Philthydelphia mayor signs five new anti-gun-rights laws

[Little-Acorn]

Maybe one of them makes sense, about reporting stolen firearms to the police. If, of course, the cops don't use that as an excuse to take away your giths to own ANY firearms. The rest are completely ineffective, disarming only the people who OBEY laws.

This Nutter likens himself to the colonials who fought for freedom in 1775. Do you suppose he's aware that the colonials fought specifically AGAINST "gun control" by the authorities, and that the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired by ordinary Americans AGAINST authorities who had come to take away their guns?

How illiterate and/or ignorant must this Mayor be? Does he even realize which side he would have been on in 1775?

The irony is truly delightful.

-------------------------------------------

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20080411_Nutter_defiantly_signs_five_gun_laws.html

Council's measures appear to fly in the face of state law and legal precedent. The NRA says it will sue.

By Jeff Shields
Inquirer Staff Writer

Mayor Nutter likened himself and City Council members yesterday to the band of rebels who formed this country as he signed five new gun-control laws that defy the state legislature and legal precedent. "Almost 232 years ago, a group of concerned Americans took matters in their own hands and did what they needed to do by declaring that the time had come for a change," Nutter said as he signed the bills in front of a table of confiscated weapons outside the police evidence room in City Hall.

"We are going to make ourselves independent of the violence that's been taking place in this city for far too long," he said.

The five laws - called everything from unconstitutional to criminal by critics - do the following:

Limit handgun purchases to one a month.

Require lost or stolen firearms to be reported to police within 24 hours.

Prohibit individuals under protection-from-abuse orders from possessing guns if ordered by the court.

Allow removal of firearms from "persons posing a risk of imminent personal injury" to themselves or others.

Outlaw the possession and sale of certain assault weapons.

Nutter said he would begin to enforce the laws immediately, with the exception of the one-gun-a-month requirement, which takes effect in six months.

 

[Damocles]

One gun a month? How terribly restricting! How could you possibly run a gun shop if you can only purchase one gun a month?

 

[leaningright]

There is one rational thing in that list. Here is a quote from above:

"Council's measures appear to fly in the face of state law and legal precedent. The NRA says it will sue."

This is why I send the NRA my $35 per year. Plus I get a good magazine on a monthly basis.

 

[blackascoal]

The American culture of gun-love.

I find this kind of shit abso-fucking-lutely amazing.

What kind of fear and paraonia would drive a human to love a gun?

I have no clue.

Crime has gone down since the gun ban took effect in Washington DC .. AND, the ban is supported by nearly every DC politician .. AND, the ban is supported by the residents of DC .. AND, since the gunlovers and and the states-rights lovers are usually one in the same people, what's the problem?

Just a few facts I know gunlovers don't really care about.

I'm sure there are more than a few violent criminals who belong to the NRA and who also contribute that $35. a year, read the really neat magazine, then step outside and commit armed robbery. They're gunlovers too.

Now, I recognize the depth and breadth of American gunlove and I do not presume to change anyone's mind. I'm sure there is absolutely no correlation to the mountains of available guns in America to America being the single most violent nation on earth. Let's call that shit coincidence.

When you really look at it, perhaps our losing 4000 US soldiers in 5 years in Iraq ain't so bad when Americans murder 15,000 of their fellow Americans by gun every year. In five years we've murdered 75,000 people by guns alone.

I ain't trying to tell anyone what inanimate object they should love ..

I'm just sayin'

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

People who are psychologically ill and likely to shoot other people or themselves are having their second ammendment rights squashed on by the out-of-control turbo-liberals who control America (secretly).

 

[Damocles]

They're just "bitter". Wow. It fits ANYWHERE!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Philthydelphia - that was a nice touch, Acorn. Kudos.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The American culture of gun-love.

Oh, brother. Here comes Standard Lie #231, "Pretend gun owners somehow 'love' the guns they need to defend themselves". Can't you people ever come up with some new fibs? Just for variety's sake?

I find this kind of shit abso-fucking-lutely amazing.

You should see it from a real-world perspective - that is, as people who don't believe your tripe, see it. You have no idea just how abso-falutin-lutely amazing leftist hysterics such as yourself look - to put it kindly.

What kind of fear and paraonia would drive a human to love a gun?

Beats me, I've never seen one who did. What kind of fear and paranoia would drive people to tell rampant falsehoods about their opponents rather than honestly responding to the arguments and facts they continually present?

I have no clue.

Oops. BAC finally swerves into the truth for a change. There goes his perfect 0-for-everything record on gun issues.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Philthydelphia - that was a nice touch, Acorn. Kudos.

Thank you. But it's a very old joke, that I heard back when I was in college near there. Comes along with "City of Brotherly Mug" and a few others.

 

[blackascoal]

Oh, brother. Here comes Standard Lie #231, "Pretend gun owners somehow 'love' the guns they need to defend themselves". Can't you people ever come up with some new fibs? Just for variety's sake?


You should see it from a real-world perspective - that is, as people who don't believe your tripe, see it. You have no idea just how abso-falutin-lutely amazing leftist hysterics such as yourself look - to put it kindly.


Beats me, I've never seen one who did. What kind of fear and paranoia would drive people to tell rampant falsehoods about their opponents rather than honestly responding to the arguments and facts they continually present?


Oops. BAC finally swerves into the truth for a change. There goes his perfect 0-for-everything record on gun issues.

Quite humorous indeed.

I noticed you skipped all the parts that required debate and counter evidence.

Spewing bullshit about "leftists" seems to be about all you can handle.

I have no problem with that.

I expect someone will come along and engage in an actual debate.

You stick to what you do best.

 

[Damocles]

Armaments III, Chapter 7

1. And it came to pass that the Mayor seeing that they were bitter received word from above to deny them their security, so that they may have a belief they were secure, and the Secular Humanist saw that it was good, and he did partake and write law.

2. And the law was written that denied access to security, and to the temples did they turn for protection, but they were denied. Being naughty in His sight, they were cast to the despair and forced to vote and choose between a turd sandwich and a bottle of douche, and one of those pickle loaf thingies with bits of stuff in it that nobody buys at the Supermarket.

3. But the people grew naughtier, and turned to pr0n and once again gained access to the back door of heaven, feeling secure they left the city and bought more security and they did grin. And the Lord welcomed them back into the temples.

4. And they celebrated and had a feast eating much breakfast cereal. And the people saw that it was good and their bitterness fled in the welcome arms of their warm guns.

 

[uscitizen]

One gun a month? How terribly restricting! How could you possibly run a gun shop if you can only purchase one gun a month?

Advertising.
With a little fear thrown in. Works for ADT.

 

[Damocles]

Advertising.
With a little fear thrown in. Works for ADT.

But if you could only buy one gun a month you would soon run out of stock, and the Lord would smite the city with villainy...

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah but lots of potential customers in Philthydelphia Damo.

They just need to be motivated to spend $300 or so a pop.

And Darla could always design some nice gun accessories. Beaded holsters and clip carriers ?
Maybe some S&W stilleto shoes ?

think business !

 

[Damocles]

Yeah but lots of potential customers in Philthydelphia Damo.

They just need to be motivated to spend $300 or so a pop.

Again, it doesn't matter how many customers you have if you only have 12 guns a year to sell.

How do you stock up your gun store when you can only buy 12 guns a year?

 

[uscitizen]

And Darla could always design some nice gun accessories. Beaded holsters and clip carriers ?
Maybe some S&W stilleto shoes ?

think business !

 

[leaningright]

BAC, you said one thing in your tirade that I agree with:

Originally posted by blackascoal

I have no clue.

You also said this:

Originally posted by blackascoal

What kind of fear and paraonia would drive a human to love a gun?

I would answer that by saying that the vast majority of guns are not owned out of fear. They are owned for protection and recreation. My only "fear" is that one day, and I am sure it is coming as this country grows more and more liberal, we will have gun ownership laws like the Euorpean countries where it is next to impossible to own a gun for any reason. This is why I continually vote against politicians like Barack Obama who even hint that there is something wrong with someone owning a handgun even when I like the other things he might campaign on. I in no way want us to be in any hurry emulating England,France, Germany, etc. in any way. While I am on the subject would someone tell Mr. Obama that though I may not agree with what is going on in this country economically and in the area of foreign relations, I am not bitter when I take a political stance against gun control or any other thing. I am principled.

I notice you also said this:

Originally posted by blackascoal

Crime has gone down since the gun ban took effect in Washington DC ..

But, have a look at this:

"Although studies through the decades have reached conflicting conclusions, this much is clear: The ban, passed with strong public support in 1976, has not accomplished everything that the mayor and council of that era wanted it to.

Over the years, gun violence has continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201818_pf.html

You also said:

Originally posted by blackascoal

I'm sure there are more than a few violent criminals who belong to the NRA and who also contribute that $35. a year, read the really neat magazine, then step outside and commit armed robbery. They're gunlovers too.

Your statement of "more than a few" is absolutely false. The NRA's membership is made up of people who feel threatened by the gun-grabbing liberals (both democrat and republican) who want to be big brother. Mostly the membership is made up of professional people, doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. who want to preserve the freedoms we have for future generations or as long as we possibly can. Like I have said, I do think we will go the way of the Europeans eventually but I am in no hurry.

Finally you said this:

Originally posted by blackascoal


Now, I recognize the depth and breadth of American gunlove and I do not presume to change anyone's mind. I'm sure there is absolutely no correlation to the mountains of available guns in America to America being the single most violent nation on earth. Let's call that shit coincidence.

When you really look at it, perhaps our losing 4000 US soldiers in 5 years in Iraq ain't so bad when Americans murder 15,000 of their fellow Americans by gun every year. In five years we've murdered 75,000 people by guns alone.

I ain't trying to tell anyone what inanimate object they should love ..

And I will answer this like I always. Statistics bear out that Alcohol related deaths far outnumber gun-related deaths so if someone wants to stand against something that is far more often an instrument of death why aren't there similar cries to ban alcohol? I have never had an alcoholic beverage in my life but I don't want either banned and I realize that living in a somewhat free society (notice I said somewhat...there will be restrictions no matter where one lives) poses risks.

As you might see I am very passionate about this subject so if I have said anything you find offensive I apologize in advance. I am just answering to statements. I want my son to grow up enjoying the same things I have enjoyed. I want that for every son or daughter who would seek to enjoy the great outdoors and also to feel secure at night. the America I love will have risks. There will always be those nuts who get their hands on a gun and use it to harm others. But I truly believe that people so sick in the head as to do such would find a way to do it whether with a gun or explosives (McVeigh) or with airplanes through buildings or however they seek to do harm.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Quite humorous indeed.

I noticed you skipped all the parts that required debate and counter evidence.

Not much point in repeating it all to people who ignored it the first time. See [ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=8171"]Conservative think tank on the Supreme Court's upcoming DC gun ban case - Just Plain Politics![/ame] if you're actually interested in facts, for starters. Lots more threads in this and other forums, of course, where they can be found... in case you actually cared about truth.

Back to the subject:
One of the more remarkable traits of people like this Nutter, is that they insist on trying over and over, things that failed every time they've been tried in the past. Restricting gun ownership among law-abiding people while passing no laws preventing criminal behavior, has resulted in increased crime rates in nearly every place it's been tried, the few exceptions being areas where crime was alread horrendously high before the laws were passed, such as DC.

Now we have this Nutter trying the same thing yet again, hoping for a different result. There's a saying about such behavior, among behavioral psychologists. Any one remember what it is?

 

[blackascoal]

BAC, you said one thing in your tirade that I agree with:

You skipped the part where I said what I have no clue about .. but I do have a clue why you skipped it.

I would answer that by saying that the vast majority of guns are not owned out of fear. They are owned for protection and recreation. My only "fear" is that one day, and I am sure it is coming as this country grows more and more liberal, we will have gun ownership laws like the Euorpean countries where it is next to impossible to own a gun for any reason. This is why I continually vote against politicians like Barack Obama who even hint that there is something wrong with someone owning a handgun even when I like the other things he might campaign on. I in no way want us to be in any hurry emulating England,France, Germany, etc. in any way. While I am on the subject would someone tell Mr. Obama that though I may not agree with what is going on in this country economically and in the area of foreign relations, I am not bitter when I take a political stance against gun control or any other thing. I am principled.

I don't question your principles, I question the intelligence of gunlove.

You say you don't want to emulate europe in any way .. I do. They have far less crime and tens of thousands of fewer people are murdered by guns every year. I don't share your seemingly we're better than everyone else perspective.

Let me guess .. you supported the war .. and gunlove is more important to you than American influence, respect, and power globally and the future of the American economy.

That's deep my brother.

But, have a look at this:

"Although studies through the decades have reached conflicting conclusions, this much is clear: The ban, passed with strong public support in 1976, has not accomplished everything that the mayor and council of that era wanted it to.

Over the years, gun violence has continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201818_pf.html

Violence does still plaugue the city .. but violence has gone down. It seems you missed that part .. AND you missed the part where the ban is what the residents and entire elected body wants. Because it has not yet accomplished everything hoped for, is hardly a reason to get rid of it.

Your statement of "more than a few" is absolutely false. The NRA's membership is made up of people who feel threatened by the gun-grabbing liberals (both democrat and republican) who want to be big brother. Mostly the membership is made up of professional people, doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. who want to preserve the freedoms we have for future generations or as long as we possibly can. Like I have said, I do think we will go the way of the Europeans eventually but I am in no hurry.

How do you know that?

The NRA is made up of gunlovers, period. There is no background check or qualification required.

Timothy McVeigh was a registered Republican and NRA member. You think he was the only nutcase to belong to the NRA? You think he was the only one to benefit from the works of the NRA>

http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm

Don't give me feelings brother. Give me some facts.

And I will answer this like I always. Statistics bear out that Alcohol related deaths far outnumber gun-related deaths so if someone wants to stand against something that is far more often an instrument of death why aren't there similar cries to ban alcohol? I have never had an alcoholic beverage in my life but I don't want either banned and I realize that living in a somewhat free society (notice I said somewhat...there will be restrictions no matter where one lives) poses risks.

As you might see I am very passionate about this subject so if I have said anything you find offensive I apologize in advance. I am just answering to statements. I want my son to grow up enjoying the same things I have enjoyed. I want that for every son or daughter who would seek to enjoy the great outdoors and also to feel secure at night. the America I love will have risks. There will always be those nuts who get their hands on a gun and use it to harm others. But I truly believe that people so sick in the head as to do such would find a way to do it whether with a gun or explosives (McVeigh) or with airplanes through buildings or however they seek to do harm.

Make no mistake about it, although we disagree on this subject, I find you to be a sincere and honest poster, and likewise, I hope I've said nothing offensive to you.

My problem with gunlove is that I truly, honestly do not understand it. I don't want my son growing up to believe that he needs to have a gun. I've never owned, nor have I ever wanted to own a gun .. and I've grown up and lived in urban environments all my life. I want my son and all my children to be firm and secure in the power of their own minds, instincts, and abilities. They don't need any inanimate object to protect them .. which is by the way, a false sense of protection.

Most guns kill people known to the shooter .. and children.

When I was living in LA there was a serial killer on the loose named Richard Ramirez, known as the Night Stalker. By the time he was captured he had committed 13 murders, 5 attempted murders, 11 sexual assaults, and 14 burglaries. Some of his victims had guns in their houses .. no one had a dog .. not even a little one. Their guns didn't save them .. a little teeny tiny dog might have.

I don't want the America I love to remain the most violent nation on earth, and irrespective of my sarcasm, there is a direct correlation to the mountain of guns and the astronomical rate of murder in America.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I question the intelligence of gunlove.

gunlove is more important to you

The NRA is made up of gunlovers, period.

Notice that BAC completely ignores factual arguents given him, and keeps hammering away at the falsehood he introduced in his first post. Pretty typical strawman argument: Make up something that doesn't exist, and try to put people on the defensive, defending something they didn't particularly care about rather than arguing important issues such as freedom and the benefits and responsibilities it carries... such as the right to own and carry weapons, the reponsibility to use it properly, and the benefit of having far lower crime rates that results.

My problem with gunlove is that I truly, honestly do not understand it.

Hardly a surprise: how can someone "understand" somthing that didn't even exist until they made it up?

He also throws in several examples of another tired falsehood:

people are murdered by guns every year.
Most guns kill people

...while being careful to NOT address the real problem: people who use guns for criminal activity such as threatening, injuring, and killing others.

As long as he keeps chasing windmills (people "love" guns, guns kill with no help, etc.), he can keep arguing forever, without ever having to actually solve any real problems. Instant job security for people like BAC and other anti-gun-rights fanatics! What's not to love?

Don't give me feelings brother. Give me some facts.

Then to top it off, he demands that OTHER people stop giving HIM emotional arguments and stick to facts instead... while he merrily ignores every fact that comes down the pike!


Only in America...!