Clever*. You introduced the DUI comparison and then cast aspersions on other comparisons not made. I think it’s clear who should be taken seriously.
*not really - this is mockery.
I know it makes your nipples hard to cite death totals and shit, but I didn’t bring up any DUI comparisons. I brought up your dopey notion of what control is. You want unfettered access to guns, no matter what. I, cleverly (thanks), pointed out that there is nothing in there that approaches sensible gun-control laws. That is insensible, gun-free-fire laws. Hence my oh so hilarious skit involving mowing down nuns and children.
The old trick, address the comment you wish they would have made.
I’d accept any gun-control laws that would pass the same strict-scrutiny standard that applies to freedom of the press or of religion. Until such is held by the SCOTUS to be enshrined in the 2nd Amendment, then gun owners have to fight “sensible” gun-control because too many people consider sensible to mean a government monopoly on firearms.
“Freedom of speech,” applies to burning a flag. I’m okay with that concept, but you should not feel free to read the Second Amendment as narrowly as you possibly can while at the same time read the First Amendment so expansively. Pick a standard and apply it consistently.
Because, by golly, life is simple and one is just the same as the other. In fact, why don’t we make it one great big amendment and stick all our rights in it and enforce them all absolutely equally? Why shouldn’t I have the right to fire off a weapon every time someone else fires off their mouth?
Bunch of people were wounded as well. Police confiscated over 100 weapons and arrested 170 people. Seeing as this was Texas, the guns were likely to have been legal.
As many as four of the deaths may have been due to police shootings. (Would seem to have been well justified.)
The cops were on site and the bikers knew and did not care anyway.
I’m half expecting at least one right wing blogger to say this incident is a provocation to justify the Jade Helm 15 takeover. I won’t be reading wingnut blogs to prove myself correct.
Violent criminals perform acts of violent crime. Your penetrating insight that allowed you to pick up on this should be the envy of sociologists worldwide. Bravo, sir, bravo.
Good point. Hell I’m surprised it even made the news. It’s not like the deaths even reached double digits. Just another weekend in Texas, really, when you think about it.
I’m starting to get the feeling that you are getting your information from a very very old pamphlet or an ill informed web sites run by people who have never fired a gun.
You don’t need subsonic rounds to suppress sound with a suppressor. In the sentences immediately preceding the sentences you quote from wikipedia, it says:
"The actual suppression of sound ranged from 14.3 to 43 dB, with most data points around the 30 dB mark. A notable example is the De Lisle carbine, a British World War II suppressed rifle used in small numbers by Special Forces. This was recorded at 85.5 dB in official firing tests.[31]
Comparatively, ear protection commonly used while shooting provides 18 to 32 dB of sound reduction at the ear.[32] Further, chainsaws, rock concerts, rocket engines, pneumatic drills, small firecrackers, and ambulance sirens are rated at 100 to 140 dB.[33]"
So… yeah, you either started reading the wiki cite in the middle of a section or you intentionally decided to leave out the part where it says that suppressors are about as effective as ear plugs.
The second amendment is here to stay and all your impotent ranting is not going to change that. So if you have any good ideas that are consistent with the second amendment then lets hear them but all we hear from the hoplophobes is some variant of banning guns.