hey Jarhead:

the Redcoats are coming! -- QUICK! -- check under the beds and tables! -- the gubmint is coming to steal our freedom and 'Amairicun way of life'!!

they fraudulently sneak a Muslim into the White House, twice!; they try to deport baby Jesus!; they keep trying to interpret The Constitution as if it were written by fallible, non-clairvoyant humans!; they implant vile, sexy, communist temptresses in Snorg Tees into our media!; they keep granting basic human rights to queers!; and now they're trying to take away our god-given right to own anti-aircraft weaponry!! what fucking next??!! equal pay for women??!!

LORD CHARLTON HESTON!! -- QUICK!! -- REBIRTH YOURSELF ALREADY AND COME SAVE US FROM THESE PEACE-LOVING HEATHENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, how come no one's talking about taking high-powered assault weapons out of the hands of the POLICE???

Exactly DamosA! And look at all these "security" guards with guns.

I find it funny that Hales is calling this a "crisis", there were crazies with guns in the 90s too. This isn't a new trend. We live in a society that promotes and approves of violence.

I tried to attend this press conference, but as I can see now, this was just a photo opportunity for the new mayor behind his new desk.

And yet, there's a dude in the Larson photo holding his cell phone. I wonder what his press credentials looked like.

Curiously "Gun trafficking" is already a federal crime. Yet, Fast & Furious still happened, completely illegally. No punishment what-so-ever.

I was going to ask the Mayor basically the same thing DamosA is implying: "...as I'm a peace activist and veteran, [I am curious] why you think I should not be allowed to own a weapon system issued to peace officers such as high capacity magazines, and AR-15s?"

"Further, do you have any intention to prohibit these dangerous weapons from police officers?"

It seems that in this town it makes more sense to have armed citizens rather than armed police, because as an armed citizen, I am at least accountable to the court system. If I shoot someone, I do not get a 2-week paid vacation and high-fives when they hand me back my gun.

In theory, the police should go through an extensive series of background checks, training, and monitoring that distills responsibility for those chosen to handle greater force multipliers like assault weapons.

We have police because the public doesn't accept the anarchist concept of the city policing itself with vigilante shootout justice. In practice there are crooked cops and an insulted police union, but choose an imperfect police over the former option.

So, we work to have a more accountable police whom we feel better trusting with this power. Finding similar responsibility in the public through legislation is incredibly difficult, but the absolutist response that we should never try is disrespectful to those who bear the consequences.

Hello back at you. Vigilante shootout justice is not an "anarchist concept."

Some ideas:

1. Require all gunowners to carry liability insurance, $1M/$5M minimum. If you think it's too onerous, see: Insurance, Automobiles.
2. Require all gunowners to store their weapons in a secure location where only the licensed gun owner will have access to them. If you think you shouldn't do this or that it is too expensive, See: Number 1 above
3. Institute a 25% tax on ammunition. The tax is waived for any ammunition discharged at an accredited firing range. Think this is out of proportion? See: Tax, Federal and State Gasoline.
4. Institute minimum civil penalties for the legally registered gunowner when their gun is used in a crime. Penalties will increase based on severity of crime/injury. Worried about your ability to pay? See #1 above.
5. If a gunowner cannot demonstrate compliance with these laws, then they shall lose their registration.

After you've done all of this, THEN you can enjoy your guns and holler about the 2nd amendment.

@4,5 , to support the local police.......keep paying your taxes. There coming up, pay them. Pay them and then come back here with your gripes.....gripe and continue to pay them or face jail. You will pay them.

Hate them all you want. You still support them. Going to jail because you refuse to pay them? Hey! Others(who hate the pigs) are now paying even more for the same cause. Your cause now.

Taxes. There's no way out. We're the bitches here friends.....

@pdxMB - So, what you're saying is that you have no idea what current firearm laws are, or how lawful shooters typically enjoy their sport/hobby?

For example, #4 already exists. The government wouldn't pay #3 (and why should they be immune?), and criminals would do none of the above. Plus, proper shooting ranges already have insurance, but many shooters discharge their weapons on their own property or (in the case of Oregon) BLM or private undeveloped land, I think your proposal would just create more shooting ranges near cities (yay!). In addition, this would expand the hobby of reloading ammunition thus lowering the price for reloading gear (yay!). $1m insurance for a community of entirely law-abiding and responsible people would probably be a trivial cost ($100 a year, maybe?), and would really benefit no one, as any victim of a shooting could enter into a civil law suit against the shooter under current law.

I like your out-of-the-box thinking, even if it's clearly speculative and not designed to reduce crime or make the public safer. But hey: at least you're thinking of taxation and over regulation as a potential form of oppressing a whole class of people you don't like. With skills like that, you won't need college.

@FAX: So imposing basically the same set of requirements on gun-owners as we have on car owners is "over-regulation?" And not taxing ammunition at shooting ranges will create some incredible market demand for these ranges next to the Big K's that ring our cities? And because #4 already "exists," (it doesn't, not in the form that I'm thinking - you need to bring a civil suit to enforce it), we don't need any of this? Government doesn't pay a lot of taxes you and I do - property taxes for starters. So somehow that automatically makes #3 invalid?

Obviously, the point of all these suggestions is that we're not getting rid of guns. It's a waste of time to even pursue it, since even if you pass some kind of gun control, it gets tied up in courts for years and likely overturned by our current Supremes, who are content to have us live in caves.

I love the snark from putting a few non-personal ideas out there. FYI, I grew up shooting guns with my dad in the deserts of California, so I probably know a lot more than you think. Personally, I don't give a fuck how lawful gun-owners enjoy their hobby. Just as I don't give a fuck about how beauty pageant contestants enjoy their pursuits. But society probably benefits from a few more reasonable controls on the former, aimed at increasing gun safety and decreasing access to guns from people who shouldn't have them in their hands in the first place.

I think it goes to show that no matter how reasonable an idea can be - note that nothing is going to take guns away from 'Mericans in what I laid out - someone is going to get their panties in a wad because it's different than what they have now.

We are leading the provider of high-quality adult entertainment. We provide high class live sex shows, full body sexy massage, live girls, swing parties and much more.
"http://www.sexyliveduo.com"