IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New of course you would be uncomfortable with open carry
you or your neighbors were not brought up that way. So It would be scary to introduce it to your neighborhood. In Alaska until 1980 or so open carry was common, the only restriction was you had to hanf the guns up in the bar until you left. Then the fucking califucks moved in and started shivering in fear. You can still open carry but the cops get excited now.
you can kill people for America at age 18 but need to be 21 to buy a beer
New 'The World' will thank the mentioned Califucks for their prescience
..if there are enough left sans collateral-damage-Cha-Cha-Cha ... to give a round of applause.


Instead of those Other "rounds" ..which so many hoard, preen selves by their reflected light and
... otherwise fondle [one can only say:] lasciviously.

Gollum's My Precious
New Too many wingers argue for "open carry everywhere".
There are nutjobs in power here in VA that say that guns should be allowed in bars, schools, churches, etc., etc., and if they're forbidden that somehow means that FEMA Camps are just around the corner.

It's stupid.

People don't think and act rationally when they're drunk or under stress.

Open Pointing would not make anyone safer. Open Carry is a shibboleth that was recognized as ridiculous and dangerous in Dodge City in the 1870s. It's even more stupid and dangerous now.

Part of my adolescence was spent in a home with a guy who had a pistol. It didn't make me, or my mother, feel safer.

As you know, Kennesaw, GA passed a law in the early 1980s that required every household to own a gun. It hasn't eliminated crime there (the crime rate is lower in Fairfax City which has no such rule).

More guns aren't the answer, and the Constitution doesn't say that every 'fraidy cat idiot and bully within the US has the right to brandish guns whenever and where-ever they feel like it.

(sigh)

DC v Heller was wrong in many respects, but there are sensible portions to it:

The Supreme Court stated, however, that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

* Prohibit firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill;
* Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; and
* Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The Court noted that this list is not exhaustive, and concluded that the Second Amendment is also consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use at the time, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms that are most useful in military service. In addition, the Court declared that its analysis should not be read to suggest “the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.”


The way out of this, it seems to me, is to require a "tax stamp" for every firearm that isn't a muzzle-loader - the same type of regulations required for Tommy Guns and the like. You want an AR-15? Fine. Pay the $200 tax, get on the ATF list, have all the checks, accept the regulations on transfer, and so forth. A $20/bullet tax would be nice, too, and would obviously be Constitutional...

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who wonders if the Supreme Court may actually draw back from the brink based on the refusal to take the case yesterday.)
New Same as free speech: there are time/manner/place restrictions
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
     cali gun laws that the squaks that did the shooting complied with - (boxley) - (20)
         Some modest proposals - (gcareaga) - (2)
             I assume this is satire but JIC - (hnick)
             no prob - (boxley)
         Malki on San Bernardino - (Another Scott) - (1)
             Wouldn't surprise me if Andrew has clients there. - (a6l6e6x)
         Re: cali gun laws that the squaks that did the shooting complied with - (malraux) - (6)
             cant read it, what is it? -NT - (boxley) - (5)
                 Original source - (malraux) - (4)
                     that main chart has nothing to do with murder, it includes all deaths - (boxley) - (3)
                         So what? - (pwhysall) - (2)
                             you would have to have rope control and razxor control as well -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                 Whataboutery. - (pwhysall)
         Bors from 2012. - (Another Scott) - (7)
             of course you would be uncomfortable with open carry - (boxley) - (3)
                 'The World' will thank the mentioned Califucks for their prescience - (Ashton)
                 Too many wingers argue for "open carry everywhere". - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Same as free speech: there are time/manner/place restrictions -NT - (malraux)
             Masterful.. Piet Hein would give a nod - (Ashton) - (2)
                 Heh - (scoenye) - (1)
                     Quite.. also, - (Ashton)

Mine almost shook the furnace apart.
40 ms