I'd love to hear how you propose disarming a nation of over 350 million gun-toting citizens...
Current US population is 328.9 million, not "over 350 million."
Many people own multiple guns, which of course you knew, so there cannot possibly be "350 million gun-toting citizens." Only about 1/3 of US households have a gun, so most people do not even have access to a gun. Of those who do a great many are not "toting" them around, not counting those who are hunting.
...deeply ingrained in the 2nd Amendment...
According to the Gallup poll from last year, about 60% of Americans support stricter gun control. About 20% of Americans want the 2nd Amendment repealed.
...that, statistically, own twice as many guns as there are people....
As of a year ago there were about 393 firearms in the United States, so there are about 1.2 guns/person.
...oh, and all with a police force that you disarmed.
And that's wrong, too. You managed to get through an entire paragraph without saying a single correct thing, as well as going around in circles asking the same questions that have been asked and answered before. Since you've forgotten the answer I'll repeat it: I don't know how we get from where we are to where we eventually have to be, but some places to start are registration of all firearms, licensing of all firearm users, training requirements, and home safety inspections (particularly of homes with children).
Maybe this concept is lost on you, but the very people that choose professions involving firearms (military, police, etc) where do you think they land on the socio-political spectrum when it comes to private ownership of guns?
Is there even a concept in there for someone to lose? Could you be more cryptic, perhaps?
You can write whatever laws you want, Percy, but without someone like me in the trenches enforcing those laws, they're useless in practical terms.
What is it you do in your trench? You've never told us, just that you're not a policeman.
Will try to get the rest of your premises when time permits.
Popping in with little time is killing your accuracy, and spending little time here is causing you to forget that most of what you're saying you've said before, and people have answered it before. I'm not saying you should spend more time here or that you should respond more promptly, just that your current approach isn't working for you.
By that same logic, we should throw out every law since almost every law has been broken. We have laws against murder, but people still commit murder, so let's get rid of that law. People still steal stuff even though it is against the law, so let's get rid of it.
Does this make much sense to you?
He's made this argument before, its idiocy has been pointed out before, but he keeps repeating it anyway.
It's time we instituted reasonable measures to end mass shootings:
All citizens must be armed at all times, including children, especially children, because they are our future. Babies will be issued tiny Derringers.
Schools and churches will be gun-required zones, right down to kindergarten and nursery school. In the interest of teacher safety homework and book reports will be outlawed.
Citizens will be required to open carry their weapons, so that they are ready for instant response.
All weapons will be required to be fully automatic with a minimum firing rate of 10 rounds/second.
Any citizen discovered to have not fired their weapon at least ten times during a mass shooting will be deported to Mexico.
All ammunition will be required to be highly deadly hollow points like this:
It will be illegal for any non-pure American to own or carry a firearm or to remain in the country. DNA tests will establish who stays and who goes. Those failing the test will be deported to Mexico. Naturalized American citizens, green cards, visas, 10% Irish, doesn't matter. They all go. When they're all gone then Chief You-Can-Stick-Your-Reservation will turn out the lights.
Police will perform house-to-house checks making sure that all occupants are armed and that no guns or ammunition are in lockboxes. Guns must be placed at strategic locations around the house best positioned for home defense.
Any citizen caught unarmed will be deported to Mexico.
A special court will be opened to handle all firearm cases. It will have one judge with a rubber stamp.
All guns must be cocked and ready to fire. The phrase "locked and loaded" will be replaced with "cocked and loaded."
The Garlic Festival shooting has been a massive coverup by the liberal media. It was actually one of the most successful examples of what an armed citizenry can achieve in our country's history. The reality is that the gunman pulled out his gun but didn't get off a single shot before festival attendees dropped their garlic laden burdens, pulled out their guns, and unleashed a fusillade that stopped the gunman in his tracks. Yes, there was some collateral damage.
More seriously, I was tied up when Gilroy happened, was hoping someone else would mention it, thanks.
How Seriously Do People Really Take the 2nd Amendment
Okay, gun nuts, here's a quandary for you. Yesterday an Armed Man was Arrested in a Walmart in Springfield, Missouri, for carrying a loaded rifle, a handgun, and a hundred rounds of ammunition while wearing body armor. Green County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson said:
quote:“Missouri protects the right of people to open carry a firearm, but that does not allow an individual to act in a reckless and criminal manner endangering other citizens.”
My question: What law did Dmitriy Andreychenko break? Missouri is an open carry state (it does have restrictions, like schools and polling places, and private businesses can also ban guns). Walmart sells guns and so of course it's fine to open carry inside Walmart in Missouri. This means that Andreychenko carrying a handgun on his hip was legal, carrying a rifle was legal, carrying ammunition was legal, and wearing body armor was legal. He wasn't behaving in a menacing or threatening way. He was just walking through Walmart while making a cellphone video of himself.
Andreychenko was arrested for making a terrorist threat. I think that as long as he has a lawyer who is one level of competence up from a public defender (I'm not attacking public defenders, it's just that they have too many cases and too little time to be effective in non-trivial cases) that he shouldn't have any trouble getting off. And if he doesn't then the ACLU should take up his case. It would be interesting to see this gun control case go to the Supreme Court.
It's nice to know that the good citizens of open-carry Missouri still have their wits about them and see armed men as dangerous. They might want to reconsider their open carry laws. Asserting your 2nd amendment rights in the abstract is one thing, but encountering an unknown armed man while just out and about on your daily errands is quite another. Allowing armed civilians assumes that they're responsible and sane and have good judgment, but we know this isn't true of everyone, and it is nonsense to think that people can make accurate on-the-spot decisions about everyone who is armed just by their superficial appearance.
What this Walmart incident shows is that even people in open-carry states know how dangerous guns are. They obviously feel strongly about the right to carry their firearms with them, but when it comes right down to it they also feel strongly about feeling safe, and this incident shows that they understand that guns do not make them more safe. No one in that Walmart felt reassured as Andreychenko patrolled the aisles. Missourians, and people in many other states, have to start making sane decisions about whether guns really make them safer.
Unless Andreychenko was treated in an arbitrarily unfair manner compared to other individuals in a similar situation. Then that would be a Fourteenth Amendment violation, which might interest the ACLU.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.
It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
Re: How Seriously Do People Really Take the 2nd Amendment
Yeah, I know all that, but I think the ACLU would like the case because it would force Missouri to defend the position that open carry doesn't really mean open carry. The end result could be stricter open carry laws in Missouri, which would be a good thing from the ACLU's perspective.
quote:No statutes in Missouri specifically prohibit the open carrying of firearms, and it specifically authorizes any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense. No person may exhibit any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner in the presence of one or more persons.
More briefly, no statute prohibits open carry. Only people with a "valid concealed carry endorsement" who are "carrying a firearm in a concealed manner" are restricted in how openly they can display their firearms. Andreychenko was openly carrying and so didn't need to follow the concealed carry laws.
Because of this lack of any open carry laws that would provide some specificity of what's allowed and what isn't, Andreychenko was arrested on terrorism charges. But I've been searching the Missouri statutes and have found no law specifically addressing the commission of terrorism. The closest is the Forcible entry and detainer defined:
quote:534.020. Forcible entry and detainer defined. — If any person shall enter upon or into any lands, tenements or other possessions, with force or strong hand, or with weapons, or by breaking open the doors or windows or other parts of a house, whether any person be in it or not, or by threatening to kill, maim or beat the party in possession, or by such words or actions as have a natural tendency to excite fear or apprehension of danger, or by putting out of doors or carrying away the goods of the party in possession, or by entering peaceably and then turning out by force, or frightening, by threats or other circumstances of terror, the party out of possession, and detain and hold the same in every such case, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a "forcible entry and detainer" within the meaning of this chapter.
I don't think this is going to work well in court against someone who walked through the open doors of a Walmart in an open carry state.