Woman, 92, fires gun after kiss refused

[jpak]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/woman-92-fires-gun-after-kiss-refused/story-e6frf7jx-1226026460991

A 92-YEAR-OLD Florida woman was arrested yesterday after she fired a handgun into her neighbour's house when he refused to give her a kiss.

Helen Staudinger told Marion County sheriff's deputies that she had walked next door to speak with her neighbour, 53-year-old Dwight Bettner, who she said asked her to leave.

Ms Staudinger said she told Mr Bettner she would not leave until he gave her a kiss, the Star-Banner reported.

Ms Staudinger said she and Mr Bettner argued, after which she retrieved a .380 semi-automatic handgun from her home and fired several shots into Mr Bettner's home.

<more>

proving once again - guns are the solution...

not

:D

[Angry Dragon]

1. And she wonders why she never gets asked for a second date

[hlthe2b]

10. Maybe all her "second dates" are at the funeral home...

Geebus!

[pnwmom]

2. But but but

people with legal weapons NEVER use them improperly. It's only the illegal owners, the criminal types, that do that.

:sarcasm:

[rl6214]

5. I don't think ANYONE has ever said that here

If you can prove that it has been said, cite it.

[whoneedstickets]

13. BS, the entire gun rights argument relies on a simple dichotomy

That differentiates law-abiding citizens from criminals. The former should have no restrictions on gun ownership while the latter are the problem group. Clearly this distinction is fallacious.

[pnwmom]

16. Exactly. Because all it takes to move from "law-abiding citizen"

to criminal is to fire your gun illegally.

[rl6214]

20. Cite it

You can't do it.

[whoneedstickets]

22. This is such a BS rhetorical strategy, grow up

[rl6214]

40. You can't just toss out a statement and think that everyone

is going to accept it just because you said so. If you are going to make a stupid statement, you better be willing to prove it to be true.

The BS is spouting out of your mouth.

[one-eyed fat man]

26. If all it takes is equipment and the knowledge

Are you a prostitute?

You should be treated like one simply because you could be?

[whoneedstickets]

28. Ever cross the border? You're treated like a potential smuggler

and asked to demonstrate you're not -- even questioned about your activity. The dichotomy is never so simple.

[rl6214]

43. Bullshit

"You're treated like a potential smuggler"

I live on the border, this is a BS statement. It's all about probable cause. You give the customs inspectors probable cause they will pull you aside for inspection.

[whoneedstickets]

58. Really? you've never filled out the custom's form?

Where you claim you are following the law and attest to this with a signature? Shouldn't we just be able to walk into the country on the honor system since we're all law abiding citizens.

[one-eyed fat man]

93. In 1970 I crossed the border in to Cambodia

Nobody said shit to me.



I crossed a lot of borders in 30 years with a set of military travel orders, a DD Form 2A and a black or maroon passport, hassle free.

[Atypical Liberal]

88. The myth of the "law abiding citizen" who snaps.

Exactly. Because all it takes to move from "law-abiding citizen" to criminal is to fire your gun illegally.

I've presented this countless times before:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

The idea that random, law-abiding citizens just snap and go on criminal sprees in large numbers is a MYTH. Does it happen? Of course it does. But rarely.

Most people who commit homicides with firearms have extensive prior criminal histories. It's almost certainly true for people who commit firearm crimes in general.

"Compare to this a criminologist’s summary of the criminological literature:

The use of life-threatening violence in this country is, in fact, largely restricted to a criminal class and embedded in a general pattern of criminal behavior. . . . Virtually all individuals who become involved in life-threatening violent crime have prior involvement in many types of minor (and not so minor) offenses. . . . The frequency, seriousness, and variety of offending are all strongly predictive of life-threatening violent offending. Even in the case of life-threatening domestic violence, most of these violent offenders have a history of prior involvement in criminal behavior and serious forms of violent crimes."

[petronius]

18. Our entire system of law and justice is based on that distinction - people are not criminals

until they are proved to be. Sounds like you want to erase that principle in one narrow area, and restrict rights for non-criminals merely because they have the technical possibility of becoming criminals. That's the fallacious thinking...

[pnwmom]

30. What is false is to pretend that law-abiding gun owners

never cross the line into using their weapons criminally, as this woman did.

But every time someone says that the problem is with illegal guns used by criminals, not legal guns by law-abiding owners, they are making this false division. The truth is that previously law-abiding owners, like this 92 year old, sometimes end up using their legal guns illegally. And gun control needs to address this, too.

[petronius]

33. Falsely pretending that people pretend that is false, yes

But nobody suggests that gun owners will never cross the line, or that a person who bought a gun legally is somehow incapable of using it illegally in the future.

What is being said is that existence of criminals, and/or the potential that every person has of becoming a criminal, are not in and of themselves valid justifications for restricting rights and limiting freedoms.

There is no false division: criminals are a problem, people who are not criminals are not a problem, passing laws to restrict the second group merely because they have the potential to migrate to the first group would be a very big problem indeed (notice I didn't mention gun laws in this paragraph).

[one-eyed fat man]

37. same thing, moms being sluts

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Livermore-Mom-in-Court-for-Sex-With-Boys-Case-100267609.html

A Livermore woman charged with having sex with two teenage boys over the course of two years is scheduled to enter a plea in court today.

Christine Shreeve Hubbs is charged with 67 sexual assault counts in connection to the case. Investigators say she sent sexually explicit messages and nude pictures of herself to the boys, who were 13 when the alleged crimes began, and coordinated times to pick them up in her Hummer to drive them around have sex with them in various parts of the city. She allegedly gave the boys gifts, bought them dinners, pre-paid gift cards and video game consoles.

So we should put extra restrictions on all middle aged women because because a handful screw the paper boy?

[pnwmom]

39. Middle aged women are human beings.

Guns are inanimate weapons that can be used to kill human beings.

In case you didn't know the difference.

[one-eyed fat man]

53. In case YOU haven't noticed

You are demanding restrictions on all gun owners because of the wrongful actions of a criminal or mindless minority.

Perforce your very same logic, why not impose restrictions on middle aged women because of the action of a round heeled minority?

Like it or not there is no Division of Pre-Crime. Just because you know how and possess all the needed "equipment" to have sex with a 12 year old boy when, if, or until you actually commit the crime you are not guilty of anything.

Thinking like you, we could eliminate rape in a generation, simply by drowning all male babies at birth.

[whoneedstickets]

56. There's the dichotomy again..

Clearly there is the camp of the pure and the impure and the two have no overlap.

The inability for the gun rights crowd to come to terms with the idea that the boundary between citizen and criminal is permeable, and accept reasonable limits on access to and deadliness of weapons, is really astonishing.

[X_Digger]

59. When we have actual statistics to back up our assertions, it helps..

Things like the conviction rates of those in Texas who have a permit, versus the general public..



Folks who qualify for and get permits tend to be the sort who are rather law-abiding (or as one poster insinuated, they're supah-ninjahs adept at evading detection and capture.)

[whoneedstickets]

65. You're making my case for me, CHL holders have a higher standard

for licensing and training ect..

Seems that's what I've been saying all along. There aren't two classes of people, criminals and citizens. There appear to be citizens of varying levels of competence and trustworthiness just as there are those who may be less.

Are you getting this now?

[BrookBrew]

68. Nope, its self selection. If you looked at doctors or airline flight crew

you would find similar patterns. In many states (vt) there is no ccw test.

[whoneedstickets]

70. whatever the basis, the point's the same

There is no simple dichotomy between criminals and citizens. Even among the self-selected responsible your figure shows some criminal activity.

[BrookBrew]

71. Yep, people drink and drive, it sucks. 18th is still dead, just like gun control

its gone, never coming back. The antis can only count on emotional responses now. No fact backs the position at all.

But I will probably have a beer this weekend, a nice legal beer.

[whoneedstickets]

73. Buddy? I'm not sure what the 18th has to do with this.

I've never mentioned prohibition, or confiscation.

You need to learn to read.

[BrookBrew]

74. All about the meaning of "intoxicating"

in this case screwing with laws around mag caps and folding stocks. Prohibition never confiscated, it only made sale and transfer illegal of grandfathered stocks. Then prohibited new products.

It was just a fancy regulation through tax.

Gun control in the form of the AWB was much the same. Like prohibition it failed nationally and is failing in CA.

Alcohol kills lots of people, but is still legal. Firearms will fall under that category.

[Atypical Liberal]

90. Incorrect.

There is no simple dichotomy between criminals and citizens.

This is provably false with just the mildest attempt at research.

http://www.uchastings.edu/hlj/archive/vol60/Kates-Cramer_60-HLJ-1339.pdf

"Perpetrator data dating back to the nineteenth century invariably
shows that murderers were not previously law-abiding, responsible
adults; rather, “most murderers differ little from other major criminals.”17
Perpetrator studies dating back to the nineteenth century invariably find
that the overwhelming majority of murderers have prior crime records;
this so well recognized by criminologists that it is now counted among the
“criminological axioms.”18 But given the wide dissemination and political
importance of the ordinary-citizen-as-murderer canard, we briefly review
some of the more recent contributions to the vast corpus of contrary
criminological study conclusions:

• “he vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening
violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts
with the justice system.”19
• Homicide is usually part of a “pattern of violence,” engaged in by
people who are known as violence prone.20
• Psychological studies summarized as finding that 80% to 100% of
juvenile murderers are psychotic or have psychotic symptoms.21
• Though only 15% of Americans have criminal records, roughly
90% of adult murderers have adult records (exclusive of their
often extensive juvenile records), with an average adult crime
career of six or more years, including four major felonies.22
• A New York Times study of the 1662 murders in that city in the
years 2003 through 2005 found that “ore than ninety percent
of the killers had criminal records.”23
• “Some 95% of homicide offenders . . . study had been] arraigned at least once in Massachusetts courts
before they . . . . On average . . . homicide offenders
had been arraigned for 9 prior offenses . . . .”24
• “A history of domestic violence was present in 95.8%” of the
intrafamily homicides studied.25
• Of Illinois murderers in 1991 through 2000, the great majority
had prior felony records.26
• Eighty percent of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had previously
been arrested at least once for a drug offense, and 70% had three
or more prior drug arrests, in addition to all their arrests for
other crimes.27
• Baltimore police records show that 92% of 2006 murder suspects
had criminal records.28
• From a Milwaukee police compilation of data on 2007 and past
years’ murders: “Most suspects had criminal records, and a
quarter of them were on probation or parole.”29"

[X_Digger]

69. 9% of Texans have a disqualifying factor that would preclude them from having a CHL

That means that 91% would qualify.

Why would you restrict the 91% over the actions of 9%?

What percentage of those who commit violent crime have no previous record?

A vanishingly small number.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=24

[petronius]

75. You started this whole discussion by claiming that the gun-rights argument is based

on the magical belief that gun-owners never become criminals - you haven't made that case at all (in fact, it looks like you've abandoned it).

What people are telling you is that any further restrictions on the rights and privileges of gun-owners (or anyone else) must be based on real, measurable, significant justifications - not merely the fact that a person could become a criminal someday...

[whoneedstickets]

72. There are 14 disqualifiying conditions for CHL in Texas

AND a Hangun proficiency requirement.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/InternetForms/Forms/CHL-16.pdf

Clearly Texas is differentiating between average citizens and those competent enough for concealed carry.

[X_Digger]

81. You've yet to demonstrate someone saying that nobody in the first class moves to the second..

Even the graph I posted shows that to not be the case.

Rare does not equate to never.

Or have you given up that line of argument? ("Clearly there is the camp of the pure and the impure and the two have no overlap.")

[Atypical Liberal]

91. Many states, however, are dropping the requirement.

Clearly Texas is differentiating between average citizens and those competent enough for concealed carry.

Many states have already or are considering dropping this differentiation. You know why? It's not worth the cost. People who bother to pay the fees and navigate the bureaucracy to be able to carry a firearm voluntarily submit themselves to the inconvenience because they are trying to obey the absolute letter of the law concerning carrying a firearm. It thus is no surprise that these people tend to be law-abiding in general. As the rate of overall convictions for CCW-permit holders shows by states that publish them, like Texas, people with CCW permits are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

So states are rightfully asking themselves, "Why are we running a service of government, with all its related expenses, just to monitor these people who hardly ever break the law? These people carrying firearms clearly is not a problem, and the people who are a problem don't bother with concealed carry permits!

[one-eyed fat man]

78. It is no more permeable

than the boundary between Pollyanna or pervert.

What keeps you from drowning your errant offspring in a bathtub? Do you see things in stores you want and simply pocket them when no one is looking? When you smoke weed do you deny your money is used to kill Mexicans by the boatload?

Reasonable limits? There are laws against all the criminal, most of the negligent, and some of the stupid things a person do with guns. We have laws against proscribing their possession by convicted felons and the insane. What you want is a law that prohibits gun ownership by those who haven't done anything, as you so plainly put it, YET.

For you the simple ownership of a gun somehow turns the owner into some kind of spree killer just waiting to be triggered by a traffic jam, and the failed air conditioner in his POS Chevette.

[Atypical Liberal]

89. FANTASTIC POINT!

Middle aged women are human beings. Guns are inanimate weapons that can be used to kill human beings.

Guns are used by human beings.

[Marengo]

94. Can you promise us that you will NEVER "cross the line"

and use one of your kitchen knives criminally? Can you promise us you will NEVER "snap" and injure or kill someone with a knife you legally posses at this time?

[rrneck]

19. As is your logic.

The dichotomy stems from hyper partisanship and the need for simple answers to complex questions.

[Atypical Liberal]

86. It is NOT fallacious!

That differentiates law-abiding citizens from criminals. The former should have no restrictions on gun ownership while the latter are the problem group. Clearly this distinction is fallacious.

It is NOT fallacious!!!!

How many times does this data have to be presented?

Over 97% of firearm owners CANNOT be involved in violent crime every year, because THERE AREN'T ENOUGH VIOLENT CRIMES TO GO AROUND THEM ALL.

When you look at the people who actually commit homicide with firearms, they almost always have extensive prior criminal histories that would preclude them from even owning firearms!

Look at the data!

[pnwmom]

14. I've seen one variation or another hundreds of times.

But I don't bookmark stupid posts.

[rl6214]

21. You can't do it

that's why you won't.

[whoneedstickets]

23. I'll play your "show me a cite game"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x332668

the OP has an op-ed arguing exactly this. We can sell surplus arms to citizens who will "Never use them illegally"

[Common Sense Party]

29. You're hallucinating.

The OP is not "arguing exactly this."

[rl6214]

44. You are basing your assertion on this one sentence?

"Where is the harm in selling a $500 or $1,000 firearm to an honest citizen who would never use that gun in a crime?"

In that entire op ed you picked out this one sentence, which was not posed by the OP but in an article he referenced.

You are reaching quite a bit to try to prove your point.

[whoneedstickets]

47. You asked for a quote, I found you one, now you balk...

I guess you were full of shit all along.

[whoneedstickets]

24. Here is the simple dichotomy at work

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x312523

[rl6214]

45. Still haven't proven anything

[whoneedstickets]

27. Here is one claiming automatic weapons are never used in crimes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x231725



The word law-abiding and never are thrown around a lot by the gun lobby on DU

[GreenStormCloud]

35. LEGALLY owned full-auto weapons aren't used in crime.

The key word is LEGALLY. A legal full auto costs tens of thousands of dollars. An illegal full auto can be found on the street for less. But illegal guns are already illegal. Passing a law punishing legal guns owners would not do anything about illegal guns.

[X_Digger]

42. Hint, that is someone on your side, repeating the same schtick.. n/t

[pnwmom]

32. You won't acknowledge the examples, no matter how many there are.

But this is the kind of thing that is said time after time after time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x312523

"Gun control should be focused on taking illegal firearms from criminals rather than taking legal firearms from honest citizens."

This type of statement is based on the false assumption that "honest citizens" with "legal firearms" never go on to use their weapons in a criminal way. 92 year old ladies with no priors and legal guns would NEVER go on to shoot a neighbor.

Yeah, right.

[PavePusher]

41. No, it's based on the premise that firearms should only be taken from people....

who actually misuse them, aka "commit a crime", or present clear evidence of being a danger to those around them, and leave lawful people the hell alone.

Unless you crystal ball has a documented record of accuracy, but I fucking doubt it.

[pnwmom]

48. We could start with requiring registration so as to keep guns out of the hands

of drug abusers, alcohol abusers, wife- and child- beaters, and people with mental illness. No, we couldn't identify all people with these problems, but we could reduce the risks. For example, people with DUI's should have to give up their guns for at least a period of time. Alcoholics shouldn't be able to have guns. People with protection orders shouldn't be allowed to have guns. (They're not supposed to now, but it's not enforced.)

[PavePusher]

49. Please, explain how car registration...

keeps cars out of the hands of the dangerous or incompetent, then describe how this mechanism will work with guns.

I'm all ears.

[pnwmom]

52. It's an imperfect system, but it does keep cars out of the hands

of many people who shouldn't be driving. Most people with suspended licenses don't drive, because of the penalties if they do.

By the way, you could ask the same question as to why we have laws against ANYTHING. Sure, some people won't follow them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any laws.

[PavePusher]

54. Wrong. Vehicle registration does nothing for safety.

Vehicle registration is about fees and taxes, nothing more.

We have all the laws we need. Laws against murder, and causing or threatening harm to others outside of justifiable self-defense.

What other laws do we need and why?

[whoneedstickets]

66. Fees and taxes raise revenue for law enforcement..

really, you're not that dense are you?

[PavePusher]

87. Vehicle registration fees and taxes go to law enforcement?

Not in any state I know of, but if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad to see it.

Firearms already have a Federal tax on them, something like 11% IIRC. I believe it goes to fund the Fish & Wildlife service.

Yep, I was right: http://www.ttb.gov/firearms/faet-faqs.shtml

Dense? Nope, just able to do teh Google.

[pnwmom]

76. "We have all the laws we need." That's funny.

Tell that to all the people who lost money when the economy crashed because of the lack of laws regulating the financial system.
Tell that to all the people who've been dumped by their health insurers when they get sick after years of making payments.
Tell that to anyone who's lost a family member because it is so easy for disturbed people to acquire guns.
Tell that to Gabby Giffords and her family. Tell her why we don't need better laws to keep people like Jarred Loughner from easily acquiring guns that can kill dozens of people in a few seconds.

[PavePusher]

85. Again, what law do you propose....

that is not merely another way of saying what I said?

[pnwmom]

95. I just named several situations that are not adequately addressed by current laws.

Your blanket statement about current law being adequate contains many gaping holes.

[PavePusher]

96. We are discussing laws about guns and gun-related crime here.

Please, name some specifics.

[gejohnston]

97. You could tell them this

Wall Street and Health care reform are red herrings except for this small tidbit:
How about informing them that Jan Brewer closed all of the community mental health centers in Pima County, which prevented Mr. Loughner's family and girl friend from getting him affordable help. So yeah, blood is on Brewer's hands.
He would have slipped through the cracks In Canada and most of Europe and even if he didn't, his drug connection would be able to get it for him. He planned this for months.

[pnwmom]

77. If we had gun registration linked to actual enforcement,

then we could, for example, make sure disturbed people like Jarred Loughner couldn't easily buy a gun. He was a walking time bomb and everyone around him knew it. No one with a recent history of psychosis or drug addiction or violent crime should be able to purchase a gun.

(Loughner has not yet been proven to be psychotic, but it seems quite likely that he will be. And nothing prevented him from buying that gun.)

[X_Digger]

82. How would registration have stopped Loughner?!?

Care to try that one, again?

[PavePusher]

83. The only method I can see for carrying out your desire....

is to institute a Bureau of Pre-Crime.

You do know that was only a fictional movie, right?

[gejohnston]

98. That is current law

Are you saying you are for prior restraint? Police and the gun dealer is supposed to magically read his mind? Need to put some deeper thought about this. To my way of thinking, if everyone around him knew it (including family and girl friend) and tried to do nothing like seeking help or having him committed by a judge, they have some moral responsibility.

[udbcrzy2]

8. She physically assaulted another woman also

She doesn't need a gun - she is a weapon.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. I too, like to respond to useless anecdotes, with huge strawmen.

[Atypical Liberal]

84. No one says they NEVER use them improperly.

But but but people with legal weapons NEVER use them improperly. It's only the illegal owners, the criminal types, that do that.

No one says that people with legal weapons never use them improperly. Just that it is extremely rare for them to do so.

There are 40-80 MILLION firearm owners in this country. But there are only about a million violent crimes of all kinds committed every year. This means that even if every single violent crime, firearm-related or not, was committed by a firearm owner, this would mean that 97.5% or more of firearm owners are not involved. They can't be - there just aren't enough crimes to go around the vast number of firearm owners!

Moreover, when you look at the background of people who commit homicide with firearms (and this is almost certainly true for people who commit other firearm-related crimes also), they almost always have extensive criminal histories.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

[Kennah]

100. You only get one shot at being a first time offender. This was hers.

[rl6214]

3. She's 92 years old, he should have humored her with a kiss

YUP

YUP

YUP

[jpak]

12. Castle Doctrine

yup

[GreenStormCloud]

36. False. N/T

[Remmah2]

79. NO: False Teeth!

Nothing worse than French kissing grandma's gums.

[udbcrzy2]

4. Wow, she's feisty

That's how it happens all the time. One person is rejected by another and BAM! I wonder what they will do with a 92-year-old woman as far as the criminal part of it? She is already collecting SS benefits, so they can't argue about cost. I really think she needs to be held accountable for her actions.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Don't fuck with Granny

[PavePusher]

7. Actually, it sounds like that was the problem....

:rofl:

[Ian David]

9. Florida. This shit always seems to happen in Florida. n/t

[monmouth]

15. Oh gawd, you don't know the half of it....n/t

[udbcrzy2]

17. Yes, you are right about that

Just recently a senior was sentenced for shooting his friend during a card game.
http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/29/richard-fortner-sentenced-to-20-years-for-manslaughter/

[spin]

31. I'm divorced and live in Florida, and I seem to attract some of these ...

older women.

The last one used to stop when she was walking down the street if she noticed me sitting on the porch and talk for a while. For a while I enjoyed talking to her as she was a former school teacher and knew a lot about the history of the town I live in.

One time she told me how she had bought a Taurus Judge for self defense.



Unfortunately she decided to take it to the courthouse to show the judge. Fortunately she wasn't arrested. The Judge called her son and he confiscated her Judge.

I finally began to suspect that she was interested in more than conversation and had to quit sitting on the porch. My daughter would tell the lady that I wasn't home when she knocked on the door.

I don't need an older Florida woman as a girl friend, especially one who likes to drink excessively and who likes enormous firearms. I enjoy my life far too much for that.

[PavePusher]

38. Oh come on.... What could possibly go wrong?! 8>) n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

25. Bettner got the better end of the deal.

Whether he knows it or not.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. The US population is about 310 million.

Some few of them will misuse a gun. That is no reason to take my guns away or restrict my firearms rights.

[whoneedstickets]

46. When the result of misuse is dead people...

Yes, it is. Firearms rights, like any right may be restricted under the strict scrutiny test. Given a compelling governmental interest and a narrowly tailored action to achieve the outcome, rights can (and are) restricted. I can see no more compelling government interest than the reduction of unnecessary citizen deaths.

[PavePusher]

50. So, when does your advocacy for car bans go into effect? n/t

[whoneedstickets]

55. Now that you brought it up, the driving license is a great model.

Mandatory competency tests and screenings with re-testing or restriction for age or impairment.
An annual fee or tax to cover some enforcement costs.
Careful tracking of vehicle serial numbers including private sales.
Fundamental safety equipment regulations for use in public areas.
Mandatory 3rd party liability insurance.

I'd be DELIGHTED to see something like vehicle operating rules applied to guns.

[PavePusher]

57. Only if we can apply similar measures to ALL of our Civil Rights.

I want to see proof of competency for voting, a fee paid for use of the Fourth Amendment, written permission from the Government to allow for the Fifth Amendment exercise, and proof of training for the Thirteenth Amendment, otherwise, you're fair game for the market, and insurance coverage for the First Amendment.

See what I did there?

[whoneedstickets]

61. We do.

We do have a voting competency measure - age.

Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances.

Fee on your first amendment rights:
"Government officials may not impose restrictions on protests or parades or other lawful assemblies in order to censor a particular viewpoint or because they dislike the content of the message. However, they may impose some limitations on assembly rights by enacting reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions designed to further legitimate regulatory objectives, such as preventing traffic congestion or prohibiting interference with nearby activities. Those who protest and march may also have to pay a permit fee as long as the fee is reasonable and officials do not withhold the permit because of their unpopular views."

Need I go on...see what I did there. Its called facts!

[BrookBrew]

62. And its called votes. Which do not currently and will never support this

gun control is gone. The proponents are like the ASL (once powerful and now trash) they have been passed by.

No one who relies on votes for pubic office will pass gun control restrictions. Enforcement , sure, bans on bullshit like mags cap, bayonet lugs and such are long gone.

Like prohibition.

[whoneedstickets]

64. For now...

I'm a progressive so I am holding on to my dreams of civilized society.

[BrookBrew]

67. The 18th will be back on the books

before any more restrictions make it. Enforcement is great, no one would object.

Propose more pee down my leg, dont expect my vote. That message seems to be resonating.

[X_Digger]

63. Cantwell v Connecticut, Talley v California.. next? n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

92. The driving license IS a great model.

I'd be DELIGHTED to see something like vehicle operating rules applied to guns.


Well, I'm glad we agree!

You don't need a license to operate a motor vehicle used on private property.
You don't need to register, tag, or insure a motor vehicle used on private property.

Only if you want to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads do you need those things.

Firearms are already very much the same way.

I'm glad we agree!

[BrookBrew]

51. ANTI SALOON LEAGUE... Classic

prohibition speak. Booze kill people, we tried to ban it. That failed.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. But taking away my guns does nothing to stop criminal misuse.

Criminals will get gun anyway. At any rate, those like yourself who wish to ban guns lose at elections. We who are pro-gun are winning election after electionl

[gejohnston]

99. Other than

the lack of scientific or historical evidence that it will?

[Remmah2]

80. This lady was alive during Prohibition too.

Where did prohibition get us?