Unpossible
Teen shot and killed in Queens, which is odd because carrying a gun there is illegal. How did this happen? They put Plaxico Burress in jail and everything.
And in Chicago where handguns are banned, a teen is shot as well.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 7th, 2009 at 10:08 am
States rights. If you don’t like the laws of a particular state, you are free to move. That is real freedom.
I notice the writer is crying out for guns to be removed and I think that is the feeling that a lot of city residents have. For one thing, in the city, you don’t need guns to hunt, unless you are hunting humans, because there is no game in the city. Guns for self defense are fine, but you have to have common sense to use them and a lot of people simply lack in common sense. If you want to own a gun in a city, I think the city should be the one to tell you what kind of bullets to buy (for self defense, etc) so we don’t get a bunch of people with insane firepower blasting through walls and killing innocent people.
I think there is a good reason why our forefathers left most of the responsiblity up to the states, not the federal government.
I’ve always thought that gun laws needed to be local, not national, but we’ll see what happens with McDonald and SCOTUS.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:50 am
People in NYC can register rifles and shotguns, and there is no problem with people having “insane firepower blasting through walls and killing innocent people”.
As for cities determining what kind of ammunition one should buy, that would be a political decision on the part of the city. Since it’s my life at stake, I’m entitled to choose my ammo myself, rather than have some bureaucrat making the decision based on what some politician wants him to do.
City people naively want guns “to go away” because they don’t realize that by having disarmed themselves by law they’ve empowered criminals against themselves by handing the criminal with a gun a huge advantage. Take away the advantage and disempower the criminal by allowing the law-abiding to be armed if they choose. We know from experience that only a small, but significant number of citizens will arm themselves, so the old canard of “then everyone will have a gun and we’ll have wild west shootouts in the streets” simply doesn’t apply because it doesn‘t happen. Instead, crime goes down.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:35 am
So I’m guessing Wanda wouldn’t have a problem with Mississippi allowing slavery, or Utah banning all religion except Mormonism, or Texas requiring you to house soldiers at your own expense. States’ Rights, and all.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Wanda is like many city people. When you are in the city you get the unwarranted security of a very visible police force. However the police are geared towards solving crimes, not stopping them or interceding during the commission of said crime.
The city people really want the criminals to not have guns, and mistakenly disarm themselves. Criminals will never be without weapons as anything else makes the job too risky.
Personally, I choose to carry and I also have completed firearms saftey and profiecency classes that allow me to do so concealed. I am also signed up for our local towns civilian police academy this fall. I do this less for my own reasons and more for the piece of mind it would give to a person like Wanda.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
States rights. If you don’t like the laws of a particular state, you are free to move. That is real freedom.
Since when did “States Rights” mean the States could willfully infringe upon the Constitutionally protected individual freedoms of citizens?
If your state passed a law saying women couldn’t vote would you simply move to another state and tell the rest of the women in your state to do the same?
If CA passed a law allowing NG troops to quarter themselves in citizen’s homes would you tell CA residents to “deal with it or move” or would you consider it a blatant 3rd Amendment violation? keep in mind that the 3rd Amendment has not been specifically incorporated against the States by the SCOTUS.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
You’re right, Uncle. This simply can’t be true, possibly hoax stories.
Gun bans=no crime, right?
October 7th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
All of Bloomberg’s people were tied up at gunshows out of state, so it might have happened. Oh wait, guns are illegal there, so it didn’t happen, but it could have if Bloomberg’s men hadn’t gone to those out of state gunshows. This is probably just one of those teaching moments, a sort of parable thing, you know.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Jeesus, Wanda, get a freaking grip. Read all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, plus the fourteenth amendment, and then tell us which of the others you believe should be entirely at the discression of the states. Tell us how “free” you’d feel if your home state clamped down on all the other constitutionally guaranteed rights. Yeah, that’s “freedom”. In that case, all black people were “free” prior to the Civil War, all women were “free” prior to Women’s Suffferage, and state confiscation of a radio station and the church in your home town is the very epitome of “freedom”. Sure it is– in hell.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:13 am
“I notice the writer is crying out for guns to be removed and I think that is the feeling that a lot of city residents have.”
Cry out for a gold house and a rocket car while you’re at it.
You’ll note that these shootings occurred in cities that had already “removed” guns. How’s that working out?
October 9th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Ok, now, let’s grant Wanda legitimacy. Just for the sake of argument, ok?
Wanda most urban murders in this country are black people killing other black people with guns obtained illegally. Check the stats, that is true.
Now, we already have laws against people obtaining guns illegally, yet that hasn’t stopped the killing. I reiterate, mostly black on black. So, we can safely assume the laws are having no effect on black criminals who kill.
Don’t you think you should start advocating for strict black people control or even a ban on black people?
Now, never mind that we passed the 14th amendment to do away with Jim Crow laws and the “Black Codes” shortly after the Civil War. Common sense tells us that that liberty enhancing amendment should be tightly regulated. Isn’t that, at least, as valid as strictly regulating the 2nd amendment which states it “shall not be infringed”.
I won’t believe you have a damn brain in your head until you advocate for strict Black Person Control, including registration, federal NICS checks, control of free commerce between states for blacks, a prohibition of certain blacks based on size because they may be more deadly than smaller sized blacks, and lastly confiscation of blacks.
Uh huh, let’s return the good old days.
Or maybe, just maybe, we should leave free people the Hell alone unless they cause unwarrated harm to another. I mean, just a thought, not that you would be familiar with that.