CNN - Sachs: A Modest Proposal On Guns

Jeffrey Sachs is a professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University.

Sachs: A modest proposal on guns

Damn , that first line clears up the entire thread for me.
If that isnt someone learned on the subject , I dont know who is
End VENOM DRIPPING SARCASM

originally posted by: Garmanarnar

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: infolurker

I inherited a handgun this year. First one I've ever owned. My wife put in the safe, which is a BAD IDEA.

If a burglar comes in our house while we're sleep, do you think he will stand still while I try to remember the safe combination, and then open it to retrieve the gun, load the gun, and shoot him?

If you're getting burgled by armed assailants so often you need a firearm at hand have you never thought of moving?
After the second time of being burgled I would look for a nicer area rather than buy a hand cannon.

Most have never been robbed. But then most are intelligent enough to know it COULD happen, so they prepare. If I was uninformed, I'd likely read more and post less.

a reply to: infolurker

Gotta Love CNN for their Modesty. Please Mr. Government, can I have my gun for bit? I promise I'll return it by sundown.

every time they cine back around with another gun ban idea, they call it a modest compromise.


Maybe we're going about this wrong, I propose a modest compromise where I get back all of the rights to own firearms they've already taken away.
starting with suppressors. hunting with ear muffs on sucks.

a reply to: infolurker

CNN can kiss my armed ass!

Sachs: A modest proposal on guns

I don't think they know what modest means.

(CNN)The Las Vegas massacre earlier this month opened a new chapter in the gun debate. Most gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, accept that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not the same thing as a right to any kind of weapon, anywhere, anytime, by anyone. It is a limited

They LIE.

That's exactly what the second amendment says, and a whole lot of OTHER amendments.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: infolurker

Yeeeeaaaaaaaahhh. That's an idea that's going nowhere fast. There's no popular support for anything like this and I can't see that changing any time in the near future.

But more importantly, there's nothing "modest" or 'common-sense' about the proposal. Popular support really should have nothing to do with this one...

a reply to: infolurker

I would like to state that any person who is lucky enough to hold an administrative office in our .gov, has Sworn to uphold and protect our constitution. That includes the 2nd. Anyone trying to infringe on our right to have firearms is already breaking that oath.

The second ammendment is clearly the only thing standing between us and the trampling effect of corporate owned .gov "employees." We the people are the owners of this entity. They are our employees. Those who pay lobbyists or politicians for favorable legislation are circumventing the rest of us.

If, in some way, they have, or plan on taking that away from us, or they have compromised our stock in this country, by signing some papers, with outside entities/UN/other nations/secret societies/demons/aliens, then these weapons are our only way to get it back.

Way too many times have they asked us to compromise, only to have them jab their finger in our eyes so we don't see what they are distracting us with.

The only amendment to the second i am willing to consider, is one that makes it a jailable offence to try and change it in any way.

Get money out of politics and end corporate lobbying. Politicians should not be allowed to accept bribes of any kind. Just like college football players. this used to be the case until our employees wrote a piece of paper that said that it's ok now !!

Get long term office holders OUT!!

Put limits on corporate profits!!

Fix corporate tax loopholes, tax havens, and force corps to repatriate their money. OUR MONEY!!

End this out of control gov spy program.

Then we will end up like Germany,
They wanted their gold that the US was holding for them and were told no, and weren't even allowed to look at it.
I don't see this soulition going any different.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No, you're not.

Nothing to be sorry about. ...and you were right.

a reply to: Garmanarnar

So your answer is to, in essence, run away??

Crime can happen anywhere, at anytime...yes, even in "nicer areas". Might want to give that some thought.

Having a "hand cannon", to use your terminology, is much like having a fire extinguisher handy. Don't want to use it, but it's nice to have when it is--isn't it?

I had to keep my guns at a central location once, while living on base.

When I PCS'd I got back the guns, not the ammo and they had clearly been fired and not cleaned, I basically got told to suck it up.

Yea F that idea.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Oh, that'd have pissed me off.

As I imagine it did you. No where to go about that? That's got to violate any number of rules and regs...

Question: Why do criminals rob gun stores?

Answer: Because there is a large collection of firearms inside.

a reply to: seagull

Oh yea it was against a number of regulations, but I only saw the papers that I signed, I had no idea about what kind of paperwork that went on in the armory.

Once upon a time at my first base I saw Security Forces target someone that screwed over a cop, and the USAF is not that big you are never more than a phone call away and then I end up getting hassled at my new base.

Chief told me you can raise a fuss, file a report with the people that will be investigating their own people and hope the guy or gal in charge is hardcore on doing the right thing, or you can be happy the guns while dirty are in working order and write off the ammo.

Based off what I had seen before and the hint the chief dropped and just got gone from that cesspool of a base.

So long as this is the opposition's definition of "compromise," there will be NO compromises. The ones living in fear of firearms will simply need to suck it up and deal with their own fears themselves, because we're not moving from our position of "shall not be infringed" being an across the board mandate. We've given up far too much ground to these poor wretches and have received screw all in exchange, which is the epitome of a horrible deal.

Yeah, nothing wrong abut this idea (sarc), except, imagine this:

You sign in your weapon at the duly designated collection facility and go home.
While you are sleeping, alone, someone at the facility removes your weapon and commits a crime, shooting someone in the process. Then erases your entry in the log (all electronic I am sure and easy to modify if not implemented with non-repudiation controls).
The police run the ballistics, pinpointing your weapon serial number.
They come for you, question you, and your alibi is you were asleep, alone.
They check the facility logs, and your entry is not there.

How do you think that alibi will hold up in court?

No thanks. The ability to "keep and bear arms" means I get to KEEP them with me, and that is protected by that pesky 2nd amendment.

SMFH stupidity

Weapons?
What weapons?
I don't own any firearms.
Now please leave my property unless/ until you have a warrant.
Thank you.

A modest proposal: Go find yourself a nice gun free zone type of country that will take you and I'll sign your exit visa.

I say to anyone who is for this, let me treat your freedom of speech the same way you treat my freedom to own firearms.