Kinja reply list

Read More
CleverUsernameTom Scocca
6/16/16 10:36am
I’m still trying to figure out how respecting people and their rights is to blame for the murder of 49 people.
Reply
- Read More
  caekislove-caekingitupCleverUsername
  6/16/16 10:42am
  I’m trying to figure out why we’re talking about implementing mandatory background checks in the wake of a murder spree by someone who successfully passed the exact kind of background checks being proposed.
  
  Is this what Rahm Emmanuel meant when he said “lever let a serious crisis go to waste”? If so, that’s shit strategy. Gun control advocacy costs votes. We’re really going to risk a Trump Presidency to pass some shit that has already been proven to not even work? If you’re gonna do that, why not go all out and propose a total ban and confiscation? Constitutional amendment to repeal the 2A? Something that might actually work?
  Reply
- Read More
  CharlieKellyKingofTheRatscaekislove-caekingitup
  6/16/16 10:47am
  Just gotta go further back in the background search.
  Reply
Read More
MattyWollyTom Scocca
6/16/16 10:28am
The fantasy that the NRA sells, and which goes largely unchallenged, is that liberty depends on guns.

Indeed.

The well armed (With mainly US arms to boot, natch!) people of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala sure enjoy a lot of liberty, don’t they?

Everyone and their mother in Syria and Iraq seem to have an AK-47 on the shelf. Guess they are real liberated.
Reply
- Read More
  kittykitcat1955MattyWolly
  6/16/16 10:29am
  wow. thx for this. so on point. wish i had realized
  
  this.
  Reply
- Read More
  MiniatureamericanflagsforothersMattyWolly
  6/16/16 10:32am
  In the event of an oppressive government, we should have the right to turn into 1990s Afghanistan. That’s the option right?
  Reply
Read More
Flying Squid (I hate me more than you do.)Tom Scocca
6/16/16 10:33am
The Constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms.

It says nothing about the right to purchase them.
Reply
- Read More
  Thursday BurnerFlying Squid (I hate me more than you do.)
  6/16/16 10:35am
  Wow that’s a great argument. You should call the SCOTUS tipline.
  Reply
- Read More
  BurntttThursday Burner
  6/16/16 10:37am
  That’s what I love about constitutional scholars in comment sections. On both sides! Like... oh man, better call the SCOTUS and drop this knowledge bomb.
  Reply
Read More
pre-emptive sighTom Scocca
6/16/16 10:28am
Just heard on NPR on the way to work that the American Medical Association has declared guns a national health crisis and called for an end to the ban on federal gun research.

As a general rule, when people try to forbid research about something, it’s something worth looking into.
Reply
- Read More
  BobbySeriouspre-emptive sigh
  6/16/16 10:35am
  This video pretty much sums up the insanity of our perverse gun culture.
  
  A 13 year old can’t buy cigarettes, beer, prorn, even a lottery ticket. But a gun, no problem! Step right up!
  
  Reply
- Read More
  reggiebushlateralpre-emptive sigh
  6/16/16 10:37am
  Yes, read up on NRA and what they did to ensure that the CDC ceased all research into gun violence.
  
  http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltz…
  Reply
Read More
FelixElixTom Scocca
6/16/16 10:39am
This is great Tom. I think the link between Christianity and guns is the strangest element here—Jesus taught nonviolence, turning the other cheek, and loving your enemies. Somehow guns have become this golden calf that many Evangelical Christians refuse to acknowledge as idolatry.
Reply
- Read More
  toothpetardFelixElix
  6/16/16 10:42am
  Jesus helps us spread American-style freedominess and nation building though.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trijicon_…
  Reply
- Read More
  FelixElixtoothpetard
  6/16/16 10:49am
  Yeesh, I’m beginning to think Team America: World Police was more of a documentary than comedy.
  Reply
Read More
SapphireTom Scocca
6/16/16 10:48am
Getting rid of guns right now would require a cultural shift that could take decades to accomplish. What if instead we started limiting the killing power of guns? Mandate only selling rubber bullets to anyone who does not have a sport hunting license. The Hunter would also only be able to but bullets for the weapon they plan on hunting with. There may be a few other exceptions like long range target shooting but that can be regulated at the gun range.

To me it seems like a win-win, people get to keep their guns, it becomes remarkably harder to kill people with guns on purpose of by accident and manufactures can continue to make all the guns and ammo their profits desire. Local governments can also track who has lethal bullets and with hunting licenses and then use that data to find potential terrorist plots by tracking where more lethal bullets are being sold than the hunting license should call for.

I know that this isn't a end all solution, people have bullet presses and can make their own ammunition. What selling only rubber bullets would do is make it harder for people to accumulate the ammunition required for a mass shooting easily. The time it takes to make each bullet can allow the police to find out about the plot or allow the person to cool off and think of a better way to spend their time. This will not stop everyone but it should slow the amount of killing down at least.
Reply
- Read More
  dfdsfafsdafsdfsdfadsgdfgfdgSapphire
  6/16/16 11:09am
  Cute idea, but no.
  
  However, I’d be ok with a more complex, more costly method of licensure.
  Reply
- Read More
  DarigaazSapphire
  6/16/16 11:21am
  Rubber bullets will kill you dead very easily.
  Reply
Read More
A_Copy_EditorTom Scocca
6/16/16 11:09am
I am genuinely interested to know how many people in the country really truly believe that the NRA has any interest in or tries to advocate for the US Constitution, or even the general notion of liberty. It’s simply a massive marketing agency for the gun industry. Naively, I have hoped that even the most hardcore gun fetishists see this. Lobbyists don’t just do their work in Congress. The most successful ones, such as the NRA, do it in the general public, as well. They spin elaborate stories, but ultimately they’re just selling an industry.
Reply
- Read More
  Thursday BurnerA_Copy_Editor
  6/16/16 11:15am
  I am genuinely interested to know how many people on this site really truly believe that Gawker Media has any interest in or tries to advocate for the US Constitution, or even the general notion of freedom of speech. It’s simply a massive marketing agency for clickbait. Naively, I have hoped that even the ungreyed commenters see this. Racebaiters don’t just do their work on Jezebel. The most successful ones, such as A.J. Daulerio and Jordan Sargent, do it on Gawker Mainpage, as well. They spin elaborate stories, but ultimately they’re just violating privacy and decency for clicks.
  Reply
- Read More
  A_Copy_EditorThursday Burner
  6/16/16 11:32am
  So Gawkr posts things to make money. So what? Your comparison is a total failure.
  
  People read Gawker for a variety of reasons—-for entertainment, for gossip, etc. It *would* be naive for us readers to do this without knowing that they post stuff to make money. That’s their business. But inherent in that is the idea that by clicking, you help them generate revenue, which keeps them in business, which allows them to keep posting articles you want to click on.
  
  But generating clicks/revenue doesn’t invalidate the CONTENT of those articles. Authors here CAN write articles offering their genuine viewpoints on politics or morals or whatever, and Gawker Media CAN collect dollars and cents by publishing those views. Those things are not in conflict with each other.
  
  Readers should know that, and I think they do. Put simply, there’s nothing wrong with supporting something you enjoy. It’s akin to a restaurant. The idea is for them to make money by selling food. Doesn’t mean they can’t also actually strive to serve GOOD food. Doesn’t mean you can’t actually enjoy the food. Quite the opposite: you would return to the restaurant to give them your business so they can sell you more delicious food in the future.
  
  The NRA purports to be advocating from this place of AMERICA, and THE CONSTITUTION, and FREEDOM, and LIBERTY. That’s disingenuous. Their underlying message throughout is *actually* BUY GUNS BUY GUNS BUY GUNS BUY GUNS.
  Reply
Read More
segretoTom Scocca
6/16/16 10:39am
Why is there blood coming from the end of the guns’s barrel for the chosen graphic? And why is anyone surprised that the NRA is pro NRA?
Reply
- Read More
  caekislove-caekingitupsegreto
  6/16/16 10:44am
  It’s the NRA’s fault that there is so much gun violence because reasons.
  Reply
- Read More
  sfltrack00caekislove-caekingitup
  6/16/16 10:52am
  Right because all the guns the NRA provides to violent criminals is the problem. Your obtuse logic against guns is as much to blame as the gun nut’s logic for guns that we can’t start discussions for reasonable controls.
  Reply
Read More
toothpetardTom Scocca
6/16/16 10:32am
What there is an active political taboo against, in the United States, is speaking honestly about guns.

Yes, but if anyone asks, just show them the lush and rich foliage on our Liberty Tree.
Reply
- Read More
  BeABigRedOnetoothpetard
  6/16/16 10:53am
  Well, the NRA is not wrong that Obama’s “political correctness” stopped the FBI from preventing the Orlando massacre. In Hitler’s Reich and Stalinist Russia, allegations of disloyalty like Mateen’s were enough to bring about a midnight raid, torture, interrogation, and a bullet in the back of the head.
  
  Trump has the cure for this PC weakness, just wait and see...
  Reply
- Read More
  toothpetardBeABigRedOne
  6/16/16 10:55am
  allegations of disloyalty like Mateen’s were enough to bring about a midnight raid...
  
  He should have hacked a corporate database if he wanted a midnight raid.
  Reply
Read More
ninjaginTom Scocca
6/16/16 11:56am
Former dues-paying NRA member here. Dropped my membership after Sandy Hook.

For my part, I think that whatever the new approach is for new legislation, the fears of the NRA membership need to be addressed, and the membership is ridiculously patriotic, but also (and ironically) very fearful of the government. We’ll never get the more rabid defenders of the organization to come over, but I think the majority of the members would be willing to talk about new methods for controlling who gets guns & keeps them and what roles everyone needs to play.

Compulsory registration of firearms is going to be seen as a precursor to confiscation, but if given a choice between registering and keeping that AR15 or AK variant and having it confiscated, they’ll register it (see NY). Someone’s got to figure out how to deal with the ghost guns, though, which have become terribly popular. These are mostly AR15s that have no serial numbers because they were hand-built (usually only finished) and assembled by an individual — they are, effectively, untraceable. The real fear in registration is not the registration per se, but as a step towards making gun owners into criminals without them having done any crime. It’s going to be very hard to reassure people that they’re not on the path to persecution when they comply.

There are a lot of other areas that may be worthy to discuss, though — like permitting or licensing of owners (with periodic renewals?) instead of registering the firearms themselves. Setting qualifications, registering owners with their local sheriff, compulsory safety training & storage inspection, for example. It could be that the insurance industry can play a role — if there’s a rule that requires insurance to be an owner, or insurance per-gun or per-household occupant — maybe it’s the insurance company that does the inspection or requires the training or keeps the registry of owners, instead of the government?

Truth be told, I think the universal (fed-level) background checking, in addition to the state bureau checks, and establishing a single nation standard for the transfer process (and very clear national standards for who loses the “right”/”privilege” to firearms and for what reasons and how long it’s lost), is probably going to be the best first line of discussion to take up. Some states are way ahead of others in this area and have some experience to share and build on, so I’m more optimistic about what can be done. Bottom line, though, is that anything that gets decided needs to be explicitly funded. The enforcement budget for current laws is already thin, and that’s one of the big ways that the laws have been weakened. There may be good agreement on what to do, but without the money to fund it, it’ll be as if nothing got done at all.
Reply
- Read More
  orangetoffeeninjagin
  6/16/16 12:10pm
  This is an excellent and very insightful post. Thanks for posting this, I enjoyed your perspective.
  Reply
- Read More
  ad infinitumninjagin
  6/16/16 12:18pm
  Former dues-paying NRA member here. Dropped my membership after Sandy Hook.
  
  Thank you for being sane.
  Reply