Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Pennsylvania governor: "There's no rational reason we should allow people to possess semiautomatic assault weapons." So you collectors, target shooters, and home defense proponents are irrational fools   (thehill.com) divider line 1214
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

1606 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Apr 2009 at 11:41 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1214 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-04-20 11:06:28 AM  
filth: Bingo. It's not cool to say this in front of kids, but guns really are toys.

I've got tons of guns, and I don't even bother keeping them handy because my home defense strategy relies much more heavily on Nike products than S&W.


Seriously. The "home invasion" scenarios a lot of these people use to justify over-powered (and pretty farking cool) guns will never happen. If your home is broken into and you want to use a firearm to protect your family, a short-range weapon is pretty much the best one. You don't want longer range, you don't want penetration, and if you need to unload a bunch of shots to get one or two guys (who will probably shiat their pants and run as soon as they hear the first BANG), you probably shouldn't be handling guns to begin with because you're farking blind.
 
2009-04-20 11:08:52 AM  
I would like to know something. If one needs a license to own and operate a firearm, yet it is also an unquestionable individual right to do so, why is driving a car a "privilege?"
 
2009-04-20 11:09:16 AM  
The Onanist: I get a background check every year and think every firearm transaction SHOULD be made with a background check. Close the "gun show" loopholes.

I'm all in favor of having to register guns. It should be similar to having the title changed on a car. New owner gets a background check (and license if they don't have one), you bring in the firearm to have the serial checked and make sure it's legal, when all the paperwork is done the new owner is off with the gun.

This way you can enforce the laws, and keep a history of the gun ownership so that you can make people responsible for their firearms.

My father thinks this would make it too easy for the government to round up guns, but there aren't enough police and military personnel to be able to do that in the first place.
 
2009-04-20 11:11:22 AM  
Bloody William: The "home invasion" scenarios a lot of these people use to justify over-powered (and pretty farking cool) guns will never happen.

I'm a newspaper reporter and even in this sleepy little Canadian city, we have them, although the perps are carrying knives and bats, not guns.

That said, here is how you stop home invasions: stop dealing drugs out of your goddamn house. I can't recall a home invasion that did NOT involve criminals breaking in to steal some other criminal's cash or stash, or both.
 
2009-04-20 11:11:35 AM  
Bored Horde: filth: I know I'm going to regret asking, but what's your point?

Just that the rebels who founded America weren't superhuman and didn't create a timeless guide to live by in the form of a Consitution. A lot of your fellow Americans seem to think those guys are gods or something.


I now understand you even less.
 
2009-04-20 11:14:52 AM  
Bored Horde: filth: I've got tons of guns, and I don't even bother keeping them handy because my home defense strategy relies much more heavily on Nike products than S&W.

You ever get the sense that the people who want guns for defence are the kind of people who won't invest in a good door, a solid doorframe, and a great lock?


No. And neither does anyone else.

Look, I don't want to ever shoot anyone, and I will run the fark out of my own house to avoid it. But a lot of people have kids they want to protect, and many people just disagree with my thinking. I'm sympathetic to thoes people. If they want to plug some asshole who broke in, I'm not going to criticize. It's not my strategy, but everything I have is covered by insurance.
 
2009-04-20 11:16:17 AM  
40below: Bloody William: The "home invasion" scenarios a lot of these people use to justify over-powered (and pretty farking cool) guns will never happen.

I'm a newspaper reporter and even in this sleepy little Canadian city, we have them, although the perps are carrying knives and bats, not guns.

That said, here is how you stop home invasions: stop dealing drugs out of your goddamn house. I can't recall a home invasion that did NOT involve criminals breaking in to steal some other criminal's cash or stash, or both.


I'm not saying home invasion doesn't happen. I'm saying that, tactically, it almost never ever ever happens in such a case where it is advantageous to have a high-powered, longer-range weapon. A short-range weapon is enough to handle any such situation, and if you're in a situation where a longer-range or higher-powered weapon is necessary, you're already pretty damn farked regardless of what gun you have.
 
2009-04-20 11:16:22 AM  
I've never owned a gun and I am 4-0 against every gun-for-self-defense enthusiast I've ever spoken to in the being held at gunpoint department. I find that wits, patience, dexterity, charisma, general pennilessness, or a combination of the above have been my best self-defense mechanisms when faced with the business end of a loaded, psycho-wielded firearm.
 
2009-04-20 11:18:47 AM  
Bored Horde: filth: I know I'm going to regret asking, but what's your point?

Just that the rebels who founded America weren't superhuman and didn't create a timeless guide to live by in the form of a Consitution. A lot of your fellow Americans seem to think those guys are gods or something.


I would like to quote Thurgood Marshall:

I [do not] find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights we hold as fundamental today.
 
2009-04-20 11:19:40 AM  
Well it's good to see that the people who are responding to my posts have yet to come up with a reason why a person who is minding their own business should not be able to own these weapons. They're falling back on the "Ur paranoid", "Ur crazy", and "WOLVERINES" talking points.

Shows how study the gun grabber argument is when they can't even out think a "paranoid and crazy gun nut" like myself. Even better when I can apply their own arguments against them by arguing for taking away their 1st amendment rights. Then they get all pissy and say it isn't the same thing even though it is.
 
2009-04-20 11:20:23 AM  
Bloody William: A short-range weapon is enough to handle any such situation, and if you're in a situation where a longer-range or higher-powered weapon is necessary, you're already pretty damn farked regardless of what gun you have.

I prefer knives.

www.bbc.co.uk

Big, f*ck-off shiny ones.
 
2009-04-20 11:20:40 AM  
thamike: I find that wits, patience, dexterity, charisma, general pennilessness, or a combination of the above have been my best self-defense mechanisms when faced with the business end of a loaded, psycho-wielded firearm.

My first line of defense is being aware of my surroundings and not going into bad parts of town. My second line of defense is making sure I have the numbers for all my credit cards written down at home and not carrying much cash.

If some idiot decides he wants to take my wallet at gunpoint, he's going to get it. And he's not going to get much cash and won't have access to my credit cards.

\Too poor to buy a gun
\\Too poor to have anything I'd need a gun to defend
\\\Rich enough to buy a deadbolt and live in a nice part of town
 
2009-04-20 11:20:46 AM  
Crosshair: Well it's good to see that the people who are responding to my posts have yet to come up with a reason why a person who is minding their own business should not be able to own these weapons. They're falling back on the "Ur paranoid", "Ur crazy", and "WOLVERINES" talking points.

By definition, a person minding their own business should be able to own a nuclear weapon. The problem is that we can't legislate certain things for people who mind their own business and people who don't. We need to make rules for everyone.
 
2009-04-20 11:20:51 AM  
Crosshair: Well it's good to see that the people who are responding to my posts have yet to come up with a reason why a person who is minding their own business should not be able to own these weapons. They're falling back on the "Ur paranoid", "Ur crazy", and "WOLVERINES" talking points.

Shows how study the gun grabber argument is when they can't even out think a "paranoid and crazy gun nut" like myself. Even better when I can apply their own arguments against them by arguing for taking away their 1st amendment rights. Then they get all pissy and say it isn't the same thing even though it is.


what I don't get is why someone thinks that mere possession of a weapon means that a person is up to no good.
 
2009-04-20 11:22:22 AM  
DamnYankees: By definition, a person minding their own business should be able to own a nuclear weapon. The problem is that we can't legislate certain things for people who mind their own business and people who don't. We need to make rules for everyone.

so you want to punish the vast seas of innocent people just on the off chance that you might catch one or two of the guilty people...?

kind of explains the war on drugs....
 
2009-04-20 11:24:17 AM  
Weaver95: what I don't get is why someone thinks that mere possession of a weapon means that a person is up to no good.

Neither do I. But people who piss and moan about waiting periods are definitely eyebrow raisers.

/5 days? But I'm mad now!
 
2009-04-20 11:24:55 AM  
Crosshair: Even better when I can apply their own arguments against them by arguing for taking away their 1st amendment rights. Then they get all pissy and say it isn't the same thing even though it is.

The problem is that there are lots of things that can be used as weapons. Explosives are a good example. Is the fact that I have to give my name and phone number when I buy fertilizer at Lowes an infringement of my second amendment rights? How about having to register my car and have a driver's license?
 
2009-04-20 11:26:16 AM  
thamike: Weaver95: what I don't get is why someone thinks that mere possession of a weapon means that a person is up to no good.

Neither do I. But people who piss and moan about waiting periods are definitely eyebrow raisers.

/5 days? But I'm mad now!


I like waiting periods. we should use them for sales of beer and tobacco as well.
 
2009-04-20 11:26:32 AM  
DamnYankees: Bored Horde: filth: I know I'm going to regret asking, but what's your point?

Just that the rebels who founded America weren't superhuman and didn't create a timeless guide to live by in the form of a Consitution. A lot of your fellow Americans seem to think those guys are gods or something.

I would like to quote Thurgood Marshall:

I [do not] find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights we hold as fundamental today.


Oh BOY! A free Conlaw lesson on Fark! Lucky me!

The point is that it's a government of limited powers. Any time you start the analysis with asking whether people should be allowed to do some damn thing or another, you have farked up.
 
2009-04-20 11:27:06 AM  
The Icelander: How about having to register my car and have a driver's license?

Or a marriage license. Registered and licensed marriages and automobiles have probably caused a lot more destruction than registered and licensed firearms.
 
2009-04-20 11:27:11 AM  
The Icelander: Explosives are a good example. Is the fact that I have to give my name and phone number when I buy fertilizer at Lowes an infringement of my second amendment rights? How about having to register my car and have a driver's license?

1. destructive devices like explosives and offensive weapons like sawed off shotguns are not firearms and are not protected.

2. driving on the public roadways is a privilege, not a right
 
2009-04-20 11:27:46 AM  
filth: Any time you start the analysis with asking whether people should be allowed to do some damn thing or another, you have farked up.

Isn't this what law is all about? You think when we start making laws, we have farked up?
 
2009-04-20 11:27:49 AM  
Weaver95: thamike: Weaver95: what I don't get is why someone thinks that mere possession of a weapon means that a person is up to no good.

Neither do I. But people who piss and moan about waiting periods are definitely eyebrow raisers.

/5 days? But I'm mad now!

I like waiting periods. we should use them for sales of beer and tobacco as well.


But if I had to wait 5 days for beer, I'd probably shoot someone.
 
2009-04-20 11:27:50 AM  
Crosshair: They're falling back on the "Ur paranoid", "Ur crazy", and "WOLVERINES" talking points

But, to put this as delicately as I know how, you're a spittle-flecked lunatic living in your own paranoid fantasy world.
 
2009-04-20 11:31:41 AM  
DamnYankees: filth: Any time you start the analysis with asking whether people should be allowed to do some damn thing or another, you have farked up.

Isn't this what law is all about? You think when we start making laws, we have farked up?


I think when we start making laws based on fear and political ideology and stop making laws for reasons of practicality and sober rationality - then we're doomed.
 
2009-04-20 11:31:58 AM  
Weaver95: what I don't get is why someone thinks that mere possession of a weapon means that a person is up to no good.

What we have with Crosshair is mens rea, he's flat out stated that he keeps a stash of guns around to plug people at long range. He's going to become judge, jury and executioner in the event of a natural disaster. If someone breaks into a store down the road to grab a case of water, that motherfarker deserves a 3006 round between the motherfarking eyes.

He's a liability to the cause of gun ownership. In sheltering him in your camp, you're hurting your cause as much as DIA's insistence that any man who can afford it should be able to own a motherfarking nuke.
 
2009-04-20 11:34:11 AM  
40below: But, to put this as delicately as I know how, you're a spittle-flecked lunatic living in your own paranoid fantasy world.

Yet I've harmed fewer people than quite a vast majority of "sane" people. Funny how that works.
 
2009-04-20 11:34:28 AM  
albo: 1. destructive devices like explosives and offensive weapons like sawed off shotguns are not firearms and are not protected.

So a sawed-off shotgun is an "offensive weapon," but an assault rifle isn't?

2. driving on the public roadways is a privilege, not a right

And carrying a firearm in public isn't?
 
2009-04-20 11:35:30 AM  
Weaver95: I think when we start making laws based on fear and political ideology and stop making laws for reasons of practicality and sober rationality - then we're doomed.

Case in point: Prohibition
 
2009-04-20 11:36:51 AM  
Crosshair: Yet I've harmed fewer people than quite a vast majority of "sane" people. Funny how that works.

I find the naugahyde walls and thorazine do the trick.
 
2009-04-20 11:37:41 AM  
DamnYankees: filth: Any time you start the analysis with asking whether people should be allowed to do some damn thing or another, you have farked up.

Isn't this what law is all about? You think when we start making laws, we have farked up?


The founders' conception of the making of law was that it should only be done once a serious need was seen for it and that it should begin with the assumption that the People had the right to do whatever the hell they wanted to do. Prior systems of law had begun with the assumption that the rights of the People could be specifically prescribed by the governing authority.
 
2009-04-20 11:39:50 AM  
filth: The founders' conception of the making of law was that it should only be done once a serious need was seen for it and that it should begin with the assumption that the People had the right to do whatever the hell they wanted to do.

Which founders thought this? Knowing that many founders disagreed on many things, you must have a specific founder in mind? Because, for example, Alexander Hamilton would disagree with this in the economic realm.

And did you miss the point where many of us don't care what the founders thought?
 
2009-04-20 11:40:32 AM  
Bored Horde: He's a liability to the cause of gun ownership. In sheltering him in your camp, you're hurting your cause as much as DIA's insistence that any man who can afford it should be able to own a motherfarking nuke.

I could say the same thing about a lot of gun grabbers, but I don't think there would be much of a point.

Look - the fact of the matter is that people want to own guns. so long as they're not breaking the law, I don't really care what kind of guns they own or how high they stack them in the living room. Gun control laws aren't based on reality - they're based on the weird idea that we have to stop people from owning guns because wanting to own a gun is a sign of insanity. There is no room for debate with the gun control crowd. they really do believe that there is no/can never be such a thing as a responsible gun owner. how can you have any sort of debate or compromise with people who have that kind of legislative agenda?
 
2009-04-20 11:41:16 AM  
DamnYankees: And did you miss the point where many of us don't care what the founders thought?

scary comment in and of itself.
 
2009-04-20 11:41:48 AM  
filth: The founders' conception of the making of law was that it should only be done once a serious need was seen for it and that it should begin with the assumption that the People had the right to do whatever the hell they wanted to do.

That's a bit simplistic, don't you think?
 
2009-04-20 11:42:19 AM  
Weaver95: Bored Horde: He's a liability to the cause of gun ownership. In sheltering him in your camp, you're hurting your cause as much as DIA's insistence that any man who can afford it should be able to own a motherfarking nuke.

I could say the same thing about a lot of gun grabbers, but I don't think there would be much of a point.

Look - the fact of the matter is that people want to own guns. so long as they're not breaking the law, I don't really care what kind of guns they own or how high they stack them in the living room. Gun control laws aren't based on reality - they're based on the weird idea that we have to stop people from owning guns because wanting to own a gun is a sign of insanity. There is no room for debate with the gun control crowd. they really do believe that there is no/can never be such a thing as a responsible gun owner. how can you have any sort of debate or compromise with people who have that kind of legislative agenda?


By not assuming that, and realizing that many "gun control" people probably are much more flexible than you give them credit, and if you try to speak to them like adults and discuss the ups and downs of actual gun ownership, and the different varieties of firearms out there (things that are woefully misrepresented in politics and the media), you might be able to reach a satisfactory compromise, and perhaps even pull them over to your side.

Meanwhile, Crosshairs is fantasizing about repelling looters from a few blocks away.
 
2009-04-20 11:44:07 AM  
Abstruse: There is no rational reason to allow people to possess semiautomatic assault weapons. At least not without a special permit and license.

Why should a "special permit and license" be required for possession of a class of firearm that is rarely criminally misused?
 
2009-04-20 11:45:14 AM  
Bloody William: Meanwhile, Crosshairs is fantasizing about repelling looters from a few blocks away.

i'm stocking up for the zombie apocalypse myself. you never know when it'll happen!
 
2009-04-20 11:45:21 AM  
Weaver95: I could say the same thing about a lot of gun grabbers, but I don't think there would be much of a point.

Look - the fact of the matter is that people want to own guns. so long as they're not breaking the law, I don't really care what kind of guns they own or how high they stack them in the living room. Gun control laws aren't based on reality - they're based on the weird idea that we have to stop people from owning guns because wanting to own a gun is a sign of insanity. There is no room for debate with the gun control crowd. they really do believe that there is no/can never be such a thing as a responsible gun owner. how can you have any sort of debate or compromise with people who have that kind of legislative agenda?


So far, the only issue I can see as far as legal gun ownership is concerned, is the trafficking from legal gun show sales in VA to NYC, Chicago, and even Mexico. Still no ban required there. Just stringent registration and backgrounders. Large private sales should be registered and tracked.
 
2009-04-20 11:45:22 AM  
The Icelander: So a sawed-off shotgun is an "offensive weapon," but an assault rifle isn't?

correct. just because "assault rifle" has a word "assault" in it doesn't mean it's anything more evil or dangerous. an "offensive" weapon is a term of law

you could call a rabbit a "hell rodent" and that wouldn't be a basis to make a law prohibiting having one as a pet.
 
2009-04-20 11:45:32 AM  
Abstruse:

There is no rational reason to allow people to possess semiautomatic assault weapons. At least not without a special permit and license.

heavynews.files.wordpress.com

/ GIT THE HELL OUT OF TEXAS, HIPPIE :)
 
2009-04-20 11:45:46 AM  
Abstruse: There is no rational reason to allow people to possess semiautomatic assault weapons. At least not without a special permit and license.

There's no rational reason to call any gun a semiautomatic assault weapon because such a term is simultaneously a misnomer and a tautology.
 
2009-04-20 11:46:08 AM  
destitute college kid: Abstruse: There is no rational reason to allow people to possess semiautomatic assault weapons. At least not without a special permit and license.

This.


+1
 
2009-04-20 11:46:19 AM  
The Icelander: And carrying a firearm in public isn't?

yes it is. which is why there are laws governing it. but owning and having is not the same as using or walking around with. the state can regulate those aspects
 
2009-04-20 11:46:20 AM  
Pennsylvania governor: "There's no rational reason we should allow people to possess semiautomatic assault weapons."

For the 1st time in history - a politician is correct.

/love guns
//hate the NRA
 
2009-04-20 11:47:06 AM  
Bored Horde: What we have with Crosshair is mens rea, he's flat out stated that he keeps a stash of guns around to plug people at long range. He's going to become judge, jury and executioner in the event of a natural disaster. If someone breaks into a store down the road to grab a case of water, that motherfarker deserves a 3006 round between the motherfarking eyes.

I never said such things. That's projection on your part. I said that a shotgun is an incredibly short range weapon that makes precision shot placement difficult. It is extremely RECKLESS to employ such weapons where precision shots might be needed.

Shooting a rabid animal attacking livestock, pets, or people requires good shot placement that a shotgun does not offer. THAT is not a fantasy, several people I know have had to do that on at least one occasion. Would you shoot a rabid animal attacking your pet/livestock at 30 yards with a shotgun? Would you shoot a rabid animal attacking your pet/livestock at 30 yards with an auto loading rifle? The rifle gives you versatility that the shotgun does not have.

I have no plans on "plugging" people at long range. I only plan on hunting game at those ranges. Though those skills do transfer over to shooting people I have no plans to do so. Just like how I can drive a car real fast, I have no plans on getting in a high speed pursuit.

I am a responsible person, thus I know my weapons strengths and weaknesses and don't pretend that there is a "do all" gun.
 
2009-04-20 11:47:58 AM  
Klingon Penis: After all, owning a gun makes the owner and their family about a bazillion times more likely to die.

Please substantiate this assertion.
 
2009-04-20 11:48:08 AM  
DamnYankees: filth: Any time you start the analysis with asking whether people should be allowed to do some damn thing or another, you have farked up.

Isn't this what law is all about? You think when we start making laws, we have farked up?


No...the analysis shouldn't begin by asking whether someone should be allowed to do something. The analysis should start by assuming someone should be allowed, and then determining first if you can legally restrict their freedom, and then to what extent it is reasonable to do so.

And yes. I'd say the same thing about gay marriage. Though, really, you're really not talking about whether or not someone is allowed to do it, as much as whether or not the government recognizes and condones it once they do.
 
2009-04-20 11:49:43 AM  
Scerpes: No...the analysis shouldn't begin by asking whether someone should be allowed to do something. The analysis should start by assuming someone should be allowed, and then determining first if you can legally restrict their freedom, and then to what extent it is reasonable to do so.

Not sure I see any practical difference.
 
2009-04-20 11:49:44 AM  
Bloody William: Meanwhile, Crosshairs is fantasizing about repelling looters from a few blocks away.

Hmmm, yet I've never said such things. Once again this physiological action is known as projection. Projecting your own uncomefortable feelings onto someone else to justify them.
 
Displayed 50 of 1214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report