Colbert: Stop ignoring gun violence (new definition of insanity)

The fact his family didn't know he was ill and owned that any guns proves they were oblivious. You can't be that screwed up without letting it out. NO way. Unless he never speaks and that is a sure sign something is drastically wrong.

 

Interesting, but the opinions of a couple folks at the time do not control over the language put in the amendment itself.

If you want to read my detailed arguments on the 2A, let me know and I'll look up the thread for you.

- - - Updated - - -

What I'm saying is that having stricter local gun control laws are not effective if someone can drive a few miles and avoid the restrictions.

 

It did vary; now down or even to where it was in '96

They don't sell pepper stray in Australia? or other non-lethal means of self defense? Naw. The only thing that's likely if the woman has a gun is that if she's raped, the rapist will have a new toy.

 

Of course ignore the fact that the area's a few miles away with looser gun laws don't have the problem of the areas with stricter gun laws and more violence. Address the real issue instead of the faux issue.

- - - Updated - - -

 

I know the law how about addressing what I asked.

So how does the seller know especially a private seller know to whom they are selling the firearm?

How would the seller know?

 

If the left put half the effort into fixing our mental health system or enforcing laws on the book, we wouldn't be having these mass shootings.

Hell, if they tried to fix the black community our homicide rate would plummet.

Let's ignore the real issues.

Look at Australia's violent crime/rape rates drastically increase following the gun grab.

 

I'll decline to take your word on it given your previous history of veracity, but it wouldn't surprise me as gun violence rates vary widely with location.

 

Strict gun laws are failures because of smuggling? And your position on securing our porous borders where firearms, drugs and human trafficking is largely uncontrolled?

 

Yet it's these progressive (*)(*)(*)(*)s that IGNORE the terrorism that goes on in EVERY GHETTO in the United States - that or they deny it's happening or make excuses for it...

Once again the progressives are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hypocrites..

How many deaths you think were the result of minority gangbangers alone across the United States yesterday? 100 perhaps?

Who do the progressives attack? mostly white legal gun owners embracing their Second Amendment right.

 

Great, another liberal comedian spouting off. Well, no one's asking him to pretend it didn't happen or to pretend he knows how to fix it, either. However, he might if he was actually being honest about "gun free zones" instead of just invoking the "change" something, "do" something BS, which we all know means slamming as many restrictions of gun purchases as possible.
Colbert's a snot nosed, mean spirited, little weasel, which probably explains why liberals think he's smart & funny. He's neither, but he's a progressive celeb so they gravitate to him. Kinda like Obama in many ways.

 

But even then T-thug if he wanted could cut the legality and sell off the back of the alley. It's going to be very hard to regulate thousands of sellers. Especially in problem areas.

 

I have answered your question. I will answer it yet again. Private sellers are not required to know ANYTHING about the buyer, not even their name. Most private sellers don't want to know the name because that gives them plausible deniability of suspecting them of being a felon. There is no accountability. The law allows that. The sale can be completely anonymous. No ID is necessary at all. No paperwork is necessary, at all. They don't know and they don't have to know, as the law is now. Does that finally answer your question?

Now, IF the law is changed, the private seller would have to have a UBC on the buyer. At that point, they would know the name and that the person was qualified to buy.

 

Really? The firearm homicide rate in Australia going down after strict gun control laws were passed (even though the rate was already declining before the law was passed) means that the law caused the rate to drop?

If that's how it works, then you'd have to say that the lack of gun control passed in the last two decades in the US is responsible for the huge declines we've seen in overall homicide, firearm homicide, and violent crime rates. Correct? Or does correlation only equal causation when you agree with the result?

Classic. You don't feel a need to arm yourself while living in an affluent suburb, therefore nobody else should own firearms.

Check your privilege, as they say.

 

That's another prime example of what the world looks like to people wearing privilege-colored goggles. No gangs in your neck of the woods so you don't mind disarming some innocent woman living in the ghetto...as long as you feel safer while sipping your double-half-caf frappuccino.

 

This is not correct.

There are regulations on private gun sales at the Federal and State level.

The seller must not sell to a prohibited person or a person they see as unfit.

If they willingly sell to a prohibited person, then the seller can be charged with a crime.

State Private Sales of Guns

 

The amendments are to be interpreted by the context in which they were written, it is completely relevant.

 

Sorry, but I see the rate fluctuating, but no drastic drop before the passage of the law in '96.

I see a peak in the early 90's, then a gradual decline to where it had been:



I can also easily make the case that the drop in gun homicides was due more to the Roe decision than any right wing flight of fancy. I also looked at other charts showing that nations with strict laws have far better records than we do.

a) Who says I live in an affluent suburb? I never did.

b) I never posted whether or not I own any firearms.

c) Since you've made two assumptions which have no basis in any fact, then it's obvious that they are worthless, and therefore, also likely that the rest of your beliefs are highly suspect as well. In other words, you most probably have no idea what you're talking about, as I have shown.

 

For what?? What would amending the constitution do?
Guns are a tool for insta kill by the weak. Everyone has a right to bear arms to defend them selves, but i think the privilege of insta kill offensive weapons has been abused beyond reason. Insta kill offensive weapons need to be viewed as a privilege not a right, Anyone should be able to learn to utilizes arms for self defense. landmines, electric fences, body armor, mace, sonic devices and even martial arts are not regulated nationally...Guns on the other hand just are out of control, need to be looked at again.
All of the guns coming into D.C come from Virginia gun shows held at the border. Gangs buy there guns legally, that's just B.S.
Hold gun owners responsible for being the person who buys guns for felons, Background checks on how many lost guns the buyer has at least??? WTF??
There's a black market for drugs because like alcohol, its physically addictive....Guns aren't...make the legal persons selling illegal offensive weapons held responsible maybe??
I don't believe in common sense..(when they say common sense gun laws) but this is completely out of control when even I can buy a gun, see someone in a movie theater with a carry permit, an some woman screams...Then imma shooten at the guy with a legal carry gun?, cause he's the immediate threat?? wtf I needa a class before I go out with this thing/gun/what ever future offensive weapon that's insta kill ..with no apology. Ill prefer to be judged by 12 rather then carried by 6.

I go out with my peoples, they feel the same..If i miss an you get me...an they all got legal carry....your done, as a legal carrier you self. Shoot out, total chaos

 

I think Colbert IS new definition of insanity!

Table 10 Number of deaths from 113 selected causes, Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile, drug-induced causes, alcohol-induced causes, and injury by firearms, by age: United States, 2013

Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34) - 505
Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74) - 21,175
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (*U01.4,X93-X95) - 11,208
Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent (Y22-Y24) - 281

Total: 33,168

Drug-induced deaths (2,3) - 46,471

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

There are 13,303 MORE drug induced deaths than folks dying as a result firearms. However, the left advocates a war on guns (restrictions and bans) and yet pushes to legalize drugs spending $10 billion to combat substance abuse 'epidemic'.

 

If this is supposed to be a logical argument, I'd have to assign a big, red "F" to it, mostly because it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation

However repeated correlation may indicate causation

 

The context for each representative who signed for the BOR can be different.

 

Our murder rate has gone down more than Australias has since 1996

 

That is what is to come. Armed guards at every public place. That is where all this is headed.
And that is probably exactly what those in line with the NRA actually want. To be free to enter armed guarded facilities.

 

No... he's just a comedian.