Well, the seaon comes to an inglorious end. Lots of changes look to be on the future. David (lefty) Akers, Alex Smith, Dashon Goldson, Ted Ginn, Leonard Davis, Jonathan Gooodwin, Larry Grant, Ricky Jean, Randy Moss, and Delanie Walker (among a few other backups) are all UFAs. Frankly a lot of these guys look to leave. I’d put Alex, Goldson, Ginn, L Davis, Goodwin, and Randy (what, me try?) on the goodbye list.
Grant proved to be an able back up last year when Willis went down. He’s a keeper. Ricky Jean may not be big enoung in the middle, but he’s a solid back up on the line. He stays. The rest? Goodwin’s old, maybe a one year deal. L Davis is a possible keeper, but we have Kilgore and Looney waiting in the wings. Alex? Please. If he wants to stick around an be a backup, he’s a fool. It’s all in his court. Moss? Fuck him. If he can’t get up for a Super Bowl then see ya. Ginn? 4th string WR and a fading punt returner. Bye. Goldson wants a huge payday. Take the 3/25 from 3 years ago, or adios muchacho. Walker? He’s too inconsistent. he has great games followed by games (like the Atl game) where balls clank off his hands like, uh, things that bounce off other things. Sue me, I’m tired.
The Niners have a ton (14) of picks and can afford to get some good FA WRs, CBs, or whatever they don’t nail in the draft by. The core of the team is solid, and they should be able to fill ouyt the roster going forward.
I’m out of here for a while. See y’all next week. Time to forget me some football and hit the slopes. Love that run off to the right there off the Lincoln Chair at Sugar Bowl.
Forty Niners Forever 
Just looked at John Jenkins, Jesse Williams, Sharrif Floyd, Sheldon Richardson and the beast, Star Lotulelei. Star’s amazing. He’s a top five pick. I’d love to have the 49ers package up a lot of picks for him. He’s worth it. If they don’t, so far I like DT Sharrif Floyd. All the other guys (besides Star) aren’t strong enough at the point of attack. Add Sharrif Floyd to guys I like.
My top 2 are Richardson and Floyd without question but, we’d have to Trade up to get a sniff at either.
Richardson is a beast.
I’m trying to speculate who lands at 31.
That’s why I’m hedging toward the DB there.
I think the value is higher.
Another option we might want to consider as a PR replacement for Ginn is Leodis McKelvin.
He’d change up the dynamic at WR and possibly add some depth and experience as a DB.
Well, shit NoFear, why stop with rifles? I need a grenade launcher and an Abrahams M1 to protect my propitty. A few SAMs to protect me from the black helicopters.
At what point to you say something like, hey let’s limit SOME of these high powered weapons and high capacity magazines. But, hey, it’s someone else’s kids, right? Who cares?
Actually, Chuck, there is no Constitutional reason for those things to be banned. You have been socialized into believing there is, because you’ve grown up in a world where the government says so, but it did NOT start out that way.
During colonial times, private ownership of artillery and warships was not only legal, it was not even unusual. So much so that the constitution mentions “Letters of Marque” for privateers. Most of the artillery the American forces had early in the Revolutionary War were privately owned.
The founding fathers, who were after all revolutionaries, strongly believed that this was correct and should not be altered. It was only later, as the government became more concerned with control, that this was very gradually and quietly changed.
In any event, banning guns of whatever kind is NOT going to stop school massacres. Some idiot will use fertilizer and fuel oil, or poison, or a hammer. Your kids and my kids will never be completely safe. Laws are great at punishing the guilty, not so good at preventing the crime. We have a myriad of laws and LE agencies in this country whose sole purpose is to enforce them, with regards to guns. The last time I checked, it had made exactly Jack Shit of an impact on the drug trade.
The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves…
Should read, “with regards to drugs..”
+1
Chuck, the reality is that restricting or limiting legal guns to law abidding people does nothing to solve the issue. Assault weapons ban was tried already. There are 4 million legally owned assault rifles already in the US and I think I’m right in saying there have been 8 total attacks using an assault rifle. It’s a political strawman designed to be used as the thin end of the wedge to place controls on people. The mentally ill are the biggest reason these attrocities occur, the Mother of the kid that is responsible for Sandy hook bears a lot of the blame. She has a mentally ill kid yet keeps weapons available in the house. Common sense would dictate making sure an unhinged boy would have no access to her weapons yet that aspect seems not to have been highlighted. The attack was carried out with legally owned guns.
The word “responsible” gun ownership needs emphasis. I have no problem with background checks, upping the penalty for buying guns to give to law breakers, basic weapons training particularly the aspect of safe storage.
Instead of using these hideous attacks as a method of restricting peoples rights they should use it to install education for gun owners in the safe use and storage of their guns.
NF has a valid point that NY and Chicago and DC should be the safest cities if restricting peoples access to guns worked. It simply cannot and does not work since criminals are not trying to buy guns legally and the mentally ill are able to buy legally and/or have access to the family guns.
I’m all for having the conversation about it, but not for arbitrary laws aimed at decent citizens that does absolutely nothing towards solving the problem.
The other thing is that this issue simply can’t be solved. As a factual statement guns are part of the fabric of this society and always have been. The truth of the matter is that the answer to a bad man with a gun IS a good man with a gun, that is exactly what we have when we call the cops, a good man with a gun. There simply can’t be a cop on every corner, nor do I want one, an armed citizenry has a purpose and since the wild west days, a posse of armed citizens is raised to chase the bad guy.
To put it into todays context, major cities in the US have a 3 to 5 day supply of food and water on hand at any one time without resupply. If a very large quake struck or a series of quakes strike it is a very well known scenario run by local and state governments that utter lawlessness will appear by the 7th day and it will be dog eat dog. I will protect me and mine. This is not some fantastical proposition, it’s a real world scenario.
All those other rights being impuned, infringed upon and ignored are equally worth defending, to me this is not a left/right issues, it’s a control issue and I didn’t sign up to allow my government to control me, I expect to control my government. By the people for the people isn’t a cute phrase on an historically interesting document. It’s a system of government being systematically dismantled.
Dislosure: I don’t own an assault rifle, but I don’t agree to give up that right.
This has been a soapbox moment brought to you by me, a Citizen that wants to keep the rights earned by history.
A second amendment argument? Well fuck me sideways, I’m in. Saying that we need to hang onto our arms to overthrow the government is a joke. Did you see just recently that Obama now can attack American citizens with a drone? I know the guidelines were meant for foreign soil but that’ll be applied to American soil soon….trust me. Are you going to take your AR-15 (or whatever the fuck) and defend yourself against drone attacks? Go get ’em, Tiger. Good luck with that. Our military is the greatest in the world – and the most sophisticated. If you can’t see that arming yourself with an assault weapon isn’t going to help anyone overthrow the US government, you simply aren’t paying attention. In addition, If there’s a revolution and we need to overthrow the government, think the world wouldn’t arm us? In today’s world it’s not like we need to send a pigeon across the Atlantic and hope the Mayflower brings us back some guns from France. If there was an uprising against the American government we’d get our guns not from our basements but from our neighbors and others who hate America. If England wanted to overthrow its government, it would get its guns.
As far as self defense goes, I only need a shotgun. Home defense doesn’t require a magazine full of bullets. Home defense requires two or three shells with a shotgun, or five or six bullets for your sidearm. No altercation lasts longer than a reload in real life. If you think otherwise you’ve been watching too many movies – or you’re paranoid. I think we should limit gun use in America to the old west – six shots. Hunters and people defending their homes don’t need anymore than that.
And don’t give me this constitutional crap. The constitution is a live document that can be amended when life changes and new rules need to be applied. We should hope to advance our culture, and our constitution. We don’t need guns to defend ourselves against our government, and our homes aren’t under attack by the Taliban.
Here are two interesting statistics – If you own a gun in your home you are 22 times more likely to have an accidental death in your home than if you didn’t have a gun in the house. The other telling stat is that police officers are pro gun control, but sheriffs aren’t. Why? Because sheriffs are elected and police officers aren’t. Sheriff’s usually work in uneducated, rural populations. Police officers usually work in metropolitan, more educated populations.
For my money, I think we should quit muddying the water with talk of constitution. That can be amended. You only need six shots in a gun to hunt or defend your home. If you need more you’re paranoid, and I hope they use the drones on you to confiscate your weed that’s making you so paranoid.
Spit – you don’t defend yourself against a drone attack by shooting it out of the sky.
You shoot it on the runway. Or better yet, shoot the guy flying it from the control station.
And honestly, no, nobody expects or hopes this comes to pass, and if it does, a lot of the US military will join the rebels anyway. But that does not belittle the contribution that the lowly infantryman makes to a battle. Yes tanks and drones are lethal – but it is the grunt with a rifle who takes and holds ground. A drone is really just a long endurance low-intensity fighter-bomber. We had plenty of those over Vietnam. Ask the Vietnamese the value of determined soldiers armed with rifles. They are still there; we are not.
And yes: the Constitution can be amended. There is a process for that. Gun control advocates are welcome to try. I’m not holding my breath you’re going to get the 2/3 or so you need though. And remember: once that particular nasty little Pandora’s Box is open, there is no closing it.Why not infringe the rights of Muslims to their religion, too? So we can be “safe”. And let’s not ban free speech, let’s ‘regulate’ it, so that the ‘wrong kind’ of speech does no incite violence. And nobody but a criminal could object to expanded search and seizure. Think of the children.
But then, in the government’s eyes… we are all children, aren’t we?
Grump, you’re great, but you’re wrong. First off, your claim that once you close the box it can’t be reopened. Didn’t the assault weapons ban expire under Clinton? In addition, that’s great that we could get the drones on the ground or kill the people flying them, but that doesn’t address the issue. We could easily get the guns from Mexico if necessary. Think those SOBs wouldn’t jump at the chance to make a buck off a needy gringo? And yeah, they have the connections to arm all of North America. Like I said, England would get ’em if they needed ’em for a revolution. And we already regulate free speech, and it works. Yell bomb on a plane and see if friends and family support you. Get your first amendment lawyer out there and see what kind of magic he can create for you.
The government is exactly the problem. A huge part of our economy is supported by defense spending. We learned early that if we have a recession, or god forbid a depression, we can spend our way out of it by going to war and ramping up our weapons budget. What happens? That becomes our culture. Talk to people around the world,they all say we’re war mongers. And I agree. Iraq, Afghanistan and Siria…… and huge sanctions against Iran …… all at once? Warranted or not, we’re a war monger county and that’s our culture. The point is, we’re better than that. Let’s emphasize other things….. think of the children.
“Pandora’s Box” referred to using the hammer of Constitutional Amendments to restrict things in the Bill of Rights. It is legally possible, but would set the most awful precedent imaginable.
And yes, the government already curtails those freedoms around the edges, where they get away with it. Personally, I don’t think making those edges – or the middle – more accessible to their predations is a good thing.
As for warmongers, yes and no. We fight where our economic interests are threatened. For all the talk about Syria, we have no troops there, and most of the rebel money comes from the Saudis. Because 1) there is no oil, and 2) a large portion of the rebels actually are Islamists and hate us. We also don’t do wars in Africa, because they have nothing to export but misery. Actually, the American domination of the world, just as it was under Pax Britannia, is more economic than openly military. The ‘big stick’ is there but most of the control is by bankers. Bankers can steal more and ultimately cause more human carnage than any man with a gun. We’ll have to see when China takes our place in a generation if they are so restrained.
Spit, we don’t need to get guns from Mexico or anywhere else, we already have 350 million.
The recession was in large part caused by the conflicts not the other way around. The first time ever we went to not one war but two and instead of raising taxes or other methods of raising revenue to pay for it we enacted the largest tax cuts in history but that’s for another day.
Defense spending is also beyond reasonable but again it’s another topic for another time.
Spit, I didn’t see anybody talking about armed insurrection. Perhaps you can explain how limiting magazine capacity somehow makes anybody any safer or does anything towards stopping these attrocities?
12th –
“Of the 142 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained LEGALLY. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and semiautomatic handguns.Jeffrey Weise used a .40-caliber Glock to slaughter students in Red Lake, Minnesota, in 2005, so too did James Holmes, along with an AR-15 assault rifle, when blasting away at his victims in a darkened movie theater. In Newtown, Connecticut, Adam Lanza wielded a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle as he massacred 20 school children and six adults.”
These weapons are being obtained legally. There’s no justification to own a semiautomatic weapon other than for an uprising against our government. We don’t need ’em to hunt with or defend our homes. Make ’em illegal and you’ll limit the number of deaths. You will certainly still have issues, but the people with mental issues won’t be able to kill 20 people at a time. I say make ’em reload….. give the kids a chance to run like hell.
In 2 of the crimes you list the assault rifles jammed and were not the reason for the amount of deaths. And what do you propose we do with the 4 million assault rifles already in circulation? As a ratio of weapon to crime, assault rifles are the lowest category of threat and the least death accounted for so why are we looking at them to curtail death by guns? This does not make any kind of sense in real terms.
Yeah….. I’m sure they jammed. There was also a rumor going around that liberals staged one of the shootings.
12th – I’m personally selling the Golden Gate Bridge. It’s a cash cow. Think of the revenue. I’m only asking $200,000. You should buy it.
Spit you are flippant but have not answered my questions. It is easy to run around hands in the air calling to ban this or restrict that after a terrible event, all of us have the same gut reaction to an awful tragedy. The point is trying to do things that will be of use in helping curtail these events. Assault weapons bans, magazine size is no solution and you are kidding yourself to believe it will. Chuck wants to do “something” as the status quo means more of the same. OK, but make the “something” worthwhile. Joe Biden openly admits banning assault rifles will do nothing about these shooting incidents both size or frequency so ask yourself why they are pushing it?
Forgot to address it, there is something called ballistics, strangely enough they say they can tell the difference between munitions that kill people and since it is the “authorities” that wish to ban assault rifles and limit magazine capacities it makes me wonder why the say the rifles jammed since that hardly helps their case does it Spit?
Are you always this obtuse or is today a special occasion?
You say no, I say yes. You don’t have fact or stats that support your claim. Our society has no….. none…. zero reason for having a full magazine of bullets for your gun. I really believe, 12th, that you just don’t want someone tell you no.
It’s an elitist attitude that happens to men when they’re older. You think that if you find like-minded people you’ll all band together and help protect your families. It’s a feeling of safety older men need.
Interesting Psych 101 eval there champ, like most things you say it’s shallow and poorly thought through.
It may be interesting for you to know that in emergency situations there are contingency plans in place, from the local government agencies, for exactly what you just described. A band of guys protecting their families, and yours incidentally and designated local area’s.
Of course this planning is for extreme emergencies and hardly likely to be put into practice but they are there non the less. See the government doesn’t have the luxury of not planning for every eventuality however far fetched you think it may be.
And you are spot on, I don’t want to be told no by an ineffectual set of laws designed to curtail my legal choices.
I’m still waiting for answers to the questions I posed by the way.
That’s all it really boils down to, 12th. You simply don’t want to be told what to do. I can respect that. Unfortunately for all of us you’re not the problem. The government doesn’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. Individually we’re all smart. But as a group we’re one of the stupidest groups of animals to ever walk the face of the earth, and you know I’m right. A person is smart, people are dumb. This people don’t even remember your initial question you asked.
Accidentally Spit you have hit on the crux of the issue. It’s a numbers thing. I am not the problem, nor is Grumpy, nor is No Fear or maybe even you although I qualify that statement. The rationale is some nut job gets his/her hands on some weaponry and shoots the most innocent of all in our society and the answer becomes the millions upon millions that are not the problem inherit it. I see a sign that says “x millions of gun owners didn’t kill anybody today”. All it takes is a crazy to go ballistic and we have the ban the guns crowd pointing fingers as though it will help in any tangible way. Tragedies happen in all walks of life and most are preventable. Guns are no more lethal than cars and sometimes some crazy drives into a crowd. Ban cars? cars over a certain weight? cars over a certain size?
Yeah, but 12th, you’re apart of the population. The “It’s not me,” part of the game isn’t responsible on your behalf. You’re pointing fingers. The game isn’t to point fingers at the guns or the people, but it’s to do what you can to help fix or ease the problem. I’ve purchased locks for all my guns, and I’m thinking of donating my 9mm to the local police department. The DFG tells me I can only load three shots into my shotgun when killing birds, so I have plugs in my guns. That’s enough to blow some crackhead’s face off if the tries to rob me. In addition, I’ll support any gun legislation that the politicians can dream of because nothing is set in stone. We must change without pointing fingers. We must make sacrifices to fix the problem. I’m not saying get rid of the guns. I’m saying limit the effectiveness of the guns. Why not try? Is it because you stubbornly don’t want the government to tell you what to do? I believe that’s irresponsible on your behalf. We have to try and do something. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome.
If you really want to fix the problem, address the problem. By your logic you fix drunk driving deaths by taking away cars and limiting their speed to 5 mph.
Guns locked away and trigger-locked are about as much protection as a rock.
It has been tried Spit, banning assault rifles did exactly nothing. It’s kind of semantics since they have already backed off the idea of an assault weapons ban and are now going for other kinds of control, such as universal background checks, which I personally have no problem with.
The idea that we as a society are cowed by the most extreme events in society, that policy is set by the worst examples and most egregious behavior is in itself extreme. That you and millions of others are willing to give up rights based on this mindset is troubling. That you don’t care about it yourself is fine but why should I allow you to impose that on me? If banning something or restricting something had a hope in hell of achieving what you say needs achieving more power to it but you still have not addressed the underlying matter of 350,000,000 weapons that exist today before another one is bought. I know why you haven’t addressed it, because there is no answer to it. The chance of the government taking away existing guns is less than zero. Ergo even if the feds could ban all gun sales effective 5 mins ago it will have no effect on the availability of guns, only the cost of them and the unregistered nature of them.
You have offered no solutions but continue the rhetoric without answering the points raised. You are attacking the problem from the least effective standpoint in a way that has already been tried. It doesn’t work.
NoFear – “If you want to fix the problem, address the problem.” I agree. Your attitude is part of the problem. If all you’ve got is “Guns don’t kill people…..” you’re exactly part of the problem. Everyone has to do their part, but you guys don’t do anything. That’s the problem.
In addition you write, “Guns locked away are as much help as a rock.” Yeah…..typical poor logic once again. First off, there are times when you go into more dangerous situations – more so than others. Take the lock off. Are you saying that gun that was once locked is now as “effective as a rock?” That’s what you’re claiming. In addition, what about those of us with warning systems in their homes? Something trips an alarm and you have time to unlock your gun. Are you really that blind that you can’t see the good in a locked gun? I was watching that show, “Moonshiners,” and some star hillbilly said, “Always treat your gun like it’s loaded. Then keep your gun loaded because an unloaded gun is no good.” Oh yeah, and he was driving around with a loaded gun while wasted, making moonshine. That’s your logic, NoFear. I respect you, but think about the children…..
What if the child is the one who has to use the gun to defend himself or herself? When someone kicks in their front door without warning?
A Trigger lock is only going to ensure they get hurt then. Luckily not everyone has them.
When I was a kid, our guns were never locked. My dad had a simple rule: use it if someone comes through the apartment door. Did I abuse it, even at 10 or 11? Hell no. The gun might not have hurt me; my ex-Marine dad would have killed me.
No, I never had to use it or even touch it. But he did, in 1983, when our front door got kicked open. Fellow was none too happy to see an ex-Marine holding a .357 on him, saying nothing, glaring. He ran, my dad felt no need to shoot, and no one in that crappy neighborhood ever bothered us again.
12th, say you are up against a guy like the one that shot up the school. If he has to stop to reload after 15 shots rather than 100, there’s a CHANCE to stop him and limit the carnage. That’s the fucking point. If someone is attacking you with a semi-auto rifle with a 100 round mag, he doens’t have to stop shooting to reload til wreaking maximum damage. Many of the kids shot in Newtown were hit over 10 times.
My point is was and will be, doing nothing will solve nothing. Are massacres like this just the price of living in a ‘free’ society? I guess so. Yippee. I guess we should all shoot first and ask questions later. God forbid we get sensible about this. Y’all are crazy.
How many of you have kids? How many of you have asked the parents of your kids’ friends if they have weapons in their house? If so, are they locked up? I’ve had this conversation a bunch of times. Mainly because when my kids are sleeping over at someone’s house, I’d like to think they are responsible gun owners. Usually they are, but one guy had a pistol in his bedroom. No trigger lock. I wouldn’t let my daughter spend the night. Harsh? Paranoid? Damn fucking straight.
Banning high magazine assault weapons is a start. I don’t give a fuck if only criminals get them, because at some point, they will be harder to get for EVERYONE. Like you ALL say, if the weapons aren’t there, they will move on to something else. That’s the point. The assault weapons ban did SOME good in limiting access to them.
Chuck, with respect, this is a knee jerk reaction to a terrible series of events that does absolutely nothing to help the issue. If you are really serious about trying to limit these events then the elephant in the room is safe storage pure and simple. Spit points to a stat that says 22 times more likely to have a shooting event in a household with a gun, that stat becomes near zero with a gun safe as unauthorized access to the weapons is removed. The Mom of the Sandy Hook nut job has guns available in her home, clearly not locked away in a gun safe.
Second on the list is the deplorable standards we have for care of the mentally ill.
Third would be background checks, preventing ill people from obtaining weapons.
Not only has the horse bolted from the stables, he was never in it in the first place. According to the FBI there are over 200 million privately owned guns in the US, add in law enforcement and other agencies and there is 1 gun per person in the US. There are 4 million assault rifles and less than 10 crimes on record. Does this idea that banning assault rifles does anything towards making anybody safer? It has been tried already with zero positive effect. Guns will be no harder to obtain, ditto large magazine capacities, all that will happen is they will no longer be registered, is that an improvement?
I am not an NRA member, or a gun nut hunkered down in my basement, I don’t own an assault rifle and I’m not trying to overthrow our gov with an AR15, the hysterical argument Spit puts forward as a reason not have one. I’m a regular Joe just like you. This is an emotional issue which our government is using to curtail peoples rights with no significant benefit other than for them. Each right they take away is one less we have and at the current pace we shall soon have none left.
Guns are the fabric of America. Wonderful. Kiling each other with them is American as well. That means what, 10 mass shooting per year is acceptable?
Look at Canada. How are they different? They have per capita MORE guns than the US, yet per capita shootings are WAAAAAAAY below the US.
The other thing they have is a medical system from birth till death that’s free and is able to identify nut jobs early enough to treat and if necessary to remove them from the general populace. The US is the only western civilized country not to have a broad national health care system. Do you think insurance companies want to take on the mentally ill? where is the profit center for them? Those poor unfortunates are on the liability side of the ledger and therefore undesireable to the profit driven insurance companies. That leaves the state to care for them, have you seen state budgets lately?
We need real answers to these issues not inflammatory, emotionally driven useless ones.
Universal background checks shouln’t even be an issue at this point. It’s ludicrous to think how easy it is for weapons to be purchased by anyone at a gun show.
I recognize the argument against background checks, violating privacy etc, etc but in reality we are already tagged from birth and every major step until death. This state uses our fingerprints for a drivers license. If you travel abroad your fingerprints are used to I.D. you. We are in databases and cross referenced every which way.
Speaking for myself I have no problem with background checks and think it should be tied to a waiting period. It is one of the key methods of reducing ownership to those that shouldn’t own at least legally. It doesn’t do much about the mentally ill or illegal ownership I.E. black market guns, but it would have some effect on the casual criminal and the irate person looking to pick up a gun in the heat of anger.
12th, you act like we’re poised at the edge of a zombie attack. So, say there’s a big earthquake in SF. After 7 days, we’re hoarding supplies and shooting each other? Gimme a break. Does the entire country fall apart? Really? This is your scenario for the collecting of assault weapons?
I think you are making light of real scenarios. Crime was rampant during Katrina, ditto the LA riots that spread to Las Vegas although that didn’t make the news. The event in NJ was better handled by the authorities but they were just a few days from the tipping point. You can choose to hope for the milk of human kindness preventing crime being inflicted on you if you want but I will look after myself. Suffice to say I am very familiar with emergency planning and believe me the local, state and department of homeland security view these scenarios as I have described not as you would wish them to be.
An assault weapon is one means of defense, not one I currently choose but the government has no right to remove that choice and especially when they know darned well that removing that choice has nothing to do with stopping these hideous attacks.
It’s a strawman pure and simple.
There are a number of issues around this, yes. I get that. But to declare guns off limits is, again, ludicrous. How many more attacks do we need to live through before they ARE declared part of the problem?
Bullshit on the straw man argument. The problem is any time anyone has anything to say about assault weapons, the cry of 2nd AMENDMENT!! is raised. It’s not a 2nd amendment right to have weapons that can kill scores of people without reloading. This is the point. That and universal background checks. And the ‘tyrannical government’ part of the deal is as antiquated as the muskets this amendment was written for.
Slowing down the abillity to kill IS something that can help somewhat. At least it’s a place to start. All the hooraw around mental health is an entirely different problem. One that was borne out of the for-profit health care/insurance debacle that came to be under Ronald Reagan.
Chuck with 350 million weapons in the US you are not slowing down anything. We have every kind of hand weapon known to man already in circulation. What you suggest is a feel good “solution” something that says “at least we are doing something”, a consience salve with no merit to it.
I personally don’t say guns are off limits, but to make any kind of sane argument that banning x or y with all that weaponry out there makes no sense, especially for the category of weapon that has historically done the least damage but is scary sounding and looks aggressive.
I can live with regulation of sales on the secondary market and would advocate for training to go with a firearms license as well as safe storage facility.
If a ban was shown to be effective then bring out the evidence gathered under the Clinton years. If banning weapons in general works then explain DC, NY, Chicago etc.
Banning does not work and will only create a new market for unregistered weapons which to me is a worse scenario. The drug war is an example as was prohibition, it just doesn’t work.
I love the terms the gun grabbers prefer to use to tilt the conversation. Is everything with a magazine now an “assault rifle”? Put a hand grip on an ordinary rifle and it becomes a banned “assault weapon” now. Really.
“Semi-automatic” describes the limitation of each shot requiring a separate trigger pull, not some guy with a mac-10 and bottomless magazine hosing down bystanders as the antis would have one envision. That’s too much Hollywood and video games.
It takes a shooter familiar with the weapon about two seconds to change a magazine. How many less casualties? None.
If you really care about making the kids safer ban swimming pools and hot tubs and those dozens of other things that are killing our kids in far greater numbers.
They aren’t proposing that though. Why? Because it’s only about government control and disarming the population, nothing else.
I don’t a have problem with you if you don’t want to own a gun. I won’t insist you have to own one. But I don’t think you’ll want to post a sign in your front yard advertising that you don’t have guns. Because it’s to your benefit that potential home invaders think you might. They’ll be armed, by the way.
To my original point, if the wacko going off on school kids is the basis for a new wave of disarming citizens why is a LEO going off on innocent victims not the same argument for disarming the police?
“All of the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
some animals are predators
I own guns myself. I’ve got two bad ass shotguns (not the high dollar Benellis, but the old school even more bad ass Remington 480 pumps for duck hunting). I’ve also got a Beretta 9 mm for when I’m out fly fishing on the coast in the middle of weed farms where things can get funky fast. But in all the trips I’ve ever done, I’ve never fired the Beretta. And frankly, I’d feel safer without it. I know you girls will say, “Better to have it and not need it then…..” But I don’t know if I feel that way. If the government came in and said, “hand over your guns,” I’d be the first to give ’em up…….. for the children.
See: The Battle of Athens, TN
Fear monger…. Ironic for your name.
Disarming the police is an excellent idea. If you really want to prevent needless deaths, as opposed to simply having more government control. There is no reason why police need weapons more powerful than what anyone else is allowed. Unless a police state is your objective.
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/340268
Is gun ownership the new Alex Smith?
A very interesting blog day today, it shows how polarizing the issue really is. I think the government will tread carefully on this one because they didn’t get quite the political capital they expected from the Sandy Hook outrage.
How do you see this problem being Tackled NoFear?
Down with gun ownership. Stick with knives and bows and arrows.
NoFear, I think there’s a point where you can delineate overkill. Try using your brain to come up with a sensible plan of action rather than bandy about semantics. Even stopping for a couple seconds can be the needed window to take someone down. Sure, the public is collateral damage in the fight to allow weapons for all. Spoken like a guy with nothing at stake.
The point again is, if those are allowed, why not grenade launchers?
Again, NoFear, this isn’t about self-protection. I’m all for that. but I draw the line at having, say, 10 bushmasters and 10,000 rounds of ammo.
It’s pretty hypocriticakl to say high poiwered assault weapions are fine for self preservation, and a flame thrower or RPG isn’t.
Mike Vick signs a 1 year contract with Philly, base salary 7 mil + incentives. Sets the basis for starting QB pay for Smith and Flynn?
He also has to win the job over Foles in open competition so if he doesn’t win he gets 7 mil as a backup