Another School Shooting - March 20th

Maryland already has restrictive gun laws. Pretty much nothing left to change there. 

>>>>>>>Maryland already has restrictive gun laws. Pretty much nothing left to change there.

That’s why we need strict federal gun regulations.  It’s not a terribly far drive from Maryland to any number of states with less restrictions.

>> That’s why we need strict federal gun regulations.

The shooter was a 17 year old with a handgun. There's already a federal law preventing anyone under 18 from buying one.

Where do these kids get guns? They are getting them somewhere... does it follow that if there were fewer guns it would be more difficult? I'd like to hope so.

>> does it follow that if there were fewer guns it would be more difficult?

Then don't buy one?

People have a right to own guns.

>>>>>>There's already a federal law preventing anyone under 18 from buying one.

I think there should be a per person or household limit on how many guns you can have and they should all have to be registered and insured.

Ok here’s what I know about the future of the second amendment. 

All guns in the future will have tracking devices in them. If they move location without approval the cops may show up locked and loaded.  If they are tampered with it will be a felony.  Multiple failures to report location movement will result in confiscation .

So you will still get to have your guns, but you will be required to inform the authorities first before you gather with your militia.  Or in a few very rare cases, inform the authorities you are going hunting.  

This WILL be the solution.  (Not that I think it IS the solution)    It’s so easy now. You will just text your local ATF branch your intentions.  They will be monitoring all gun movement.  Schools and other targeted locations will have automatically locking doors triggered (see what I did there) by the gun location central dispatch.  

This technology is already in place for other needs ..

Not saying I’m a fan.

>> This WILL be the solution. 

No, it won't be. What you are describing is unconstitutional.

If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a search—and is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court clarified and affirmed that law on Monday, when it ruled on Torrey Dale Grady v. North Carolina, before sending the case back to that state’s high court. The Court’s short but unanimous opinion helps make sense of how the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, interacts with the expanding technological powers of the U.S. government.

“It doesn’t matter what the context is, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a car or a person. Putting that tracking device on a car or a person is a search,” said Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)*.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/03/supreme-court-if-...

>>>>>>There's already a federal law preventing anyone under 18 from buying one.

*Exceptions: Federal law provides exceptions for the temporary transfer and possession of handguns and handgun ammunition for specified activities, including employment, ranching, farming, target practice and hunting.

As with everything in the NRA controlled world there are exceptions, and seems that the only reason someone under 18 can't own a gun is if they go into a store and say they want to shoot up a school. 

>>> “It doesn’t matter what the context is, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a car or a person. Putting that tracking device on a car or a person is a search,” said Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)*.

Ok. By that logic...

What about your phone?

How about your car with GPS??

Do you give up your 4th Amendment right if you purchase either?

>> As with everything in the NRA controlled world there are exceptions, and seems that the only reason someone under 18 can't own a gun is if they go into a store and say they want to shoot up a school. 

That subsection of the law has nothing to do with purchasing a gun, it has to do with possession.

(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess— (A) a handgun; or (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun. (3) This subsection does not apply to— (A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile— (i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching or farming related to activities at the residence of the juvenile (or on property used for ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun; (ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile's parent or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm, except— (I) during transportation by the juvenile of an unloaded handgun in a locked container directly from the place of transfer to a place at which an activity described in clause (i) is to take place and transportation by the juvenile of that handgun, unloaded and in a locked container, directly from the place at which such an activity took place to the transferor; or (II) with respect to ranching or farming activities as described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess and use a handgun or ammunition with the prior written approval of the juvenile's parent or legal guardian and at the direction of an adult who is not prohibited by Federal, State or local law from possessing a firearm; (iii) the juvenile has the prior written consent in the juvenile's possession at all times when a handgun is in the possession of the juvenile; and (iv) in accordance with State and local law;

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/atf-p-5300-4pdf/download (see page 14)

Yes I did describe something that seems unconstitutional, and I don’t agree with it.  Just because I thought of it does not  mean it was my idea.  

I don’t control the future, just receive insight.  After all, the future is tracking me.  

And what about all autos and phones now have location indicator built in?   Who’s fighting that?

>> Ok. By that logic...

>> What about your phone?

>> How about your car with GPS??

>> Do you give up your 4th Amendment right if you purchase either?

The 4th amendment limits the government's behavior. In your examples, a corporation associated with the phone or car would be providing a service using  GPS.

So the 4th amendment doesn't apply. 

C'mon people!  This isn't even a news item.

Top stories on CNN:

Karen McDougal

Stormy Daniels

Mark Zuckerberg

https://www.cnn.com/

Thank goodness there was a "good guy with a gun."  Still, it's a good thing that the shooter apparently had only one (or two) intended targets.  I doubt that "less than a minute" is a great response to an Ar-15 with bump stock (which this kid obviously didn't have).

Q:?

why are our youth so fucked up they are doing this?

ender should be a nra lobbyist. i'm sure they pay well...

Rap music

To start we need a national buy back program, tiered and anonymous.

People would come out of the woodwork for the cash.

Lots of guns would be gone.

The Dead have just as many “gun” songs as rap or hip hop. 

“So we treat our clips, just like, bustin caps
Rip it til dawn, kick it til dawn
Hip-Hop is the fix, or else, we be gone
People thought they canned it, rap is not by bandits
Digable Planets got it, goin on”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SMvFRpMCyRI

but, they keep making new ones...

>> ender should be a nra lobbyist. 

I'm not even a member.

double...

Step 2. 

License (owner) 

Registration (gun/s)

Insurance (owner)

Just like owning a car.

Is step 3 confiscating all the guns? 

^No, but that's how the NRA scares its members. 

You're right, Ender, we should just scrap those bullshit laws.

Enders making a good argument to just get rid of all guns.

The whole if your law or solution doesn’t totally fix the problem it’s not worth trying is fucking retarded.

I didn't make any arguments or form any conclusions based on those facts.

I also noticed that every single thing "March for our lives" wants is already law in Maryland and it didn't stop the crime.

According to a petition on the event's website, March for Our Lives has three primary demands:

- Pass a law to ban the assault weapons frequently used to carry out mass shootings

- Stop the sale of high-capacity magazines, restricting the amount of ammunition

- Close loopholes in America's background checks and implement laws that require background checks on every gun purchase, including those that occur online or at gun shows

It might not have stopped that crime, but certainly might stop another.

There are no news stories about the crimes prevented by those laws...because the crimes didn't happen.

It's nearly as ridiculous as the former Assault Weapon Bas from 1994-2004. They claimed there was no reduction is gun violence from those type weapons, but what has happened since then? I'm sure you can crunch the numbers any which way, but most, if not all, of the mass shootings with ARs were bought after the ban ended. Oops.

Something of note: that I know of, none of the school/mass shootings has been done by girls/women.

Actually, Judit,  a woman carried out one of the first school shooting sprees.  Bob Geldof wrote a song about it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(San_Diego)

On the other hand, this current spate is mostly the work of young men.  

I obviously didn't remember that, Dave, thanks for the reminder. I remember hearing about the shooting at the time but forgot about the person who did it.

Non sequitur by javadave

JR, what did you read? He kindly gave me information that cleared up what I misremembered.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/lin-manuel-miranda-shares-new-so...

Scott Cosner, whose twin sons were both injured in the shooting — one of them shot in the face — says he's not a big fan of protests in general. And when it comes to stopping school shootings, Cosner says America has "a heart problem, not a gun problem."

He emphasizes that firearms are a normal part of life in Marshall County.

"Everybody's got a gun," he says. "I've got a safe out in my garage with guns in it. Me and one of my sons, we own three ARs. ... It's not an issue. Those guns don't just walk out and go shoot somebody."

His sons, who are recovering well, just want to be ordinary kids and aren't interested in speaking to the press, he says. And they haven't changed their minds on gun regulation.

Cosner is firmly opposed to gun control, and says the student protests he sees on the national news are "a little much." He respects everyone's right to express their opinion — "that's what makes our country what it is," he says — but he doesn't agree with the Parkland student activists, and it's not easy to watch them speak on behalf of shooting survivors.

As for local protests, he hasn't been following them. This Saturday, during the March for our Lives, Cosner will be working. And his sons will be "busy with sports or work," he says — not protesting.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/23/595756956/we-should-have-been-the-last-ke...

Unfortunate and sad.

The good news is there are plenty more that will stand up for them regardless.

These kids have been getting death threats everyday.

Those pussies clutching their guns won't deter them or their passion and right to life.

A see a Darwin award in the Cosner family future

Can we start cutting the shooter’s dick off? I believe that would do more than even killing the perp

No, see 8th amendment.

Then there is no solution

Not to worry. Putin/Trump/Bolton/Kim will have us back in the stone age in no time. As soon as the bullets run out the guns will only be useful for whacking your enemy over the head

>>>>Same gun, Different "Clothing"

Yep, but it's what goes in (and shoots out) are just a little bit different:

If you are going to outlaw rifles based on the size of the cartridge or kinetic energy, .223 REM would still be very low on the list.  It's a varmit round. It's not sufficient for hunting.

The one on the left looks like a dick and the one on the right looks like a Saturn rocket.

Sorry - double.

That .223 Remington (5.56) round seems plenty capable of killing enemy combatants, varmits or otherwise...

I want a warhead of my own!

If your dick looks like the one on the left then I bet your friends call you needle dick

where are the shotgun slugs?

Hillman's picture above shows two rifles that both shoot .22 LR, which is the smaller of the two bullets shown in Johnny's pic.   I actually own the .22 Marlin carbine (the one on top).  The point is that the two guns, while one looks more menacing, operate basically the same and fire the very same round.  The one on the bottom is just a .22 LR dressed up to look like an AR-15 style rifle which shoots the larger .223 NATO round (bigger round in the picture).  Not much functional difference, except that the one on the bottom takes a detachable magazine, while the one on top has a fixed tube magazine.

If people want to focus on restricting hardware, the focus should not be on the firearm itself, but instead the magazine size.  Otherwise, gun control advocates, many of whom are unfamiliar with the operation of firearms, are going to continue to run up into brick walls trying to distinguish so called "assault rifles" from other types of sporting rifles.

>> where are the shotgun slugs?

No one wants to ban shotguns.

I don’t want shot gun shells outlawed, just looking for something that looks more like my dick

Thanks for the clarification, Ken D.  I was going to make a note of that (after I shared the pic), but didn't get around to it (honestly).

How about we define an assault weapon as one that can kill a human when fully loaded?  Then get rid of 'em. 

Oh, and I just noticed that the little .22 Marlin style carbine in the picture above doesn't have the fixed tube magazine like mine has.  It instead looks like it takes a detachable magazine just like the one on the bottom, making the two functionally identical. 

I also have a little AR-7 collapsible .22 survival rifle that takes a detachable magazine (see below).  Although the standard magazine holds eight rounds, you can get 30 round magazines for it, which would make it an "assault rifle" under some of the definitions I have seen tossed around.  Banning that little pea shooter as some proposals would do is pretty silly:

does anyone think this is a good idea?

http://wnep.com/2018/03/22/superintendent-says-students-are-armed-with-r...