U.S. gun website sued for alleged tie...

U.S. gun website sued for alleged ties to slayings

There are 164 comments on the Reuters story from Dec 12, 2012, titled U.S. gun website sued for alleged ties to slayings. In it, Reuters reports that:

A prominent U.S. gun control group on Wednesday sued a gun auction website it says is linked to a mass shooting at a Wisconsin spa in October and the stalker slaying of a woman near Chicago in 2011.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

There

Santa Fe, NM

#110 Dec 19, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
The guns shows are doing a wonderful business. Of course the reelection of the gun grabbers have a lot to do with arming ourselves.
was no gun grabbing going on during the first 4 yeara - doubt if there will be any improvements with all the armed maniacs out there.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#111 Dec 19, 2012
Glad wrote:
<quoted text>
you are so full of love. Somehow I'm not feeling it.
So people don't share your fetish? Big deal - we know the results of it.
Kinda like you painting little flowers in your tutu, right sparky.
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

#112 Dec 19, 2012
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>Bet? Okay,you're on... Pay up,you lose. I have always believed the mentally ill who need help should have it available to them-even you. We COULD lock up all the nuts but two problems would arise from it. 1. We would soon run out of room to put all the libs and 2. since the lazy bastids are already on the dole wouldn't that be considered double dipping?
It was the ACLU DURING the Reagan administration that advocated for the changes you talk about. You are entitled to spout your own opinion but not your version of the truth.
I'v offered on another thread the medical diagnosis of liberalism. You fit it to a TEE.
Absolutely partially true. The ACLU filed suit regarding the civil rights of institutionalized people. In their suit, they specifically pointed out that some--not all--some did not belong there and could function perfectly well as long as they had and took their medication (i.e., Release and Care). Reagan used this as an excuse to open the doors and release individuals who 1) had not place to go 2) had no help in getting their medication and 3) had no way of being monitored to ensure that they were in fact taking their medication.

So Reagan "Released," but he didn't provide the required "Care" (chalk that up to good Reagan administration lawyers). Care, he reasoned, required more taxes to build more half-way houses and hire associated staff.(And as you know but won't admit, the largest single tax increase since 1968 was signed in 1982 by President Reagan, so don't go around trying to pull that "Reagan is anti-tax" stuff.)

You'll notice that my opinion is missing from this here comment. I'm just reporting the way it happened.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#114 Dec 19, 2012
Glad wrote:
<quoted text>
you are so full of love. Somehow I'm not feeling it.
So people don't share your fetish? Big deal - we know the results of it.
BOHICA
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#115 Dec 19, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>
those crazy hardline defenders of the constitution. LOL
Problem was there was supposed to be meaningful programs and services -which never happened
"...those crazy hardline defenders of the constitution."

Their version of it anyway...NOT the way it was written or been decided.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#116 Dec 19, 2012
Jesus Diablo wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely partially true. The ACLU filed suit regarding the civil rights of institutionalized people. In their suit, they specifically pointed out that some--not all--some did not belong there and could function perfectly well as long as they had and took their medication (i.e., Release and Care). Reagan used this as an excuse to open the doors and release individuals who 1) had not place to go 2) had no help in getting their medication and 3) had no way of being monitored to ensure that they were in fact taking their medication.
So Reagan "Released," but he didn't provide the required "Care" (chalk that up to good Reagan administration lawyers). Care, he reasoned, required more taxes to build more half-way houses and hire associated staff.(And as you know but won't admit, the largest single tax increase since 1968 was signed in 1982 by President Reagan, so don't go around trying to pull that "Reagan is anti-tax" stuff.)
You'll notice that my opinion is missing from this here comment. I'm just reporting the way it happened.
Let the first administration without flaws cast the first stone. EVERY administration has its good/bad points. For a large tax increase concerning some things there were tax cuts/spending cuts to offset it. Reagan ALSO had a democrat controlled House/Senate to have to deal with to get things doen. A lot of give and take to accomplish anything. Not much he can get done with compromise and agreement. Congress still got to tax/spend(not as much as they would like) and Reagan got to cut (not as much as HE would like).

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#117 Dec 19, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>While Liberals and other Whacked out pundits scream about gun laws and gun controls in America one must ask ones self……..Why Is America Having to Arm Rebels in Many Countries. Is it because their guns have already been removed by their governments? Of course it is. America is busy trying to disarm its people while at the same time arming people in other countries that have had their guns and freedom removed. This is exactly why the second amendment came about, for citizens to protect themselves against a tyrannical government that no longer obeys the constitution or their oaths.
I was going to tell "Marauder" his post was perfect but then yours came next and yours is perfect as well and there is something to be said for beauty and brains and god knows I am not talking about Marauder !
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#118 Dec 19, 2012
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>I was going to tell "Marauder" his post was perfect but then yours came next and yours is perfect as well and there is something to be said for beauty and brains and god knows I am not talking about Marauder !
"...there is something to be said for beauty and brains and god knows I am not talking about Marauder !"

WTF!....humphf.:(

Since: Apr 11

Milwaukee, WI

#119 Dec 20, 2012
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they should...and yes the 2nd Amendment does allow.
"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
Quote is from the USSC DC vs Heller decision that quoted the USSC US vs Miller decision. As you can see the court addresses the the "type" of weapon being protected by the 2nd Amendment as those in use by the "militia". That would equate to military arms to include fully automatic arms. The only stipulation is for "lawful purposes".
But what is the practical use of a FULLY automatic machine gun in a non military setting???

Cat74

Schaumburg, IL

#120 Dec 20, 2012
The automatic weapon is used to target practice, and the threat of Americans owning one protects them from over zealous government traitors if there are any. Besides that we have a constitutional right to protect ourselves, and how we do that is not up to the politician to make that decision.
Ted

Cedarburg, WI

#121 Dec 21, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
The automatic weapon is used to target practice, and the threat of Americans owning one protects them from over zealous government traitors if there are any. Besides that we have a constitutional right to protect ourselves, and how we do that is not up to the politician to make that decision.
"Target Practice" with automatic weapons. "Over zealous government traitors".(who determines this?). What a strange world you must live in. Very scary for you I bet....?
Coo

Santa Fe, NM

#122 Dec 21, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
target practice,

over zealous government traitors
koo
Besara

Des Moines, IA

#123 Dec 21, 2012
Coo wrote:
<quoted text>
I drink the kool-aid all the time
We know that.
Besara

Des Moines, IA

#124 Dec 21, 2012
Ted wrote:
<quoted text> "Target Practice" with automatic weapons. "Over zealous government traitors".(who determines this?). What a strange world you must live in. Very scary for you I bet....?
How can you type with that straightjacket on?

Since: Apr 11

Milwaukee, WI

#126 Dec 21, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
The automatic weapon is used to target practice, and the threat of Americans owning one protects them from over zealous government traitors if there are any. Besides that we have a constitutional right to protect ourselves, and how we do that is not up to the politician to make that decision.
Who needs target practice if you have a fully automatic weapon???
Full auto makes the term,"one shot ,one kill" obsolete. If one can't hit their target with full auto,that person should not be near a firearm.

I'll give you the over zealous gov comment but if this describes our government,exercising your 2nd amendment rights won't do much to alleviate the problem. Our govs main issues have to do with economics.(taxes/spending/debt etc..) If you employ your 2nd amendment rights to combat this problem,you'll end up spending a lot of time in the cooler.

And yes,we all have 2nd amendment rights and the gov has the right to REGULATE that right,like it or not. In the wake of this 1st grade slaughter,there will changes to fed regs as it relates to assault weapons.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#127 Dec 21, 2012
cnw95 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who needs target practice if you have a fully automatic weapon???
Full auto makes the term,"one shot ,one kill" obsolete. If one can't hit their target with full auto,that person should not be near a firearm.
I'll give you the over zealous gov comment but if this describes our government,exercising your 2nd amendment rights won't do much to alleviate the problem. Our govs main issues have to do with economics.(taxes/spending/debt etc..) If you employ your 2nd amendment rights to combat this problem,you'll end up spending a lot of time in the cooler.
And yes,we all have 2nd amendment rights and the gov has the right to REGULATE that right,like it or not. In the wake of this 1st grade slaughter,there will changes to fed regs as it relates to assault weapons.
"And yes,we all have 2nd amendment rights and the gov has the right to REGULATE that right,like it or not."

Actually, the right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, specifically belonging to "the people", is a "restrictive" clause as stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights;

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

The 2nd Amendment states that the "right", belonging to "the people"..."shall not be infringed"...by the gov't.

That same restriction also now applies to the States under the 14th Amendment as a result of McDonald vs Chicago.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#128 Dec 21, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
Even 74% of NRA members want criminal background checks for those seeking to own firearms. Them damn liberal socialists!
How do you give criminal background checks for those seeking to own firearms by stealing them from someone else or through the black market? I haven't the statistics but I bet over 90% of firearms owned by citizens of the fair city of Detroit are stolen,
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#129 Dec 21, 2012
Ted wrote:
<quoted text> "Target Practice" with automatic weapons. "Over zealous government traitors".(who determines this?). What a strange world you must live in. Very scary for you I bet....?
Target practice with automatic weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup...

That would be- watch_popup?v=OQnU1t7UzgM

after http://www.youtube.com/

In case the link is edited.
Pok Guy

Plymouth, MN

#130 Dec 21, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
The automatic weapon is used to target practice, and the threat of Americans owning one protects them from over zealous government traitors if there are any. Besides that we have a constitutional right to protect ourselves, and how we do that is not up to the politician to make that decision.
Judging from the news recently, auto. weapons are used for more than target practice. In fact, being auto. makes them exceptionally well suited for killing lots of people quickly.

A single bullet, one target, requires skill and patience. But where's the skill in someone just rapidly pulling the trigger and aiming in the general direction to spray the area with bullets?

Protection from over zealous government traitors? What about protection from over zealous gun-loving traitors?

We do not have a Constitutional right to protect ourselves. We have a Constitutional right to own guns.

"And how we do that is not up to the politician to make that decision." So you want to make that determination? As pointed out, what about protection from over zealous gun-loving traitors?

Since: Apr 11

Milwaukee, WI

#131 Dec 21, 2012
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"And yes,we all have 2nd amendment rights and the gov has the right to REGULATE that right,like it or not."
Actually, the right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, specifically belonging to "the people", is a "restrictive" clause as stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights;
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
The 2nd Amendment states that the "right", belonging to "the people"..."shall not be infringed"...by the gov't.
That same restriction also now applies to the States under the 14th Amendment as a result of McDonald vs Chicago.
Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is accurate, so are you saying that ANY regulation no matter how "minor" is unconstitutional???

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Milwaukee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Outlaws Motorcycle Gang Indicted: 27 members of... (Jun '10) 14 hr Debbie 59
Panhandling 18 hr USA USA USA USA 3
Lincoln Hills Juve's 23 hr george 2
News Milwaukee drug operation shut down Mon USA USA USA USA 3
Franklin Sex Store Mon Bart 17
Jesus Christ, the Son of God Feb 5 Son of man 1
Dirty Food Feb 5 Chris 1
Advertisement
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Milwaukee Mortgages