Report: Connecticut gunman tried to buy rifle — but was denied

your predictions regarding the outcome of policy battles and elections have so far been proven pathetically wrong.

sesquipedalian on December 15, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Really? Care to document that?

Because I was right about Citizens United, Heller, McDonald, Obama winning in 08, the 2010 midterms (both us winning the House and us not winning the Senate), Brown winning his special election, O’Donnell beating Castle and then losing to Coons, Walker winning his recall election. and Kloppenburg losing the judicial election. I also have multiple posts on this site stating that our side has lost the battle on gay marriage and lost the battle on the drug war, and we need to re-focus elsewhere. All of those are documented on this website, except for the Obama win in 2008.

I was wrong about the Obamacare ruling and the 2012 POTUS election. Seems like a pretty good record to me.

Care to compare our predictive records, sesqui?

Yeah, didn’t think so.

Keep this post for eternity if you want it. It’ll still be true when both of us are dust. You’re not going to take guns away from Americans, and it’s better for your health if you just quit worrying about it, because it’s a losing battle.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 15, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Sesqui, you still haven’t answered:

1. Who is going to remove all the guns from their current legal owners after you pass this new Constitutional amendment?

2. How are we going to pay for all the new enforcement of gun laws on top of the “war on drugs”?

3. How are you going to stop people from smuggling guns in illegally, if we can’t currently stop people from smuggling drugs in illegally?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 15, 2012 at 4:51 PM

the fact that the murdered mother, while living in one of the safest places on earth, had an arsenal of high-powered weapons and a bonkers son at home is a completely different issue.

sesquipedalian on December 15, 2012 at 4:56 PM

She had, as far as we know, two handguns and a rifle. Hardly an arsenal. And her son murdered her to steal them.

Also, you’re right; the real issue, which you keep avoiding, is how this country treats mental illness. Your side, kings of equivocation and a culture of ‘everyone is equal and everything is okay,’ breeds this environment where people are afraid to admit that maybe their friend/son/boyfriend/father/co-worker is a sick person who needs help. Every single one of these spree killers in the past decade and a half, from Klebold and Harris to Holmes and Lanza, have fit an identical profile: young male loners who exhibited warning signs of dangerous mental instability. Most have been white, and most have been of at least above-average intelligence. All of them had families/friends/teachers/other authority members who didn’t go out of their way to get them the help they needed.

These spree killers represent about .001% of gun owners/users, but your solution is to target all guns, instead of targeting young at-risk males and institutionalizing them before they hurt themselves and others. Unlike your solution, this doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment. We already have the infrastructure and laws in place to involuntarily commit people who are potentially a danger. The problem is, we’ve stigmatized the process, and people are now reluctant to use it. Parents, being fed a lie for decades about how their kids are special perfect little angels, don’t want to admit that their child needs serious psychiatric help.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 15, 2012 at 5:06 PM

1. there will be some lenience with current owners as long as they pass a more extensive background checks. no semi-automatic assault weapons, though. most people will drop those off at the local precinct/sheriff’s office voluntarily.

2. we’ll sell the guns to third world dictators to use against their own people. we’ll tax gun sales, obviously. you know, like tobacco.

3. guns won’t be as big a business, so smugglers won’t bother.

sesquipedalian on December 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM

1. Why would “most people drop those off…voluntarily”? What benefit would they receive? Do you know a single person who owns a ‘semi-automatic “assault weapon”‘? What makes you think they’d voluntarily give up their guns?

2. The part you struck out is probably a lot more accurate, knowing Obama and Holder, though they’d probably just give them away to people like Assad. Also, with such restrictive gun laws, tax money from sales wouldn’t nearly raise enough for enforcement.

3. Yeah, just like smugglers didn’t bother with alcohol during prohibition, and just like they don’t bother with weed now, because it’s “small potatoes.”

The US currently has the most guns by capita of any country in the world, and you are proposing to confiscate most of them, and you think there wouldn’t be a substantial enough black market for guns to necessitate smuggling?

Your policy suggestions, as I predicted they would be, are naive and laughable, and are based on assumptions that don’t mirror the facts.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 15, 2012 at 5:19 PM

at least i’m not taking myself seriously.

sesquipedalian on December 15, 2012 at 5:17 PM

So you’re admitting that you’re just trolling and you know there’s a better chance of Rush Limbaugh being elected President in 2016 than there is of an anti-gun amendment being ratified by 38 states?

Good to know. It’s refreshing that even someone as clueless as you can see stark reality when it continues to punch them in the mouth.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 15, 2012 at 5:21 PM

in all seriousness, i don’t really think any of this will happen anytime soon. of course liberals don’t look like winning the gun issue in the near future. but things you today think are impossible may well come true.

sesquipedalian on December 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Sure, the tide may reverse on gay marriage, and the right might win the battle on Roe v. Wade, but I’m not banking on either one. Liberals/Progressive have a lot of policy positions they’re winning on/close to winning on, like gay marriage and health care, and some positions that they have a decent chance to win on, like global warming. It wouldn’t really make sense to focus so much energy on a pipe dream like getting rid of the 2A with a new amendment.

Meanwhile, instead of trying to gore the other side’s ox, I’d rather salvage something from this tragedy and actually have a serious nationwide dialogue (which is something Democrats love having, right?) about mental illness and the ability for worried family members/mental health professionals to involuntarily commit people who are a danger to themselves and others. It’s a sensitive issue, but it’s one we have to address at some point, because for every James Holmes who acts on his impulses there are 100 copycats who are close to snapping and who need help desperately.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM