Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 14, 2019

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is reporting several injuries. The shooting has been reported at high school in Southern California, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said Thursday morning. "Shooting at Saugus High School in Santa Clarita," the department said on Twitter. "Please avoid the area." Students are being evacuated from the school, aerial footage from CNN affiliates shows.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Investigators said a "Male Asian suspect" wearing black clothing was last seen at Saugus High School in Santa Clarita. The sheriff's office warned to "please avoid the area."

#1 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-14 11:21 AM | Reply

How is this happening? I thought California had gun laws to prevent these incidents.

#2 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-14 11:25 AM | Reply

How is this happening?

#2 | Posted by gracieamazed

AR-15?

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-14 11:29 AM | Reply

#3 No way. That is a gun free zone and CA has strict gun laws to prevent this.

#4 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-14 11:31 AM | Reply

How is this happening? I thought California had gun laws to prevent these incidents.

Liberal gun policies were gutted by the courts over a decade ago due to lawsuits filed by conservative groups. You might want to revise your talking points, --------.

#5 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 11:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

The thoughts and prayers after the last one didn't stop the bullets? I'm shocked!! Maybe they will work NEXT TIME.

#6 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 11:43 AM | Reply

Let me get this straight

-conservatives go to court over literally any gun restriction; fought for decades to establish a judicially-created "right" to own firearms, a "right" to conceal carry, etc etc etc

-conservatives then pretend that we still have gun laws every time a shooting occurs and blame those gun laws for not workng even though the laws don't even exist because of conservatives

Is that about right?

#7 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 11:49 AM | Reply

#5 If you have someone close to you with a 6th grade or above reading level have the read this to you:
en.wikipedia.org

Second line: The gun laws of California[3][4] are some of the most restrictive in the United States.

#8 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-14 11:50 AM | Reply

Is that about right?
#7 | POSTED BY JOE

Are you for real? Look I am not a progun-proponent, but even I know you are full of it.

Since 1989, it is illegal to sell a firearm that the state has defined as an assault weapon and that has been listed in the California Department of Justice (DOJ) roster of prohibited firearms, unless one holds a Dangerous Weapons Permit issued by the state Department of Justice.
oag.ca.gov

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 11:52 AM | Reply

Unlike most other states, California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

#10 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-14 11:54 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

They don't need it. The Supreme Court gave it to everybody.

#11 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 11:56 AM | Reply

g? I thought California had gun laws to prevent these incidents.

#2 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED

You know this is a disingenuous argument, so why do you make it?

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-14 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Since 1989, it is illegal to sell a firearm that the state has defined as an assault weapon"

So clearly, this gun didn't come from California. Seems if folks really wanted to make a dent, they'd adopt CA laws nationwide.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 11:58 AM | Reply

If only all the kids had guns too. What could possibly go wrong?

How hard is it to understand that if everyone has guns any minor conflict can turn into a gunfight?

The Conservatives in Wisconsin eliminated the 3 day waiting period. Only a couple weeks later a girl at the grocery store down the street from me talked to her boss about unwanted advances by another employee. He bought a gun and killed her the same night.

Why is it that conservatives demand a cooling off period when filing for divorce but not for buying a gun? How does a 3 day wait violate your rights?

#14 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 11:58 AM | Reply

#11 I suggest you get someone to read you the link I provided. Because right now with each post you are looking like one dumbf--k. Just saying.

#15 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-14 11:58 AM | Reply

nvestigators said a "Male Asian suspect" wearing black clothing was last seen at Saugus High School in Santa Clarita.

Why is a ninja using a gun. Shouldn't he be whipping some Chinese stars?

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 11:58 AM | Reply

unless one holds a Dangerous Weapons Permit

Oh no, you need a permit to own your military toys, what an onerous burden that is.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 11:58 AM | Reply

I suggest you get someone to read you the link I provided.

A Wikipedia article that says you need a permit to buy an AR-15, and that the high capacity magazine bans have been struck down due to conservatives filing lawsuits just like i said?

No, i'll pass.

#18 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 12:00 PM | Reply

The gun laws of California[3][4] are some of the most restrictive in the United States.

#8 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED AT 2019-11-14 11:50 AM | REPLY

That is a low bar. most restrictive is a subjective statement. In a slum a guy with a Tenner is the most wealthy but that does not mean he IS wealthy.

#19 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 12:00 PM | Reply

Just when you think liberals couldn't be any more obtuse, they literally come on here and pretend CA doesn't have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

#20 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-14 12:01 PM | Reply

On the other hand Impeachment inquiry isn't going well, so it's another shooting to distract. And it worked, no day two coverage here. CNN MSNBC etc are all covering the shooting not the hearing.

#21 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-14 12:05 PM | Reply

How is this happening? I thought California had gun laws to prevent these incidents.

#2 | Posted by gracieamazed

WOW! You mean people don't always follow the law? I am shocked.

#22 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-14 12:06 PM | Reply

they literally come on here and pretend CA doesn't have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

The "strictest gun laws in the country" aren't strict enough to have any teeth because of people like you. Do you really not get that?

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

AR-15?

#3 | Posted by Zed

Why would you ask that question? More murders by fists than rifles.

#24 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-14 12:08 PM | Reply

Hey Gracie, you've been vomiting up the same post since #2.

"How is this happening? I thought California had gun laws to prevent these incidents.
#2 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED"

First, California is part of the United stares and is subject to the second amendment. Which guarantees every citizen the right to bear arms.

Second, here's a link to California law regarding gun ownership. Educate yourself. en.m.wikipedia.org

Get back to me when you identify the law which would have prevented the school shooting.

I mean, if you're actually concerned.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-14 12:08 PM | Reply

Is that about right?

#7 | Posted by JOE

HELL NO!!!!! You have nothing right.

#26 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-14 12:10 PM | Reply

On the other hand Impeachment inquiry isn't going well, so it's another shooting to distract. And it worked, no day two coverage here. CNN MSNBC etc are all covering the shooting not the hearing.
#21 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED

Is this what you think is happening? Trump set up this school shooting to distract from the impeachment hearings?

You're a fffking lunatic. You deplorable POS.

#27 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-14 12:11 PM | Reply

Nothing more boring than a gun thread. Same old rehashing of old arguments.

*yawn*

#28 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-14 12:12 PM | Reply

#25 Hey Clown long time no see, hope all is well. My talking points come from the link I posted in #8, LOL, the same link you posted.

#29 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-14 12:13 PM | Reply

it's not about the GUNS!!

this person is broken

#30 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-11-14 12:14 PM | Reply

My thoughts and prayers are with the people of (insert city, school, church, concert venue, event here) for this horrific act of evil and to the families of those impacted by this tragedy

#31 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-14 12:15 PM | Reply

#27 No I was thinking more like a Shift/Pelosi stunt.

#32 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-14 12:16 PM | Reply

#16

That was my first thought. Ninjas are getting lazy.

#33 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-14 12:20 PM | Reply

How is this happening? I thought California had gun laws to prevent these incidents.

#2 | Posted by gracieamazed

Are you arguing this shooting happened because of gun laws?

I still say it's the gun.

#34 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-14 12:22 PM | Reply

AR-15?

#3 | Posted by Zed

Why would you ask that question? More murders by fists than rifles.

#24 | Posted by Sniper at

Because this story is about a shooting?

#35 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-14 12:23 PM | Reply

Guns are illegal to own in Mexico. That didn't stop Amos and Andy from shipping 262,000 guns to the cartels.

#36 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-14 12:24 PM | Reply

Nothing more boring than a gun thread. Same old rehashing of old arguments.
*yawn*

#28 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-11-14 12:12 PM | REPLY

And as usual you champion doing nothing and we will have another mass shooting next week if not tomorrow.

I find it amusing to see "pro-life" republicans react to mass shootings by yawning and vehemently opposing actually doing anything about it.

#37 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 12:26 PM | Reply

My talking points come from the link I posted in #8, LOL, the same link you posted.
#29 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED

I was wondering which specific law would have prevented a school shooting.

Is there a law that would have done so?

Because, unless there's an outright ban on guns in California, these laws don't do anything.

I can still purchase guns in California. It's probably more difficult for high school students, but, I can drive to Arizona or Nevada and buy some guns.

I mean. Are you capable of critical thought, Gracie? Or is nonsense all you have to offer?

By the way. Seems like school shootings are finally so common, no one actually cares about it or the dead.

Congratulations gun fkkkers. You built this.

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-14 12:30 PM | Reply

Why is a ninja using a gun. Shouldn't he be whipping some Chinese stars?
#16 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Don't you mean, ninja stars.

As for Chinese stars,

The Chinese Stars is an American noise rock band from Providence, Rhode Island.[1] The band was formed in 2003 with several of the members from Arab on Radar, which had disbanded in 2002.[2][3] The band released their first album, Turbo Mattress, in 2003 through Skin Graft Records.
en.m.wikipedia.org

#39 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-14 12:34 PM | Reply

it's not about the GUNS!!
this person is broken

#30 | POSTED BY MAVERICK AT 2019-11-14 12:14 PM | REPLY |

You are right. It is about people WITH GUNS. Nobody ever shot anyone without a gun. We can't control the people. We can control the guns.

It's not about mental health. Even insane people can't shoot anyone if they don't have a gun.

#40 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 12:36 PM | Reply

"The tree of liberty must regularly be watered by the blood of innocent children."

#41 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-11-14 12:40 PM | Reply

I still say it's the gun.

#34 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-11-14 12:22 PM | FLAG: WOW! The rifle just jumped up and shot people all on its own - AMAZING!

#42 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-11-14 12:40 PM | Reply

#42 I'm standing here with no gun in my hands, making a shooting motion with my fingers. No bullets are coming out. What am i doing wrong?

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 12:44 PM | Reply

#34 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-11-14 12:22 PM | FLAG: WOW! The rifle just jumped up and shot people all on its own - AMAZING!

#42 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2019-11-14 12:40 PM | REPLY |

Wow the person just jumped up and shot someone WITHOUT A GUN! - More Amazing!

#44 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 12:47 PM | Reply

WOW! The rifle just jumped up and shot people all on its own - AMAZING!
#42 | POSTED BY MSGT

WOW! The kid just killed people by shooting them dirty looks!!

Why do gun fffkers try to pretend guns aren't instruments of death? Whether is sports hunting, protecting your family, robbing a store, or venting rage. Guns only serve one function, spitting out hot led.

I guess there are people who use guns for decorations. But usually because the gun is an antique, which is code for, unreliable aim or difficulty loading, limited chamber...

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-14 12:48 PM | Reply

No guns, no shootings.

So simple only a simpleton can screw it up.

#46 | Posted by kudzu at 2019-11-14 12:50 PM | Reply

Check all guns at the local sheriff's office. It worked in Tombstone until those Clanton boys messed it up. Those cur's got what was coming.

#47 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-14 12:53 PM | Reply

Hey, a few dozen deaths every year are necessary so's I can own MY substitute penis and bring it out for display a few times a year.
--American Trumpublican Party--

#48 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-11-14 01:04 PM | Reply

#42 | POSTED BY MSGT

We have already been over this. Why do you keep going on with your trope that has bipartisan opposition.

It was established that "guns kill people" when one of Obama's gunwalked guns killed a border patrol agent. Obama didn't pull the trigger. So, if "people kill people" then Obama could not have had any liability for he death. But conservatives INSISTED it was Obama's fault. Because Obama was responsible for the gun. And the "gun killed people".

You are living in the past. That talking point was shot dead (killed by a gun) by conservatives almost 10 years ago.

#49 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-14 01:14 PM | Reply

You are right. It is about people WITH GUNS. Nobody ever shot anyone without a gun.

#40 | Posted by hatter5183

And no gun ever shot anyone without someone pulling the trigger.

#50 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-14 01:17 PM | Reply

No guns, no shootings.

So simple only a simpleton can screw it up.

#46 | Posted by kudzu

No person, no shooting.

#51 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-14 01:19 PM | Reply

And the shooter killed himself.

#52 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-14 01:20 PM | Reply

They captured the Ninja! That guy wasn't much of a Ninja.

#53 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-14 01:23 PM | Reply

No person, no shooting.

#51 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2019-11-14 01:19 PM | REPLY |

So ban people in public places! That will work!

The question is how can we reduce gun violence.

What is your solution?

Do nothing is not a valid response but it is the entrenched position of the GOP

#54 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 01:25 PM | Reply

Nobody ever shot anyone without a gun.
#40 | Posted by hatter5183

There was a guy shot by arrows just last year.

#55 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-14 01:27 PM | Reply

There were the German Crossbow Killings. Murdered in a hotel room by a dude with a crossbow. Bet they weren't expecting that.

#56 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-14 01:28 PM | Reply

I take that back, apparently the people murdered were medieval combat hobbyists. I guess if anybody was getting shot by crossbows, it'd be them.

#57 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-14 01:29 PM | Reply

How is this happening? I thought California had gun laws to prevent these incidents.

#2 | Posted by gracieamazed

Simple. Only national gun laws work. Next question?

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 01:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The question is how can we reduce gun violence.

What is your solution?

Put crazy people in 'nut houses' again along with all the commies.

#59 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-14 01:33 PM | Reply

Simple. Only national gun laws work. Next question?

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

You mean like in Mexico? It is working great there. Are you some kind of a moron?

#60 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-14 01:36 PM | Reply

It bears repeating that anyone who thinks 6 year-olds getting shot in the face is an acceptable price to pay for the freedom to own military-grade weapons is really not worth talking to. Maybe their 6 year-old getting shot in the face would change their mind, but we're not quite there yet. It's going to take a lot more of these school shootings to get to that point.

I work with someone whose kid is in lockdown right now. As a parent, I'm going to vote against the folks who are cool with 6 year-olds getting shot in the face. Across the board. Soon enough, we'll have enough voters to make the incel gun commandos irrelevant. They'll just have to go back to their survivalist camps and pulverize squirrels with their AR.

#61 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-14 01:43 PM | Reply

Doesn't a weapon have to be issued to the military for it to be "military grade"? Does our military use the AR-15 in combat?

#62 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-11-14 01:53 PM | Reply

Confucious say...

Never make fun of Asians with Chinese eyes...

Good Asian.... __ __

Bad Asian... /

#63 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-11-14 01:55 PM | Reply

Asian taking aim.... ___ /

#64 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-11-14 01:57 PM | Reply

You mean like in Mexico? It is working great there. Are you some kind of a moron?

#60 | Posted by Sniper

Like australia, japan, canada, or any other country with stronger gun laws and far fewer shootings. Have you heard of those countries or are you some kind of moron?

#65 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 02:04 PM | Reply

Doesn't a weapon have to be issued to the military for it to be "military grade"? Does our military use the AR-15 in combat?

#62 | Posted by visitor_

Semantics. If one person can quickly kill dozens of people with it, that's a military weapon.

#66 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 02:04 PM | Reply

How are kids getting their hands on these guns so easily? To me that is the issue that needs to be addressed. If my kids wanted to take one of my guns the only thing they could get is a 12g shotgun and it only has a little ammo in reach. Everything else is in a very secure cabinet that only myself and my husband know the code to, and it isn't digital. Even the guns that 'belong' to my kids are locked up and only take out at times they are to be used with us. Why aren't we holding people accountable for allowing the guns to be easily accessed?

#67 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-14 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Does our military use the AR-15 in combat?

I think they use the M-16, and that the primary difference between the two can be bridged by purchasing a cheap plastic bump stock.

Regardless of whether the AR is "military" it's an obnoxious weapon for any civilian to own.

#68 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 02:14 PM | Reply

Only MA requires all firearms to be locked up at home. DC went too far and ended up with the Heller decision.

"The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock"."

#69 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-14 02:14 PM | Reply

Our country is insane.

#70 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-11-14 02:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Doesn't a weapon have to be issued to the military for it to be "military grade"?

#62 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2019-11-14 01:53 PM | REPLY |

No it doesn't. Military Grade just means it meets or exceeds the military requirements.

A Lear 35A business jet is military grade. It is called a C21 when they sell it to the military but with the exception of furnishings it is the same jet.

#71 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 02:18 PM | Reply

DC went too far and ended up with the Heller decision.

"Too far" for rightwing Federalist Society activist judges, yes. But their handgun ban was certainly within the bounds of longstanding precedent that existed when their law was implemented.

#72 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 02:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Seems if folks really wanted to make a dent, they'd adopt CA laws nationwide.

#13 | Posted by Danforth

Why do you liberals always want to take things nationwide? We are a nation of STATES, independent STATES. Keep your crazy where you are, we dont need any.

#73 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-14 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If people were serious about ending school shootings they would be taking every action possible to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldnt have them. We should be backing universal background checks with ease of use, so that if I want to sell a gun to a co-worker I could do so simply by calling a toll free number and answering some questions. We should all be locking up our guns when they are not holstered on our person. My 9mm is loaded and ready to fire, but it is in a small locked safe by my bed. I can get to it quickly in an emergency if the need every came up and I pray that it doesn't. We should be going after adults that allow their weapons to fall into the hands of others. The only exception should be if they are robbed and the safe is taken as well. At that point I have done my part to keep them safe and someone else over came it. I have the right to own guns, but I have the responsibility to make sure that access to those guns is restricted.

#74 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-14 02:35 PM | Reply

"Why do you liberals always want to take things nationwide?"

1. Someone pointed out if the shooter was using an AR-15, the shooter couldn't have bought the gun in CA.
2. The root of the problem is guns cross easily across state lines, so a ban in CA alone is relatively meaningless.
3. You either want to address the problem, or you think school shooters are preferable to you losing the right to own a weapon of war.

"Keep your crazy where you are."

While you don't keep the guns where YOU are?!? You're joking, right?

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If I loan my vehicle to someone and they wreck it I am liable for the accident and my insurance will have to cover it. Isn't that sort of the same? It is negligence for sure to leave your weapon out.

#76 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-14 02:39 PM | Reply

#1 and #2. One can just feel the squealing joy of those posts. That's some sick stuff there.

#77 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-14 02:40 PM | Reply

I think they use the M-16, and that the primary difference between the two can be bridged by purchasing a cheap plastic bump stock.
Regardless of whether the AR is "military" it's an obnoxious weapon for any civilian to own.

#68 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-11-14 02:14 PM | FLAG:

The M4 Carbine is what they mostly use now. An M4 is a military AR15. The primary difference between a military and non-military AR is the lower receiver. When you look at an AR, the only part that is an actual registered firearm is the lower receiver, even when stripped of all parts. Making a civilian AR lower into a military AR lower was designed to be extremely difficult and require significant machining experience. They use different Fire Control Groups (trigger/sear assemblies). For the lower that just leaves the stock and hand grip, which can swap between most current models.

A civilian model also cannot be an "SBR", meaning a barrel under 16", unless it's a "AR Pistol" which is a thing. That's all integrated into the modular upper receiver. The upper receiver has no serial and is not tracked or registered in any way, shape, or form. It's just 2 pins to swap those, which lets you change calibers and setups in seconds.

The bump stock you are referring to, the FAA has clarified in multiple letters they in no way make a civilian anything into a military anything. They have them for a lot more than just ARs. People have also discovered you can just put a piece of tire rubber in an civilian AK and get the same effect. Accuracy goes out the window, it makes the firearm worse. It's an actual toy/gimmick with no redeeming tactical value practically, and legally does not modify the fire control group.

#78 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-14 02:42 PM | Reply

Why do you liberals always want to take things nationwide? We are a nation of STATES, independent STATES. Keep your crazy where you are, we dont need any.

#73 | Posted by boaz

That theory would work if it were impossible for guns to cross state lines. Is it impossible for guns to cross state lines?

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 02:43 PM | Reply

2. The root of the problem is guns cross easily across state lines, so a ban in CA alone is relatively meaningless.

#75 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-11-14 02:39 PM | FLAG:

Those Canadians are screwing up your theory. They can easily get cross border guns. Not much gun violence.

#80 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-14 02:51 PM | Reply

Why do you liberals always want to take things nationwide? We are a nation of STATES, independent STATES. Keep your crazy where you are, we dont need any.

I agree. I miss the days when gun laws were decided locally, but then conservatives had to "take things nationwide" and go to the Supreme Court. Here are some examples of what things were like before the Federalist Society and activist rightwing judges coopted our Second Amendment.

"A federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia. This is simply a straightforward reading of the text of the Second Amendment. This reading is also consistent with the overwhelming weight of authority from the other circuits." United States v. Haney, 264 F. 3d 1161, 1164"1166 (CA10 2001).

"It is well-established that the Second Amendment does not create an individual right. Since Miller, "the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right ... the Second Amendment protects only the use or possession of weapons that is reasonably related to a militia actively maintained and trained by the states." United States v. Napier, 233 F. 3d 394, 402"404 (CA6 2000).

"The link that the amendment draws between the ability "to keep and bear Arms" and "[a] well regulated Militia" suggests that the right protected is limited, one that inures not to the individual but to the people collectively, its reach extending so far as is necessary to protect their common interest in protection by a militia ... the Second Amendment establishes no right to possess a firearm apart from the role possession of the gun might play in maintaining a state militia." Gillespie v. Indianapolis, 185 F. 3d 693, 710"711 (CA7 1999).

#81 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 02:54 PM | Reply

While you don't keep the guns where YOU are?!?

I have. My "gun" hasnt left my house in 20 years...

What you dont understand is, it's an individual thing, you that individual responsibility stuff you liberals hate.

#82 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-14 02:55 PM | Reply

Is it impossible for guns to cross state lines?

Is it illegal? Is there a law against it? If so, why does it still happen? You want to put like laws in place, that just proves it wouldnt stop any violence.

#83 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-14 02:56 PM | Reply

"Those Canadians are screwing up your theory."

Americans are MUCH crazier than Canadians, and more Americans have a gun fetish.

#84 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 02:57 PM | Reply

Just remember, his right and the rights of people like him to have near unlimited access to guns outweighs the right of your children not to be shot dead at school.

#85 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-11-14 02:57 PM | Reply

In order to claim Second Amendment protection, Wright must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between his possession of the machineguns and pipe bombs and "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Only militias actively maintained and trained by the states can satisfy the "well regulated militia" requirement of the Second Amendment. After examining the text and history of the Second Amendment, we conclude that this reading of Miller is consistent with the motivating purposes of the drafters of the Second Amendment. The amendment describes a "well regulated militia" as "being necessary to the security of a free State." The fact that the drafters qualified "well regulated militia" by reference to state security suggests to us that they intended this term to refer only to governmental militias that are actively maintained and used for the common defense. We find substantial support for this textual reading in the history of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. United States v. Wright, 117 F. 3d 1265, 1271"1274 (CA11 1997).

#86 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 02:57 PM | Reply

1. Someone pointed out if the shooter was using an AR-15, the shooter couldn't have bought the gun in CA.

You could make the same argument about Mexico, which has stronger gun laws that California. Why arent they ever sued?

2. The root of the problem is guns cross easily across state lines, so a ban in CA alone is relatively meaningless.

Again, guns dont walk. It's people bringing them across. Can you deal with the person? Oh yea, that's why you want to ban the object, you cant control or understand the criminal or how to stop them.

#87 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-14 03:00 PM | Reply

Is it illegal? Is there a law against it? If so, why does it still happen? You want to put like laws in place, that just proves it wouldnt stop any violence.

#83 | Posted by boaz

If one state outlaws guns and the neighbor state doesnt, there's nothing the outlawed state can do to prevent guns from coming in. This is why only national restrictions work.

#88 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 03:01 PM | Reply

Just remember, his right and the rights of people like him to have near unlimited access to guns outweighs the right of your children not to be shot dead at school.

That's a stupid argument and have no relation to each other. Yes, MY right does outweigh any of that. I'm not going to kill your kids.

#89 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-14 03:02 PM | Reply

This is why only national restrictions work.

#88 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Nope. Oh well, too bad. We are a nation of states and you cant impose that on a state that doesnt want it.

God bless our Republic.

#90 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-14 03:03 PM | Reply

Those Canadians are screwing up your theory. They can easily get cross border guns. Not much gun violence.
#80 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Canada needs more rightwing media to pump its citizens with fear, hate and anger.

Trump alone has inspired xenophobia and racism to run rampant in his wake.

#91 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-14 03:04 PM | Reply

"Nope. Oh well, too bad."

How about allowing states to individually outlaw guns brought in? Would you support that law?

#92 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 03:05 PM | Reply

We are a nation of states and you cant impose that on a state that doesnt want it.

And yet your side imposed your view on everyone else via the Supreme Court. Idiot.

#93 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 03:05 PM | Reply

Why do you liberals always want to take things nationwide? We are a nation of STATES, independent STATES. Keep your crazy where you are, we dont need any.

#73 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-11-14 02:28 PM | REPLY

Because for some things one state full of republicans can torpedo a whole national effort.

Gun laws are irrelevant in Chicago if I can avoid them by driving 20 minutes to the indiana suburbs.

#94 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 03:05 PM | Reply

How about allowing states to individually outlaw guns brought in? Would you support that law?

#92 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-11-14 03:05 PM | REPLY |

Not feasable. It would require border patrol at every state line.

#95 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 03:08 PM | Reply

"Not feasable. It would require border patrol at every state line."

True, but it would allow, say, CA to confiscate a gun they knew was from out of state.

#96 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 03:10 PM | Reply

Nope. Oh well, too bad. We are a nation of states and you cant impose that on a state that doesnt want it.
God bless our Republic.

#90 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-11-14 03:03 PM | REPLY |

One nation under god

The supremacy clause

The interstate commerce clause.

And the whole constitution. The states are part of the whole. They are not independant. They are delegated rights and responsibilities by the whole.

#97 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 03:10 PM | Reply

he root of the problem is guns cross easily across state lines, so a ban in CA alone is relatively meaningless.

While you don't keep the guns where YOU are?!?

#75 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

MY state allows me to own an AR. It is not the responsibility of MY state to enforce the laws of YOUR state. If YOUR state is having a problem with YOUR citizens breaking the law then YOUR state should make sure that the laws are enforced.
If YOUR state has to hire more law enforcement personel to enforce YOUR laws then that is what they should do.
So the real root of the problem is that YOUR state does not enforce the laws they choose to have.

#98 | Posted by 6thPersona at 2019-11-14 03:16 PM | Reply

I am looking forward to the day when we get friggin serious about solving this issue.

It will have to be at the federal level and it will have to be significant.

We just aren't ready...not enough of us anyway.

These killing machine type weapons have got to go.

#99 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 03:27 PM | Reply

Nope. Oh well, too bad. We are a nation of states and you cant impose that on a state that doesnt want it.

God bless our Republic.

#90 | Posted by boaz

We can do anything. The founders created a system of government that was intended to evolve for a reason. They knew they couldnt forsee everything that would happen in the future. It's called an "amendment" not a "commandment". Do you know what "amendment" means?

#100 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 03:33 PM | Reply

I am looking forward to the day when we get friggin serious about solving this issue.

It will have to be at the federal level and it will have to be significant.

We just aren't ready...not enough of us anyway.

These killing machine type weapons have got to go.

#99 | Posted by eberly

It would be a lot easier if people would quit acting like that parties are equally bad or voting for the party that prevents anything from getting fixed.

#101 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 03:34 PM | Reply

Why do you liberals always want to take things nationwide? We are a nation of STATES, independent STATES. Keep your crazy where you are, we dont need any.
#73 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-11-14 02:28 PM | REPLY

NOT TRUE We are the UNITED States of America.

#102 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-11-14 03:45 PM | Reply

You ------ idiots. Why has there been no mention of the fact that our culture promotes and glorifies violence? Music, movies, videogames, TV shows, we are saturated with violence. Not to mention mental health care in our culture.

It sounds like you are more concerned with whose party's broad brush on the singular issue of gun laws is correct than you are preventing kids from deciding to do this. Shameful.

And, my requisite: "democrats: please let him be white. Republicans: please don't let him be white.

Asian, eh? Generally fairly docile folk....maybe it was the Gran Turino kind of Asian.

#103 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-14 03:46 PM | Reply

NOT TRUE We are the UNITED States of America.

#102 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

StateS. Not State. I put the crucial letter in bold and italics.

#104 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 03:47 PM | Reply

"Why has there been no mention of the fact that our culture promotes and glorifies violence?

Well, there has.

It's also been pointed out places like Australia, Canada, and Japan have the same access to the same American-type culture--movies, video games, etc.--yet they have a fraction of the gun violence. Why is that?

If only we could figure out what's different....

#105 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 03:51 PM | Reply

"I put the crucial letter in bold and italics."

Whereas Laura put the crucial word in caps.

#106 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Also, guns aren't going anywhere. You guys know this, but prefer moral grandstanding. Unless you have any ideas on how to remove the billions of guns in our country already?

#107 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-14 03:54 PM | Reply

The irony of rightwingers emphasizing that we are a system of STATES in a gun control discussion where STATES have no authority to enact significant gun legislation is beyond hilarious.

---- off with your STATES. There aren't any when it comes to gun control.

#108 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 03:55 PM | Reply

"Unless you have any ideas on how to remove the billions of guns in our country already?"

Australia on line #1 for you.

#109 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 04:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

---- off with your STATES. There aren't any when it comes to gun control.

#108 | POSTED BY JOE

Apparently, there are:

GUN LAWS BY STATE
The Complete Guide

www.gunstocarry.com

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 04:06 PM | Reply

"Unless you have any ideas on how to remove the billions of guns in our country already?"

Australia on line #1 for you.

#109 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Apples and oranges.

#111 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 04:07 PM | Reply

The kid used a 45, so the AR talk is a waste.

#112 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2019-11-14 04:09 PM | Reply

Apples and oranges.
#111 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why is that?

#113 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-14 04:11 PM | Reply

#110 The word "significant" has meaning.

#114 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 04:12 PM | Reply

Guns can and are stolen by -------- that can't pass the background check. The only way to guarantee that some screwball does not get a gun is to
1. confiscate every single one.
2. Search and confiscate every computer that has the 3D gun programs on it.
3. Reinstate "Stop and Search".
This would be a start.

#115 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-11-14 04:13 PM | Reply

Guns can and are stolen by -------- that can't pass the background check.

Gun registration would help.

#116 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-14 04:16 PM | Reply

You're right, mental health has been mentioned. However, discussion of gun regulations takes up the vast majority of dialog here andI'll every time there is a shooting.

What makes America different than other western countries is the sheer amount of guns in urban areas here currently that we have to deal with somehow. That wasn't the case in Canada, austrailia, ot any other country.

Before we discuss regulation, we have to figure out what to do with all the damn guns. Neither side is discussing this in any realistic manner.

#117 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-14 04:16 PM | Reply

You can stuff "stop and search". Too ripe for abuse.

#118 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2019-11-14 04:18 PM | Reply

"Apples and oranges."

Only if that's your choice. It's doable, just not overnight.

Personally, I'm against it, but I'd really like to see some sensible controls, and money invested in school counselors. The recommended ratio is 1 counselor per 250 students. Only three states qualify:
www.sxswedu.com

#119 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 04:18 PM | Reply

"You can stuff "stop and search". Too ripe for abuse.
#118 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE"

So are rest of the "solutions".

#120 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-11-14 04:21 PM | Reply

"is the sheer amount of guns in urban areas here"

What mass shooter shot up an urban area? Most of these guys shot up a school, mall or nightclub.

#121 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 04:22 PM | Reply

An Open Rant Aimed at Those Who Would Repeal the Second Amendment

This piece really hits home to the reality of what the would-be gun-grabbers are really up against.

Here are a couple of highlights:

You'll have to tell anybody who will listen to you that they need to support you; that if they disagree, they're childish and beholden to the "gun lobby"; that they don't care enough about children; that their reverence for the Founders is mistaken; that they have blood on their goddamn hands; that they want to own firearms only because their penises are small and they're not "real men." And remember, you can't half-ass it this time. You're not going out there to tell these people that you want "reform" or that "enough is enough." You're going there to solicit their support for removing one of the articles within the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake: It'll be unpleasant strolling into Pittsburgh or Youngstown or Pueblo and telling blue-collar Democrat after blue-collar Democrat that he only has his guns because he's not as well endowed as he'd like to be....

....repealing the Second Amendment won't in and of itself lead to the end of gun ownership in America...It'll mean going to all sorts of groups " unions, churches, PTAs, political meetings, bowling leagues " and telling them not that you want "common-sense reforms," but that you want their guns, as in Australia or Britain or Japan. Obviously, the Republicans aren't going to help in this, so you'll need to commandeer the Democratic party to do it. That means you'll need their presidential candidates on board. That means you'll need to make full abolition the stated policy of the Senate and House caucuses. That means you'll need the state parties to sign pledges promising not to back away if it gets tough. And if they won't, you'll need to start a third party and accept all that that entails....

And when you've done all that and your vision is inked onto parchment, you'll need to enforce it - with force. When Australia took its decision to Do Something, the Australian citizenry owned between 2 and 3 million guns. Despite the compliance of the people and the lack of an entrenched gun culture, the government got maybe three-quarters of a million of them " somewhere between a fifth and a third of the total. That wouldn't be good enough here, of course. There are around 350 million privately owned guns in America, which means that if you picked up one in three, you'd only be returning the stock to where it was in 1994. Does that sound difficult? Sure! After all, this is a country of 330 million people spread out across 3.8 million square miles...

...it's slightly odd that you think that we can't deport 11 million people but we can search 123 million homes...


You can read the whole thing here:

www.nationalreview.com

#122 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 04:22 PM | Reply

Why is that?

#113 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Click the link in #122. You'll have your answer.

#123 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 04:23 PM | Reply

By urban I mean not rural. Most malls, schools, and people, are in urban areas.

#124 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-14 04:23 PM | Reply

NOT TRUE We are the UNITED States of America.
#102 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR
StateS. Not State. I put the crucial letter in bold and italics.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-14 03:47 PM | REPLY

You just can't eviscerate UNITED with on letter. You're not very bright I take it.

#125 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-11-14 04:30 PM | Reply

I didn't eviscerate "united".

We are a collection of states united under a federal government.

We are a federalist structure, which means that states and municipalities have their own sets of laws in addition to federal laws.

See #110 - gun laws vary from state to state. "UNITED" doesn't change that.

You're not very bright I take it.

#125 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Classic example of the self-retorting retort.

#126 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 04:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#122 You don't need to repeal the Second Amendment to enact common-sense gun laws. You merely need to return to the reading of it that prevailed for nearly a century before the gun lobby got enough activist judges onto SCOTUS to overturn it.

#127 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 04:45 PM | Reply

"This piece really hits home to the reality of what the would-be gun-grabbers are really up against."

It left out the relentless opposition from people who aren't even allowed own guns...

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 04:54 PM | Reply

"These killing machine type weapons have got to go."

All guns are killing machine type weapons.

That is their purpose.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 04:57 PM | Reply

I used "military grade" as opposed to "assault weapons" because stupid people are incapable of discussing guns without splitting hairs. Apparently, that now applies to any classification of rifle that is not specifically defined as part of a larger group of weapons.

Please, carry on with your other substance-avoiding arguments such as referring to a magazine as a "clip" and how California liberals don't know anything about guns, especially the AR-15, the S&W .44 and the 9mm Sig we fired at the range a few months ago...

#130 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-14 05:10 PM | Reply

You ------ idiots. Why has there been no mention of the fact that our culture promotes and glorifies violence? Music, movies, videogames, TV shows, we are saturated with violence. Not to mention mental health care in our culture.

It sounds like you are more concerned with whose party's broad brush on the singular issue of gun laws is correct than you are preventing kids from deciding to do this. Shameful.

And, my requisite: "democrats: please let him be white. Republicans: please don't let him be white.

Asian, eh? Generally fairly docile folk....maybe it was the Gran Turino kind of Asian.

#103 | Posted by Ottodog

So how come this doesn't happen in other countries? They don't have violent video games?

Japenese culture is MORE violent than ours you ------ idiot.

#131 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 05:15 PM | Reply

...it's slightly odd that you think that we can't deport 11 million people but we can search 123 million homes...

You can read the whole thing here:

www.nationalreview.com

#122 | Posted by JeffJ

YOu dont have to search homes to outlaw guns.

Child porn is illegal but they dont search everyone's house for child porn do they?

#132 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 05:17 PM | Reply

...it's slightly odd that you think that we can't deport 11 million people but we can search 123 million homes...

You can read the whole thing here:

www.nationalreview.com

#122 | Posted by JeffJ

YOu dont have to search homes to outlaw guns.

Child porn is illegal but they dont search everyone's house for child porn do they?

#133 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 05:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Child porn is illegal but they dont search everyone's house for child porn do they?"

The important takeaway is, if Trump declared it was a good idea to do search everyone's house, Mr. Law and Order here would decide it's a great idea after all.

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 05:27 PM | Reply

"By urban I mean not rural."

So there are too many guns among the mall, nightclub and high school crowd? That's not the usual concept of "urban guns".

#135 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 05:40 PM | Reply

Freedom isn't free. If you want to make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs. The Constitution. If you don't like it you can get out. Excuses ad nauseam...

#136 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-11-14 05:49 PM | Reply

You don't need to repeal the Second Amendment to enact common-sense gun laws. You merely need to return to the reading of it that prevailed for nearly a century before the gun lobby got enough activist judges onto SCOTUS to overturn it.

I presume you are referring to US v. Miller. A case that held a short barrel shotgun having no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

According to that holding, an AR 15 and other "military grade" weapons having such a reasonable relationship the Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear them.

Yet, according to three circuits the holding in Heller permits "common-sense" restrictions on such weapons.

So, which do you want?

#137 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-14 05:59 PM | Reply

www.youtube.com

#138 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-11-14 07:36 PM | Reply

131 speaks, they removed guns before they became too ubiquitous to remove. Lack of gun culture.

Dan, rural and urban are well established terms the way I am using them. Really though, I think the divide between urban and rural gun ownership is hunting and non-hunting. Different culture around guns. Guns and up used in different ways.

#139 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-14 08:08 PM | Reply

"Dan, rural and urban are well established terms the way I am using them."

Don't pretend to be stupid. If you don't know what's meant by "urban" guns, try educating yourself.

#140 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 08:12 PM | Reply

I'm not concerned with this phrase, or what it can mean, as I believe I have made my intent clear.

#141 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-14 08:17 PM | Reply

Dan, rural and urban are well established terms the way I am using them. Really though, I think the divide between urban and rural gun ownership is hunting and non-hunting. Different culture around guns. Guns and up used in different ways.

#139 | Posted by Ottodog

So how do countries without AR15s do any hunting?

#142 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 08:19 PM | Reply

How does the AR15 factor into this thread.

The kid used a handgun.

In California it is illegal for 16 year olds to own, possess or carry a handgun. Everything this kid did was already against the law. So trying to make this about gun control makes no sense in context.

#143 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 08:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

142

What? I'm not sure what you think I am trying to say.

I don't mean that each individual weapon is used for hunting, I am saying the distinction between those who have hunting as part of their lives (culture) ((gun culture)) and those who don't can be broad brushed as rural and urban, which is how I was using the terms.

this distinction was a minor part of the point I was trying to make and not complicated, so I am unsure why we are discussing it.

#144 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-14 08:34 PM | Reply

FBI Releases Report on Lone Offender Terrorism
www.lawfareblog.com

...The FBI has released a report on lone offender terrorism, which is commonly referred to as lone wolf terrorism. The report examines lone offender attacks in the United States from 1972-2015....

The article contains a link to the report.

#145 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-11-14 08:35 PM | Reply

"which is how I was using the terms.'

Then just be aware, "urban" guns, does NOT have the connotation of guns in malls, high schools, or concert venues.

#146 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 08:44 PM | Reply

"So how come this doesn't happen in other countries? They don't have violent video games?"

This guy is now Instagram famous...that's the difference.

I would challenge you to find another country where average people were desperate to achieve some level of fame, regardless of how stupid they looked doing it.

Think HoneyBooBoo, or the Kardashians, or the Real Housewives, or the Gypsies.

I don't know that other cultures are obsessed with fame (or infamy) as the US culture.

#147 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-14 08:47 PM | Reply

I don't mean that each individual weapon is used for hunting, I am saying the distinction between those who have hunting as part of their lives (culture) ((gun culture)) and those who don't can be broad brushed as rural and urban, which is how I was using the terms.

this distinction was a minor part of the point I was trying to make and not complicated, so I am unsure why we are discussing it.

#144 | Posted by Ottodog

The people who participate in hunting culture typically offer the most resistance to gun legislation, even though they also fight to keep weapons legal that are not needed to hunt.

I have no problem with hunting culture or home defense. But those dont require weapons that a single person can use to kill dozens of people in seconds. Weapons that can do that should not be available to the public, do you agree?

#148 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 08:50 PM | Reply

#144 | POSTED BY OTTODOG AT 2019-11-14 08:34 PM | FLAG: FYI, the 2nd Amendment was/is NOT about hunting.

#149 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-11-14 09:04 PM | Reply

That theory would work if it were impossible for guns to cross state lines. Is it impossible for guns to cross state lines? - #79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 02:43 PM

I don't see anything other than political will that would prevent California from implementing a law requiring anyone entering into the state to be searched for contraband out-of-state weapons. This would ensure that all guns legally in California have undergone all the laws, waiting periods, and background cheks required by California. Why does California not implement this simple, common sense regulation that would stop the entry of firearms into the state and the numerous deaths that they cause? Are the lives of the children lost today not worth it?

#150 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-14 09:31 PM | Reply

148
Those are two entirely different issues. Those who participate in hunting culture (perhaps can use the demographic marker "rural" here) advocatee for access to guns not required or commonly used for hunting, I agree. They also commit less violence to other humans with firearms, I would contend, without having looked up any statistics. Either as violent offenses/gun owner or, obviously, in raw numbers.

In response to your second, separate issue, those weapons already have been available too long and become too ubiquitous both materially and culturally to remove them from society effectively at this point. "Should" they be available? If the goal is to reduce violent acts, then no. I am not arguing this.

I am reacting against the emotionally charged moral one-upmanship with which the left, in whom I place hope for urban regulation, interact with this problem of finding cause for our desired effect of less violence. I.e: pretending we can simply do what Australia did, and so forth.

#151 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-14 09:36 PM | Reply

"I don't see anything other than political will that would prevent California from implementing a law requiring anyone entering into the state to be searched for contraband out-of-state weapons."

Just to be 100% crystal clear, you are currently bound by your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic, is that correct, Avigdore?

#152 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 09:36 PM | Reply

StateS. Not State. I put the crucial letter in bold and italics.
#104 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Funny how that UNITED part comes first, eh?

Oh and I capitalized the crucial portion of the phrase for a reason.

Let's see if you can figure out why.

#153 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-14 09:37 PM | Reply

In California it is illegal for 16 year olds to own, possess or carry a handgun.

Yeah!
Why can't we just Enforce The Laws Already On The Books?
???

Of course, the real question is why can't barrel sniffers acknowledge the laws on the books aren't ------- working?

Becauae they don't laws that work.
They want more guns, and in point of fact, if you don't have a gun, they'll blame you for not having one when someone with a gun victimizes you.

#154 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 09:41 PM | Reply

See #110 - gun laws vary from state to state. "UNITED" doesn't change that.
#126 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Actually it does. Those States that want stricter gun laws are bound to the constitutional obligation to keep those laws in relative standing based upon a federal statute.

UNITED is the ONLY thing that establishes such an obligation.

#155 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-14 09:42 PM | Reply

Re 151:

I am reacting against said behavior because it is counterproductive to goal of reduced gun violence, therefore betraying an entirely different motive: the "---- you folks I don't like" motive.
Again, how we think is more important than what we think, because how we think (and therefore interact) is a dominant determining factor of what we think. You know, a priori and all.

#156 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-14 09:47 PM | Reply

I don't see anything other than political will that would prevent California from implementing a law requiring anyone entering into the state to be searched for contraband out-of-state weapons.

Unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment?

#157 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-14 10:32 PM | Reply

We're searched for weapons in airports.

#158 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-15 07:40 AM | Reply

Let me rephrase in the style of et al:

Have you ever heard of an airport?

#159 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-15 07:40 AM | Reply

We're searched for weapons in airports.

#158 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2019-11-15 07:40 AM | FLAG:

Sort of. You are searched for weapons at airports with public terminals for airliners. It's well documented as security theater that's ineffective. Private aircraft do not have TSA screening. We can just drive to a hangar, jump in and fly off.

#160 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-15 08:07 AM | Reply

There's PreCheck that blazes you through. Amex Platinum pays for PreCheck as a benefit. You're not searched in the baggage claim, ticketing, etc. Airports just aren't the example you are looking for.

#161 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-15 08:10 AM | Reply

So how do countries without AR15s do any hunting?

#142 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-11-14 08:19 PM | FLAG:

The lowly .223 Remington, which most AR-15s shoot, are banned from hunting in multiple US states. They're not powerful enough to cleanly kill game. This rule tends to follow the size of the deer being hunted based on Bergmann's rule for taxonomic distribution. The .223 is too weak to kill heavier deer reliably. You'd have to use an AR-15 with .243 which is about 2100 ft/lbs of energy vs the .223s 1300 ft/lbs, or move up to an AR-10 platform shooting the hefty .308 with 2650 ft/lbs of energy in a platform that's just a slightly longer but otherwise identical to the -15.

#162 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-15 08:34 AM | Reply

Too bad!

So Sad!

That Nothing Can Be Done!(tm)

It's sad when a child dies

It's sad when an American Lies.

But those are only Lives.

And their right to life is not as important as a Boazo's rights to own a weapon.

Any weapon he wants.

Thou Shall Not Infringe

Sorry children.

It's the Law.

And Nothing Can Be Done.

( Also, it's too soon anyway!)

#163 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-15 11:17 AM | Reply

"There's PreCheck that blazes you through"

Just another example of the built in baked in inequality of our culture.

You say this is ineffective but we do it anyway? And the cow goes moo!

We must not hinder the Rich, umm err, the Job Creators tho.

So if you have money and power you can get whisked right thru "security".

In fact, if you have money and power you can Avoid the hoi polloi all together.

Buy your own jet. You carry those assault rifles, err excuse me, hunting rifles, to the plane unhindered.

#164 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-15 11:25 AM | Reply

#164

And if you've got money to burn, and have no moral compass (not as scarce as you might think!) you hire a handicapped person for the day to cut the lines at Disney!

#aintthatamerica

#165 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2019-11-15 11:32 AM | Reply

So if you have money and power you can get whisked right thru "security".

#164 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2019-11-15 11:25 AM | FLAG:

Clean background, $85, and some spare time to go get finger printed. Then you get whisked through a security theater designed to make you feel safe so your fear doesn't impact commerce.

#166 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-15 11:50 AM | Reply

Never killed a whitetail, we have black tail up here. I always use my .223 for them. My dad likes the .30-06.

I have ruined far less meat, never been underpowered for our blacktail. They may be smaller than your whitetail, but non-spruce dwelling sitka blacktail is my favorite meat ever.

#167 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-15 09:27 PM | Reply

You can get real close, most deer iv killed have never been around a human before.

#168 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-15 09:28 PM | Reply

How many mass-shootings occurred when this country was populated by hard-working white Europeans who devoted their lives to Christ?
Let's talk absolute numbers as well as rates. Compare that to our stunning and brave new country.

#169 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-15 10:37 PM | Reply

*hard-working white European-Americans

#170 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-15 10:38 PM | Reply

*when this country was still overwhelmingly populated by hard-working white European-Americans.
by golly, I keep making typoes which need correction by subsequent posts!

#171 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-15 10:40 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort