Political Correctness Overboard: Elmer Fudd has no gun: update: it worked, 8 year olds stab woman

Not if you attach every gun to a gun owner - that would eliminate the black market. If you give up a gun, there should be a transfer of ownership just like a car. If someone steals your gun, you should file a police report. In this way, you don't have free floating firearms.

Things like this protects legal and responsible gun owners and helps dry up the black market. No you can't ever eliminate all the illegal guns on the street, but the more you can reduce them, the less people get murdered.

 

Your solution is basically to rip up the second amendment and damn the rights of individuals.

No , mentally ill people (unless you call criminals mentally ill) are not killing thousands of people a year.

Their largest contribution to statistics is "mass shootings" which equates to less than 1% of the total. Their overall contribution to crime is about 3%.

The elephant in the room is the other 97% of crime and the vast majority of that is economic in nature.

Have a read.

https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/appi.books.9781615371099

Mass Shootings and Mental Illness James L. Knoll IV, M.D. George D. Annas, M.D., M.P.H.

 

The real issue is that Turner included this in the rotation to begin with.

In the 80's?

Yikes!

 

That guy has got to be doing a parody.

The belch was just showing off.

 

Even black people are saying this is to far sometimes you can overcorrect.

 

How is requiring licensure and registration “ripping up the second amendment”?

 

Not sure how I am ripping away anyone's right. I think having a process to ensure guns are tracked and accounted for doesn't contradict the 2nd amendment at all. The point is that having a system in place would reduce crime substantially.

Why would a responsible gun owner be opposed to that? Car ownership and driving is highly regulated. Does it reduce traffic accidents to 0? No, but it helps cut down on deaths.

 

You don't see a license requirement , which can arbitrarily be restricted , revoked or otherwise limited as being against the spirit of the 2nd amendment ?

You don't see restricting the rights of "mentally ill" people as a violation of their rights or potential for abuse ? And lets be honest - they make up less than 1% of all gun violence and less than 3% of crime as a whole.

 

Nope I see no issue with it. Should be regulated just like cars. And yes ABSOLUTELY it should be taken away from the mentally ill. Why would it be arbitrarily restricted?

 

So the mentally ill don't have the same rights the rest of us do ? ... interesting.


Again , this is making a mountain out of a mole hill - the mentally ill are responsible for less than 1% of gun violence and less than 3% of all crime.

How about we address the real issue behind crime - MONEY.

 

I’m not saying their rights shouldn’t be restored eventually, but if they’re found to be a danger to themselves and others then there’s no conscionable reason to allow them to have a firearm. There are lots of reasons for gun violence; I just have no issue limiting those rights when necessary, such as restricting felons from possessing guns as well. The 2nd amendment even mentions regulation

 

This is where we differ - I value everyone else's rights just as much as my own.

But you say "When Necessary". Again , I point to the statistics of crime commuted by "mentally ill" - Less than 1% of gun violence and less than 3% of all crime.

Obviously its not very necessary by the numbers to infringe upon that particular group's rights when they are such a tiny fraction of the whole.

So again , how about we tackle the 99% instead of trampling on the rights of several million for >1%.

This is a case of perception does not meet the reality of facts.

Here's a good read on "who's committing crime" in general - https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialproblems/chapter/8-3-who-commits-crime/

 

Have you been around a paranoid schizophrenic who believes his family and the government are spying on him by putting cameras and snakes in his toilet? I do involuntarily mental commitment hearings quite often and even if your numbers are accurate, those few people don't need a gun. We can champion legislation to make narrow exceptions, but there has to be some mechanism to protect the public in unique circumstances

 

Licenses and registration doesn't go against the 2nd. The first half of the amendment says "well regulated" and no it does't mean "well armed". In Federalist 29 Hamilton says what it means and it means what we normally interpret it to mean. The landmark Heller decision also reemphasized that firearms can be regulated and that decision was written by the late Justice Scalia.

 

More bugs bunny cross dressing!


What is going on here.

 

So then it’s true that no one actually cared about Elmer Fudd not having a gun?

 

most people don’t care because their kid won’t care and will enjoy the show regardless of what weapon Elmer Fudd has on him

currently 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and 8.4/10 on IMDB

main people complaining are the ones with no kids who weren’t gonna watch it in the 1st place