So, unless a rule can be enforced in a way that guarantees that it will never be violated or that all violations of the rule will be punished, we shouldn't have the rule?

ETA: Just saw your ninja edit, and glad you weren't making a substantive critique... I am sorry about the 'lil Ronnie Lott who prematurely ended your football career tho. He's a punk.

Obama about to announce his gun control plan.

Wish I could watch this press conference, stupid ipad

And NO, autocorrect, I will NOT let you capitalize the p in ipad. You can capitalize it when you can stream live flash media!

This is more political than I thought he would be at a vigil

what an absurd mindset most of these pro-gun citizens have. it would almost be hilarious if it wasn't so frightening. The US is truly a screwed up place when it comes to this issue. For a supposed leader of the free world to live under such an antiquated constitution under the guise of 'freedom' is mind blowing to say the least.

Stop dancing around it Barack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2311009.html

Brady just threw an INT.

Racist ban.

erm...Maybe not. Setting us up for a policy statement tomorrow

Disappointed in Barack. Now was the time to say something specific, or at least reference that he will be taking specific action in future. So he promised to address the problem of gun violence but said nothing about when and how.

Good read. Movie along those same lines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Need...vin_%28film%29

Also, from a link in that article:

It's a vigil, not a policy speech.

I suppose he didn't want to be super-political in that place at this time. Fine as far as it goes, but if he doesn't actually do anything or use the bully pulpit to propose specific changes I will be pissed. Particularly since he's never running for anything ever again.

There's a good plan. Let's go after all the big game hunting weapons, surely there won't be much opposition to that move

I'm just gonna plunk this down here for those who might not see it in the other thread.



See what people think about it. Short video and all.

banning large magazines...i mean fine, whatever. it's not like the technology is complicated though. it's something you could make in your garage if you're handy.

Do you think Adam had street smarts? Can you hear yourself talk?

Thinking we can get the media not to cover mass shootings in a sensationalized way is less realistic than thinking we can get all mentally unstable people sufficient counseling or ban all guns in America.

First of all let's address your false equivalence, because I would think that even a moran should be able to determine that guns and alcohol are NOT THE SAME THING. Guns are weapons designed to hurt others, alcohol is a drug designed for a lot of things, the most common being making liquid refreshment more better. Alcohol may have some disastrous side effects but the one thing you can't do with it is walk into a school and kill 20 eight-year-olds.

That said, even alcohol is already strongly regulated, whereby you can't drink some and drive, you can't drink it if you're underage, and you can't even sell it or make it unless you're a licensed dealer or manufacturer and there is probably all kinds of rigamarole you have to go through to get such a license. Hell in some places even right there in the USA you can't even buy it at all.

And with all that, the main point I'd make is that regulating dangerous stuff isn't a competition, it's a matter of doing the things that will actually work. I can't really look around the world and find a (non-Islamic) nation that has successfully banned alcohol and after doing so seen a dramatic decrease in the number of alcohol-related deaths, but I can sure as hell point to quite a few that have heavily regulated the act of purchasing firearms and/or banned them altogether and seen a dramatic drop in the firearm related deaths. So why not do that? We control other dangerous stuff, from alcohol manufacturing to driving to flying a plane to you name it. Why not guns?

The bottom line is that in the real world you just can't save everyone. The 24,000 who according to you die yearly from alcohol might be helped by some more regulation of alcohol, but they might also be doomed regardless. However we may be able to save some percentage of the 10,000 killed by firearms each year by enacting some sensible regulations.

Regardless there is still some type of arms that you simply can't buy, and that's because they're banned. The point isn't whether the government CAN do it, they clearly can. The point is whether small arms are dangerous enough to warrant more controls. With 10,000+ deaths per year, I say yes.

Went to get some cleaning supplies, a few flashlights and some other accessories at the gun store. There were 36 people inside ahead of me. Before I left there were 21 AR-15 transactions.

A few lowers, mostly people picking theirs up or paying for one to start the waiting period. They said it had been busier throughout the day.

This distills and clarifies what makes America truly great.

...It is judgment that defeats us.

Because the intruder will be extra dead if you get to shoot him with a really powerful gun.

not the same kind of alcohol, genius.

Any word on the Westboro Baptist Church and their plans to protest the funerals of the victims?