Kinja reply list

Read More
LindaAllie Jones
10/05/15 2:35pm
There is a more strenuous background check to adopt a dog from a shelter or rescue group in this country than there is to buy a gun.

Our background checks for gun purchases are a joke.
Reply
- Read More
  flamingolingoLinda
  10/05/15 2:38pm
  Other constitutionally-protected rights, like freedom fo speech and the right to have an abortion, are limited and regulated in many ways. If demonstrators can be corralled into “free speech zones” and women are forced to travel thousands of miles to acquire abortions, then there’s no reason why gun owners should be able to carry their toys anywhere they want and acquire them so easily.
  Reply
- Read More
  Lindaflamingolingo
  10/05/15 2:39pm
  Did auto correct mess up your response?
  
  I think we agree on this, but I can’t tell.
  Reply
Read More
GregoireAllie Jones
10/05/15 1:59pm
Duel between Hillary vs Bernie at high noon in town square! I imagine she specifically designed her announcement to highlight Bernie’s support for that onerous law. I believe we’re finally seeing the beginnings of her offensive.
Reply
- Read More
  butcherbakertoiletrymakerGregoire
  10/05/15 2:09pm
  Doesn’t matter. She’ll never get the law repealed in a Republican Congress. Even if she managed to have the miracle of a Democratic Congress, and they repealed it, and she signed it, she would make damned sure that industry had some other backdoor protection in a separate piece of legislation. She is wholly untrustworthy.
  Reply
- Read More
  flamingolingoGregoire
  10/05/15 2:34pm
  Yes, we are. Hillary seems to be to Bernie’s left when it comes to gun policy:
  
  Clinton will urge Congress to close the “Charleston loophole,” which allowed Dylann Roof to obtain a gun despite a felony drug conviction because his background check wasn’t completed within three days. She also wants Congress to overturn the 2005 law that prevents firearm manufacturers and dealers from being sued by the victims of gun violence. While serving in the Senate in 2005, Clinton voted against the law, but Sanders, who was in the House at the time, supported it.
  
  Second Amendment rights are important to many Vermont voters, and Sanders has a mixed record on gun control. He supported the 2013 law to expand background checks and ban certain types of weapons, but in 1993 he voted against the Brady bill, which established mandatory background checks and a five-day waiting period. He also voted to allow guns on Amtrak and received support from the NRA during his first campaign. “The president is right. Condolences are not enough,” Sanders said on MSNBC in response to the Oregon shooting. “We’ve got to do something … We need sensible gun-control legislation.” Sanders supports closing the gun-show loophole and improving mental-health care, and said for there to be progress the two sides of the gun debate need to “start talking to each other.”
  
  That last sentence about how both sides need to start talking to each other is pure BS and I’m surprised to see Sanders engaging in it. Gun control advocates have been ready to have a serious conversation about this matter for decades. It’s the pro-gun side that has refused anything but maximum guns.
  Reply
Read More
RooseveltsRevengeAllie Jones
10/05/15 2:02pm
I didn’t know about this. It’s a really clever fix to a problem that people have been unable to come together on. I’m sure the right wing will attack it in some way, but how anyone can argue against accountability for something they claim to be fair and constitutional is going to be fun to watch.
Reply
- Read More
  Atomic BuffaloRooseveltsRevenge
  10/05/15 2:34pm
  They got the law passed in the first place.
  Reply
- Read More
  Unspiek, Baron BodisseyRooseveltsRevenge
  10/05/15 2:41pm
  The uncanny track record of the gun lobby protecting their interests is almost magical.
  Reply
Read More
MattAllie Jones
10/05/15 2:05pm
The broadness of this law is scary, especially in light of the Odessa case. I guess anything short of a sworn affidavit from the buyer that they plan on using the gun for illegal activities, with ten witnesses present, a written break down of their killing spree and a Powerpoint presentation is considered reasonable doubt.
Reply
- Read More
  Molly with the Mediocre Hair (mollymlf05)Matt
  10/05/15 2:12pm
  In civil cases, you don’t have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard is “by preponderance of the evidence,” which means that it’s more likely than not the defendant was negligent.
  Reply
- Read More
  MattMolly with the Mediocre Hair (mollymlf05)
  10/05/15 2:33pm
  Still though, it seems like they've set an almost impossibly high bar for a plaintiff in a civil case. Unless in the Odessa case they (the defense) straight up denied that the exchange between the mother and the shop owner took place, I'm having a hard time seeing how they can say the shop owner didn't act negligently. I mean, how often does it occur that someone comes in to their shop and says 'Please don't sell to this person, they're going to use the gun to kill someone.' If I were a shop owner that'd send up all kinds of red flags for me.
  Reply
Read More
NoButWait Hates Your GoT Fan TheoriesAllie Jones
10/05/15 2:14pm
That Odessa case...what the fuck?

What was the gun shop’s reasoning there? That singular gun purchase was so important to them that they were willing to sell it to someone they’d been DIRECTLY informed was unstable? That’s the kind of person who practices their “plausible deniability” speech in the mirror everyday for the inevitable moment when the next [insert insanely long list of school shooters] strolls into his shop to purchase the tools for their next massacre.

What kind of “fuck you got mine” asshole just shrugs and says “Welp, it’s legally okay, and at least I know nobody’s going to try to get a refund.”
Reply
- Read More
  ARP2NoButWait Hates Your GoT Fan Theories
  10/05/15 2:25pm
  Some people really believe everyone is safer with a gun. What if the person calling doesn’t want them to have a gun, so they can harm them WITH a gun? More guns= more safe.
  
  (it’s sad, but a lot of people probably do think this)
  
  Reply
- Read More
  FrancoisNoButWait Hates Your GoT Fan Theories
  10/05/15 2:35pm
  Every country has it’s national blind spot and totally irrational stance on something. In Turkey, it is treason to discuss the Armenian massacre; in America, school/theatre/mall shootings will never stop due to the NRA and ilk twisting the 2nd Amendment to suit their needs.
  Reply
Read More
jrfunkensteinAllie Jones
10/05/15 2:42pm
Far too many people in the US have erroneously convinced themselves that ‘freedum’ can only be achieved by engaging in at least one massive gun battle each and every fucking week of their lives in which they get an opportunity to pull out their gun and start blasting away like Robocop, because obviously more people packing more guns at more places at all times is CLEARLY the answer to America’s horrific levels of gun violence.
Reply
- Read More
  DoYouEvenShiftjrfunkenstein
  10/05/15 3:24pm
  Youve got it all wrong man. Freedom is achieved by driving a 7k lb SUV at 90 mph while high on weed/meth/bath salts, eating a cheeseburger, smoking a cigarette, downing a liter of Vokda, and posting a selfie on Facebook.
  Reply
- Read More
  jrfunkensteinDoYouEvenShift
  10/05/15 3:32pm
  I’m assuming all of this is accompanied by the sound of a well oiled Gatling gun?
  Reply
Read More
eLo$Allie Jones
10/05/15 3:02pm
So I’m a gun owner, a registered independent and I love me some freedom. That being said, something needs to be done that will appease both sides of the aisle on this topic. Here is my idea and I think it’s a good compromise:

Limit the number of firearms that someone is allowed to own at 1 per classification. So this would mean that everyone is allowed to own 1 shotgun, 1 rifle (assault of hunting) and 1 handgun.

Anyone that owns more than this amount per classification would be grandfathered in once the law goes into affect.

This would make it harder for someone to build up an arsenal in the future and should give current gun owners a feeling that the government isn’t going to knock on the door and take all of their guns.

Thoughts?
Reply
- Read More
  PeteRReLo$
  10/05/15 3:26pm
  It’s horseshit. Target shooting is not hunting is not varmint hunting is not home defense. No one pistol will cover every need.
  
  And what happens when Granddad dies and he leaves 6 guns to his son? Auto confiscation and destruction, I would imagine.
  Reply
- Read More
  gletternicheLo$
  10/05/15 3:31pm
  I thought the current pro-gun lobby is against all efforts at keeping track of who owns how many guns or being put into a database. Wouldn’t this require a database?
  Reply
Read More
TimF101Allie Jones
10/05/15 2:05pm
Though Ghawi’s parents weren’t seeking monetary damages, “just a change in business practices by online gun and ammunition dealers,” the suit was dismissed. And due to a 2000 Colorado law that was passed to soothe anti-gun control conservatives following the 1999 Columbine massacre and the subsequent push for gun control, Ghawi’s parents now owe a judgment of over $200,000 to the dealers.

Paraphrasing Brad DeLong, our stupid fucking gun laws are worse than you can imagine, even though you know and take into account in your thinking the fact that they are worse than you can imagine.
Reply
- Read More
  logophobe, desperate dadTimF101
  10/05/15 2:35pm
  Ditto drug laws.
  
  And sentencing guidelines.
  
  And the public defender system.
  
  And, god, basically the whole fucking legal system, really.
  Reply
Read More
Rom RombertsAllie Jones
10/05/15 2:06pm
When I was a child, the only thing I wanted to be when I grew up was a gun lobbyist. Other children would doodle pictures of astronauts and police officers and firefighters and ballet dancers and football stars. Not me. I’d just draw grown-up me in a suit with cold, dead, black eyes. I’d play in my backyard imaging that I’d just helped pass another cool gun-having law and that all the gun company bosses were there to shake my hand and invite me on those kinds of hunting trips where you fly somewhere remote and destroy a bear or a moose or both maybe.
Reply
- Read More
  PolitifuckedRom Romberts
  10/05/15 2:27pm
  This makes me think of the lead character in Thank You for Smoking. Basically the same thing, but for cigarettes.
  Reply
- Read More
  TheDataRom Romberts
  10/05/15 2:59pm
  
  Did you draw this?
  Reply
Read More
toothpetardAllie Jones
10/05/15 2:02pm
The 2nd is important because it allows americans to rally in a spontaneous organic defense of the rights enshrined in the constitution. The largest eruption of organized gun use in this country was in the defense of the constitutionally enshrined right to keep others as slaves, for example.
Reply
- Read More
  Jim Casytoothpetard
  10/05/15 2:21pm
  Yup, and ask the south how well that turned out. Yet people today will still argue that they need a gun to protect themselves from the Federal government. Really? The idea that you can revolt against the government with handheld firearms was proved false during the civil war, and that was before they had tanks, drone strikes, etc etc.
  Reply
- Read More
  YSoSidioustoothpetard
  10/05/15 2:30pm
  Odd then that in defense of the Second Amendment the NRA and their ilk of buffoons, those folk who have no problem with elementary school kids getting shot up as long as they can cling to their guns, tossed the First Amendment under the bus.
  Reply