Saturday, October 07, 2017

Guns for women

donald-trump-gun.jpg
Trump and gun control

A letter to the editor in yesterday's SF Chronicle:


I have an idea for easing the tension between the need to maintain Second Amendment rights and the even stronger need for gun control. Under my plan, guns would remain freely available, but only women could have them. No other regulation would be necessary — no fussing about bump stocks or anything else, really.

Women, of course, could use their guns for self-defense, and would also be available to form militias if, in fact, the government becomes tyrannical. But after a possibly difficult transition period, the number of mass shootings would plunge, probably to zero.

Elizabeth Morrison
San Bruno

Rob's comment:
The conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment is a lie: "A well regulated militia" defined.


Labels: ,

9 Comments:

At 3:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To blame mass shootings on guns is stupid. That's like blaming those that steal candy on snickers therefore we ban snickers. Or blame the manufacturers of knives for the last stabbing victims.
You walk into a school or a theater and start shootings people up then you have some serious fucking mental problems.

Sfmta blames all pedestrian, bicycle deaths and "collisions" on cars. What the fuck is the difference?

That's like the dumb bitch that sued McDonald's because they're coffee was too hot and won millions after leaving the drive thru with the cup of coffee between her legs and then spilling it on her legs.

Whatever happened to logic?

 
At 2:30 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

One of President Trump's first executive orders made it easier for people with some serious fucking mental problems to get guns. Even if you're a hardcore gun guy, you have to admit that is, well, nuts.

The MTA does not in fact blame "all pedestrian, bicycle deaths and collisions on cars," though I agree its policies seem to imply that. Hard to see the validity of that analogy to gun control. Gun control advocates like me simply want to make it harder for people to get guns by tightening up background checks and banning certain types of guns, like assault rifles. And the system should be able to prevent someone like the Las Vegas asshole from building his own arsenal.

Your account of that McDonald's hot coffee case is just a right-wing myth.

 
At 1:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's already an extensive background check that goes through the FBI(NCIS). Some background checks go through more than one agency which varies state by state as each state has their own laws. But all comply with federal gun laws which take a long time.
Wether trump signs an executive order on guns or not it won't change that. That executive order was just smoke appealing to his base. It doesn't do anything as no laws were changed.

The point I was trying to make was that you cannot control people's actions. Pass all the laws you want that's not going to stop a crazy person from doing something crazy. What do you want to do implant a chip in everyone's head that sets off an alarm when they go mental? Use some logic.

As for the McDonald's coffee lawsuit to call it a "right wing myth" is fucking mental all on its own. But that's ok the crazy far left calls every little thing right wing.

Why don't you go take the time to look up the McDonald's lawsuit before you start talking shit? It's one of the most famous cases out there. Or better yet I'll help your mental instability. Here's a link

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

The McDonald's case was so famousthey tried to pass a bill which would have effected the 7th amendment called the "tort reform bill" that bill Clinton vetoed.

A "right wing myth"? What the hell is wrong with you man. Double check before you talk shit.

 
At 4:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

McDonald's: "Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10]"

 
At 4:16 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Your Wikipedia link supports my argument on the McDonald's coffee case, not yours. You can in fact make it harder for crazy people to get guns. The notion that background checks are now adequate is ridiculous.

"Why don't you go take the time to look up the McDonald's lawsuit before you start talking shit?" Why don't you kiss my ass? I did and provided a link. You evidently have some kind of reading disorder.

 
At 5:21 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

On the adequacy of background checks.

 
At 5:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really?
Just like the dumb lady with McDonald's blaming McDonald's for her actions people are blaming guns for someone's actions. It's called correlation.

How the fuck can you make it harder for a crazy person to get a gun when you don't know when a person will go crazy? The Vegas shooter was 64 years old. How are you going to know anybody will decide to be crazy after 60 years? According to what's out there this person was normal before the incident. Even the cops a week later are still trying to figure out what happened/motive.


You have knives at home and I'm not saying you'd stab anybody but what law can you write or pass that will stop you from stabbing anybody if you decided to do so? Look at oj football tv superstar millionaire who the fuck would have thought he'd walk out and kill two people? What law would have prevented that exactly?

"Making it harder for a crazy person to own a gun??? You have got to be kidding me. That's a fucking genius idea when It's already illegal for a crazy person to own a gun. Existing gun laws already prohibit a crazy mental person from owning a gun. Go read them.

What do you want mind reading laws? An early warning system for crazy?

A "reading disorder?. No I'm just allergic to stupid.

 
At 2:40 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

No, you have a serious case of ignorance. Where do you get your information? One of the first things Trump did is reverse this regulation:
"With the regulation, the SSA was required to identify and report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) individuals who are unable to work because of severe mental impairment and can’t manage their own Social Security financial benefits, and therefore were ineligible to buy guns. The thought was that those certain Social Security recipients could pose a danger to themselves or others."

This was widely reported at the time, a small step toward "an early warning system for crazy." I guess the news sources you rely on overlooked it.

Your knife analogy is ridiculous, since obviously automatic or semiautomatic weapons can inflict a lot more damage than a knife attack and guns are of course a lot harder to get in many parts of the world, though knife attacks---along with car/truck attacks---have been used by Muslim terrorists in the last several years for that reason.

The Vegas shooter was clearly nuts, though he managed to keep his mental health problem more or less a secret. But that a single person could be able to accumulate more than 30 guns in a relatively short time plus a lot of ammunition without triggering some kind of alert demonstrates that our gun laws are inadequate, to put it mildly.

"No way to prevent this," says only country where this regularly happens.

 
At 2:46 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Here's a functional link to that Social Security regulation that our Moron in Chief revoked.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home