted the second amendment, they were okay with the idea of civilian ownership of ships with cannons.
They even wrote that into the Constitution.
Therefore, they probably would not have problems with "automatic weapons with high cap magazines" in the hands of civilians.

And then you jumped to "... thermonuclear bombs ... in our garage ..."
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…

Poor little baby.
You can't even do your own research and now you'll complain about having your own posts quoted back to you.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM · Report this
Per Bernstein 41
@40
Now can we address your hypocrisy in regards to whining about people being insulting when you do the same thing. Care to comment or do you want to complain about having your own posts quoted back to you.

And by the way, do you even care about what you write? Do you care about finding a mutual understanding with those you don't agree. Of course you don't.

If anyone is being a little baby, it's you.
Posted by Per Bernstein on December 18, 2012 at 3:00 PM · Report this
Per Bernstein 42
@40
You should hook up with the Westboro Baptist Church and congratulate each other on keeping it real constitution-style! I hear they're going to be in Connecticut this week, you know Connecticut, where they have the most restrictive gun laws in the country. You guys should have a lot in common.
Posted by Per Bernstein on December 18, 2012 at 3:06 PM · Report this
43
@41
"Do you care about finding a mutual understanding with those you don't agree."

This isn't about "those".
This is YOU trying to beat a straw man ("... thermonuclear bombs ... in our garage ...") because YOU did not like the historical reference that showed YOU were wrong.
Grow up.
Or if you cannot grow up at least make the effort to educate yourself on the subject under discussion.

But you won't make the effort, will you?
And you won't grow up.
Because you are already a wonderfully unique snowflake and the rest of the world should recognize that and just make exceptions when you spout your ignorant bullshit.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 18, 2012 at 3:12 PM · Report this
Per Bernstein 44
Easy tiger. My intention wasn't to get you to the point of snapping.

You're right though, it's a good thing people like you have a constitutional right to those automatic weapons with high-cap magazines. What was I thinking??

Posted by Per Bernstein on December 18, 2012 at 3:30 PM · Report this
45
@44
"What was I thinking??"

I would say that "thinking" is not your strong suit.
You're ignorant of basic history.
You're ignorant of the foundation for this government.
You're ignorant of basic English.
And when shown how ignorant you are, you resort to straw men and insults.

As I said before, I showed that, when they drafted the second amendment, they were okay with the idea of civilian ownership of ships with cannons.
They even wrote that into the Constitution.
Therefore, they probably would not have problems with "automatic weapons with high cap magazines" in the hands of civilians.

But it is all about your feelings and your precious ignorance.
Because you certainly aren't going to put the effort into educating yourself.
Grow up.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 18, 2012 at 3:41 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 46
Waste of time and tax payer money, City firearms law can not be more restrictive than state law and there is not a single gun show in Seattle city limits, nor do I think there is even a gun show in King County.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on December 18, 2012 at 3:56 PM · Report this
Per Bernstein 47
Why do you cry about people using insults and then do it yourself? Isn't that kind of immature?
Posted by Per Bernstein on December 18, 2012 at 4:00 PM · Report this
48
@47
I showed that, when they drafted the second amendment, they were okay with the idea of civilian ownership of ships with cannons.
They even wrote that into the Constitution.
Therefore, they probably would not have problems with "automatic weapons with high cap magazines" in the hands of civilians.

Did you get that?
No? You're just not smart enough to understand that?

Then you go off on a straw man of "... thermonuclear bombs ... in our garage ..." because you think that beating a straw man means something.

And now it's all about your feelings being hurt because the bad man on the internet pointed out how stupid you were and isn't it wrong for bad men on the internet to show that you're stupid?
Grow up.
Educate yourself.
Or just keep crying about how other people should be nicer because you are so special that you shouldn't need to know things like facts.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 18, 2012 at 4:26 PM · Report this
Per Bernstein 49
@48
You didn't show a damn thing.

Except that we have big problems. Maybe it is time for the flood.
Posted by Per Bernstein on December 18, 2012 at 5:00 PM · Report this
50
@49
"You didn't show a damn thing."

Of course not.
The mean old man on the internet could not tell you something you did not know because you're so smart and special and he is just a meany.
Isn't that what your mommy said?

Back to the facts.
I showed that, when they drafted the second amendment, they were okay with the idea of civilian ownership of ships with cannons.
They even wrote that into the Constitution.
Therefore, they probably would not have problems with "automatic weapons with high cap magazines" in the hands of civilians.

Then you go off on a straw man of "... thermonuclear bombs ... in our garage ..." because you think that beating a straw man means something.

Now you keep trying to run this thread out because you think that pouting in public will make the mean old man on the internet be nice to you.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 18, 2012 at 5:11 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 51
If the founding fathers saw a modern rifle like an AR15, or AK47 they would probably have said, "We could have used a wagon load of these at Bunker Hill."

I can see the grin on Thomas Jefferson's face while he snaps in a PMAG of 5.56.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on December 18, 2012 at 5:43 PM · Report this
52
Good Lord, what a bunch of wankery.
Posted by clashfan on December 19, 2012 at 11:21 AM · Report this
53
These guys are as awesomely effective as the TSA: 1) whenever there's an incident, panic and enact some random restriction that would not have prevented it 2) feel great for having "done something".
Posted by beef rallard on December 19, 2012 at 1:37 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 54
Um, guys, we already put traceable taggants in fertilizer to stop people from making bombs of it with diesel fuel.

Bullets can be traced too.

ButI should point out you can actually make your own bullets. Until this last century, almost everyone did exactly that.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on December 21, 2012 at 10:11 AM · Report this

Add a comment