GUNS!!!!!!!!

[Bobby Stainless]

As an aside, a shotgun was used yesterday by a 17 year old to murder 10 people and wound 10 others.

Not only was there a shooting at Santa Fe high school in Texas but there was another shooting at a high school ceremony in Georgia as well. The Florida mass shooting earlier this year was the 18th school shooting in 2018, and at least the 273rd school shooting since 20 first-graders and six adults were murdered in Newtown, Connecticut. We are a point in this country where shootings are not only met with shock and disgust, but exhaustion too.

So much so that the idea of discussing buying a tactical shotgun on a skiing forum the day after barely registers as callow or insensitive.

You know whats strange... Discussing guns in a gun thread...

Go pat yourself on the back elsewhere.

[tbssux]

The threats of violence are disturbing by themselves. The disturbed sexual content that he puts up, combined with the threats of violence, makes things seem even more off. The threats and joking about rape and other sex crimes are big red flags and a persistent pattern of behavior with him.

I did a little digging and it looks like wooley12 is a paid NRA troll. Thats some pretty smart psyops on their part: make liberals look unhinged (as if Seattle city council member Kshama Sawant isnt already trying hard enough).

[wyeaster]

yeah in a gun thread on a ski site

[Bobby Stainless]

yeah in a gun thread on a ski site

Its more of a outdoor forum.

[MultiVerse]

You know whats strange... Discussing guns in a gun thread...

My response was about guns. I thinks sometimes you get halfway through a post and see a Frisbee.

[wyeaster]

Its more of a outdoor forum.

can't wait for tgr's new gun flick

[tbssux]

are you Sally Bagshaw?

Nope just an SJW tele skier. Who gets annoyed when wooley12 or Sawant act stupid. I'm sure some of the gun rights folks feel similarly about TX Lt. Governor Patrick, who seems to feel that fewer doors at schools is the simple solution to school shootings.

[PNWbrit]

can't wait for tgr's new gun flick

They're happy about the NSFW/porn too.

Maybe another untapped genre for them.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Bobby Stainless]

can't wait for tgr's new gun flick

The Bullfighting one will be good too!

[GhostofSeasonsPast]

Did you know that freedom of religion is also a constitutional right? Yet churches must purchase insurance in order to operate. And if they choose to not purchase insurance and someone gets hurt in their church, they will getting sued.
Simple as that....

No. No requirement for insurance to operate a church. None.

I realize that what probably happened is you saw this somewhere as a gun control talking point. THEY ARE LYING TO YOU. No tax to pray, no tax to go to church, and no requirement to be insured to minister to a congregation or to assemble for worship.

No tax or fee to vote, unlike going to the public parks & rec swimming pool. No literacy or civics or competency test to vote or to pray or to minister. The people who say these things are required are lying through their teeth to you.

[MultiVerse]

Gun control is constitutional. Just ask the Supreme Court.

[GhostofSeasonsPast]

Gun control is constitutional. Just ask the Supreme Court.

Poll taxes and insurance requirements that would be like a poll tax aren't constitutional. The Supreme Court has been clear. People who say otherwise are either misled by people lying to them, or lying.

[tbssux]

No. No requirement for insurance to operate a church. None.

I realize that what probably happened is you saw this somewhere as a gun control talking point. THEY ARE LYING TO YOU. No tax to pray, no tax to go to church, and no requirement to be insured to minister to a congregation or to assemble for worship.

No tax or fee to vote, unlike going to the public parks & rec swimming pool. No literacy or civics or competency test to vote or to pray or to minister. The people who say these things are required are lying through their teeth to you.

Sorry I was clear enough for you. I was pointing out that in this day and age, if you want to operate a church, you are going to be buying insurance. Call 10 churchs in your area. All 10 will have insurance. Because they don't want to to be sued. The insurance they purchase is not a tax and it's not an impingment on the Constitutional right for freedom of religion. It's simply part of being in the 21st century.
What's sad is that the dad of the shooter yesterday will get off scot free ("I thought the 'i kill people shirt' was just a joke. Or "I thought I locked the gun safe"). Id like to see harsher penalties for that kind of negligence. You wouldn't.

So there were more school kids killed this year than armed service members, are you ok with that situation? Do you have some ideas for solutions? Please don't reply with "more funding for mental health services"...given your views on taxes it's hard to take that seriously.

[wooley12]

You know whats strange... Discussing guns in a gun thread...

Go pat yourself on the back elsewhere.

This is the Gunfag thread. You fit.

[tbssux]

This is the Gunfag thread. You fit.

Does the NRA pay you per post? If the gun lobbyists were in a strategy session looking for ways to distract from school shootings, homophobic and threatening remarks from liberals would be at the top of their wish list.

[MultiVerse]

Poll taxes and insurance requirements that would be like a poll tax aren't constitutional. The Supreme Court has been clear. People who say otherwise are either misled by people lying to them, or lying.

On the contrary, both the Third Circuit and the Second Circuit since Heller have ruled moderate burdens on the exercise of guns rights are constitutional.*

In other words an onerous $1,000 Handgun Tax or an onerous insurance requirement like the one attempted in the in the U.S. Mariana Islands Commonwealth, for example, would not be constitutional. But just as there are constitutional restrictions on time, place, and manner when it comes to free speech, so too have the courts approved a wide range of gun regulation post Heller.

The bottom line is blanket gun bans are prohibited by the constitution but courts have granted wide latitude when it comes to the way in which gun owners are allowed to exercise their rights. If gun insurance were shown to serve compelling societal interests, rather than an end run ban, then an insurance mandate could withstand a court challenge. For example, if irresponsible and dangerous gun owners faced high premiums but responsible gun owners faced relatively low premiums then that would clearly serve a societal interest.



* New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo 990 F. Supp. 2d 349
Kachalsky v. County of Westchester 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012).
United States v. Decastro 682 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2012).

[wooley12]

Does the NRA pay you per post? If the gun lobbyists were in a strategy session looking for ways to distract from school shootings, homophobic and threatening remarks from liberals would be at the top of their wish list.

This is NOT the school shooting thread. Take a nap.

[tbssux]

This is NOT the school shooting thread. Take a nap.

* Change "distract from school shootings" to "distract from gun control efforts".
I still think you're a paid NRA troll.

[tbssux]

On the contrary, both Third Circuit and the Second Circuit since Heller have ruled moderate burdens on the exercise of guns rights are constitutional.*

In other words an onerous $1,000 Handgun Tax or an onerous insurance requirement like the one attempted in the in the U.S. Mariana Islands Commonwealth, for example, would not be constitutional. But just as there are constitutional restrictions on time, place, and manner when it comes to free speech, so too have the courts approved a wide range of gun regulation post Heller.

The bottom line is blanket gun bans are prohibited by the constitution but courts have granted wide latitude when it comes to the way in which gun owners are allowed to exercise their rights.

If gun insurance were shown to serve compelling societal interests, rather than an end run ban, then an insurance ban could withstand a court challenge. For example, if irresponsible and dangerous gun owners faced high premiums but responsible guns owners faced relatively low premiums then that would clearly serve a societal interest.

* New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo 990 F. Supp. 2d 349
Kachalsky v. County of Westchester 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012).
United States v. Decastro 682 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2012).

Thank you for framing the discussion on insurance in a much more precise manner than I able to. Well stated. I don't think Ghost will reply to you. If he does, it will probably be nonsense. I wonder if he avoids taxes by claiming to be a citizen of the soverign republic of Ghost

[MultiVerse]

Thank you for framing the discussion on insurance in a much more precise manner than I able to. Well stated. I don't think Ghost will reply to you. If he does, it will probably be nonsense. I wonder if he avoids taxes by claiming to be a citizen of the soverign republic of Ghost

His main claim parallels the NRA likening gun owner insurance mandates to imposing a poll tax. But in actuality no court has ever struck down compulsory car insurance on the grounds that it hurts the poor, per the earlier discussion, so the reality is the NRA's position has never actually been tested. It's just Ghost's and the NRA's opinion at this point in time.


Too, I don't think there's any doubt Ghost will respond but his response will be more of the same: an attempt to assert as facts which are really only his opinions.

[wyeaster]

plus ghast doesn't give a fuck about the poor.

toys >>> people

[GhostofSeasonsPast]

His main claim parallels the NRA likening gun owner insurance mandates to imposing a poll tax. But in actuality no court has ever struck down compulsory car insurance on the grounds that it hurts the poor, per the earlier discussion, so the reality is the NRA's position has never actually been tested. It's just Ghost's and the NRA's opinion at this point in time.

There is no amendment in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing the right to own or drive a carriage or car. The right to keep and bear arms is by contrast a protected, fundamental civil (and human) right.

Lots of people don't like that fact, and try to conflate cars with guns.

As for churches, there are plenty with no insurance. I have been to some where literally they had nothing, no property, just an assembly. Rich churches voluntarily undertake many complex financial transactions. They aren't required to do so. Again, saying they have to, is a lie.

The poll tax case law makes clear that an insurance requirement for guns fails on equal protection grounds. If you don't like civil rights, then you may not be sympathetic to equal protection arguments.

All you have to do to change that, is amend the Constitution. Very simple.

[Diamond Joe]

Close to pulling the trigger on a 930 SPX. Basically a FN SLP design. I guess Mossberg bought the rights?

Good call on the 930, do it! You won’t be disappointed. I had an FN slp too - agree with exparky - it sucked to strip and clean. My 930 is easier and easier to shoot also. At ~400 bucks, they’re a good deal and plenty of aftermarket parts too..

[GhostofSeasonsPast]

Does the NRA pay you per post? If the gun lobbyists were in a strategy session looking for ways to distract from school shootings, homophobic and threatening remarks from liberals would be at the top of their wish list.

I think the problem you face here is that many gun control proponents are in fact quite hateful. I've been called a few racial slurs, called a faggot numerous times, and seen gun control proponents blame accident victims for their injuries and encourage leaving them to bleed out. Rather than being grateful that someone used modern first aid to save the police officer in Texas, someone made a joke out of it.

You, to your credit, are the FIRST gun control proponent to call out the homophobic slurs. (If I missed someone, apologies, but I think he's the first.) Good on you for that.

Off to some volunteer work, to put in my virtue signalling bona fides. As for school shootings, consider that they are negative social behavior by, overwhelmingly, young men seeking notoriety and often highly planned. (The worst was and is still a school bombing before WWII by an angry middle aged man, but that's an outlier among outliers.) Factors include in my view studying SSRIs and stimulants, which have been incredibly widely, legally, prescribed, and taking away the reinforcer of giving these kids fame.

Because as a factual matter these things are both fairly planned and subject to adaptation, I don't personally think either of gun control or school "hardening" make sense as ways to stop these behaviors. The school hardening may in fact have perverse effects. Better social media monitoring could catch more red flags, and that includes Google stepping up on its end.

[MultiVerse]

The poll tax case law makes clear that an insurance requirement for guns fails on equal protection grounds.

Do you have a source for this claim? Not an opinion piece but actual case law showing poll tax case law applies to a gun insurance requirement.

No? Then your claims fall flat on their face, you haven't even shown that gun insurance would price out poor consumers so your fundamental baseline facts have yet to be established.