Skip to main content

View Diary: Criminally Insane Man arrested with 36 guns (331 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nothing more than home brew - you can make (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    earicicle, Glen The Plumber

    your own beer, mead, wine, fermented beverages at home too.

    But you can't sell them to the public.

    And you can be criminally charged if someone consumes your home brew at your party and kills someone when you let them drive home drunk afterward.

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:10:38 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Which brings us right back to the inevitable: (0+ / 0-)

      This will not prevent individuals from making untraceable munitions, allowing those who would murder with foresight to completely circumnavigate the regulation...

      ... and the expenses that it would impose upon purchasers not intent on breaking the law.

      In short, this regulation would not affect criminals, at least not those with foresight, but would make munitions exponentially more expensive for the law abiding consumer.

      •  Punishment? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        You seem very defensive in that you seem to see punishment around almost every corner of a conversation.

        What's up with that reflexive defensiveness?

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:17:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It would be a burden, and a worthless one. (0+ / 0-)

          Care to address that argument, or is the ad hominem a sign that you concede the point?

          •  Neo, a little clarity seems in order. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            Further, Neo, I confess also, too, that I have a personal weakness. I tend to become very condescending when confronted by ankle biters in gun diaries. It's extremely difficult to insult or intimidate me and I'll admit I can at times really dish it out. I can take it too, so if you think you're winning an argument here, please proceed.

            Here's my farewell advice to you, dear Neo: If you think something I write is unclear your first shot better be your best shot, because I'll respond only if: a) the request is made in good faith and appears genuine b) I agree that there was vagueness or confusing language, or an error in my prior comment.

            If you insist on following me around making inane demands and posting silly questions, well, I reserve the right to mock the shit out of you.

            Or not!

            I believe too strongly in the importance of the legitimate right to keep and bear arms, to set aside the usefulness of humor to diffuse obnoxious and idiotic commenting behavior, such as you have posted in this diary...

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:48:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you concede the point then. (0+ / 0-)

              A concession that admittedly drips with condescension, but to summarize:

              When confronted with the costs associated with a chemical registry of individual rounds, and said registry's ineffectiveness at reducing crime (due to the ease of self-loading rounds) you had no response but the tortured refrain that I was bothering you, and you couldn't be bothered to defend yourself. Never did I resort to insult or logical fallacy, but you partook of both fruits. Sound about right?

      •  More Evidence (0+ / 0-)

        It would provide more evidence in more shootings, more ability to identify and bring to justice shooters. The extra cost of bullets would probably be negligible per bullet. While the vastly reduced cost of investigations and deterrent to those who know they'd be caught is much larger.

        You're saying that if bullets had serial numbers nobody would buy them. Which is not only wrong, but shows you think that everyone who shoots wants to go through a lot of hassle and expense so they can't be identified from the scene of a shooting.

        You don't care whether this would affect criminals or victims. You just worship guns.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 04:05:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It would provide more evidence, (0+ / 0-)

          but the cost of registering each batch of ammunition would be atrocious. The practice of stamping via firing pin would be very easy to circumvent (firing pins are easily replaced.)

          And yes, I'm saying that if bullets were easily traced then those meaning to do murder would make their own, and replace firing pins- just as they now grind down serial numbers.

          Criminals work around the law, and those of us not intent on breaking it still bear the expense of these onerous procedures.

          •  Only Criminals Have Guns Since Guns are Registered (0+ / 0-)

            Most criminals who shoot now don't grind off the serial numbers. Few would engage in the much more complex, risky, time consuming and not in the image of the tough criminal activity of making their own ammo. Just as with serial numbers and gun registration it's not perfect, but catches a lot of people. Especially the dumb ones, who are the majority and who are likely to again do something stupid like shoot someone.

            The cost of registering the serialized ammo is negligible. Point of sale hits a state or Federal website with the ID type and number of the buyer. That can be built into any cash register for a few hundred bucks at most as part of the sale. Across each ammo sale the cost is negligible.

            Your attitude is that nothing can be done to control guns that's worth the cost. Without considering what is proven to have effect, or the actual cost. You're not interested in anything but spinning rejection of simple controls that would save a lot of lives, time and money. You're a gun fetishist.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 02:46:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (181)
  • Community (80)
  • Baltimore (76)
  • Bernie Sanders (57)
  • Civil Rights (46)
  • Freddie Gray (43)
  • Elections (35)
  • Culture (33)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (27)
  • Labor (26)
  • 2016 (24)
  • Education (23)
  • Media (23)
  • Economy (23)
  • Politics (22)
  • Texas (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site