forum Politics and Society ›› Gabrielle Giffords shooting ›› new reply Post Reply
Jason Voorheees
dogfood meatballs
6,445 Posts
39/M/NY


offline   (4)
December 20 2012 7:37 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Well, I would be surprised if she doesn't run again.




she couldn't, but her district director, who was also shot by that asshole, won a close election for her seat last month, so i guess that's something. but she can still barely put a sentence together, so yeah, no uplifting resolution for her anytime soon.

that video of her almost predicting it is still really fucking spooky




Jason Voorheees
dogfood meatballs
6,445 Posts
39/M/NY


offline   (4)
December 20 2012 10:57 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
also








OP-ED LATimes

A conservative case for an assault weapons ban

If we can't draw a sensible line on guns, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.


By Larry Alan Burns

December 20, 2012

Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.

Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The ban wasn't all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.

And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner's rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.

I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.

Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines. And we don't even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater a magazine — it is a drum. How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?

I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the "mass" out of "mass shooting," or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder.

To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left's feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.

And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there's a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.

But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.

There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.

It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.

Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Larry Alan Burns is a federal district judge in San Diego.
yantastic
drink fight win
15,048 Posts
41/M/NJ


offline  mobile reply   (5)
December 21 2012 5:02 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
What is an assault rifle?
Jason Voorheees
dogfood meatballs
6,445 Posts
39/M/NY


offline   (4)
December 21 2012 9:20 AM   QuickQuote Quote  


pahc, the tubes' most uninspired trolls convention.
yantastic
drink fight win
15,048 Posts
41/M/NJ


offline  mobile reply   (5)
December 21 2012 12:18 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Legit question-seeing how many people can identify what an assault rifle is without having to look it up. The phrase has been thrown around yet it appears to mean something different to many people.
Russhington D.C.
swallows loads
173 Posts
20/F/NA


offline 
August 16 2017 11:09 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: joey.









.
Bashar al-Asad
In sha'Allah
37,550 Posts
31/M/PA


online  mobile reply   (11)
August 16 2017 11:29 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
She got shot in the head and it made her retarded lol
forum Politics and Society ›› Gabrielle Giffords shooting ›› new reply Post Reply

Quick Reply - RE: Gabrielle Giffords shooting

Connect with Facebook to comment: Login w/FB

or Sign up free! - or login:







Subject


wrap selection with italics
wrap selection with bold
insert less than symbol
insert greater than symbol


google image Insert Google Images
Share a Band



Your ad here?