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.

(Washington Times)   What's next up for Obama? Get rid of that pesky little second amendment thingie. Of course, did you think otherwise?   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 550
    More: Obvious, President Obama, NRA, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, second amendment, V for Vendetta, Sonia Sotomayor, gun owners, bill of rights  
•       •       •

8865 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Feb 2012 at 10:49 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



550 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-02-11 07:27:44 AM
i18.photobucket.com

/Only when you pry the gun from her cold, dead paws.
 
2012-02-11 07:58:42 AM
They said the same shiat 4 years ago. And 3...and 2...last year...last month.
 
2012-02-11 08:21:23 AM
So the NRA is starting the long downhill slide into MADD-style lack-of-purpose crazy? How...unexpected?
 
2012-02-11 08:32:41 AM
...said the nation's head gun nut.

And there will be a ton of rednecks who will vote against their own best interests because they believe it.
 
2012-02-11 08:35:05 AM
Must be membership drive time at the NRA. Those guys are worse than public TV.
 
2012-02-11 08:37:23 AM
Of all the pant-shiatting, bed wetting, insane conspiracies that conservatives dream up I think this 'Bammy's comin' fer mah guns' fantasy pisses me off the most. Has Fartbongo even uttered the word 'gun' outside of telling the Navy SEALS to go get theirs and blow some terrorists face off?
 
2012-02-11 08:39:09 AM
Hey look, Republicans are saying for the 700th time that he's going to take your guns, never mind that there has never been a hint of movement towards it, he didn't campaign on it, and gun rights have INCREASED under this President.

I guess they figure if Walker decided to fark his own state in the ass for something he didn't campaign on, everyone is as dishonest as he is and so he must be going to take the guns.
 
2012-02-11 08:41:37 AM
Oh joy, they greenlit this shiat.
 
2012-02-11 08:42:36 AM
Rednecks probably masturbate to fantasies of the government trying to take their guns. They make their wives put on ATF uniforms before they beat them.
 
2012-02-11 08:45:10 AM
i heard Obama's going to send the black panthers to the home of every gun owner. They're going to take away the guns first. Then they'll take everything of value to give to black people and other minorities. Then they'll steal away the women, for use in whatever they want. And I do mean whatever.

that includes housework.

That's what Obama's been waiting to do ever since he got elected.
 
2012-02-11 08:46:55 AM
Stupid Moonies. Obama's done more for gun owners' rights than any president in the last... jeeze... how many years? 30? 50? 70?
 
2012-02-11 08:47:17 AM
Do not stress, Gun Nut Republicans. Even if Obama were to try this, he would cave and rescind in a matter of days anyhow.
 
2012-02-11 08:49:47 AM
Yes, I'm sure he has lots of evidence to back this assertion up, too.

Or maybe he's just crazily talking out of his ass in order to spark up fear among his organization.
 
2012-02-11 09:03:42 AM
Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.
 
2012-02-11 09:08:30 AM
CapnBlues: i heard Obama's going to send the black panthers to the home of every gun owner. They're going to take away the guns first. Then they'll take everything of value to give to black people and other minorities. Then they'll steal away the women, for use in whatever they want. And I do mean whatever.

Is there a number 6 dance afterwards?
 
2012-02-11 09:08:51 AM
ammo sales down again?
 
2012-02-11 09:10:16 AM
Wayne LaPierre is fkng insane.

That is all.
 
2012-02-11 09:10:37 AM
NewportBarGuy: Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.

well.. there was this, too.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year

Thats so much, that the US has to import small arms.
 
2012-02-11 09:11:19 AM
shivashakti: Yes, I'm sure he has lots of evidence to back this assertion up, too.

Or maybe he's just crazily talking out of his ass in order to spark up fear among his organization.


I'm willing to believe he's simply delusional.
 
2012-02-11 09:12:06 AM
Party Boy: to import small arms + ammunition.
/the good 'ol American unload.
 
2012-02-11 09:12:20 AM
oldernell: CapnBlues: i heard Obama's going to send the black panthers to the home of every gun owner. They're going to take away the guns first. Then they'll take everything of value to give to black people and other minorities. Then they'll steal away the women, for use in whatever they want. And I do mean whatever.

Is there a number 6 dance afterwards?


i don't know what that means. but if it's something bigoted and paranoid, you can be pretty sure the NRA thinks it's going to happen.
 
2012-02-11 09:16:22 AM
oldernell: Is there a number 6 dance afterwards?

win!
 
2012-02-11 09:18:39 AM
So is this after he destroyed religious freedom by telling churches they can't force their religious beliefs on women by denying them birth control?
 
2012-02-11 09:19:57 AM
CapnBlues: i don't know what that means

Blazing Saddles reference. Humorous.
 
2012-02-11 09:25:20 AM
oldernell: CapnBlues: i don't know what that means

Blazing Saddles reference. Humorous.


i'm ashamed of myself. i should know better. :)
 
2012-02-11 09:40:40 AM
He's not going to take your guns, he's just going to socialize gun ownership. From January 21, 2013 on, all guns will be owned by the government but to be able to hold on to them, you'll have to spend 4 hours a week guarding the re-education camps.
 
2012-02-11 09:43:01 AM
Holy hopping hell! I read the First sentence of TFA :
A top official with the National Rifle Association said Friday that President Obama will move to "destroy" gun rights and "erase" the Second Amendment if he is re-elected in November.


and I came to post a snarky comment along the lines of "Yes Wayne, the fact that Obama has done absolutely nothing to restrict gun rights in his first term is all part of his master plan to lull you into a false sense of security"

Then I read the next sentence and realized that was his ACTUAL ARGUMENT:

While delivering one of the liveliest and best-received speeches at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said the president's low-key approach to gun rights during his first term was "a "conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep."

"All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," he said



Mother of god, We've just passed the Derp Event Horizon. Now they are not only criticizing everything Obama does, but they are attacking him for what he DOESN'T DO, but in their minds secretly WANTS to do


It's politics by paranoid delusion
 
2012-02-11 09:43:29 AM
I made a post on their site. A simple statement, politely disagreeing with the claim that Obama wants to take our guns. Not inflammatory, no profanity. Apparently it wasn't approved by the moderator. While not technically ironic because the 1st Amendment doesn't include private message boards, it's a little ironic.
 
2012-02-11 09:46:09 AM
Booga booga scary black man.
 
2012-02-11 09:47:58 AM
Party Boy: NewportBarGuy: Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.

well.. there was this, too.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year

Thats so much, that the US has to import small arms.


I read last year that US troops were firing a quarter-million bullets for every insurgent killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (new window)

Could some military vet farker explain to me how that number is even remotely possible? I mean there is being a bad shot, and then there's this
 
2012-02-11 09:50:32 AM
Lionel Mandrake: Wayne LaPierre is fkng insane.

Maybe if his name wasn't so fruity he wouldn't be such a nutcase.
 
2012-02-11 09:55:06 AM
Duh. Obama is gonna take your guns and give them to Mexican gangsters.

After everyone's guns are taken away? Sharia Law. You Dhimmis will get over it.
 
2012-02-11 10:01:20 AM
Mentat: So is this after he destroyed religious freedom by telling churches they can't force their religious beliefs on women by denying them birth control?

There was that totally socialist bail out too. He hates business, after all. I am still waiting for my FEMA trailer though. I told you Democrats that I wanted one alone though. You can't put a Buddhist in with Real Americans, after all...
 
2012-02-11 10:09:36 AM
So, what's the cash value of the prize they give away to biggest DERP at CPAC?
 
2012-02-11 10:16:52 AM
I think the NRA is training for the Olympic Pants Shiatting Team

/anyone who believes this crap is too stupid to own a gun
 
2012-02-11 10:18:44 AM
They've been saying that for four years now and it still hasn't happened.

What's tragic in America is people will vote for this BS but not on reality. People claim the economy is worse off than four years ago even though it is doing much better. Talking heads cry appeasement when we withdraw from a country whose ass we thoroughly kicked nearly a decade ago.

Let's face it, the GOP has squandered another election by pushing the fruitcakes to the front.

/In other news, the guns and ammo marketing association has helped gun sellers set yet another yearly sales record.
 
2012-02-11 10:28:37 AM
SilentStrider: Booga booga scary black man.

What's dumb about that is everyone knows black men love guns ...

/runs
 
2012-02-11 10:41:27 AM
hiiii. my name is waaaayne lapierre. i'm a gun guy.

bangbang!
 
2012-02-11 10:43:44 AM
Magorn: Could some military vet farker explain to me how that number is even remotely possible? I mean there is being a bad shot, and then there's this

Ask the Vietcong. Ever hear of "spray and pray"? Go to liveleak and watch what happens when an element is under fire, or think they are under fire. You can pretty much pick any video. Not to mention how much ordinance we drop on mountains, valleys, etc...

You're under fire, your whole unit opens up. It's not an impossible number. We're fighting shadows in the most difficult terrain in the world. It's a stupid place to fight.

---------------------------EOM----------------------------------
FTFA:

"We see the president's strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms' freedom

My gun has freedom? You people need to stop sleeping with your guns.
 
2012-02-11 10:47:53 AM
Magorn: Party Boy: NewportBarGuy: Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.

well.. there was this, too.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year

Thats so much, that the US has to import small arms.

I read last year that US troops were firing a quarter-million bullets for every insurgent killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (new window)

Could some military vet farker explain to me how that number is even remotely possible? I mean there is being a bad shot, and then there's this


In battle most gunfire isn't to hit your enemy, it's just to make him keep his head down so your people don't get shot. Snipers shoot to kill, and may use a couple of rounds a week. The vast numbers of ground troops spray thousands of rounds in the vague direction of where an enemy might be just to be on the safe side. If you actually hit one of the enemy, bonus!
 
2012-02-11 10:53:43 AM
If you can't trust a paper run by an old Korean man who claims to be the Messiah, what, I ask you, can you trust?
 
2012-02-11 10:54:06 AM
Herpity derpity doo.
 
2012-02-11 10:54:40 AM
Magorn: While delivering one of the liveliest and best-received speeches at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said the president's low-key approach to gun rights during his first term was "a "conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep."

Well, obviously. Everybody buy lots of guns and ammo quick before it's outlawed!
 
2012-02-11 10:55:01 AM
They've been saying this since 2008, and it never happened. If Obama is anti-gun, he's keeping it to himself.
 
2012-02-11 10:55:02 AM
If Obama takes away their guns, they'll only have their religion to cling to!
 
2012-02-11 10:55:10 AM
Well, at least that guy wasn't being hyperbolic.
 
2012-02-11 10:55:51 AM
I heard that Obama is working with the UN to build concentration camps for white men.

/True story
 
2012-02-11 10:56:32 AM
So by this line of reasoning, is it correct to assume that since I am not a gun owner and never have been, Obama took my guns?

Whar @nd?!?!!!!!

Best part?????!!1!!?!?!?!
 
2012-02-11 10:56:45 AM
Lionel Mandrake: Wayne LaPierre is fkng insane.

That is all.


I think he's an attention whore. The NRA is growing irrelevant, it's getting harder and harder to tag Democrats as "anti-gun" which means other bat shiat crazy Republican causes (he wishes he could have a SGK level scandal about now) are getting more attention these days. This is just a desperate plea for somebody to pay attention to them, and shovel a boat load of cash into their bank account.
 
2012-02-11 10:57:00 AM
If it isn't Obama grabbing guns...someone else will. Actually, people like DNC Head/Pube Head Debbie WantsToBeAMan Schultz are bigger threats to the 2d Amendment than Obama

Even GOP is not far removed in the issue....NJ Governor Chris Christie is a gun-grabber....which is why he will never be elected President.
 
2012-02-11 10:57:51 AM
VictoryCabal: So the NRA is starting the long downhill slide into MADD-style lack-of-purpose crazy? How...unexpected?

Starting? The NRA leadership has been bonkers for a couple decades. The rank and file are usually fine folk (surrogate penis collectors notwithstanding) and the org does a great job training and promoting gun safety but the brass are paranoid, conservative wackos who've turned their club into a Republican propaganda outlet.
 
2012-02-11 10:57:55 AM
Flint Ironstag: In battle most gunfire isn't to hit your enemy, it's just to make him keep his head down so your people don't get shot. Snipers shoot to kill, and may use a couple of rounds a week. The vast numbers of ground troops spray thousands of rounds in the vague direction of where an enemy might be just to be on the safe side. If you actually hit one of the enemy, bonus!

Also referred to as "suppressive fire."
 
2012-02-11 10:58:21 AM
Doctor Funkenstein: Of all the pant-shiatting, bed wetting, insane conspiracies that conservatives dream up I think this 'Bammy's comin' fer mah guns' fantasy pisses me off the most. Has Fartbongo even uttered the word 'gun' outside of telling the Navy SEALS to go get theirs and blow some terrorists face off?

Yes.

He said "I don't think the laws limiting gun rights in national parks are constitutional. Let's get rid of that stupid rule."
 
2012-02-11 10:58:44 AM
cling
 
2012-02-11 10:59:34 AM
The NRA is known to have poor reasoning skills.

October 7, 1993--Associated Press

GUNS IN THE HOME FOUND TO INCREASE RISK OF DEATH.

People who keep guns at home nearly triple their chances of being murdered, usually by friends or relatives, but fail to protect themselves from intruders... However, Paul Blackman, research coordinator at the National Rifle Association, criticized the study... ``These people were highly susceptible to homicide,'' he said. ``We know that because they were killed.''
 
2012-02-11 10:59:37 AM
sendtodave: If Obama takes away their guns, they'll only have their religion to cling to!

He's been chipping away at the first amendment, by mid-term he may have successfully transferred most lay activities of churches to the State by closing them down.
 
2012-02-11 10:59:49 AM
This is the perfect example of people clinging to their guns that he was talking about.
 
2012-02-11 10:59:55 AM
Yawn. 0/10, NRA.
 
2012-02-11 11:02:21 AM
Magorn: I read last year that US troops were firing a quarter-million bullets for every insurgent killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (new window)

Could some military vet farker explain to me how that number is even remotely possible? I mean there is being a bad shot, and then there's this


It's right in the article you linked to: "The Department of Defense's increased requirements for small- and medium-calibre ammunitions have largely been driven by increased weapons training requirements". Troops in training fire a lot of rounds.
 
2012-02-11 11:02:46 AM
andrewagill: The NRA is known to have poor reasoning skills.

October 7, 1993--Associated Press

GUNS IN THE HOME FOUND TO INCREASE RISK OF DEATH.

People who keep guns at home nearly triple their chances of being murdered, usually by friends or relatives, but fail to protect themselves from intruders... However, Paul Blackman, research coordinator at the National Rifle Association, criticized the study... ``These people were highly susceptible to homicide,'' he said. ``We know that because they were killed.''


To be fair I think the guy is saying that while the correlation may exist, people who are at risk of being murdered might be more likely to buy a gun, as opposed to buying a gun making it more likely you will be murderer. I'm not saying he's correct, but I think that that's what he's trying to say.
 
2012-02-11 11:03:14 AM
We get it. He's black.
 
2012-02-11 11:04:50 AM
robmilmel: They said the same shiat 4 years ago. And 3...and 2...last year...last month.

Gun-nuts said the exact same thing for eight solid years of Clinton, too. Remember?

"HE'S GONNA TRY TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!!1!"
 
2012-02-11 11:05:10 AM
PanicMan: Yawn. 0/10, NRA.

No, this time for realsy!

/better stock up on ammo and guns, btw feel free to click on our sponsors links they have a sale going on right now!!
 
2012-02-11 11:05:41 AM
CapnBlues: i heard Obama's going to send the black panthers to the home of every gun owner. They're going to take away the guns first. Then they'll take everything of value to give to black people and other minorities. Then they'll steal away the women, for use in whatever they want. And I do mean whatever.

that includes housework.

That's what Obama's been waiting to do ever since he got elected.


Just in case you or somebody else doesn't know what the Turner Diaries is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries

For those that can't be bothered: Book by white supremacist in which the scenario described by Capn comes true more or less. Race wars and such. The white people win of course and kick all the non-whites out of their new formed country which consists of some western-south western states... Except the Jews of course, they just kill them.

I made an effort at one time to read all controversial books and I don't mean things like Harry Potter that somebody wants thrown out of the library for witch craft. Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, Turner Diaries, ect ect.

Know your enemies.

As to the topic at hand. Obama would like nothing more than to completely do away with the second amendment and outlaw the ownership of guns and while his administration mulls over how to go about that from time to time and the UN would dearly love to help him with that somehow there's no real way to do it legally since liberals haven't managed to find a "make shait up that isn't in there" reason in the Constitution after their "only the militia" nonsense was shut down completely.
 
2012-02-11 11:07:44 AM
Flint Ironstag: In battle most gunfire isn't to hit your enemy, it's just to make him keep his head down so your people don't get shot. Snipers shoot to kill, and may use a couple of rounds a week. The vast numbers of ground troops spray thousands of rounds in the vague direction of where an enemy might be just to be on the safe side. If you actually hit one of the enemy, bonus!

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. How many rounds do you think a soldier can carry while out on patrol somewhere? I'll tell you right now, it isn't 'thousands' per soldier. No way in hell. Most of that ammunition is used up in training. If they put out a number used per insurgent killed that were fired by people out on active patrols, the number would be far far lower.
 
2012-02-11 11:07:52 AM
Once again... There is 0.0% chance that I will ever click on any link to a propaganda sheet published by the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung-Moon (aka, "the moonies").

Furthermore, the mod/mins of Fark.com disgrace themselves and cheapen their brand every time they greenlight this unspeakable horseshiat.
 
2012-02-11 11:09:20 AM
From everything I've seen from Obama so far, I think his contempt for "clinging to guns and religion" people (and yes, the Freepers are right, he was contemptuous) would lead him to absolutely do nothing to change gun laws. It doesn't strike me as the kind of culture war he cares to ignite.

And it's a waste of political capital in America to even touch the issue. Look how much mileage the NRA gets from literally nothing but fear. Obama isn't Clinton, and this isn't the 1990s. He has different priorities.
 
2012-02-11 11:09:57 AM
Mr_Fabulous: Once again... There is 0.0% chance that I will ever click on any link to a propaganda sheet published by the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung-Moon (aka, "the moonies").

Furthermore, the mod/mins of Fark.com disgrace themselves and cheapen their brand every time they greenlight this unspeakable horseshiat.


I don't click links to that crap either, but I think you're missing the point of Fark, which is to highlight alleged "news" for the purpose of mockery.

We need a site called farkfark.com where we can mock fark.com.
 
2012-02-11 11:10:26 AM
randomjsa: Obama would like nothing more than to completely do away with the second amendment and outlaw the ownership of guns

This statement is based on what, exactly?
 
2012-02-11 11:14:50 AM
Warning to all gun nuts: 0Bongo is going to have Black Panthers stationed at all poling places on election day to take your guns. STAY HOME!11! IT'S A TRAP.
 
2012-02-11 11:15:18 AM
The NRA is ferociously against all Democratic policies pertaining to guns.

We have a Democratic president.

Even though he has show to be a supporter of gun rights, he's still a Democrat, and therefore must be removed, because, um, socialism?

The NRA has nothing to attack him on, so... just make shiat up.

Funny thing is, one of my friends posted this article on Facebook, and a bunch of her friends, who I am happy to not know myself, completely believe that this is legitimate news, that Obama is putting this is motion, and that this isn't just some "prophecy" from a psychopath who has proven time and time again to stir up the hornets nest any time he gets bored.
 
2012-02-11 11:15:53 AM
...er... polling places too.
 
2012-02-11 11:16:17 AM
theknuckler_33: randomjsa: Obama would like nothing more than to completely do away with the second amendment and outlaw the ownership of guns

This statement is based on what, exactly?


The fact that he's done more to relax gun restrictions and expand gun ownership rights than George W Bush did.
 
2012-02-11 11:16:26 AM
theknuckler_33: This statement is based on what, exactly?

The bright red colors of the sky in his troll world.
 
2012-02-11 11:16:34 AM
Wow the tinfoil hat brigade is going to LOVE this one... O_o
 
2012-02-11 11:17:06 AM
Why are the biggest clingers to guns the biggest paranoid crybabies?
 
2012-02-11 11:17:19 AM
Kibbler:
We need a site called farkfark.com where we can mock fark.com.


Farkfark.com. It's not news. End of tagline.
 
2012-02-11 11:17:23 AM
randomjsa: CapnBlues: i heard Obama's going to send the black panthers to the home of every gun owner. They're going to take away the guns first. Then they'll take everything of value to give to black people and other minorities. Then they'll steal away the women, for use in whatever they want. And I do mean whatever.

that includes housework.

That's what Obama's been waiting to do ever since he got elected.

Just in case you or somebody else doesn't know what the Turner Diaries is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries

For those that can't be bothered: Book by white supremacist in which the scenario described by Capn comes true more or less. Race wars and such. The white people win of course and kick all the non-whites out of their new formed country which consists of some western-south western states... Except the Jews of course, they just kill them.

I made an effort at one time to read all controversial books and I don't mean things like Harry Potter that somebody wants thrown out of the library for witch craft. Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, Turner Diaries, ect ect.

Know your enemies.

As to the topic at hand. Obama would like nothing more than to completely do away with the second amendment and outlaw the ownership of guns and while his administration mulls over how to go about that from time to time and the UN would dearly love to help him with that somehow there's no real way to do it legally since liberals haven't managed to find a "make shait up that isn't in there" reason in the Constitution after their "only the militia" nonsense was shut down completely.



It's true. Obama is just lying awake every night thinking about how he can fark your shiat. Boo!
 
2012-02-11 11:18:00 AM
Moony Times knows this because socialism
 
2012-02-11 11:18:01 AM
Since the economy is picking up, how can we scare ignorant rightwingers into action. OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS.

If you believe this then you are a farking idiot.
 
2012-02-11 11:19:23 AM
Want to watch a gun nut implode?

Remind him that Reagan and Bush together banned more guns than all the Democrats combined.
 
2012-02-11 11:20:00 AM
randomjsa: liberals haven't managed to find a "make shait up that isn't in there" reason

Hey, we agree on something! Liberals haven't found out how to use this tactic, which is why Conservatives have a monopoly on it!
 
2012-02-11 11:21:09 AM
0Icky0: If you can't trust a paper run by an old Korean man who claims to be the Messiah, what, I ask you, can you trust?

Every article in The Washington Times should start: RE: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: RE: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: RE: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD:
 
2012-02-11 11:21:09 AM
Magorn: Party Boy: NewportBarGuy: Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.

well.. there was this, too.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year

Thats so much, that the US has to import small arms.

I read last year that US troops were firing a quarter-million bullets for every insurgent killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (new window)

Could some military vet farker explain to me how that number is even remotely possible? I mean there is being a bad shot, and then there's this


It's doctrinal. The rifleman's job is no longer to kill the enemy, directly. They use rifles and machine gun fire to keep the enemy pinned to one spot long enough for an airstrike or heavy armor to come rolling in. Not to mention, the insurgents, if they do engage Americans directly (and they rarely do, because they are hopelessly outclassed by even the most REMF in terms of training, tactics, and equipment) it's at very long ranges or for very short periods.
 
2012-02-11 11:21:21 AM
fta "All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," he said.

This clown is trolling

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-11 11:21:23 AM
images.cheezburger.com

/Subby is a bad person, and he should feel bad.
 
2012-02-11 11:21:23 AM
If you hold your gun to the side, "gangsta style", he'll let you keep it. It's like a secret handshake.
 
2012-02-11 11:22:47 AM
Sid_6.7: andrewagill: The NRA is known to have poor reasoning skills.

October 7, 1993--Associated Press

GUNS IN THE HOME FOUND TO INCREASE RISK OF DEATH.

People who keep guns at home nearly triple their chances of being murdered, usually by friends or relatives, but fail to protect themselves from intruders... However, Paul Blackman, research coordinator at the National Rifle Association, criticized the study... ``These people were highly susceptible to homicide,'' he said. ``We know that because they were killed.''

To be fair I think the guy is saying that while the correlation may exist, people who are at risk of being murdered might be more likely to buy a gun, as opposed to buying a gun making it more likely you will be murderer. I'm not saying he's correct, but I think that that's what he's trying to say.


No, he would have said ``We know that because they bought a gun for protection'' in that case. What he said was circular reasoning.

Also, I'm rather pleasantly surprised that I found this in Dinosaur Comics form:

i223.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-11 11:23:12 AM
Eddie Adams from Torrance: 0Icky0: If you can't trust a paper run by an old Korean man who claims to be the Messiah, what, I ask you, can you trust?

Every article in The Washington Times should start: RE: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: RE: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: RE: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD:


Thought you would appreciate the knowledge that I just favorited you. Not that you should care, it's just a rare occasion for me.
 
2012-02-11 11:24:37 AM
Magorn: Party Boy: NewportBarGuy: Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.

well.. there was this, too.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year

Thats so much, that the US has to import small arms.

I read last year that US troops were firing a quarter-million bullets for every insurgent killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (new window)

Could some military vet farker explain to me how that number is even remotely possible? I mean there is being a bad shot, and then there's this


That's a valid question. Bunch of things will skew that number... First and foremost, suppressive fire. Go on Youtube and look up "Mini-gun". They're being increasingly used as door guns on most helicopters. Come into an LZ and lay down some fire to keep heads down. Think there's fire coming from that tree line? BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR There goes 500 rounds of 7.62X51. A couple of bursts like that and you've ripped through 2,000 rounds.

Same thing goes for leg infantry. Squad leader says, "Give me 3 seconds of suppressive on that door/window/whatever." Now you've got 8-10 guys hammering away with M-16A4's and M-4, plus maybe two SAW gunners (think a light, belt-fed machine gun) ripping through belts. That's a couple of hundred rounds easy. Did you kill anyone? No... But that's not the point. You wanted to keep the bad-guys tied up and/or keep their heads down while your maneuver element was out in the open, thus sparing YOU casualties.

See bad guys run behind a block wall? A fire-team (4 guys) are going to open up on the wall long enough to figure out a). we can take this wall apart or b). we can shoot at this farking wall all day and it's not going to do shiat. That's a couple of hundred rounds, right there.

An afternoon of that at the platoon level is a shocking amount of ammunition.

Plus, you're talking about confirmed enemy KIA's... That's to say "kicked and counted". Did you hit a guy and had enough juice left to leave with his buddies only to die from his wounds that night? Not counted (generally). Did his buddies carry him away? Not counted. Five bad guys buried in rubble because a squad got tired of farking around with small arms and called in a Harrier to level the building they were hiding in? Maybe counted, maybe not.

Then, look at the actual effectiveness of an average infantry squad. Out of 12-13 guys or so you're going to have a handful that are your real, hard-core "bump and rumble" guys. Maybe 3 or 4 of them will be accounting for 70% (maybe 80% or higher) of your squads kills. Maybe a couple that are somewhat less effective and the rest are just putting out rounds. Just like any sports team, you're going to have your star-players and your second string.

Lots of factors go into that equation while at the same time the ability of a modern infantry platoon to put out incredible volumes of fire would absolutely boggle the mind of the average civilian.
 
2012-02-11 11:25:32 AM
0Icky0: If you can't trust a paper run by an old Korean man who claims to be the Messiah, what, I ask you, can you trust?

Waiting for his record 1000 couple mass gay marriage on the National Mall.
 
2012-02-11 11:25:37 AM
randomjsa: I made an effort at one time to read all controversial books and I don't mean things like Harry Potter that somebody wants thrown out of the library for witch craft. Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, Turner Diaries, ect ect.

Did you forget to switch alts or are you attempting to explain why you frequently go off on insane rants that the average fifth grader could debunk?
 
2012-02-11 11:26:50 AM
Yeah and he'll take all your white wimmins.
 
2012-02-11 11:27:07 AM
It's too bad because we could still use the NRA to fight the good fight against Chicago, California, DC, NYC, etc. Instead they seem more interested in hyperbole and igniting culture wars, unlike GOA and the 2AF, two gun-rights organizations that have actually done shiat for gun rights recently. They need to focus on the battles that count, like in Illinois where Rahm Emanuel is going to introduce legislation to the General Assembly that calls for statewide registration and obscene fees for the privilege of buying handguns.
 
2012-02-11 11:27:22 AM
So an organization that benefits when people get all worked up over the right to bear arms is saying that Obama is planning to take away everyone's guns? Really?

i950.photobucket.com

This is my surprised face...
 
2012-02-11 11:28:37 AM
ELECTION YEAR! Time to dust-off the old Republican boogiemen.

Planned Parenthood / Abortion attack? CHECK

Contraception war? CHECK

"Dems gonna steal away all our guns"? CHECK

With Obama shoving the "Dems are soft on national defense" meme down Republicans' throats, and the economy recovering, expect more of the old social issue bullshiat to crawl into the debate to motivate the scared simpletons into voting for people who have no issue with the income gap, want to strip away people's healthcare, want to legislate their personal lives, install theocratic institutions, start unnecessary wars, and on and on.
 
2012-02-11 11:30:17 AM
Magorn: It's politics by paranoid delusion a fairly cynical way for the gun industry and its various hangers-on to generate business and/or donations

FTFY

Not their fault their customer base is made up of notoriously gullible right wing crackpots, is it? See also:

img252.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-11 11:30:23 AM
Sigh. When are people going to learn that the Democrats of the 2010s are a pro-gun, pro-tax cut, pro-corporate party? Conservatism won, yet Republicans are still battling as if it were the late 1980s.
 
2012-02-11 11:32:12 AM
Shaggy_C: Sigh. When are people going to learn that the Democrats of the 2010s are a pro-gun, pro-tax cut, pro-corporate party? Conservatism won, yet Republicans are still battling as if it were the late 1980s.

Because it's called the WHITE house for a reason.
 
2012-02-11 11:32:42 AM
Holy mother of Glod. The level of fear you White American ConservaNuts have for the Big Scary Black man in the white house is Hilarious.

upload.wikimedia.org

Personally, i WISH my president was as WHITE as this.
 
2012-02-11 11:33:29 AM
I'm strongly pro-gun, a fiscal conservative and social libertarian. And I'll be voting for Obama because neither party can control spending, at least the Dems stay out of consensual sexual partnerships between adults and don't force me to pray to Jeebus, Obama has at least tried to stand up to Israel regarding the occupation, and Obama is plainly not anti-gun. He's also not pro-gun, but he's been content to leave it alone at the federal level. That's enough for me.

I know the rest of my pro-gun brethen get their camo panties in a twist about Operation Fast and Furious as a ruse to grab all our guns, and that Obama has just been playing nice so we can get converted into a socialist-fascist-muslim dictatorship, but all the evidence points to the contrary.

/slashie
 
2012-02-11 11:34:47 AM
Fark It: It's too bad because we could still use the NRA to fight the good fight against Chicago, California, DC, NYC, etc. Instead they seem more interested in hyperbole and igniting culture wars, unlike GOA and the 2AF, two gun-rights organizations that have actually done shiat for gun rights recently. They need to focus on the battles that count, like in Illinois where Rahm Emanuel is going to introduce legislation to the General Assembly that calls for statewide registration and obscene fees for the privilege of buying handguns.

And this.
 
2012-02-11 11:35:39 AM
andrewagill: Also, I'm rather pleasantly surprised that I found this in Dinosaur Comics form:

That was awesome, nice find.
 
2012-02-11 11:36:26 AM
You know who was really anti-gun? I mean not pretend future sekrit anti-gun, but real anti-gun? Reagan.

fark Wayne Lapewpew. I own over a dozen guns and as long as he's there I'll never join the NRA. Assholes like him are why I couldn't find an AR barrel or primers in 2009.
 
2012-02-11 11:37:14 AM
Smoking GNU: Holy mother of Glod. The level of fear you White American ConservaNuts have for the Big Scary Black man in the white house is Hilarious.

The foundation of conservatism is fear; fear of change, fear of the other, fear of loss.

Just look at the old conservative chestnut "a liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet," it presupposes that a mugging will occur at some point and that the liberal will change their views if something bad happens to them. It's hardly surprising that conservatives would simultaneously want to own guns to give them a (false) sense of security and fear that the "other" is going to take that away from them.
 
2012-02-11 11:37:30 AM
If I can't go to the store, drive, work, and sleep with my gun then how can I be free? I mean really we have the right to ensure that we are protecting our FREEDOM by bearing these arms, infact to ensure it assists this AND make it easier to PROTECT OUR FREEDOM all weapons must have a hair trigger, be fully automatic, and no safety or gun locks are allowed.

Only a filthy pinko commie liberal would allow anything to come between them and their weapon! Now we know this might endanger some people but honestly if they are afraid of it or anyone speaks up against it they obviously are against FREEDOM and our rights. YOU know how to handle your weapon, not some filthy libural who tells you to lock it up!

Remember, liberals could be anywhere, so remember to take the gun lock off, keep the safety off, and sleep with your gun under your pillow and your hand on the trigger. Be forever vigilant! You're doing your part every night you do this. Also give a gun to your children and have them. An armed family is a safe family.
 
2012-02-11 11:38:55 AM
shower_in_my_socks: ELECTION YEAR! Time to dust-off the old Republican boogiemen.

Planned Parenthood / Abortion attack? CHECK

Contraception war? CHECK

"Dems gonna steal away all our guns"? CHECK


Up next: Gay marriage!

/GOP needs a new script.
//And a clue.
///Currently have neither.
 
2012-02-11 11:39:41 AM
Shaggy_C: Sigh. When are people going to learn that the Democrats of the 2010s are a pro-gun...

Probably when they stop appointing anti-gun judges and AG's and pretending as if their support on an issue begins and ends on verbal declarations.
 
2012-02-11 11:40:58 AM
Contribution Corsair: If I can't go to the store, drive, work, and sleep with my gun then how can I be free? I mean really we have the right to ensure that we are protecting our FREEDOM by bearing these arms, infact to ensure it assists this AND make it easier to PROTECT OUR FREEDOM all weapons must have a hair trigger, be fully automatic, and no safety or gun locks are allowed.

Only a filthy pinko commie liberal would allow anything to come between them and their weapon! Now we know this might endanger some people but honestly if they are afraid of it or anyone speaks up against it they obviously are against FREEDOM and our rights. YOU know how to handle your weapon, not some filthy libural who tells you to lock it up!

Remember, liberals could be anywhere, so remember to take the gun lock off, keep the safety off, and sleep with your gun under your pillow and your hand on the trigger. Be forever vigilant! You're doing your part every night you do this. Also give a gun to your children and have them. An armed family is a safe family.


As I read that, I kept hearing ricochets and broken glass and cat yowls, interspersed with "Oops!" and "Sorry!" and "Didn't like that vase anyway!"
 
2012-02-11 11:45:01 AM
Kibbler: I heard that Obama is working with the UN to build concentration camps for white men.

/True story


That's ridiculous..... It's only white Christians (and Jews, because he hates Israel that much). Atheists can still remain free.... For now.
 
2012-02-11 11:45:35 AM
Gun sales must be dropping.
 
2012-02-11 11:45:49 AM
Mrbogey: Shaggy_C: Sigh. When are people going to learn that the Democrats of the 2010s are a pro-gun...

Probably when they stop appointing anti-gun judges and AG's and pretending as if their support on an issue begins and ends on verbal declarations.


Are you saying your gun rights are being infringed upon? Because if you are, surely you have evidence for this. Otherwise, this is just more "NO, REALLY, THE LIBS WANT TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY!!!"
 
2012-02-11 11:45:53 AM
So now I have to choose between a Democrat that will destroy the Second Amendment and a Republican who will start WWIII just to please a bunch of warmongering paranoid Zionists?


i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-02-11 11:46:48 AM
bujin: Kibbler: I heard that Obama is working with the UN to build concentration camps for white men.

/True story

That's ridiculous..... It's only white Christians (and Jews, because he hates Israel that much). Atheists can still remain free.... For now.


*scribbling furiously in notebook*
*snapping notebook shut*
*pointing at eyes*
*pointing at you*
 
2012-02-11 11:48:19 AM
clancifer: Do not stress, Gun Nut Republicans. Even if Obama were to try this, he would cave and rescind in a matter of days anyhow.

Four letters: N D A A
 
2012-02-11 11:48:51 AM
This is just like with Obama's never ending quest to raise taxes. Sure, he hasn't done it... but you just KNOW he's thinking about it!

Guns are a dead issue. Relax.
 
2012-02-11 11:49:34 AM
Amos Quito: clancifer: Do not stress, Gun Nut Republicans. Even if Obama were to try this, he would cave and rescind in a matter of days anyhow.

Four letters: N D A A


What does that have to do with absolutely anything?
 
2012-02-11 11:49:57 AM
Well seems like to me he realy does not want votes from wv does he??? There is not a peson in wv who does not go hunting in the their spare time or have has at least one gun in their house!!!! What the hell is he thinking??????????????
 
2012-02-11 11:51:04 AM
Amos Quito: So now I have to choose between a Democrat that will destroy the Second Amendment and a Republican who will start WWIII just to please a bunch of warmongering paranoid Zionists?


[i3.kym-cdn.com image 275x220]


I've seen no proof that Obama intends to do anything of the sort. I've heard plenty of indications that Republican candidates would like to do just what you said.
 
2012-02-11 11:51:17 AM
LasersHurt: Are you saying your gun rights are being infringed upon? Because if you are, surely you have evidence for this. Otherwise, this is just more "NO, REALLY, THE LIBS WANT TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY!!!"

"Bush didn't ban abortions... he must not have been against abortion...derp dee doo!"

Obama is not neutral towards gun rights. Given every chance he's appointed someone who doesn't support gun rights at major positions. And despite protests, he had in the 90s stated he was against personal gun ownership. Unlike gravity, no amount of anger or outrage at those "evil white Christian Republicans" can warp space and time to make reality fit your views.

Obama does not support the second amendment as an individual right to a weapon.

You should be outraged that in an attempt to raise negative publicity for guns your AG got innocent people killed and has faced no repercussions.
 
2012-02-11 11:52:17 AM
LasersHurt: Amos Quito: clancifer: Do not stress, Gun Nut Republicans. Even if Obama were to try this, he would cave and rescind in a matter of days anyhow.

Four letters: N D A A

What does that have to do with absolutely anything?


Obama signed funding for the US military which means that he's coming for your guns and your white wimmins.
 
2012-02-11 11:52:51 AM
With all of the wingnut republitards roaming this country, any good dumbocrat is going to get himself a gun so he can gun down the wingnuts before they gun him down.

Sanity is a rate commodity and intelligence has left the building.
 
2012-02-11 11:53:31 AM
Magorn: Holy hopping hell! I read the First sentence of TFA :
A top official with the National Rifle Association said Friday that President Obama will move to "destroy" gun rights and "erase" the Second Amendment if he is re-elected in November.


and I came to post a snarky comment along the lines of "Yes Wayne, the fact that Obama has done absolutely nothing to restrict gun rights in his first term is all part of his master plan to lull you into a false sense of security"

Then I read the next sentence and realized that was his ACTUAL ARGUMENT:

While delivering one of the liveliest and best-received speeches at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said the president's low-key approach to gun rights during his first term was "a "conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep."

"All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," he said


Mother of god, We've just passed the Derp Event Horizon. Now they are not only criticizing everything Obama does, but they are attacking him for what he DOESN'T DO, but in their minds secretly WANTS to do


It's politics by paranoid delusion


It's desperation, is what it is. Their wedge issue, the NRA's entire reason for being, is rapidly disappearing and they're trying to cling to it so they'll keep bringing in those donations.
 
2012-02-11 11:54:22 AM
Amos Quito: Zionists?

Nobody who uses this world unironically has any credibility. It's right up there next to "Sheeple".

/unless you were being ironic
//in which case, +1 and carry on
 
2012-02-11 11:54:59 AM
Mrbogey: LasersHurt: Are you saying your gun rights are being infringed upon? Because if you are, surely you have evidence for this. Otherwise, this is just more "NO, REALLY, THE LIBS WANT TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY!!!"

"Bush didn't ban abortions... he must not have been against abortion...derp dee doo!"

Obama is not neutral towards gun rights. Given every chance he's appointed someone who doesn't support gun rights at major positions. And despite protests, he had in the 90s stated he was against personal gun ownership. Unlike gravity, no amount of anger or outrage at those "evil white Christian Republicans" can warp space and time to make reality fit your views.

Obama does not support the second amendment as an individual right to a weapon.

You should be outraged that in an attempt to raise negative publicity for guns your AG got innocent people killed and has faced no repercussions.


I like how there's absolutely no evidence for this, you're just SURE he wants to ban guns. Good show.

P.S. Evidence means actual, real, provable stuff. Like recent attempts at banning guns, or suggesting the banning of guns in the last decade or so. You know, reality.
P.P.S. You might want to tone down the "evil white christian republicans" thing. It looks kind of defensive.
 
2012-02-11 11:55:06 AM
Mrbogey: Shaggy_C: Sigh. When are people going to learn that the Democrats of the 2010s are a pro-gun...

Probably when they stop appointing anti-gun judges and AG's and pretending as if their support on an issue begins and ends on verbal declarations.


most Attorneys General are elected.

See, this is one of the many problems with the Tea Party and Conservative movements in general -- they seem to have a very limited knowledge of civics and government. Their participation seems to come largely from adhering to the authority of very specific individuals and organizations.
 
2012-02-11 11:55:07 AM
Monkeyhouse Zendo: Smoking GNU: Holy mother of Glod. The level of fear you White American ConservaNuts have for the Big Scary Black man in the white house is Hilarious.

The foundation of conservatism is fear; fear of change, fear of the other, fear of loss.

Just look at the old conservative chestnut "a liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet," it presupposes that a mugging will occur at some point and that the liberal will change their views if something bad happens to them. It's hardly surprising that conservatives would simultaneously want to own guns to give them a (false) sense of security and fear that the "other" is going to take that away from them.


My 8th grade history teacher had a variation on that -- "a liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet, and a conservative is just a liberal that hasn't been fired yet."

/CSB
 
2012-02-11 11:57:14 AM
LasersHurt: Amos Quito: clancifer: Do not stress, Gun Nut Republicans. Even if Obama were to try this, he would cave and rescind in a matter of days anyhow.

Four letters: N D A A

What does that have to do with absolutely anything?



If he (and Congress) are willing to give us a law that guts Amendments 3, 4, 5, (etc) - what makes you think they give a damn about the other Amendments?
 
2012-02-11 11:57:16 AM
Funny how libs continue to trust Obama. We know less about him than any other Presidential candidate in history. Simple things like his birth, faith, school records are all obfuscated at best or just out right lies. But fine, if you believe he won't come after gun owners, you go right ahead. In the mean time I will be adding to my collection and keeping my kids trained.
 
2012-02-11 11:58:24 AM
Amos Quito: LasersHurt: Amos Quito: clancifer: Do not stress, Gun Nut Republicans. Even if Obama were to try this, he would cave and rescind in a matter of days anyhow.

Four letters: N D A A

What does that have to do with absolutely anything?


If he (and Congress) are willing to give us a law that guts Amendments 3, 4, 5, (etc) - what makes you think they give a damn about the other Amendments?


Why yes, that slope IS mighty slippery.
 
2012-02-11 11:58:55 AM
i don't think you guys understand. Gun rights have expanded because of Obama's complete ineptitude and strong conservative leaders like Rick Scott/Scott Walker. That does NOT mean Obama has not already begun to implement his treasonous plot to seize all firearms from law-abiding citizens.
 
2012-02-11 11:58:58 AM
Amos Quito: If he (and Congress) are willing to give us a law that guts Amendments 3, 4, 5, (etc) - what makes you think they give a damn about the other Amendments?

I'm pretty sure the 13th is safe.
 
2012-02-11 11:59:11 AM
do you really think you could "outlaw" guns in the USA when every nutjob has ten of 'em?

it's a little late for that.
 
2012-02-11 11:59:14 AM
RandomExcess: Funny how libs continue to trust Obama. We know less about him than any other Presidential candidate in history. Simple things like his birth, faith, school records are all obfuscated at best or just out right lies. But fine, if you believe he won't come after gun owners, you go right ahead. In the mean time I will be adding to my collection and keeping my kids trained.

my god you're just awful
 
2012-02-11 11:59:17 AM
The NRA has been saying this for years. Obama is a secret muslim socialist kenyan anti-christ gun taker, while he has actually signed at least three pieces of legislation that have made guns more available than they were in the Bush administration.

Ya, go with that one, that's the one that will work.


/ODS
 
2012-02-11 12:00:09 PM
Cromulent User Name: i don't think you guys understand. Gun rights have expanded because of Obama's complete ineptitude and strong conservative leaders like Rick Scott/Scott Walker. That does NOT mean Obama has not already begun to implement his treasonous plot to seize all firearms from law-abiding citizens.

treasonous? Bit over the top, don't ya think?
 
2012-02-11 12:00:54 PM
The irony of course is that the spirit of the 2nd Amendment was that the People could defend themselves against their own government if they got out of hand. Yet the people who cry loudest about the 2nd Amendment are the ones who were most willing to go along with whatever the Patriot Act and everything else the post 9/11 government had to say.
 
2012-02-11 12:01:04 PM
RandomExcess: Funny how libs continue to trust Obama. We know less about him than any other Presidential candidate in history. Simple things like his birth, faith, school records are all obfuscated at best or just out right lies. But fine, if you believe he won't come after gun owners, you go right ahead. In the mean time I will be adding to my collection and keeping my kids trained.

It isn't that we trust him, we know that as the Antichrist he will betray us as well but, being liberals, we can't help but worship and assist him in his hellish crusade.
 
2012-02-11 12:01:46 PM
TsukasaK: Amos Quito: Zionists?

Nobody who uses this world unironically has any credibility.



That's what Zionists like to say.

;-)
 
2012-02-11 12:02:00 PM
HeartBurnKid: Their wedge issue, the NRA's entire reason for being, is rapidly disappearing

I would't be so sure about that. The NRA is quite possibly one of the only organizations I can give a pass to when they begin to herp the derp. Reason being, gun rights are one of those "if you give an inch, they'll take a mile" type things. Once something is gone, it's gone for good. And if there's something that derp is good for, it's rapidly mobilizing lots of weak-minded people. What's the term.. useful idiots?

Just because Heller vs DC was decided sanely doesn't mean that any threat by state or local governments is automatically invalid. Is DC even in compliance with that ruling yet?

On the other hand, this is farking stupid. Obama isn't coming for your guns.

And speaking of farking stupid:

Mrbogey: Obama is not neutral towards gun rights. Given every chance he's appointed someone who doesn't support gun rights at major positions. And despite protests, he had in the 90s stated he was against personal gun ownership. Unlike gravity, no amount of anger or outrage at those "evil white Christian Republicans" can warp space and time to make reality fit your views.

Nobody cares. The case law has been decided, personal gun ownership has been affirmed. He, his appointees, and every member of the executive branch can be as "against" gun rights as the most radical-left hippie out there, but it matters not. What's done is done. Kind of like how if RON PAUL was elected, he could want the gold standard with every fiber of his being, that doesn't mean it's going to pass congress.
 
2012-02-11 12:02:15 PM
RandomExcess: Funny how libs continue to trust Obama. We know less about him than any other Presidential candidate in history. Simple things like his birth, faith, school records are all obfuscated at best or just out right lies. But fine, if you believe he won't come after gun owners, you go right ahead. In the mean time I will be adding to my collection and keeping my kids trained.

Exactly; he's a complete mystery man, and this is one of the few things we do know:

i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-11 12:02:47 PM
shower_in_my_socks: ELECTION YEAR! Time to dust-off the old Republican boogiemen.

Planned Parenthood / Abortion attack? CHECK

Contraception war? CHECK

"Dems gonna steal away all our guns"? CHECK

With Obama shoving the "Dems are soft on national defense" meme down Republicans' throats, and the economy recovering, expect more of the old social issue bullshiat to crawl into the debate to motivate the scared simpletons into voting for people who have no issue with the income gap, want to strip away people's healthcare, want to legislate their personal lives, install theocratic institutions, start unnecessary wars, and on and on.


You forgot his war on religion. It was even the main theme at CPAC. Son, I am disappoint.
 
2012-02-11 12:03:05 PM
RandomExcess: Funny how libs continue to trust Obama. We know less about him than any other Presidential candidate in history. Simple things like his birth, faith, school records are all obfuscated at best or just out right lies. But fine, if you believe he won't come after gun owners, you go right ahead. In the mean time I will be adding to my collection and keeping my kids trained.

Name one other President who wrote/published two biographical books before even running to become President. Tell me about the school records, birth and faith of your favourite candidate.
 
2012-02-11 12:03:20 PM
I get all my news from cult newsletters. It makes life more interesting.
 
2012-02-11 12:04:06 PM
acs17: Well seems like to me he realy does not want votes from wv does he??? There is not a peson in wv who does not go hunting in the their spare time or have has at least one gun in their house!!!! What the hell is he thinking??????????????

I the modern era, Democrats don't usually win WV in Presidential elections. So to answer your question, no, he doesn't really want votes from WV.
 
2012-02-11 12:04:23 PM
 
2012-02-11 12:04:27 PM
Cromulent User Name: and strong conservative leaders like Rick Scott/Scott Walker

Are you referring to Rick Scott as in the governor of Florida? He's pretty much regarded as the worst human ever to hold elected office. And you're calling him a leader?
 
2012-02-11 12:04:37 PM
This is why I'm not an NRA member. I own dozens of guns, I love shooting, and I'm a believer in the Second Amendment, but I cannot support these shiat heads.
 
2012-02-11 12:05:20 PM
MisterLoki: I get all my news from cult newsletters. It makes life more interesting.

I do miss the Weekly World News. I wonder how Bat Boy and Elvis are doing.
 
2012-02-11 12:05:27 PM
LasersHurt: I like how there's absolutely no evidence for this, you're just SURE he wants to ban guns. Good show.

P.S. Evidence means actual, real, provable stuff. Like recent attempts at banning guns, or suggesting the banning of guns in the last decade or so. You know, reality.
P.P.S. You might want to tone down the "evil white christian republicans" thing. It looks kind of defensive.


So you're saying that his AG didn't run a gov't operation that funneled guns into Mexico resulting in people dying all so he could hold a press conference where he talks about how we need more stringent gun laws?

What did Obama do to him for that? Nothing says a lot sometimes.

And who did he appoint to the USSC? Well judges who have stated their opposition to the popular interpretation of the second amendment.

At best, Obama is semi-neutral towards guns. Maybe it just doesn't matter to him. But if it didn't matter to him then certainly his choices would have somewhat of a 50-50 split in their view of the 2nd Amendment. And yet it doesn't.

Obama clearly knows as long as he doesn't say what he really thinks, everyone will ignore his actions.

CapnBlues: most Attorneys General are elected.

See, this is one of the many problems with the Tea Party and Conservative movements in general -- they seem to have a very limited knowledge of civics and government. Their participation seems to come largely from adhering to the authority of very specific individuals and organizations.


Wait, you just lectured me on not knowing civics when you just asserted the USAG is an elected position. Hoooooooooooow does your brain work?
 
2012-02-11 12:05:33 PM
Mr_Fabulous: Once again... There is 0.0% chance that I will ever click on any link to a propaganda sheet published by the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung-Moon (aka, "the moonies").

Furthermore, the mod/mins of Fark.com disgrace themselves and cheapen their brand every time they greenlight this unspeakable horseshiat.


That's okay. After reading your post, I clicked twice for you, so your hands are clean.
 
2012-02-11 12:06:53 PM
Amos Quito: LasersHurt: Amos Quito: clancifer: Do not stress, Gun Nut Republicans. Even if Obama were to try this, he would cave and rescind in a matter of days anyhow.

Four letters: N D A A

What does that have to do with absolutely anything?


If he (and Congress) are willing to give us a law that guts Amendments 3, 4, 5, (etc) - what makes you think they give a damn about the other Amendments?


What laws have they passed that gut any of the Amendments? Yea, I didn't think so.
 
2012-02-11 12:06:55 PM
Mugato: Lionel Mandrake: Wayne LaPierre is fkng insane.

Maybe if his name wasn't so fruity he wouldn't be such a nutcase.


Why does it seem that the most insane right-wingnuts, in your country, have French last names ?
 
2012-02-11 12:08:46 PM
chuckufarlie: What laws have they passed that gut any of the Amendments?

One could make a number of convincing arguments that provisions of the NDAA are very, very unconstitutional.
 
2012-02-11 12:09:20 PM
Mrbogey: So you're saying that his AG didn't run a gov't operation that funneled guns into Mexico resulting in people dying all so he could hold a press conference where he talks about how we need more stringent gun laws?

I wasn't talking about Fast and Furious at all. But since you insist on talking about it, NO, I don't think he did it so he can talk about needed more gun laws. I think the AG and the departments involved ran a shiatty operation that ended poorly. I do NOT think this was a conspiracy to crusade against US gun laws, because there is no evidence of that.

And who did he appoint to the USSC? Well judges who have stated their opposition to the popular interpretation of the second amendment.

Oh, really? They said "We want to abolish the second amendment" ?

At best, Obama is semi-neutral towards guns. Maybe it just doesn't matter to him. But if it didn't matter to him then certainly his choices would have somewhat of a 50-50 split in their view of the 2nd Amendment. And yet it doesn't.

There is a WIDE, WIDE, enormously WIDE gulf between "neutral" and "remove the second amendment."
 
2012-02-11 12:09:36 PM
TsukasaK: Nobody cares. The case law has been decided, personal gun ownership has been affirmed.

Actually it's not settled. The gov't can still ban guns. Most people don't know this because they prefer to be ignorant of the issues they talk about but the USAG already has the ability to ban guns from importation. They can also regulate gun sales as long as it's "reasonable".

There's been no case affirming an absolute right to firearm ownership. Even Heller didn't state that.
 
2012-02-11 12:10:13 PM
Mr. LaPierre, who said "there is no greater freedom than to own a firearm," predicted that gun owners will rally en masse to defeat Mr. Obama in November.

How about the freedom to say the first stupid thing that comes into your pea-sized brain?
 
2012-02-11 12:10:14 PM
chuckufarlie: Amos Quito: LasersHurt: Amos Quito: clancifer: Do not stress, Gun Nut Republicans. Even if Obama were to try this, he would cave and rescind in a matter of days anyhow.

Four letters: N D A A

What does that have to do with absolutely anything?


If he (and Congress) are willing to give us a law that guts Amendments 3, 4, 5, (etc) - what makes you think they give a damn about the other Amendments?

What laws have they passed that gut any of the Amendments? Yea, I didn't think so.


He said it happened. On the internet. Therefore, it's true. Proof is for liars like yourself.
 
2012-02-11 12:11:15 PM
RandomExcess: Funny how libs continue to trust Obama. We know less about him than any other Presidential candidate in history. Simple things like his birth, faith, school records are all obfuscated at best or just out right lies.

He's a complicated man, no one understands him but his woman.

/Right on.
//He's the cat that won't cop out, when there's danger all about.
 
2012-02-11 12:11:48 PM
why don't they just take the guns away from the gangs?

most people keep their guns in their house to protect against burglers.

the gangsters are the ones using the guns for crime...

the should seriously make a law banning the gangbangers from having guns!
 
2012-02-11 12:11:49 PM
The NRA needs to remain relevant to keep their coffers full.
 
2012-02-11 12:12:06 PM
The NRA won. The Supreme Court settled the longstanding "militia" argument about the Second Amendment by ruling that there actually is an individual right to keep and bear arms, just what the NRA always wanted it to mean.

There is nothing further for the NRA to fight for on the national level, but they desperately want the war to go on because that's their business model.
 
2012-02-11 12:12:11 PM
Obama is a gun store's best friend.
 
2012-02-11 12:12:24 PM
Mrbogey: CapnBlues: most Attorneys General are elected.

See, this is one of the many problems with the Tea Party and Conservative movements in general -- they seem to have a very limited knowledge of civics and government. Their participation seems to come largely from adhering to the authority of very specific individuals and organizations.

Wait, you just lectured me on not knowing civics when you just asserted the USAG is an elected position. Hoooooooooooow does your brain work?


Hi there -- just to clarify, 43 out of 50 states elect their attorneys general. at no point did i say that the USAG is elected.

How does my brain work? the same way yours does: oxygen and glucose.
 
2012-02-11 12:12:40 PM
Mrbogey: At best, Obama is semi-neutral towards guns. Maybe it just doesn't matter to him. But if it didn't matter to him then certainly his choices would have somewhat of a 50-50 split in their view of the 2nd Amendment. And yet it doesn't.

Obama knows that gun control is a major hot-button issue and that he's got enough to do in office already. Even if he wanted to enact more gun laws, why spend his time and energy on that when he's currently fixing the economy, getting us out of war, and expanding healthcare coverage?

He realizes (unlike a lot of dems or republicans) that gun control just isn't that important on the grand scale of things.
 
2012-02-11 12:13:24 PM
Kibbler: Contribution Corsair: If I can't go to the store, drive, work, and sleep with my gun then how can I be free? I mean really we have the right to ensure that we are protecting our FREEDOM by bearing these arms, infact to ensure it assists this AND make it easier to PROTECT OUR FREEDOM all weapons must have a hair trigger, be fully automatic, and no safety or gun locks are allowed.

Only a filthy pinko commie liberal would allow anything to come between them and their weapon! Now we know this might endanger some people but honestly if they are afraid of it or anyone speaks up against it they obviously are against FREEDOM and our rights. YOU know how to handle your weapon, not some filthy libural who tells you to lock it up!

Remember, liberals could be anywhere, so remember to take the gun lock off, keep the safety off, and sleep with your gun under your pillow and your hand on the trigger. Be forever vigilant! You're doing your part every night you do this. Also give a gun to your children and have them. An armed family is a safe family.

As I read that, I kept hearing ricochets and broken glass and cat yowls, interspersed with "Oops!" and "Sorry!" and "Didn't like that vase anyway!"


You must be one of those silly liberals who want to take the guns away. A True American doesn't have those kind of problems, the guns only go off when aimed at a practice target at the range, a terrorist, or someone invading your home.

To imply otherwise is just more liberal propaganda to try to push gun control and revoking the second amendment!

A gun in every hand and twice as much ammo! Thats the ticket! And just remember if the gun goes off and hits something, that thing was obviously a commie liberal traitor to the Constitution and an enemy of our Lord. He wanted it destroyed or dead and thus He chose to guide your weapon. That is why you need to keep your finger on the trigger AT ALL TIMES and ready to fire with no safety. The Lord's will may try to guide your hand at any time and if you have placed blocks in the way you obviously are weak of faith.
 
2012-02-11 12:14:38 PM
Doctor Funkenstein: Of all the pant-shiatting, bed wetting, insane conspiracies that conservatives dream up I think this 'Bammy's comin' fer mah guns' fantasy pisses me off the most. Has Fartbongo even uttered the word 'gun' outside of telling the Navy SEALS to go get theirs and blow some terrorists face off?

Only when he pointed out the truth about the whackadoodles clinging to their guns and religion. Ever since they have been dialing it up to 11, and I now think that he purposefully baited them. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Make them visible throught their insane actions.

The NRA is the biggest scam and these morons just keep pumping money into it, because they are afraid of the n*gger in the WH.
 
2012-02-11 12:16:15 PM
Mrbogey: The gov't can still ban guns.

Oh really? Do tell.

Mrbogey: Most people don't know this because they prefer to be ignorant of the issues they talk about but the USAG already has the ability to ban guns from importation.

And yet, this isn't happening. So much for the "anti-gun" Obama, huh? Hell, I'm pro-gun, and could probably be significantly more evil than that.

Mrbogey: They can also regulate gun sales as long as it's "reasonable".

Point being? Sales of anything are "regulated".

Mrbogey: There's been no case affirming an absolute right to firearm ownership.

Where did this word "absolute" come from? There are no "absolute" rights anywhere in the world. Pretty sure I didn't say it.

I'm not going to spend the time to copypasta from the ruling for your benefit. Suffice to say, you are wrong. SCOTUS explicitly affirmed the second amendment.
 
2012-02-11 12:16:54 PM
iaazathot: Doctor Funkenstein: Of all the pant-shiatting, bed wetting, insane conspiracies that conservatives dream up I think this 'Bammy's comin' fer mah guns' fantasy pisses me off the most. Has Fartbongo even uttered the word 'gun' outside of telling the Navy SEALS to go get theirs and blow some terrorists face off?

Only when he pointed out the truth about the whackadoodles clinging to their guns and religion. Ever since they have been dialing it up to 11, and I now think that he purposefully baited them. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Make them visible throught their insane actions.

The NRA is the biggest scam and these morons just keep pumping money into it, because they are afraid of the n*gger in the WH.


didn't the NRA start around the same time that the KKK fell out of fashion?
 
2012-02-11 12:18:38 PM
t0.gstatic.com
 
2012-02-11 12:19:32 PM
CapnBlues: Hi there -- just to clarify, 43 out of 50 states elect their attorneys general. at no point did i say that the USAG is elected.

And yet clearly I was talking about AG Holder. You know, the one that is appointed by Obama... the guy who everyone in the thread is talking about.

But as is tradition in the Special Olympics, I award you the red ribbon for participation. Good Job!

LasersHurt: There is a WIDE, WIDE, enormously WIDE gulf between "neutral" and "remove the second amendment."

Which is why I said, "at best".
 
2012-02-11 12:19:35 PM
Eddie Adams from Torrance: 0Icky0: If you can't trust a paper run by an old Korean man who claims to be the Messiah, what, I ask you, can you trust?

Every article in The Washington Times should start: RE: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: RE: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: RE: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD:


And end with: People who agree pass this on. People who don't, that's your right but keep it to yourself
 
2012-02-11 12:19:38 PM
Thanks for the tip, Captain Obvious.
 
2012-02-11 12:20:33 PM
shower_in_my_socks: ELECTION YEAR! Time to dust-off the old Republican boogiemen.

Planned Parenthood / Abortion attack? CHECK

Contraception war? CHECK

"Dems gonna steal away all our guns"? CHECK

With Obama shoving the "Dems are soft on national defense" meme down Republicans' throats, and the economy recovering, expect more of the old social issue bullshiat to crawl into the debate to motivate the scared simpletons into voting for people who have no issue with the income gap, want to strip away people's healthcare, want to legislate their personal lives, install theocratic institutions, start unnecessary wars, and on and on.


Just the rural folks clinging to their guns and abortions, or whatever that quote was. I'm anxiously waiting to find out what he's going to shove down our throats.
 
2012-02-11 12:20:35 PM
NewportBarGuy: Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.

Aw shiat. You're probably right. I'd better start hoarding before it becomes obvious to even the delusional Limbaugh crowd that the Republicans have no chance.

I suppose that makes me part of the problem... but at least I'll have ammo.
 
2012-02-11 12:20:41 PM
TheMadChaosopher: why don't they just take the guns away from the gangs?

most people keep their guns in their house to protect against burglers.

the gangsters are the ones using the guns for crime...

the should seriously make a law banning the gangbangers from having guns!


Serious? I honestly can't tell.
 
2012-02-11 12:21:04 PM
Magorn: Party Boy: NewportBarGuy: Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.

well.. there was this, too.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year

Thats so much, that the US has to import small arms.

I read last year that US troops were firing a quarter-million bullets for every insurgent killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (new window)

Could some military vet farker explain to me how that number is even remotely possible? I mean there is being a bad shot, and then there's this


Suppressing fire

/and remember, we fired more rounds in Korea than we did in WWII
 
2012-02-11 12:21:41 PM
Mrbogey: LasersHurt: There is a WIDE, WIDE, enormously WIDE gulf between "neutral" and "remove the second amendment."

Which is why I said, "at best".


You're still on the "paranoid without evidence" side of things. The closest you can get is "some people associated with him believe in various forms of gun control." Bear in mind what we're talking about here is "removing the second amendment." There have to be STRONG overtures towards actual bans for that argument to hold any water.
 
2012-02-11 12:22:33 PM
Mrbogey: CapnBlues: Hi there -- just to clarify, 43 out of 50 states elect their attorneys general. at no point did i say that the USAG is elected.

And yet clearly I was talking about AG Holder. You know, the one that is appointed by Obama... the guy who everyone in the thread is talking about.


There is really no reason to be such a dick, except that you are trying to get a reaction out of people. I'm sorry that this is where your life has led you. Take care, friend, I hope things go better for you soon.
 
2012-02-11 12:23:35 PM
edmo: They've been saying that for four years now and it still hasn't happened.

What's tragic in America is people will vote for this BS but not on reality. People claim the economy is worse off than four years ago even though it is doing much better. Talking heads cry appeasement when we withdraw from a country whose ass we thoroughly kicked nearly a decade ago.

Let's face it, the GOP has squandered another election by pushing the fruitcakes to the front.

/In other news, the guns and ammo marketing association has helped gun sellers set yet another yearly sales record.


CapnBlues: Mrbogey: Shaggy_C: Sigh. When are people going to learn that the Democrats of the 2010s are a pro-gun...

Probably when they stop appointing anti-gun judges and AG's and pretending as if their support on an issue begins and ends on verbal declarations.

most Attorneys General are elected.

See, this is one of the many problems with the Tea Party and Conservative movements in general -- they seem to have a very limited knowledge of civics and government. Their participation seems to come largely from adhering to the authority of very specific individuals and organizations.


Okay, let's see: the Republicans fark up their selection process, allowing several losers from past elections (or disgraced lunatics) to get support. Now faced with their inability to actually act like a political party, they now pull out the only thing they really control--various media sources--and start pushing the fear narrative en masse. So far we've already had Birthers, and now it's gun control that's just more dogwhistle racism.

Yawn central. What's next, the big 'immigration' problem? Mexicans taking our jerbs?
 
2012-02-11 12:24:37 PM
RandomExcess: Funny how libs continue to trust Obama. We know less about him than any other Presidential candidate in history. Simple things like his birth, faith, school records are all obfuscated at best or just out right lies. But fine, if you believe he won't come after gun owners, you go right ahead. In the mean time I will be adding to my collection and keeping my kids trained.

AAHHHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! Holy Poe's Law, but it's farkin funny either way.
 
2012-02-11 12:25:52 PM
Mrbogey: And despite protests, he had in the 90s stated he was against personal gun ownership.

OK?

I've said time and time again I'm against abortion, but I'm still pro-choice, because I don't feel my personal dogma should be the basis for legislation. I don't understand how his opinion changes his public policy.

Maybe it's just because I'm a liberal?

Liberal: Voting for the public good regardless of personal standing.
Conservative: Voting for ME ME ME ME ME
 
2012-02-11 12:26:07 PM
They are not getting my Jumpin Jesus 50 cal auto that I lovingly refer to as my gubermint' fly swatter! Tommy freekin Jefferson said I can keep it loaded and in the winder of in my pickemup truck. Jes in case a commie or a darkie should insult my rights or free tinkin'. Don't take mush edumacatin to figur out how to load a gun neither. "bout second or tird grades all y'need. Sall I gots! n' I loads jes fine. Gun-Grabber! Wey doggie that is a good un'! Where'all youse people comes up with alls them fancy words? I'll be usin that right next to Fartbongo! My sides are a splittin'!
 
2012-02-11 12:26:35 PM
It looks like the republican rebuttal in this thread is: Look at this entirely unrelated thing I hate over here. Splutter splutter splutter. Therefore gun grabber.

Obama drinks fancy beer and his wife talks about healthy eating. Tell me he's not looking to take every god-fearing American's gun now, libs.
 
2012-02-11 12:27:09 PM
Mr_Fabulous: Once again... There is 0.0% chance that I will ever click on any link to a propaganda sheet published by the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung-Moon (aka, "the moonies").

Furthermore, the mod/mins of Fark.com disgrace themselves and cheapen their brand every time they greenlight this unspeakable horseshiat.



You're just mad because Obama took your gun.
 
2012-02-11 12:27:15 PM
Good idea. Just go see "guy shoots laptop to punish daughter" thread* to see why gun ownership by average citizens should definitely be heavily regulated like in UK, Europe and Japan.

*Or any story where little Traeger and his buddy Aspen are fooling around with daddy's piece and one of them gets ventilated.
 
2012-02-11 12:28:17 PM
Primum: Good idea. Just go see "guy shoots laptop to punish daughter" thread* to see why gun ownership by average citizens should definitely be heavily regulated like in UK, Europe and Japan.

*Or any story where little Traeger and his buddy Aspen are fooling around with daddy's piece and one of them gets ventilated.


A man using his legal firearm to shoot something he owns is a cause for strict gun control?
 
2012-02-11 12:28:30 PM
Magorn: Holy hopping hell! I read the First sentence of TFA :
A top official with the National Rifle Association said Friday that President Obama will move to "destroy" gun rights and "erase" the Second Amendment if he is re-elected in November.


and I came to post a snarky comment along the lines of "Yes Wayne, the fact that Obama has done absolutely nothing to restrict gun rights in his first term is all part of his master plan to lull you into a false sense of security"

Then I read the next sentence and realized that was his ACTUAL ARGUMENT:

While delivering one of the liveliest and best-received speeches at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said the president's low-key approach to gun rights during his first term was "a "conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep."

"All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," he said


Mother of god, We've just passed the Derp Event Horizon. Now they are not only criticizing everything Obama does, but they are attacking him for what he DOESN'T DO, but in their minds secretly WANTS to do


It's politics by paranoid delusion


Dude, the NRA endorsed McCain last time for the same reason:

"Um, both candidates' gun policies are the same, but Obama's a n... liberal who is obviously lying, so we say McCain's better!"
 
2012-02-11 12:30:04 PM
Wow, the fact that they always trump this shiat out, and it works, if farking ridiculous. I really doubt that President Obama wants to spend every bit of his political capital in a failed attempt to alter the bill of rights.
 
2012-02-11 12:31:48 PM
Primum: Good idea. Just go see "guy shoots laptop to punish daughter" thread* to see why gun ownership by average citizens should definitely be heavily regulated like in UK, Europe and Japan.

Explain.
 
2012-02-11 12:32:36 PM
Mrtraveler01: Obama is a gun store's best friend.

I thought uneducated men with a sense of sexual inadequacy were gun store's best friends.
 
2012-02-11 12:32:59 PM
Here's a funny one: this dummkopf at a gun show let a 7-year-old fire a mini-Uzi and the gun bounced up and the boy blew the side of his head off:

804enterprise.com

I wish someone would leak that video.
 
2012-02-11 12:34:07 PM
PeppaJack: Wow, the fact that they always trump this shiat out, and it works, if farking ridiculous. I really doubt that President Obama wants to spend every bit of his political capital in a failed attempt to alter the bill of rights.

Yep and the low information voters just eat it up every single time. I honestly can't wait to see what's on the agenda for Obama's second term. I'm hoping for decriminalization of marijuana at the federal level since it's still to early for single payer healthcare.
 
2012-02-11 12:34:50 PM
LasersHurt: A man using his legal firearm to shoot something he owns is a cause for strict gun control?

i271.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-11 12:34:58 PM
Primum: Here's a funny one: this dummkopf at a gun show let a 7-year-old fire a mini-Uzi and the gun bounced up and the boy blew the side of his head off:

[804enterprise.com image 640x400]

I wish someone would leak that video.


Obviously, that boy would have been saved if he had been carrying a concealed handgun, moran.
 
2012-02-11 12:35:00 PM
Ontos: Magorn: Party Boy: NewportBarGuy: Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.

well.. there was this, too.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year

Thats so much, that the US has to import small arms.

I read last year that US troops were firing a quarter-million bullets for every insurgent killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (new window)

Could some military vet farker explain to me how that number is even remotely possible? I mean there is being a bad shot, and then there's this

That's a valid question. Bunch of things will skew that number... First and foremost, suppressive fire. Go on Youtube and look up "Mini-gun". They're being increasingly used as door guns on most helicopters. Come into an LZ and lay down some fire to keep heads down. Think there's fire coming from that tree line? BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR There goes 500 rounds of 7.62X51. A couple of bursts like that and you've ripped through 2,000 rounds.

Same thing goes for leg infantry. Squad leader says, "Give me 3 seconds of suppressive on that door/window/whatever." Now you've got 8-10 guys hammering away with M-16A4's and M-4, plus maybe two SAW gunners (think a light, belt-fed machine gun) ripping through belts. That's a couple of hundred rounds easy. Did you kill anyone? No... But that's not the point. You wanted to keep the bad-guys tied up and/or keep their heads down while your maneuver element was out in the open, thus sparing YOU casualties.

See bad guys run behind a block wall? A fire-team (4 guys) are going to open up on the wall long enough to figure out a). we can take this wall apart or b). we can shoot at this farking wall all day and it's not going to do shiat. That's a couple of hundred rounds, right there.

An afternoon of that at the platoon level is a shocking amount of ammunition.

Plus, you're talking about confirmed enemy KIA's... That's to say "kicke ...


Thanks to you and everyone else that answered the question. Put in these terms it seems a lot more plausible
 
2012-02-11 12:35:51 PM
Fark It: Primum: Good idea. Just go see "guy shoots laptop to punish daughter" thread* to see why gun ownership by average citizens should definitely be heavily regulated like in UK, Europe and Japan.

Explain.


Obviously, if an individual uses a firearm to destroy his or her own property under controlled circumstances in a manner that causes no physical harm to anyone, then firearm ownership should be entirely prohibited to civilians because firearms are frightening and the sight of them causes Primum to void his bladder involuntarily.
 
2012-02-11 12:35:57 PM
Homoerotic Overtones Enliven NRA Meeting

COEUR D'ALENE, ID-Repression was the order of the day as the National Rifle Association's North Idaho Chapter held its annual convention this weekend.

More than 25,000 dedicated gun lovers from across Northern Idaho flocked to the Coeur d'Alene Convention Center for the two-day event, happily sublimating homosexual impulses amid a carefully maintained facade of platonic camaraderie.

Moscow, ID, resident Richard Hoflinger, 47, a longtime gun-rights activist, proudly exhibited the collection of antique rifles through which he has channeled his culturally unacceptable impulses. "Guns should be part of any upstanding Christian family," Hoflinger said, sticking a long, thick, oily pipe-cleaner 14 inches up an 1886 Remington.

In the next booth, another latent gay man, Duane Erlich of Sandpoint, moved his hand slowly up and down a well-polished 1948 Winchester. "Ain't she a beautiful baby?" Erlich said, displaying the kind of feminization/infantilization of firearms for which NRA members are renowned.

Erlich then demonstrated the proper loading procedure for his "baby," lovingly inserting a pair of bullets into the dark, snug-fitting tunnels before thrusting the gun's bolt smoothly into the action, cocking it firmly.

"This'll blow a man straight to heaven," he said.

The tone of the event was set by chapter president John Henry Unger, whose opening remarks cited the "wonderful variety of weaponry on display, from little snub-nosed pieces that fit snugly in your pocket to big, meaty shooters with barrels as thick as your arm."

Unger then fired his father's prize Colt Peacemaker revolver into the air, drawing raucous applause from the crowd, many of whose own fathers had suppressed latent physical attraction for their adolescent sons by channeling their forbidden feelings into totemistic firearms.

All over the convention floor, gun manufacturers proudly unveiled new technologies which will allow simmering homoerotic tensions to be expressed with greater nuance than ever before. At the Smith & Wesson booth, company spokesman Darrell Trace displayed a handgun made from a newly developed metal alloy whose "incredibly hard" nature, he explained, gives it no recoil after discharge, providing its user with "a far greater sense of control over his piece."

"It's a very comfortable gun, very soft in the hands," added Trace, noting that Smith & Wesson had designed the gun to appeal to "shooters tired of coming home from the firing range with sore, worn-out wrists."

But even as conventioneers reveled in a two-day orgy of firearm-to-phallus transference, a dark cloud hung over the event. The NRA has declined in power over the last decade, and its once-potent lobbyists have come out on the losing end of key legislative battles like the Brady Bill, causing many members to bring their lifelong subconscious fears of castration to the fore.

"If the gun-control lobby wants my rod, they'll have to yank it from my dead body," said Pocatello-area bar-owner Joseph Greer, cradling a tell-tale snub-nosed revolver.

"Those guys out there in Washington are tryin' to take our guns away, but we ain't gonna let 'em," Greer continued, adding classic paternal displacement to the already-rich psychosexual tapestry. "No siree, Bob."

The Onion
 
2012-02-11 12:37:03 PM
I really think it's time to change the Republican party symbol from the elephant to something more appropriate. since many of them spend a lot of time shiatting themselves in terror, how about Mitt Rmoney's dog?
 
2012-02-11 12:37:35 PM
Primum: Here's a funny one: this dummkopf at a gun show let a 7-year-old fire a mini-Uzi and the gun bounced up and the boy blew the side of his head off:

[804enterprise.com image 640x400]

I wish someone would leak that video.


So, what further laws and regulations on automatic weapons would have prevented that?
 
2012-02-11 12:37:38 PM
Primum: Here's a funny one: this dummkopf at a gun show let a 7-year-old fire a mini-Uzi and the gun bounced up and the boy blew the side of his head off:

The idiot's head or the kid's head?

If it's the kid, that's a tragedy.
If it's the adult, that's still sad but with a heavy dose of schadenfreude.
 
2012-02-11 12:37:46 PM
The past several decades have seen a steady, continuous shift of power away from States and the People and into the hands of the Federal Government. This trend has continued under both Republican and Democrat administrations, and regardless of who controlled Congress.

These Federal power grabs increased exponentially during the aftermath of 9/11, as we were assured that it was absolutely necessary for us to surrender our rights in order to ensure Big Brother's ability to protect us from the Bogeymen.

At the same time the wealth of the nation has steadily been siphoned away from the masses and into the hands of a few oligarchs whose influence on politics has increased dramatically as a result. The middle class continues to shrink as we move toward the return to a feudal system of virtual Lords and peasants, and US politics and policies are increasingly controlled not by the voters, but by those who have amassed wealth.

The original purpose for the RKBA was to ensure that the PEOPLE were provided with the ability to oppose tyranny within their own government - should the need arise. Needless to say that the idea of an armed populace is not something that those who aspire to oligarchy are keen on, and rogue movements like OWS that might tend to threaten them directly have given them a renewed interest in seeing that the peasantry is declawed.

An armed populace is antithetical to the goals of those who seek a Centralized Authoritarian Government.

gov·ern (new window)

verb (used with object)
1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
3. to hold in check; control: to govern one's temper.


The desire to increase, consolidate and centralize power is rooted in human nature, and this is the natural aspiration of any and all governments. The only defense the governed have is their determination to oppose and limit these aspirations, preferably by exercising the power of voice and vote.

Preferably.
 
2012-02-11 12:38:55 PM
As one of the many Fark gunnuts, gun rights/control is so far down the list of issues/concerns this year it is almost a non-issue for me. The NRA is a lobbying organization and they are using CPAC as a platform for them to raise cash. *yawn*
 
2012-02-11 12:39:11 PM
Dimensio: Obviously, if an individual uses a firearm to destroy his or her own property under controlled circumstances in a manner that causes no physical harm to anyone, then firearm ownership should be entirely prohibited to civilians because firearms are frightening and the sight of them causes Primum to void his bladder involuntarily.

No, since no crime was committed, his right to own firearms shouldn't be infringed upon because he isn't a criminal. He's a hick douchebag but that isn't against the law.
 
2012-02-11 12:39:15 PM
wedding vegetables: I really think it's time to change the Republican party symbol from the elephant to something more appropriate. since many of them spend a lot of time shiatting themselves in terror, how about Mitt Rmoney's dog?

I thought they already updated it years ago?

mar15.info
 
2012-02-11 12:40:33 PM
Outrage is misplaced. DHS can go after private information without a court order (Patriot Act). If you want to be pissed off about something. Be pissed off about that.

An analogy:
Why would you pissed off about security cameras in the lobby when the pervy landlord has them installed in your bedroom?
 
2012-02-11 12:40:45 PM
If Obama wasn't after my guns four years ago, what makes you think he is after them now?
 
2012-02-11 12:40:45 PM
Monkeyhouse Zendo: Primum: Here's a funny one: this dummkopf at a gun show let a 7-year-old fire a mini-Uzi and the gun bounced up and the boy blew the side of his head off:

The idiot's head or the kid's head?

If it's the kid, that's a tragedy.
If it's the adult, that's still sad but with a heavy dose of schadenfreude.


The kid's head. The gun show's promoters put a teenager in charge of handling that particular demonstration, while the idiot dad signed off on it. Every adult involved in that debacle is a moron that shares the blame, although it was in Massachusetts so it was the evil guns' fault and not the dad's.
 
2012-02-11 12:41:03 PM
Mr. LaPierre's inflammatory rhetoric is most likely to damage the cause of civilian firearm ownership rights advocacy. His irrational, hyperbolic claims serve to polarize the National Rifle Association, dissuading otherwise rational progressive individuals who, were they informed of relevant facts regarding civilian firearms, current legislation and the unreasonable nature of some legislative proposals claimed to be "common sense", may otherwise side with the organization. The National Rifle Association would be well-served with a new vice president who does not intentionally create the impression that the National Rifle Association is explicitly a neoconservative organization.
 
2012-02-11 12:41:40 PM
Fark It: So, what further laws and regulations on automatic weapons would have prevented that?

It was probably semi-automatic. If the kid wasn't ready for the kick and was startled the instinctive response is to grab on in which case he could easily have squeezed off a second, third, or even fourth shot.
 
2012-02-11 12:43:37 PM
Bobblehead_Dave: If Obama wasn't after my guns four years ago, what makes you think he is after them now?

BECAUSE SOCIALISM!!1!
 
2012-02-11 12:43:42 PM
pic of possible terrorist on Facebook:
 
2012-02-11 12:44:01 PM
Amos Quito: An armed populace is antithetical to the goals of those who seek a Centralized Authoritarian Government.

Yeah but what does your paranoia have to do with Obama specifically?

And the idea of an "armed populace" standing up to the government was cool back when everyone involved had muskets but it's a little silly now.
 
2012-02-11 12:44:06 PM
Monkeyhouse Zendo: Fark It: So, what further laws and regulations on automatic weapons would have prevented that?

It was probably semi-automatic. If the kid wasn't ready for the kick and was startled the instinctive response is to grab on in which case he could easily have squeezed off a second, third, or even fourth shot.


No, it was full-auto, I remember reading about it. You can YT the video up to the point right before the fatal shot is fired and see.
 
2012-02-11 12:44:42 PM
Fark It: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Primum: Here's a funny one: this dummkopf at a gun show let a 7-year-old fire a mini-Uzi and the gun bounced up and the boy blew the side of his head off:

The idiot's head or the kid's head?

If it's the kid, that's a tragedy.
If it's the adult, that's still sad but with a heavy dose of schadenfreude.

The kid's head. The gun show's promoters put a teenager in charge of handling that particular demonstration, while the idiot dad signed off on it. Every adult involved in that debacle is a moron that shares the blame, although it was in Massachusetts so it was the evil guns' fault and not the dad's.


Although I can't care less about guns on either side of the issue, and I take umbrage with Primum's use of the word "funny", do incidents like this not even beg the question "do private citizens even need automatic weapons in the first place". I'm not saying yes or no, I'm merely saying to write it off as merely "dumb people making dumb decisions" is glancing over the issue, as most people, at one time or another, make a dumb decision or twelve. The least we could have is an honest debate and not this "ALL OR NONE" argument that seems to pervade any argument on second amendment rights.
 
2012-02-11 12:46:32 PM
Uh-huh. Gun sales and NRA donations must be down.
 
2012-02-11 12:47:10 PM
Yep, it's true. He's gonna take your guns. And you know what he's gonna take after that? He's gonna take your TRUCK.

Ooooooooooooooooh!
 
2012-02-11 12:47:15 PM
chuckufarlie: Amos Quito: LasersHurt: Amos Quito: clancifer: Do not stress, Gun Nut Republicans. Even if Obama were to try this, he would cave and rescind in a matter of days anyhow.

Four letters: N D A A

What does that have to do with absolutely anything?


If he (and Congress) are willing to give us a law that guts Amendments 3, 4, 5, (etc) - what makes you think they give a damn about the other Amendments?


What laws have they passed that gut any of the Amendments?



President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law (ACLU)

QUOTE

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had "serious reservations" about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.

The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA's detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

END QUOTE


chuckufarlie: Yea, I didn't think


Well there's your problem, right there.
 
2012-02-11 12:47:47 PM
DrBenway: Yep, it's true. He's gonna take your guns. And you know what he's gonna take after that? He's gonna take your TRUCK.

Ooooooooooooooooh!


and your women. and he'll take your money, too. he'll give all those things to black people.
 
2012-02-11 12:48:00 PM
Paranoid partisan shills... Great training programs, but aside from that I have no use for these clowns.
 
2012-02-11 12:48:01 PM
Amos Quito: The past several decades have seen a steady, continuous shift of power away from States and the People and into the hands of the Federal Government. This trend has continued under both Republican and Democrat administrations, and regardless of who controlled Congress....

You think anything has changed, lately? It seems like this is the way everything has always been. I wonder what politics would look like without the nazi/communist propaganda that is just rhetoric and exaggeration?
 
2012-02-11 12:48:34 PM
Good! The 2nd Amendment is outdated and not applicable in today's society.
 
2012-02-11 12:49:33 PM
Amos Quito: chuckufarlie: Amos Quito: LasersHurt: Amos Quito: clancifer: Do not stress, Gun Nut Republicans. Even if Obama were to try this, he would cave and rescind in a matter of days anyhow.

Four letters: N D A A

What does that have to do with absolutely anything?


If he (and Congress) are willing to give us a law that guts Amendments 3, 4, 5, (etc) - what makes you think they give a damn about the other Amendments?


What laws have they passed that gut any of the Amendments?


President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law (ACLU)

QUOTE

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had "serious reservations" about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.

The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA's detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

END QUOTE


chuckufarlie: Yea, I didn't think


Well there's your problem, right there.


and how does that gut all of the Amendments you listed?
 
2012-02-11 12:49:49 PM
Bobblehead_Dave: If Obama wasn't after my guns four years ago, what makes you think he is after them now?

I think his point is the same as that of everyone else who claim that Obama is going to do crazy shiat in his second term. He's not going to have to worry about being re-elected so that's when he's going to strike. In other words, this guy is being propped up by one of the republican candidates. Take your pick as to which one.
 
2012-02-11 12:49:56 PM
In my country, we can carry as many guns as we want to.

We also have low, low taxes and very little government enforcement or regulation. Abortion is illegal, church and state are deeply enmeshed, homosexuality is not tolerated, and we even have a town called Palin. Our rich are rich and the poor know their place! We even have a university based on Libertarian values and Austrian economics: UFM (new window)

So, hey, I invite all you dissatisfied Tea Partiers to move down to sunny Guatemala-- the USA you always wanted, TODAY!

/BTW, bring your guns-- 'coz you're gonna need 'em. This place is a shiathole.
 
2012-02-11 12:50:51 PM
9beers: Good! The 2nd Amendment is outdated and not applicable in today's society.

The majority of the United States population disagrees with your assessment.
 
2012-02-11 12:51:21 PM
Fark It: No, it was full-auto, I remember reading about it. You can YT the video up to the point right before the fatal shot is fired and see.

Tragic and stupid. What the fark were they thinking putting an automatic weapon in the hands of an 8 year old?
 
2012-02-11 12:52:36 PM
Umeraken Ideut: Although I can't care less about guns on either side of the issue, and I take umbrage with Primum's use of the word "funny", do incidents like this not even beg the question "do private citizens even need automatic weapons in the first place". I'm not saying yes or no, I'm merely saying to write it off as merely "dumb people making dumb decisions" is glancing over the issue, as most people, at one time or another, make a dumb decision or twelve. The least we could have is an honest debate and not this "ALL OR NONE" argument that seems to pervade any argument on second amendment rights.

Fully automatic firearms are not readily available to civilians in the United States. What additional regulation could be proposed to prevent the reported incident?
 
2012-02-11 12:52:46 PM
Monkeyhouse Zendo: Fark It: No, it was full-auto, I remember reading about it. You can YT the video up to the point right before the fatal shot is fired and see.

Tragic and stupid. What the fark were they thinking putting an automatic weapon in the hands of an 8 year old?


They were thinking that it was well within their rights, duh. And you know what, it was!
 
2012-02-11 12:53:14 PM
Every farking time the NRA\GOP\Teatards\et al. speaks I just play this scene in my head (new window)

// BOOGIE-BOOGIE-BOOGIE!!!
// Gun owner and proud of it!
// Not an NRA member and more proud of it every farking day!
 
2012-02-11 12:53:17 PM
Mugato: Amos Quito: An armed populace is antithetical to the goals of those who seek a Centralized Authoritarian Government.

Yeah but what does your paranoia have to do with Obama specifically?


I didn't mention Obama specifically - but noted that the trend toward Centralized Authoritarian Government has continued regardless of who or which party is in power.


And the idea of an "armed populace" standing up to the government was cool back when everyone involved had muskets but it's a little silly now.


Remember what the Egyptian Military did to protect Mubarak's regime from the angry crowds in Egypt last year?

They didn't protect Mubarak's regime at all, did they?

Members of the military are people too. Have you noticed which US presidential candidate members of the military and veterans tend to be supporting this election cycle?
 
2012-02-11 12:53:44 PM
Obama should introduce a nationally standardized concealed carry law just to watch the Republicans argue against it.
 
2012-02-11 12:56:32 PM
Umeraken Ideut: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Fark It: No, it was full-auto, I remember reading about it. You can YT the video up to the point right before the fatal shot is fired and see.

Tragic and stupid. What the fark were they thinking putting an automatic weapon in the hands of an 8 year old?

They were thinking that it was well within their rights, duh. And you know what, it was!


Yes, it was within their rights, and that kid is dead because every adult involved exercised their rights in an irresponsible manner.
 
2012-02-11 12:57:02 PM
Dimensio: Umeraken Ideut: Although I can't care less about guns on either side of the issue, and I take umbrage with Primum's use of the word "funny", do incidents like this not even beg the question "do private citizens even need automatic weapons in the first place". I'm not saying yes or no, I'm merely saying to write it off as merely "dumb people making dumb decisions" is glancing over the issue, as most people, at one time or another, make a dumb decision or twelve. The least we could have is an honest debate and not this "ALL OR NONE" argument that seems to pervade any argument on second amendment rights.

Fully automatic firearms are not readily available to civilians in the United States. What additional regulation could be proposed to prevent the reported incident?


They're not? Is it because the ATF Form 4 (5320.4) is too hard to fill out, or because you're too lazy? Because that's basically all you need.
 
2012-02-11 12:59:19 PM
Mugato: Amos Quito: An armed populace is antithetical to the goals of those who seek a Centralized Authoritarian Government.

Yeah but what does your paranoia have to do with Obama specifically?

And the idea of an "armed populace" standing up to the government was cool back when everyone involved had muskets but it's a little silly now.


Hahaha. Tell that to the people of Libya, Egypt, and Syria. Or those silly insurgents in Iraq.
 
2012-02-11 01:01:10 PM
badhatharry: Hahaha. Tell that to the people of Libya, Egypt, and Syria. Or those silly insurgents in Iraq.

www.pbpulse.com
 
2012-02-11 01:01:33 PM
I hear there's a toilet paper shortage.
 
2012-02-11 01:02:19 PM
Amos Quito: And the idea of an "armed populace" standing up to the government was cool back when everyone involved had muskets but it's a little silly now.


Remember what the Egyptian Military did to protect Mubarak's regime from the angry crowds in Egypt last year?

They didn't protect Mubarak's regime at all, did they?


Right and do you see this country being comparable in any way to the situation in Egypt?

I'm not against the 2nd Amendment, I'm for it. Mostly because I take an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach to the Constitution. But people who actually use the possibility of the people rising against the government as a defense of the 2nd Amendment just come off as sounding silly. It's just not going to happen. So just admit to defending the 2nd because you like to play with guns, like I do.
 
2012-02-11 01:03:27 PM
Umeraken Ideut: Dimensio: Umeraken Ideut: Although I can't care less about guns on either side of the issue, and I take umbrage with Primum's use of the word "funny", do incidents like this not even beg the question "do private citizens even need automatic weapons in the first place". I'm not saying yes or no, I'm merely saying to write it off as merely "dumb people making dumb decisions" is glancing over the issue, as most people, at one time or another, make a dumb decision or twelve. The least we could have is an honest debate and not this "ALL OR NONE" argument that seems to pervade any argument on second amendment rights.

Fully automatic firearms are not readily available to civilians in the United States. What additional regulation could be proposed to prevent the reported incident?

They're not? Is it because the ATF Form 4 (5320.4) is too hard to fill out, or because you're too lazy? Because that's basically all you need.


Also required is a significant amount of money, because civilian-available fully automatic firearms are a limited and never-increasing quantity.
 
2012-02-11 01:03:39 PM
Monkeyhouse Zendo: Umeraken Ideut: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Fark It: No, it was full-auto, I remember reading about it. You can YT the video up to the point right before the fatal shot is fired and see.

Tragic and stupid. What the fark were they thinking putting an automatic weapon in the hands of an 8 year old?

They were thinking that it was well within their rights, duh. And you know what, it was!

Yes, it was within their rights, and that kid is dead because every adult involved exercised their rights in an irresponsible manner.


Which seems to happen an awful lot, don't you notice?

Isn't it kind of a cop-out to treat every case of accidental gun violence as "well, he was an idiot"? How many times must it happen before you stand back and go "OK, maybe we should have a few more rules"?
 
2012-02-11 01:03:47 PM
Dimensio: Umeraken Ideut: Although I can't care less about guns on either side of the issue, and I take umbrage with Primum's use of the word "funny", do incidents like this not even beg the question "do private citizens even need automatic weapons in the first place". I'm not saying yes or no, I'm merely saying to write it off as merely "dumb people making dumb decisions" is glancing over the issue, as most people, at one time or another, make a dumb decision or twelve. The least we could have is an honest debate and not this "ALL OR NONE" argument that seems to pervade any argument on second amendment rights.

Fully automatic firearms are not readily available to civilians in the United States. What additional regulation could be proposed to prevent the reported incident?


Ban them all so they're completely unavailable. Since some parents can't be bothered to supervise their kids let's ruin it for everyone. It worked for swimming pools, which killed 4 times as many kids yearly as guns, but now kill none since they were outlawed and filled with cement last year. Just like it worked when we banned Bic lighters and bleach a decade ago.
 
2012-02-11 01:03:54 PM
Dimensio: The majority of the United States population disagrees with your assessment.

The majority of the United States population believes in God. I guess that means he's real.
 
2012-02-11 01:05:08 PM
odinsposse: Obama should introduce a nationally standardized concealed carry law just to watch the Republicans argue against it.

Actually, that could be clever gun-control tactic. The first part of the Bill would override State standards for a concealed and open carry permits and the second part, would have a Nation-wide concealed and open carry permit standard. Republicans would support it. Then Obama could do a signing Statement delaying implementation of the second part. He would effectively band concealed weapons and open carry.
 
2012-02-11 01:05:40 PM
Dimensio: Umeraken Ideut: Dimensio: Umeraken Ideut: Although I can't care less about guns on either side of the issue, and I take umbrage with Primum's use of the word "funny", do incidents like this not even beg the question "do private citizens even need automatic weapons in the first place". I'm not saying yes or no, I'm merely saying to write it off as merely "dumb people making dumb decisions" is glancing over the issue, as most people, at one time or another, make a dumb decision or twelve. The least we could have is an honest debate and not this "ALL OR NONE" argument that seems to pervade any argument on second amendment rights.

Fully automatic firearms are not readily available to civilians in the United States. What additional regulation could be proposed to prevent the reported incident?

They're not? Is it because the ATF Form 4 (5320.4) is too hard to fill out, or because you're too lazy? Because that's basically all you need.

Also required is a significant amount of money, because civilian-available fully automatic firearms are a limited and never-increasing quantity.


What's your point? If I chose to, I can get one for about as much as an iPad, and you don't see a lot of people claiming that those are unobtainable.
 
2012-02-11 01:06:11 PM
"All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," he said.

Oh good, paranoid gun fanatics. This'll end well. =/
 
2012-02-11 01:08:33 PM
Great. Another round of righties buying up all the guns and ammo they can, making it prohibitively expensive for the rest of us who just own a couple of guns and like target practice.
 
2012-02-11 01:09:02 PM
Farker Soze: Dimensio: Umeraken Ideut: Although I can't care less about guns on either side of the issue, and I take umbrage with Primum's use of the word "funny", do incidents like this not even beg the question "do private citizens even need automatic weapons in the first place". I'm not saying yes or no, I'm merely saying to write it off as merely "dumb people making dumb decisions" is glancing over the issue, as most people, at one time or another, make a dumb decision or twelve. The least we could have is an honest debate and not this "ALL OR NONE" argument that seems to pervade any argument on second amendment rights.

Fully automatic firearms are not readily available to civilians in the United States. What additional regulation could be proposed to prevent the reported incident?

Ban them all so they're completely unavailable. Since some parents can't be bothered to supervise their kids let's ruin it for everyone. It worked for swimming pools, which killed 4 times as many kids yearly as guns, but now kill none since they were outlawed and filled with cement last year. Just like it worked when we banned Bic lighters and bleach a decade ago.


Don't twist my words. I'm not saying that at all. If you want to look at just how effective banning something is without stooping to a straw-man, you need only look as far as the very real issue of marijuana. I'm simply making the point that gun violence incidents should spark reasonable debate about regulation, not the stupid "BAN ALL GUNS vs ALL GUNS ARE MINE FARK THE GOVERNMENT" debates that you seem to be perpetrating.
 
2012-02-11 01:09:09 PM
Mugato: Amos Quito: And the idea of an "armed populace" standing up to the government was cool back when everyone involved had muskets but it's a little silly now.


Remember what the Egyptian Military did to protect Mubarak's regime from the angry crowds in Egypt last year?

They didn't protect Mubarak's regime at all, did they?

Right and do you see this country being comparable in any way to the situation in Egypt?

I'm not against the 2nd Amendment, I'm for it. Mostly because I take an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach to the Constitution. But people who actually use the possibility of the people rising against the government as a defense of the 2nd Amendment just come off as sounding silly. It's just not going to happen. So just admit to defending the 2nd because you like to play with guns, like I do.


We don't have a 2nd Amendment so that we can play with guns or hunt. We have it because we have the right to defend ourselves.
 
2012-02-11 01:09:19 PM
chuckufarlie: chuckufarlie: Yea, I didn't think


Well there's your problem, right there.

and how does that gut all of the Amendments you listed?



IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

VIII: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


NDAA (and its ugly step-sisters) permit the INDEFINITE detention of anyone SUSPECTED of being involved with "terrorist" (open to definition by whim) activities WITHOUT formal charges, evidence, trial, access to counsel or even the right to know WHY they have been detained.

Of course Obama said in his signing statement that he would NEVER use his office to take advantage of this unconstitutional law.

Of course we all believe him - and we're pretty sure that Romney, Newt, or Santorum or any subsequent president would never do such a thing either, right?
 
2012-02-11 01:12:23 PM
badhatharry: Mugato: Amos Quito: And the idea of an "armed populace" standing up to the government was cool back when everyone involved had muskets but it's a little silly now.


Remember what the Egyptian Military did to protect Mubarak's regime from the angry crowds in Egypt last year?

They didn't protect Mubarak's regime at all, did they?

Right and do you see this country being comparable in any way to the situation in Egypt?

I'm not against the 2nd Amendment, I'm for it. Mostly because I take an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach to the Constitution. But people who actually use the possibility of the people rising against the government as a defense of the 2nd Amendment just come off as sounding silly. It's just not going to happen. So just admit to defending the 2nd because you like to play with guns, like I do.

We don't have a 2nd Amendment so that we can play with guns or hunt. We have it because we have the right to defend ourselves against tyranny.



/Amended that for you
 
2012-02-11 01:12:58 PM
Umeraken Ideut: What's your point? If I chose to, I can get one for about as much as an iPad, and you don't see a lot of people claiming that those are unobtainable.

Where? Last I checked, even shiatty MAC-10s were several grand, and a mini-UZI goes for 10k.
 
2012-02-11 01:16:30 PM
9beers: Dimensio: The majority of the United States population disagrees with your assessment.

The majority of the United States population believes in God. I guess that means he's real.


I did not intend to imply that the Second Amendment is "correct" due to popular support. However, popular support will prevent repeal of the Amendment.

That your proposal is unreasonable is a separate matter from its infeasibility.
 
2012-02-11 01:16:55 PM
Monkeyhouse Zendo: badhatharry: Hahaha. Tell that to the people of Libya, Egypt, and Syria. Or those silly insurgents in Iraq.

[www.pbpulse.com image 361x480]


Somewhere ... out there ... a wingnut got his hardon.
 
2012-02-11 01:19:27 PM
mamaleche.files.wordpress.com
4.bp.blogspot.com
whyweprotest.net
 
2012-02-11 01:21:28 PM
Umeraken Ideut: Farker Soze: Dimensio: Umeraken Ideut: Although I can't care less about guns on either side of the issue, and I take umbrage with Primum's use of the word "funny", do incidents like this not even beg the question "do private citizens even need automatic weapons in the first place". I'm not saying yes or no, I'm merely saying to write it off as merely "dumb people making dumb decisions" is glancing over the issue, as most people, at one time or another, make a dumb decision or twelve. The least we could have is an honest debate and not this "ALL OR NONE" argument that seems to pervade any argument on second amendment rights.

Fully automatic firearms are not readily available to civilians in the United States. What additional regulation could be proposed to prevent the reported incident?

Ban them all so they're completely unavailable. Since some parents can't be bothered to supervise their kids let's ruin it for everyone. It worked for swimming pools, which killed 4 times as many kids yearly as guns, but now kill none since they were outlawed and filled with cement last year. Just like it worked when we banned Bic lighters and bleach a decade ago.

Don't twist my words. I'm not saying that at all. If you want to look at just how effective banning something is without stooping to a straw-man, you need only look as far as the very real issue of marijuana. I'm simply making the point that gun violence incidents should spark reasonable debate about regulation, not the stupid "BAN ALL GUNS vs ALL GUNS ARE MINE FARK THE GOVERNMENT" debates that you seem to be perpetrating.


I'm just saying that as Dimensio pointed out full auto weapons are regulated about as far as you can go without outright banning them. There is no room for leeway on this, as opposed to pool laws and child responsibility legislation for your bottle of drano you keep under the sink.
 
2012-02-11 01:23:10 PM
Anyway it was more of a snark responding to Dimensio than anything you said. Umeraken.
 
2012-02-11 01:24:32 PM
9beers: Dimensio: The majority of the United States population disagrees with your assessment.

The majority of the United States population believes in God. I guess that means he's real.


I did not intend to imply that the Second Amendment is "correct" due to popular support. However, popular support will prevent repeal of the Amendment.

That your proposal is unreasonable is a separate matter from its infeasibility.mrshowrules: odinsposse: Obama should introduce a nationally standardized concealed carry law just to watch the Republicans argue against it.

Actually, that could be clever gun-control tactic. The first part of the Bill would override State standards for a concealed and open carry permits and the second part, would have a Nation-wide concealed and open carry permit standard. Republicans would support it. Then Obama could do a signing Statement delaying implementation of the second part. He would effectively band concealed weapons and open carry.


Such a measure would be opposed by firearm ownership rights advocates, specifically due to the abuse that you suggest. An absence of an explicit mandated start date for implementation of federal concealed carry allowances, and an allowance of overriding of state concealed weapons laws prior to enactment of federal concealed weapons standards, would serve only to further opposition to such a measure.
 
2012-02-11 01:26:56 PM
Magorn: Party Boy: NewportBarGuy: Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.

well.. there was this, too.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year

Thats so much, that the US has to import small arms.

I read last year that US troops were firing a quarter-million bullets for every insurgent killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (new window)

Could some military vet farker explain to me how that number is even remotely possible? I mean there is being a bad shot, and then there's this


Spray and pray.

Actually American forces pride themselves on the ability to expend ordnance rather than lives. It was a pattern first set in WWII, rather than send a unit to attack a strong point, just blast it into the ground. We have the ability to use bullets instead of lives and we use it quite well.

Also, the NRA can suck a dick. They don't represent me on gun rights anymore. They've crossed over into nutter territory lately as well. That said, American Rifleman is still a pretty good rag.
 
2012-02-11 01:28:13 PM
Farker Soze: Anyway it was more of a snark responding to Dimensio than anything you said. Umeraken.

Fair enough. I'm out of my league here, anyway. I remain willfully ignorant about guns. Perhaps I should have said "semi-automatic" instead. I dunno. I honestly don't care. I'll never own one, but my telling you that you can't have one makes about as much sense as you telling me that I can't have an abortion because you don't believe in them (assuming that were your stance, and, you know, I was a woman).
 
2012-02-11 01:30:36 PM
Umeraken Ideut: Dimensio: Umeraken Ideut: Dimensio: Umeraken Ideut: Although I can't care less about guns on either side of the issue, and I take umbrage with Primum's use of the word "funny", do incidents like this not even beg the question "do private citizens even need automatic weapons in the first place". I'm not saying yes or no, I'm merely saying to write it off as merely "dumb people making dumb decisions" is glancing over the issue, as most people, at one time or another, make a dumb decision or twelve. The least we could have is an honest debate and not this "ALL OR NONE" argument that seems to pervade any argument on second amendment rights.

Fully automatic firearms are not readily available to civilians in the United States. What additional regulation could be proposed to prevent the reported incident?

They're not? Is it because the ATF Form 4 (5320.4) is too hard to fill out, or because you're too lazy? Because that's basically all you need.

Also required is a significant amount of money, because civilian-available fully automatic firearms are a limited and never-increasing quantity.

What's your point? If I chose to, I can get one for about as much as an iPad, and you don't see a lot of people claiming that those are unobtainable.


What? Where? What automatic weapon can you get for $500, and from who?
 
2012-02-11 01:32:05 PM
That's weird, because the NRA is usually so reasonable and measured in expressing their views about possible gun control. This is really coming out of nowhere.
 
2012-02-11 01:32:15 PM
Umeraken Ideut: Which seems to happen an awful lot, don't you notice?

It does which is why firearm related deaths, both accidental and otherwise, are so much common in households of firearm owners.

Isn't it kind of a cop-out to treat every case of accidental gun violence as "well, he was an idiot"? How many times must it happen before you stand back and go "OK, maybe we should have a few more rules"?

Regarding it being a cop out, no, not really. I'm pretty middle of the road with respect to guns. I'd like to see a bit more in the way of required training and licensing but, in general, these tragic stories are, for me, simply reminders of why I don't own a firearm.
 
2012-02-11 01:33:35 PM
Umeraken Ideut: Fair enough. I'm out of my league here, anyway. I remain willfully ignorant about guns. Perhaps I should have said "semi-automatic" instead. I dunno.

Perhaps you should keep your dickwarmer shut until you educate yourself.
 
2012-02-11 01:34:36 PM
Monkeyhouse Zendo: are so much more common

FTFM
 
2012-02-11 01:34:59 PM
A top official with the National Rifle Association said Friday that President Obama will move to "destroy" gun rights and "erase" the Second Amendment if he is re-elected in November.

I remember the good ole' days when "white house sources" were, you know, sourced for administration goings-on.
 
2012-02-11 01:35:01 PM
I'm as pro-2nd amendment as it gets and this is a stupid statement.

Whatever Obama's personal opinion on guns may be (not saying he's opposed necessarily, just for the sake of argument) he has zero chance of overturning the 2nd amendment.
 
2012-02-11 01:35:46 PM
Looks like I'm late to the party, but shiat like this is part of why I let my NRA membership lapse. The other part being, of course, that the NRA is even more obviously a Republican Party front group than SGK. Fark them, and their hyperbolic nonsense. 20 years ago, maybe they'd have been somewhat credible. The same "thin end of the wedge" legislative tactics as are being used by the anti-abortion nutters were clearly being employed by the equally wrong proponents of the firearm temperance movement. Thanks to Heller, and the concurrent recognition of the Democratic Party establishment that gun control was costing them an unacceptably big chunk of the blue-collar white boy vote, just about all of that is history, yet the NRA leadership haven't changed their tune at all.
 
2012-02-11 01:37:01 PM
nicubunu.ro
 
2012-02-11 01:37:49 PM
watson.t.hamster: Whatever Obama's personal opinion on guns may be (not saying he's opposed necessarily, just for the sake of argument) he has zero chance of overturning the 2nd amendment.

Whether he has zero chance or not is pretty irrelevant since he's shown no interest in even attempting to.
 
2012-02-11 01:38:57 PM
Obviously the NRA is doing this to boost voter turnout for its republican party men.
If Obama wanted to suck the wind from their sails then a notable giveback to 2A supporters is in order.

...say things like doing away with the machine gun registration ban, or eliminating SBR and suppressor limits from the NFA.
None of those things affect gun violence and gun owners would be too impressed and greatful to a DEMOCRAT to listen to any of the crap the NRA Republicans try to sell.
More than likely the Republicans would try to vote against such changes and alienate their gun owning base in the process.

/I double dog dare Obama to do this!
 
2012-02-11 01:43:49 PM
Fark It: Umeraken Ideut: Fair enough. I'm out of my league here, anyway. I remain willfully ignorant about guns. Perhaps I should have said "semi-automatic" instead. I dunno.

Perhaps you should keep your dickwarmer shut until you educate yourself.


Rude commentary will not validate your position.
 
2012-02-11 01:43:58 PM
Fark It: Umeraken Ideut: Fair enough. I'm out of my league here, anyway. I remain willfully ignorant about guns. Perhaps I should have said "semi-automatic" instead. I dunno.

Perhaps you should keep your dickwarmer shut until you educate yourself.


Boy, you sure showed me!
 
2012-02-11 01:46:10 PM
forgotmydamnusername: Looks like I'm late to the party, but shiat like this is part of why I let my NRA membership lapse. The other part being, of course, that the NRA is even more obviously a Republican Party front group than SGK. Fark them, and their hyperbolic nonsense. 20 years ago, maybe they'd have been somewhat credible. The same "thin end of the wedge" legislative tactics as are being used by the anti-abortion nutters were clearly being employed by the equally wrong proponents of the firearm temperance movement. Thanks to Heller, and the concurrent recognition of the Democratic Party establishment that gun control was costing them an unacceptably big chunk of the blue-collar white boy vote, just about all of that is history, yet the NRA leadership haven't changed their tune at all.

Unfortunately, without a viable and less partisan organization to replace the National Rifle Association, attitudes such as yours -- which are entirely justifiable and which I personally share -- may ultimately weaken the cause of firearm ownership rights advocacy, emboldening those who would enact unreasonable measures, such as a renewed "assault weapons ban" or prohibitions upon the carrying of firearms.
 
2012-02-11 01:46:56 PM
Dimensio: Fark It: Umeraken Ideut: Fair enough. I'm out of my league here, anyway. I remain willfully ignorant about guns. Perhaps I should have said "semi-automatic" instead. I dunno.

Perhaps you should keep your dickwarmer shut until you educate yourself.

Rude commentary will not validate your position.


And willful ignorance will invalidate any position.

/not looking for validation
 
2012-02-11 01:48:45 PM
Fark It: Dimensio: Fark It: Umeraken Ideut: Fair enough. I'm out of my league here, anyway. I remain willfully ignorant about guns. Perhaps I should have said "semi-automatic" instead. I dunno.

Perhaps you should keep your dickwarmer shut until you educate yourself.

Rude commentary will not validate your position.

And willful ignorance will invalidate any position.

/not looking for validation


For what it's worth, I don't feel like I need to know how to disassemble and reassemble a gun of any kind to make controversial statements like "perhaps we should have an honest debate", but maybe that's just me being naive.
 
2012-02-11 01:53:46 PM
Umeraken Ideut: Fark It: Dimensio: Fark It: Umeraken Ideut: Fair enough. I'm out of my league here, anyway. I remain willfully ignorant about guns. Perhaps I should have said "semi-automatic" instead. I dunno.

Perhaps you should keep your dickwarmer shut until you educate yourself.

Rude commentary will not validate your position.

And willful ignorance will invalidate any position.

/not looking for validation

For what it's worth, I don't feel like I need to know how to disassemble and reassemble a gun of any kind to make controversial statements like "perhaps we should have an honest debate", but maybe that's just me being naive.


Nice, moving the goalposts. No one said you need to know how to disassemble and reassemble every gun to have a valid opinion. Knowing the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic" is a good place to start, but anti-gunners pride themselves on their "willful ignorance" and deliberately aim to keep people misinformed, as confusion between "assault rifle," "semiautomatic," and "automatic" makes it easier to pass emotion-based legislation that takes away our rights.

The problem with saying "gun violence should spark reasonable debate" is not the reasonable debate part, it's the "gun violence" part. Why don't you say "violence" should spark reasonable debate? Focusing on "gun violence" establishes a false premise from the start, that guns are the root of violent acts.
 
2012-02-11 01:58:00 PM
Wow so much anger and hate on this section of the discussion. I need to get my hyperbole on again to inject more nonsensical wingnut thoughts about da gunz!
 
2012-02-11 01:58:15 PM
forgotmydamnusername: Looks like I'm late to the party, but shiat like this is part of why I let my NRA membership lapse. The other part being, of course, that the NRA is even more obviously a Republican Party front group than SGK. Fark them, and their hyperbolic nonsense. 20 years ago, maybe they'd have been somewhat credible. The same "thin end of the wedge" legislative tactics as are being used by the anti-abortion nutters were clearly being employed by the equally wrong proponents of the firearm temperance movement. Thanks to Heller, and the concurrent recognition of the Democratic Party establishment that gun control was costing them an unacceptably big chunk of the blue-collar white boy vote, just about all of that is history, yet the NRA leadership haven't changed their tune at all.

Just a few years ago they were making excuses for W when he said he'd sign a bill to make the assault weapon ban permanent instead of sunsetting. "Oh, he's just playing politics, he knows they'll never send him one to sign. He's a shrewd guy. He's really on our team. We know. Now Obama, he's the gun-grabbiest gun-grabber who ever grub. Nothing he's done or said in the last 4 years indicates any of this but he ain't fooling us! Preserve us Saint Reagan (who was for the Brady Bill)!" Pathetic.
 
2012-02-11 01:59:10 PM
Umeraken Ideut: For what it's worth, I don't feel like I need to know how to disassemble and reassemble a gun of any kind to make controversial statements like "perhaps we should have an honest debate", but maybe that's just me being naive.

It's hard to have an "honest debate" when you don't know what you're talking about and don't care to. Your self-professed willful ingnorance (something I find repugnant regardless of subject) leads you to say stupid and outrageous things without even realizing it. Things like you can get a machinegun for the price of an iPad and some paperwork.
 
2012-02-11 01:59:42 PM
I_Am_Weasel: He's not going to take your guns, he's just going to socialize gun ownership. From January 21, 2013 on, all guns will be owned by the government but to be able to hold on to them, you'll have to spend 4 hours a week guarding the re-education camps.

Shhh! You'll reveal our Sekrit Socialist Muslim plans!
 
2012-02-11 02:01:13 PM
Fark It: The problem with saying "gun violence should spark reasonable debate" is not the reasonable debate part, it's the "gun violence" part. Why don't you say "violence" should spark reasonable debate? Focusing on "gun violence" establishes a false premise from the start, that guns are the root of violent acts.

"Gun violence" actually works because there are a number of usages of the word violence and not all are dependent on the intentional infliction of harm, "violent death" for example.

How about "injuries and death associated with firearms"? I know it's clumsy but it pretty much covers intentional and unintentional harm resulting from the use of firearms in a neutral manner.
 
2012-02-11 02:03:00 PM
Fish in a Barrel: It's hard to have an "honest debate" when you don't know what you're talking about and don't care to

[welcome_to_fark.jpg]

You should try reading the evolution threads. He at least knows what a gun is. :)
 
2012-02-11 02:04:01 PM
Yes, he will introduce this under his new law called the Cohen act.

//Shouldn't be obscure
 
2012-02-11 02:05:22 PM
I don't see anything "tin foil hat" here. It makes perfect sense.

Indirect action, via court or other party, is a common way of doing dirty business - in politics and elsewhere.

The Democrats recall what happened in the early 1990s when Clinton directly messed with gun control. Instead, appoint gun control advocates to the US Supreme Court who have final say in the law of the land.

Mislead. Deflect. Re-rout. Problem solved.
 
2012-02-11 02:07:46 PM
I've thought for a while that Obama should troll Wayne La Pierre and his ilk, by promoting some non-partisan, non batshiat-crazy gun-owners group, that focuses on safety and responsibility, and assure America that he will not be taking away their guns or their 2nd Amendment rights. Something that would shut up the Brady Bunch, and reassure the moderates

But does such a group even exist?

Seriously. What are the alternatives to the NRA? Are there any left?
 
2012-02-11 02:07:51 PM
Fark It:
The problem with saying "gun violence should spark reasonable debate" is not the reasonable debate part, it's the "gun violence" part. Why don't you say "violence" should spark reasonable debate? Focusing on "gun violence" establishes a false premise from the start, that guns are the root of violent acts.


Uh, you'd have a point if the topic at hand were simply violence, but it's not. It's guns. And by gun violence, I'm not referring to violent acts that happen where guns happen to be involved, I'm responding to violence that occurs merely BECAUSE of the weapon. Like the kid accidentally blowing his head off. A violent act, one cause merely by the presence of a gun.

Fish in a Barrel: It's hard to have an "honest debate" when you don't know what you're talking about and don't care to. Your self-professed willful ingnorance (something I find repugnant regardless of subject) leads you to say stupid and outrageous things without even realizing it. Things like you can get a machinegun for the price of an iPad and some paperwork.

I am willfully ignorant as to the mechanics when it comes to operation and purchase of a firearm. I am not ignorant as to the laws a policies of them, which is what the debate is about. So all that there, what you just said, word twisting.

Should I have expanded my argument to include the price of an automatic firearm when I'm unaware of such things? No. However, my original point was that they are still obtainable within our borders with some ease. Which is a correct point. It was my own fault for taking the bait on the logic that price has anything to do with legality.
 
2012-02-11 02:08:24 PM
Amos Quito: chuckufarlie: chuckufarlie: Yea, I didn't think


Well there's your problem, right there.

and how does that gut all of the Amendments you listed?


IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

VIII: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


NDAA ...


Don't worry, I am sure that all of the guns that you and the other skinheads have hidden away are safe.
 
2012-02-11 02:08:33 PM
img1.fark.net Head of gun industry lobby organization says something that will inspire gun fanboys to go buy more guns and ammo.
 
2012-02-11 02:09:27 PM
VictoryCabal: So the NRA is starting the long downhill slide into MADD-style lack-of-purpose crazy? How...unexpected?

The NRA has never had any purpose other than boosting the sales of guns and ammo. Usually through fear and fake victimization.
 
2012-02-11 02:10:31 PM
CapnBlues [TotalFark] Smartest Funniest
2012-02-11 11:55:06 AM

Mrbogey: Shaggy_C: Sigh. When are people going to learn that the Democrats of the 2010s are a pro-gun...

Probably when they stop appointing anti-gun judges and AG's and pretending as if their support on an issue begins and ends on verbal declarations.

most Attorneys General are elected.

See, this is one of the many problems with the Tea Party and Conservative movements in general -- they seem to have a very limited knowledge of civics and government.

I know your blinders prevent you from seeing the obvious, but he was clearly referring to AG's like Janet Reno (who murdered church members to help fix the BATFE reputation after the "Good ol boy BBQ" film hit the TV news) and Eric Holder who ran obama's gun running program while Zero himself was preaching how it was every-day gun owners selling cop-killing guns to mexican gangs.


"most != all"
 
2012-02-11 02:10:45 PM
Monkeyhouse Zendo: Fish in a Barrel: It's hard to have an "honest debate" when you don't know what you're talking about and don't care to

[welcome_to_fark.jpg]

You should try reading the evolution threads. He at least knows what a gun is. :)


If that's a dig at me, I don't get it. I can't recall taking part in any thread regarding evolution on Fark. I could be wrong, though I'm pretty confident that in such a thread, I have far more knowledge than I admittedly lack in this one. A link would be helpful, as now I'm quite curious.
 
2012-02-11 02:12:44 PM
Monkeyhouse Zendo: watson.t.hamster: Whatever Obama's personal opinion on guns may be (not saying he's opposed necessarily, just for the sake of argument) he has zero chance of overturning the 2nd amendment.

Whether he has zero chance or not is pretty irrelevant since he's shown no interest in even attempting to.


Which is why I never said he had any interest in that (hence "just for the sake of argument").
 
2012-02-11 02:13:33 PM
OnlyM3: CapnBlues [TotalFark] Smartest Funniest
2012-02-11 11:55:06 AM

Mrbogey: Shaggy_C: Sigh. When are people going to learn that the Democrats of the 2010s are a pro-gun...

Probably when they stop appointing anti-gun judges and AG's and pretending as if their support on an issue begins and ends on verbal declarations.

most Attorneys General are elected.

See, this is one of the many problems with the Tea Party and Conservative movements in general -- they seem to have a very limited knowledge of civics and government.
I know your blinders prevent you from seeing the obvious, but he was clearly referring to AG's like Janet Reno (who murdered church members to help fix the BATFE reputation after the "Good ol boy BBQ" film hit the TV news) and Eric Holder who ran obama's gun running program while Zero himself was preaching how it was every-day gun owners selling cop-killing guns to mexican gangs.


"most != all"


What's the weather like on planet farktard? Storm clouds on the horizon, I bet.
 
2012-02-11 02:13:40 PM
Umeraken Ideut: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Fish in a Barrel: It's hard to have an "honest debate" when you don't know what you're talking about and don't care to

[welcome_to_fark.jpg]

You should try reading the evolution threads. He at least knows what a gun is. :)

If that's a dig at me, I don't get it. I can't recall taking part in any thread regarding evolution on Fark. I could be wrong, though I'm pretty confident that in such a thread, I have far more knowledge than I admittedly lack in this one. A link would be helpful, as now I'm quite curious.


I think it was more a statement of the fact you're not spewing pure unadulterated derp and instead actually are trying to base your words off SOMETHING, instead of reaching a hand into your rectum and pulling out whatever you can. Instead you're being up front about knowledge and trying to have some kind of non-trollish discussion.
 
2012-02-11 02:16:11 PM
A Dark Evil Omen: [img1.fark.net image 54x11] Head of gun industry lobby organization says something that will inspire gun fanboys to go buy more guns and ammo.

No statements issued by any member of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute were quoted in the referenced article. Did you submit your comment here in error?
 
2012-02-11 02:17:08 PM
Garble: VictoryCabal: So the NRA is starting the long downhill slide into MADD-style lack-of-purpose crazy? How...unexpected?

The NRA has never had any purpose other than boosting the sales of guns and ammo. Usually through fear and fake victimization.


Please substantiate your assertion.
 
2012-02-11 02:20:51 PM
Umeraken Ideut: I am willfully ignorant as to the mechanics when it comes to operation and purchase of a firearm. I am not ignorant as to the laws a policies of them, which is what the debate is about. So all that there, what you just said, word twisting.

Frankly, I think you're more ignorant than you realize. Maybe you should stop digging.
 
2012-02-11 02:23:04 PM
Gun manufactures like Glock funnel millions into NRA. The NRA turns Obama into a bogeyman to sell more guns, ammo, and membership cards. President Obama is the greatest gun salesman of all time.

/It's going to be real fun as the economy continues cycle downward (as capitalism reaches its last stages) and those weapons hit the street.
 
2012-02-11 02:23:33 PM
Amos Quito: Mugato: Amos Quito:

Members of the military are people too. Have you noticed which US presidential candidate members of the military and veterans tend to be supporting this election cycle?


Paul, but that is because the US military tends to attract those sorts of folks, or they just end up brainwashed, and buy what they are told by their commanders or brothers in arms. That is what one of the elements of Basic Training is, breaking your psyche down and making you part of the Army way of thinking.
 
2012-02-11 02:25:31 PM
Umeraken Ideut: Fark It:
The problem with saying "gun violence should spark reasonable debate" is not the reasonable debate part, it's the "gun violence" part. Why don't you say "violence" should spark reasonable debate? Focusing on "gun violence" establishes a false premise from the start, that guns are the root of violent acts.

Uh, you'd have a point if the topic at hand were simply violence, but it's not. It's guns. And by gun violence, I'm not referring to violent acts that happen where guns happen to be involved, I'm responding to violence that occurs merely BECAUSE of the weapon. Like the kid accidentally blowing his head off. A violent act, one cause merely by the presence of a gun.

Fish in a Barrel: It's hard to have an "honest debate" when you don't know what you're talking about and don't care to. Your self-professed willful ingnorance (something I find repugnant regardless of subject) leads you to say stupid and outrageous things without even realizing it. Things like you can get a machinegun for the price of an iPad and some paperwork.

I am willfully ignorant as to the mechanics when it comes to operation and purchase of a firearm. I am not ignorant as to the laws a policies of them, which is what the debate is about. So all that there, what you just said, word twisting.

Should I have expanded my argument to include the price of an automatic firearm when I'm unaware of such things? No. However, my original point was that they are still obtainable within our borders with some ease. Which is a correct point. It was my own fault for taking the bait on the logic that price has anything to do with legality.


Machine guns are not easy to legally obtain. At least not for people who don't have several thousand dollars in extra money lying around, +$750.00, I think it was, for the Federal tax stamp. You will also need friendship with your local sheriff, who has to sign off on the transaction. There are also some states, such as the one I live in, where possession of automatic weapons by a civilian is a felony, period. You cannot have the "intelligent debate" when you know almost nothing of your topic. Sorry.
 
2012-02-11 02:26:26 PM
Franco: Gun manufactures like Glock funnel millions into NRA.

Have you documentation of these extensive contributions by firearm manufacturers? How do they compare to finances donated by individuals members?
 
2012-02-11 02:35:05 PM
TsukasaK: And yet, this isn't happening.

Uhhhhh.... there's a whole list of guns banned from importation. It's why gun builders have to destroy perfectly good foreign weapons and rebuild "American" ones from the parts.

And yes, I know Republican AGs have banned their fair share too. But I can't vote against someone out of office.

TsukasaK: I'm not going to spend the time to copypasta from the ruling for your benefit. Suffice to say, you are wrong. SCOTUS explicitly affirmed the second amendment.

Go ahead and copypasta. Heller was not as absolute as you think.

LasersHurt: You're still on the "paranoid without evidence" side of things. The closest you can get is "some people associated with him believe in various forms of gun control.

Nope. That's a whole lot of disingenuity from you. The people "associated" with him are the ones he appointed and has authority over.

CapnBlues: There is really no reason to be such a dick

Yea, that response was kind of dickish. I was going for style points and ran up the score. I'm an LSU fan, it's what we do.

Guntram Shatterhand: So far we've already had Birthers, and now it's gun control that's just more dogwhistle racism.

When everything you here is whistling it's called tinnitis.

Umeraken Ideut: I've said time and time again I'm against abortion, but I'm still pro-choice, because I don't feel my personal dogma should be the basis for legislation. I don't understand how his opinion changes his public policy.

He stated it in a questionnaire seeking policy views. That's not just personal opinion. That's stated policy beliefs.
 
2012-02-11 02:37:28 PM
Dimensio: Garble: VictoryCabal: So the NRA is starting the long downhill slide into MADD-style lack-of-purpose crazy? How...unexpected?

The NRA has never had any purpose other than boosting the sales of guns and ammo. Usually through fear and fake victimization.

Please substantiate your assertion.


Oh, that's easy.

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-11 02:38:47 PM
Gun Pr0n?

farm8.staticflickr.com">
 
2012-02-11 02:39:31 PM
It's the only way they can declare their racism. They can't just come out and say
he's a n****r and we don't want him in there. No they have to use the ruse of "he's
gonna grab yer guns". They will all just nod their heads in agreement because it's not
really about guns it's about a black man in the white house.

Or as it's been put. NOT HIS SHIAT AGAIN.
 
2012-02-11 02:40:28 PM
chuckufarlie: VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

VIII: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


NDAA ...

Don't worry, I am sure that all of the guns that you and the other skinheads have hidden away are safe.



Wow. That was relevant.
 
2012-02-11 02:41:04 PM
Satanic_Hamster: Dimensio: Garble: VictoryCabal: So the NRA is starting the long downhill slide into MADD-style lack-of-purpose crazy? How...unexpected?

The NRA has never had any purpose other than boosting the sales of guns and ammo. Usually through fear and fake victimization.

Please substantiate your assertion.

Oh, that's easy.

Link (new window)


The reference that you have provided does not demonstrate that the National Rifle Association has never served any purpose besides increasing sales of firearms and ammunition.
 
2012-02-11 02:41:32 PM
iollow: If Obama is anti-gun, he's keeping it to himself.


Given his past history, it's pretty obvious that he is.

However......

Whether or not he will actually put those beliefs into action is another matter entirely.
 
2012-02-11 02:41:38 PM
Gun sales have gone way up since Obama became President. You'd think gun shop owners, the NRA, etc, wouldn't like a Republican becoming Predisent, since gun sales would go down. Although I suppose they aren't the only Republicans who tend to vote in their own worst interest.
 
2012-02-11 02:42:18 PM
sparkeyjames: It's the only way they can declare their racism. They can't just come out and say
he's a n****r and we don't want him in there. No they have to use the ruse of "he's
gonna grab yer guns". They will all just nod their heads in agreement because it's not
really about guns it's about a black man in the white house.

Or as it's been put. NOT HIS SHIAT AGAIN.



Yeah, no one cared about the Second Amendment 'til that uppity kneeegrow got in the White House.
 
2012-02-11 02:43:00 PM
Awwwww. Isn't it cute when the Moonie Times pretends that it's Clownhall?
 
2012-02-11 02:48:43 PM
So what will these douchebags do when Obama completes his second term without "grabbin" yer guns?

Will they even so much as admit they were wrong?

What am I thinking, conservatives can't be held to account, it blows their whole strategy apart.

Conservatives: Lying liars who lie.

Conservatives: Wrong for America.
 
2012-02-11 02:51:42 PM
Kumana Wanalaia: So what will these douchebags do when Obama completes his second term without "grabbin" yer guns?

Will they even so much as admit they were wrong?


No, they'll just say he only failed because of their vigilance. I've seen it before.
 
2012-02-11 02:53:21 PM
So basically, the NRA is filled with paranoid cowards at the national leadership level.
 
2012-02-11 02:53:52 PM
Kumana Wanalaia: So what will these douchebags do when Obama completes his second term without "grabbin" yer guns?

Will they even so much as admit they were wrong?

What am I thinking, conservatives can't be held to account, it blows their whole strategy apart.

Conservatives: Lying liars who lie.

Conservatives: Wrong for America.


The problem with the American right at this point is that their entire ideological system is a conspiracy theory. This means that any evidence that supports their beliefs, no matter how tangentially, is taken as unassailable proof that they're right, and any evidence against it is taken as proof of the conspiracy against them, which is also unassailable proof that they're right. It is literally impossible to prove anything to rightists. All you can do is affirm their beliefs or be classified as part of the conspiracy.
 
2012-02-11 02:58:41 PM
Can someone explain to me how anyone gets that the second amendment is to protect the populace from a tyrannical government? I mean, the 2nd is the only one to give a reason, and that reason is to form a militia...which was necessary since the original states didn't have a standing army to defend the U.S. against agressors.

Wouldn't the 2nd just say in the reason that "this is important to rise up against atyrannical governments?" while they were spelling out the reason? The whole tyrannincal government thing just seems to me to be a desperate obfuscation of what the actual amendment says (because the militia isn't needed anymore due to having a standing army now).
 
2012-02-11 03:01:59 PM
Lots of delusional liberals in this thread.
 
2012-02-11 03:06:43 PM
sparkeyjames: It's the only way they can declare their racism. They can't just come out and say
he's a n****r and we don't want him in there. No they have to use the ruse of "he's
gonna grab yer guns". They will all just nod their heads in agreement because it's not
really about guns it's about a black man in the white house.

Or as it's been put. NOT HIS SHIAT AGAIN.



By all means, keeping playing that old/tired race card. You don't think they would be acting the same way if a white Democrat were in the White House? And said Democrat had a history of not being friendly towards gun rights? Or did you forget about how much the NRA disliked Bill Clinton?
 
2012-02-11 03:06:54 PM
badhatharry: Lots of delusional liberals conservatives in this thread.

FTFAccuracy
 
2012-02-11 03:07:36 PM
Kumana Wanalaia: So what will these douchebags do when Obama completes his second term without "grabbin" yer guns?

Will they even so much as admit they were wrong?

What am I thinking, conservatives can't be held to account, it blows their whole strategy apart.

Conservatives: Lying liars who lie.

Conservatives: Wrong for America.



You seem to think that the Second Amendment only benefits Conservatives.

Is that a valid assessment?
 
2012-02-11 03:07:54 PM
Mrbogey: bunch of bullpoo

i can only assume your lengthy absence was due to you jacking it to all the attention you got.

I think you should be done now, barring a tab of viagra under your tongue
 
2012-02-11 03:11:42 PM
A Dark Evil Omen: badhatharry: Lots of delusional liberals conservatives in this thread.

FTFAccuracy


Yes, it's those of a conservative persuasion who think you can legally buy machine guns for $500.
 
2012-02-11 03:13:14 PM
Amos Quito: Kumana Wanalaia: So what will these douchebags do when Obama completes his second term without "grabbin" yer guns?

Will they even so much as admit they were wrong?

What am I thinking, conservatives can't be held to account, it blows their whole strategy apart.

Conservatives: Lying liars who lie.

Conservatives: Wrong for America.

You seem to think that the Second Amendment only benefits Conservatives.

Is that a valid assessment?


1) I'm a pro gun rights liberal.

2) you're an asshole

3) I f*cked your mother

questions?
 
2012-02-11 03:13:43 PM
I can't believe there are mongrels dumb enough to still believe the assholes at the NRA.

I am 44. I have NEVER ever once had any problem whatsoever buying a gun.
No guns have ever been "grabbed" from my possession. Gun control is about as much a threat to my rights as a Yeti.

The only thing I have ever heard about that even remotely sounds like "gun-grab" was back during the hurricane Katrina debacle. Supposedly some citizens were disarmed by National Guard troops. Who was president then? NRA swore "Bush will protect our guns" and now they claim "Obama gonna take our guns...."

Utter B f*cking S

NRA doesn't give a rat's ass about the 2nd Ammendment or citizen's rights.
They only care about the millions they make off the knuckle dragging inbreds who
are stupid enough to believe their lies and fear mongering.
 
2012-02-11 03:15:04 PM
badhatharry: Lots of delusional liberals in this thread.

We're not the paranoid ones in thinking that Obama will take our guns away although he has provided no evidence that he plans to.
 
2012-02-11 03:22:18 PM
Kumana Wanalaia: So what will these douchebags do when Obama completes his second term without "grabbin" yer guns?

They will say the same thing that all the people who scream about the end of the world say when Judgement Day comes and goes, "Why are you talking about old shiat?".
 
2012-02-11 03:29:31 PM
badhatharry: Lots of delusional liberals in this thread.

That hit and run style of argument isn't very convincing here. This isn't Twitter, you can elaborate.
 
2012-02-11 03:33:03 PM
More hysterical "he's gonna grab your guns" flatulence from The Moonie Times. Is it an election year?
 
2012-02-11 03:34:15 PM
Amos Quito: The past several decades have seen a steady, continuous shift of power away from States and the People and into the hands of the Federal Government. This trend has continued under both Republican and Democrat administrations, and regardless of who controlled Congress.

These Federal power grabs increased exponentially during the aftermath of 9/11, as we were assured that it was absolutely necessary for us to surrender our rights in order to ensure Big Brother's ability to protect us from the Bogeymen.

At the same time the wealth of the nation has steadily been siphoned away from the masses and into the hands of a few oligarchs whose influence on politics has increased dramatically as a result. The middle class continues to shrink as we move toward the return to a feudal system of virtual Lords and peasants, and US politics and policies are increasingly controlled not by the voters, but by those who have amassed wealth.

The original purpose for the RKBA was to ensure that the PEOPLE were provided with the ability to oppose tyranny within their own government - should the need arise. Needless to say that the idea of an armed populace is not something that those who aspire to oligarchy are keen on, and rogue movements like OWS that might tend to threaten them directly have given them a renewed interest in seeing that the peasantry is declawed.

An armed populace is antithetical to the goals of those who seek a Centralized Authoritarian Government.

gov·ern (new window)

verb (used with object)
1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
3. to hold in check; control: to govern one's temper.


The desire to increase, consolidate and centralize power is rooted in human nature, and this is the natural aspiration of any and all governments. The only defense the governed have is their determination to oppose and limit these aspirations, preferably by exercising ...


How many hunting rifles would it take to take down an armored personnel carrier? Or a predator drone? Apache helicopter, jet fighters, battle tanks, armored humvees full of highly trained soldiers? How deep does your bunker in the hills of Mississippi (not you specifically) have to be to be safe from a bunker busting bomb?

How many armed civilians would be killed before they were able to take out 1/10th of the armed forces that the oligarchs own? What would you do if your city was just moments away from being 'shocked and awed" into submission, and subsequently occupied by the armed forces? See Iraq: They had fricken rocket launchers, ak 47s, IEDs, and whatnot. We were there for almost 10 years anyway, and we managed to leave with a what, 1% casualty rate? So how many would you get, personally, before they killed you and your family, in this armed revolution fantasy?
 
2012-02-11 03:36:45 PM
Mugato: Kumana Wanalaia: So what will these douchebags do when Obama completes his second term without "grabbin" yer guns?

They will say the same thing that all the people who scream about the end of the world say when Judgement Day comes and goes, "Why are you talking about old shiat?".


Old shiat. That's a good description of conservatism.
 
2012-02-11 03:40:13 PM
Shaggy_C: Sigh. When are people going to learn that the Democrats of the 2010s are a pro-gun, pro-tax cut, pro-corporate party? Conservatism won, yet Republicans are still battling as if it were the late 1980s.

Too bad social liberalism is winning as we speak, conservatives just won those issues.
 
2012-02-11 03:41:16 PM
Thank you Wayne La Pierre for turning a once venerable old Hunting Shooting organization into a right wing fascist enterprise that perceives a threat everywhere it's looks. There are now way too many guns lying around where there shouldn't be. In Wayne fuq'ing La Pierre's honor I' ll just leave this here.Link (new window)
 
2012-02-11 03:42:59 PM
Kumana Wanalaia: So what will these douchebags do when Obama completes his second term without "grabbin" yer guns?

Will they even so much as admit they were wrong?

What am I thinking, conservatives can't be held to account, it blows their whole strategy apart.

Conservatives: Lying liars who lie.

Conservatives: Wrong for America.


WHY, he didn't grab all the guns and declare him dictator for life because the NRA stood up to him and stopped him, just like they did with Clinton. Duh.
 
2012-02-11 03:43:47 PM
DrD'isInfotainment: Thank you Wayne La Pierre for turning a once venerable old Hunting Shooting organization into a right wing fascist enterprise that perceives a threat everywhere it's looks. There are now way too many guns lying around where there shouldn't be. In Wayne fuq'ing La Pierre's honor I' ll just leave this here.>

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&i d=8540157
 
2012-02-11 03:44:50 PM
Satanic_Hamster: Kumana Wanalaia: So what will these douchebags do when Obama completes his second term without "grabbin" yer guns?

Will they even so much as admit they were wrong?

What am I thinking, conservatives can't be held to account, it blows their whole strategy apart.

Conservatives: Lying liars who lie.

Conservatives: Wrong for America.

WHY, he didn't grab all the guns and declare him dictator for life because the NRA stood up to him and stopped him, just like they did with Clinton. Duh.


I hear they also have a rock that keeps tigers away.
 
2012-02-11 03:45:56 PM
DrD'isInfotainment: There are now way too many guns lying around where there shouldn't be.

This presence of firearms has, of course, resulted in a significant increase in the rate of violent crime in the United States since 1992.
 
2012-02-11 03:46:37 PM
I should be in the kitchen: Great. Another round of righties buying up all the guns and ammo they can, making it prohibitively expensive for the rest of us who just own a couple of guns and like target practice.

You can just as easily blame the manipulations of commodities traders and also, the rapid industrialization of China and India. Seen what's been happening to copper prices over the last 5 years? They use it as a jacket material for bullets, and the brass used in the cases and primers is an alloy, one of the constituents of which is copper.
 
2012-02-11 03:46:44 PM
Monkeyhouse Zendo 2012-02-11 11:25:37 AM

randomjsa: I've been brainwashed by all the sh*tbooks I read

Did you forget to switch alts or are you attempting to explain why you frequently go off on insane rants that the average fifth grader could debunk?



Don't try reasoning with randumblibby, it's a human spittoon.
(not to mention its secondary function as a jizzporium)

img.tfd.com

You don't talk to spittoons, do ya?
 
2012-02-11 03:47:43 PM
I wish people that ranted about their rights so much actually read or understood the rest of the Constitution.

Right-wing translation in ALL CAPS cause it's important.
The President is an executive, not a legislator. THIS MEANS HE CAN'T MAKE LAWS.
In order to repeal an amendment you must make another amendment. NEW LAW
First we need a bill to pass congress with a 2/3 vote. MANY REPUBLICANS WOULD HAVE TO LIKE IT TOO.
To do that you have to submit the amendment for ratification to all 50 states. THIS MEANS IT TAKES A LONG TIME.
38 of those states must ratify it. THAT MEANS 75%.

Now it is very possible to get all of this done within four years or even 1 year. But I think changing a fundamental part of the constitution is going to meet some resistance. Probably from, I dunno, all the damn gun nuts acting like their powerless to stop the evil Fartbongo except at the polling place.
 
2012-02-11 03:48:13 PM
NRA are asshole liars.

Brady Campaign are the "delusional liberals"

However,I am not sure how much money the Bradys make off their silly and delusional misinformation. They really do seem sincere in that their goal is public safety. I don't think they are deliberate liars like the NRA. They are just extremely stupid.

I have actually sat down and conversed with Brady supporting liberals. I explained to them that a 20 round 5.7 mm magazine is no more lethat than a 15 round 9mm magazine which is no more lethal than a 8 round .45 magazine which is no more lethal than a 6 round .44 cylinder......etc.....and that none of those are any more dangerous than a can of gasoline,a truck full of fertilizer or box cutters.

I told them the origin of the "cop killer" ammo myth. I told the truth about the "Black-Talon" fiasco. (absurd exagerrations)

I also explained that modern "assault" rifles are basically high capacity pea shooters and actually far less accurate and powerful than a typical deer-rifle.

....etc.....etc....

Many seemed compelled by my logic and truth. Some even appeared to ease down a bit on their stance.


I have NEVER had such luck with conservative NRA types. They are steadfast in their unwavering ignorance.
 
2012-02-11 03:48:16 PM
Mrtraveler01: Obama Democrats is a gun store's best friend.

FTFY

Every freaking election, it comes up. A small percentage of dems get all excited hearing it, but the gun crowd and store clerks preach the stuff. Gun shop owners "Children , it's an election year, so we are going to have a wonderful christmas".

Somewhat like, within the democratic party they were saying Hillary will help the gays more than Obama. I look at the last 4 years and then look at the previous 16 and I don't think gays did so bad.
 
2012-02-11 03:48:21 PM
Mugato: badhatharry: Lots of delusional liberals in this thread.

That hit and run style of argument isn't very convincing here. This isn't Twitter, you can elaborate.


Sure. Obama's position on gun control is well known. He has nominated two Justices that believe gun ownership is not a fundamental right. One more and we all get New York City style gun laws.

The Fast and Furious debacle was a scheme to implement gun control.

The Obama administration banned the sale of 800,000 M1 Garande rifles.
 
2012-02-11 03:56:52 PM
Sid_6.7: andrewagill: The NRA is known to have poor reasoning skills.

October 7, 1993--Associated Press

GUNS IN THE HOME FOUND TO INCREASE RISK OF DEATH.

People who keep guns at home nearly triple their chances of being murdered, usually by friends or relatives, but fail to protect themselves from intruders... However, Paul Blackman, research coordinator at the National Rifle Association, criticized the study... ``These people were highly susceptible to homicide,'' he said. ``We know that because they were killed.''

To be fair I think the guy is saying that while the correlation may exist, people who are at risk of being murdered might be more likely to buy a gun, as opposed to buying a gun making it more likely you will be murderer. I'm not saying he's correct, but I think that that's what he's trying to say.


The people who I know that have bought guns in the last 6 months have been disadvantaged during the recent economy and currently find themselves living in areas where crime is higher.
The previous place where I lived had a spree of vandalism and break ins. I couldn't tell if gun ownership went up , but talk of gun ownership went up and questions about guns went up.
 
2012-02-11 03:57:28 PM
How many hunting rifles would it take to take down an armored personnel carrier?

One.

APC's don't have toilets or running water inside them. Neither do gunships or tanks.

....just ask a Mujahideen.

Also,any tard who doesn't believe in the power of armed citizens,

please google the following:

Battle of Athens 1946
American Revolution
Little Big Horn
Deacons for Defense and Justice
 
2012-02-11 03:59:16 PM
Kumana Wanalaia: Amos Quito: Kumana Wanalaia: So what will these douchebags do when Obama completes his second term without "grabbin" yer guns?

Will they even so much as admit they were wrong?

What am I thinking, conservatives can't be held to account, it blows their whole strategy apart.

Conservatives: Lying liars who lie.

Conservatives: Wrong for America.

You seem to think that the Second Amendment only benefits Conservatives.

Is that a valid assessment?


1) I'm
[...] an asshole


No, I think that about covers it.
 
2012-02-11 04:02:08 PM
DrD'isInfotainment: DrD'isInfotainment: Thank you Wayne La Pierre for turning a once venerable old Hunting Shooting organization into a right wing fascist enterprise that perceives a threat everywhere it's looks. There are now way too many guns lying around where there shouldn't be. In Wayne fuq'ing La Pierre's honor I' ll just leave this here.>

Here the story that didn't link:NH 14-year-old shoots self in face in cafeteria
Updated at 12:20 PM today
A Sheriffs cruiser is stationed outside Walpole Elementary School where a 14 year old male student shot himself in front of many classmates in the schools cafeteria in Walpole, NH Friday, Feb. 10, 2012. Police are investigating the shooting, which they say was self-inflicted.

A Sheriffs cruiser is stationed outside Walpole Elementary School where a 14 year old male student shot himself in front of many classmates in the school's cafeteria in Walpole, NH Friday, Feb. 10, 2012. Police are investigating the shooting, which they say was self-inflicted. ((AP Photo/Matthew Cavanaugh))
Tags:
new hampshire, teens, shooting, school shooting, national/world

* Comment Now
* Email
* Print
* Report a typo
*
*
*
*
*
* ShareThis via email, AIM, social bookmarking and networking sites, etc.

GARRETT BRNGER Associated Press

WALPOLE, N.H. (AP) - February 11, 2012 (WPVI) -- A 14-year-old shot himself in the face in a New Hampshire elementary school cafeteria filled with dozens of students eating lunch, officials said Friday.

The teen, identified by a relative and fellow students as Hunter Mack, was hospitalized after shooting himself around 11 a.m. at Walpole Elementary School in southwestern New Hampshire. Police locked down the school for several hours, but no one else was injured.

Cheshire County Attorney Peter Heed told The Associated Press the student might have been upset about a "relationship issue" with a girl.

Related Content
More: Send a Breaking News alert
More: Report a typo
More: Sign up for 6abc Newsletters
More: See more Action News slideshows
"It clearly involved a relationship issue; I think that is fair to say," Heed told the AP.

As of Friday afternoon, the student was in serious condition in the intensive care unit.

"Our hearts go out to the family of this young man and our thoughts go out to all of the students that were in the school at this time," Heed said at an afternoon news conference.

He did not say what kind of gun the student used or where he might have obtained it.

"We're all just waiting to hear about our little boy," said Cindy Mack, whose cousin is the boy's father. "He's a wonderful little boy. He's an avid hunter - like his name. He is very smart. He won prizes at school. He shot his first deer last year. He's a great, great kid."

Ethan Symonds, a seventh-grader who was sitting at a table near the boy in the cafeteria, said he heard something "a little bit louder than a chip bag popping." He said he did a double-take, saw blood, and ran.

Seventy of the school's approximately 170 students were in the cafeteria at the time. Nick Phillips, an eighth-grader in the student's home room, said he had been passing notes during the week saying he was depressed, but it wasn't clear why.

Parents received automated calls about the lockdown at about 1 p.m. They were allowed to come to the school to pick up their children, some of whom were interviewed by police.

"The state of New Hampshire is offering whatever assistance it can to the community, along with all of our thoughts and prayers," Gov. John Lynch said in a statement.

Walpole, a town of about 3,000, is several miles from the Vermont state line and about 15 miles northwest of Keene.

Walpole Elementary School, which includes grades 5-8, is one of five schools that recently began participating in an experiment aimed at reducing bullying and meanness in New Hampshire schools.

The Courage to Care curriculum, developed at the University of New Hampshire, includes videos, activities and games emphasizing empathy, caring for others, understanding power, courage and being respectful in cyberspace. Half of the seventh graders in each participating school are enrolled in the program initially, while the other half serve as control groups to compare the curriculum's effects.

---
Associated Press writer Holly Ramer in Concord, N.H., contributed to this report.

(Copyright ©2012 WPVI-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
 
2012-02-11 04:02:47 PM
Amos Quito: 1) I'm [...] an asshole

That's what I said.

You're an asshole.
 
2012-02-11 04:03:21 PM
DrD'isInfotainment: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&i d=8540157

badhatharry: Mugato: badhatharry: Lots of delusional liberals in this thread.

That hit and run style of argument isn't very convincing here. This isn't Twitter, you can elaborate.

Sure. Obama's position on gun control is well known. He has nominated two Justices that believe gun ownership is not a fundamental right. One more and we all get New York City style gun laws.

The Fast and Furious debacle was a scheme to implement gun control.

The Obama administration banned the sale of 800,000 M1 Garande rifles.


It was 80-some thousand Garands, and it was the State Department that banned the importation of them. That decision was recently reversed, although there are several hundred thousand M1 Carbines that are still banned form importation because their 15-round detachable box clips with heat-seeking cop killer bullets that can shoot through schools are much more dangerous than the Garand's 8-shot internal magazine.
 
2012-02-11 04:05:03 PM
Oh good, a new Farky for A Mosquito.


1) I'm [...] an asshole

You Breitbarted that really well!

Congratulations!
 
2012-02-11 04:06:51 PM
Fark It: It was 80-some thousand Garands, and it was the State Department that banned the importation of them. That decision was recently reversed, although there are several hundred thousand M1 Carbines that are still banned form importation because their 15-round detachable box clips with heat-seeking cop killer bullets that can shoot through schools are much more dangerous than the Garand's 8-shot internal magazine.

But those are vital for home defense.
 
2012-02-11 04:07:57 PM
craigdamage: Battle of Athens 1946

Used military weapons obtained from the National Guard.

American Revolution

State militias and significant amounts of French military against another state military force.

Little Big Horn

The native warriors were equipped with weapons equal to or better than what Custer's men were carrying.

Deacons for Defense and Justice

At what point did they ever come into armed conflict with the military?

None of these examples come remotely close to supporting your argument unless you are also open to private ownership of nuclear missiles, carrier groups and advanced bioweapons.
 
2012-02-11 04:11:39 PM
Mugato: Fark It: It was 80-some thousand Garands, and it was the State Department that banned the importation of them. That decision was recently reversed, although there are several hundred thousand M1 Carbines that are still banned form importation because their 15-round detachable box clips with heat-seeking cop killer bullets that can shoot through schools are much more dangerous than the Garand's 8-shot internal magazine.

But those are vital for home defense.


You know I was being sarcastic right?
 
2012-02-11 04:12:15 PM
Dedmon: Amos Quito: The past several decades have seen a steady, continuous shift of power away from States and the People and into the hands of the Federal Government. This trend has continued under both Republican and Democrat administrations, and regardless of who controlled Congress.

These Federal power grabs increased exponentially during the aftermath of 9/11, as we were assured that it was absolutely necessary for us to surrender our rights in order to ensure Big Brother's ability to protect us from the Bogeymen.

At the same time the wealth of the nation has steadily been siphoned away from the masses and into the hands of a few oligarchs whose influence on politics has increased dramatically as a result. The middle class continues to shrink as we move toward the return to a feudal system of virtual Lords and peasants, and US politics and policies are increasingly controlled not by the voters, but by those who have amassed wealth.

The original purpose for the RKBA was to ensure that the PEOPLE were provided with the ability to oppose tyranny within their own government - should the need arise. Needless to say that the idea of an armed populace is not something that those who aspire to oligarchy are keen on, and rogue movements like OWS that might tend to threaten them directly have given them a renewed interest in seeing that the peasantry is declawed.

An armed populace is antithetical to the goals of those who seek a Centralized Authoritarian Government.

gov·ern (new window)

verb (used with object)
1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
3. to hold in check; control: to govern one's temper.


The desire to increase, consolidate and centralize power is rooted in human nature, and this is the natural aspiration of any and all governments. The only defense the governed have is their determination to oppose and limit these aspirations, preferably b ...



You seem to be resigned to the idea that might makes right, so you're ready to surrender and capitulate to what ever any tyrannical asshat dictates because they have the power.

That's sad. Do you also tell your daughters to go ahead and suck the dick of any rapist that happens to be bigger than they are?

As I mentioned earlier, the military cannot necessarily be counted on to defend a regime that is seen as excessively oppressive.


cdn2.holytaco.com

Ask Mubarak.
 
2012-02-11 04:13:36 PM
Kumana Wanalaia: Amos Quito: 1) I'm [...] an asshole

That's what I said.

You're an asshole.


cache.ohinternet.com
 
2012-02-11 04:18:26 PM
A Dark Evil Omen: Kumana Wanalaia: So what will these douchebags do when Obama completes his second term without "grabbin" yer guns?

Will they even so much as admit they were wrong?

What am I thinking, conservatives can't be held to account, it blows their whole strategy apart.

Conservatives: Lying liars who lie.

Conservatives: Wrong for America.

The problem with the American right at this point is that their entire ideological system is a conspiracy theory. This means that any evidence that supports their beliefs, no matter how tangentially, is taken as unassailable proof that they're right, and any evidence against it is taken as proof of the conspiracy against them, which is also unassailable proof that they're right. It is literally impossible to prove anything to rightists. All you can do is affirm their beliefs or be classified as part of the conspiracy.


It's not just the American right anymore. The other day in Canada a Conservative MP (on the floor of the House of Commons) made a comparison between Hitler and supporters of gun registration. The Conservative Associate Defense Minister said that questioning the purchase of a fleet of F-35s is "criticizing everything that is holy and decent about the government's efforts".

It's not just the US that's apparently in training for the Derp Olympics, and unfortunately the field is getting more competitive.
 
2012-02-11 04:20:52 PM
A Dark Evil Omen

I just said they are examples of armed citizens. Who prevailed.

You and folks like you fail at comprehending the concept of deterrent. You assume that armed people like me have this "fantasy" of citizens fighting in a battlefield against the government. That is like thinking a rhino fantacizes about killing predators with his horn. Lions rarely f*ck with rhinos. They see the horn and usually back off. Governments usually don't f*ck with armed citizens. That is what deterrent means. A fence that has a sign on it that says "High Voltage" is all that is needed to keep folks out. It doesn't actually have to electrocute somebody in order to work.
 
2012-02-11 04:21:26 PM
CapnBlues: oldernell: CapnBlues: i heard Obama's going to send the black panthers to the home of every gun owner. They're going to take away the guns first. Then they'll take everything of value to give to black people and other minorities. Then they'll steal away the women, for use in whatever they want. And I do mean whatever.

Is there a number 6 dance afterwards?

i don't know what that means.I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that one. but if it's something bigoted and paranoid, you can be pretty sure the NRA
thinks it's going to happen.


Well, that's where we go a-ridin' into town, a-whompin' and a-whumpin' every livin' thing that moves within an inch of its life. Except the women folks, of course.
 
2012-02-11 04:23:03 PM
apoptotic: A Dark Evil Omen: Kumana Wanalaia: So what will these douchebags do when Obama completes his second term without "grabbin" yer guns?

Will they even so much as admit they were wrong?

What am I thinking, conservatives can't be held to account, it blows their whole strategy apart.

Conservatives: Lying liars who lie.

Conservatives: Wrong for America.

The problem with the American right at this point is that their entire ideological system is a conspiracy theory. This means that any evidence that supports their beliefs, no matter how tangentially, is taken as unassailable proof that they're right, and any evidence against it is taken as proof of the conspiracy against them, which is also unassailable proof that they're right. It is literally impossible to prove anything to rightists. All you can do is affirm their beliefs or be classified as part of the conspiracy.

It's not just the American right anymore. The other day in Canada a Conservative MP (on the floor of the House of Commons) made a comparison between Hitler and supporters of gun registration. The Conservative Associate Defense Minister said that questioning the purchase of a fleet of F-35s is "criticizing everything that is holy and decent about the government's efforts".

It's not just the US that's apparently in training for the Derp Olympics, and unfortunately the field is getting more competitive.


Yeah, I know. Compared to the farking Alliance-dominated clusterfark that is the modern Conservative party, Mulroney's reign was a paragon of reason and good governance. Republican-style reactionary politics taking root in Canada has been the worst thing to happen to the country since the October Crisis.
 
2012-02-11 04:24:04 PM
craigdamage: You and folks like you fail at comprehending the concept of deterrent.

Your whole post is a shiatload of projection, fantasy and unwarranted assumptions.
 
2012-02-11 04:24:34 PM
A top official with the National Rifle Association said Friday that President Obama will move to "destroy" gun rights and "erase" the Second Amendment if he is re-elected in November so send us MONEY!
 
2012-02-11 04:26:02 PM
What are the biggest U.S. weapons companies and what are thier stock offerings right now? If you can't mass collective defeat ignorance and stupidity, you may as well make a couple bucks out of the panic rush come November.

/Seriously, I'm doing the research after my shift's done.
 
2012-02-11 04:26:33 PM
Primum: Here's a funny one: this dummkopf at a gun show let a 7-year-old fire a mini-Uzi and the gun bounced up and the boy blew the side of his head off

Well, the advert for the gun-nut event where this happened did read:

"It's all legal & fun - No permits or licenses required!!!!"

I wish someone would leak that video.

Can't do that--it was the kid's father who filmed the entire incident, so he owns the rights to it. He really should consider selling it--no doubt there is more than one gun nut out there who would enjoy watching the kid's head get blown off over and over and over.
 
2012-02-11 04:28:34 PM
craigdamage: A Dark Evil Omen

I just said they are examples of armed citizens. Who prevailed.

You and folks like you fail at comprehending the concept of deterrent. You assume that armed people like me have this "fantasy" of citizens fighting in a battlefield against the government. That is like thinking a rhino fantacizes about killing predators with his horn. Lions rarely f*ck with rhinos. They see the horn and usually back off. Governments usually don't f*ck with armed citizens. That is what deterrent means. A fence that has a sign on it that says "High Voltage" is all that is needed to keep folks out. It doesn't actually have to electrocute somebody in order to work.


I'm sorry, Rambo, but false dichotomy is false. A rhino without a horn is still more than a match for a lion.
 
2012-02-11 04:29:08 PM
Amos Quito: [cache.ohinternet.com image 491x398]

Look, we've both agreed that you're an asshole, I think we can just let it go now.
 
2012-02-11 04:29:17 PM
Two thoughts.
First. did anyone see last week's house? At one point they make a comment like, "So, House shows how much he cares, through his complete lack of compassion?" These nuts think the same way. The more Obama does for gun rights the more they act like it's a trap to lull them into a false sense of security before he "takes mah guns"
Secondly, for all the insane biatching and moaning, they ARE winning their battle by expanding gun rights. Say what you want about them being sniveling, whiny, lying coonts. They are effective .
 
2012-02-11 04:30:24 PM
Kumana Wanalaia: Amos Quito: [cache.ohinternet.com image 491x398]

Look, we've both agreed that you're an asshole, I think we can just let it go now.


I thinks it's enough that you, I and the rest of FARK knows. There's no getting through to a mosquito... they just annoy.
 
2012-02-11 04:36:57 PM
There's only one reaction a gun owner has to someone trying to take his gun. This is dangerous, irresponsible innuendo the NRA has been using.
 
2012-02-11 04:39:20 PM
i280.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-11 04:42:57 PM
Kumana Wanalaia: 2) you're an asshole

He's also Phil Herup.
 
2012-02-11 04:47:39 PM
Amos Quito: Mugato: Amos Quito: An armed populace is antithetical to the goals of those who seek a Centralized Authoritarian Government.

Yeah but what does your paranoia have to do with Obama specifically?

I didn't mention Obama specifically - but noted that the trend toward Centralized Authoritarian Government has continued regardless of who or which party is in power.


And the idea of an "armed populace" standing up to the government was cool back when everyone involved had muskets but it's a little silly now.


Remember what the Egyptian Military did to protect Mubarak's regime from the angry crowds in Egypt last year?

They didn't protect Mubarak's regime at all, did they?

Members of the military are people too. Have you noticed which US presidential candidate members of the military and veterans tend to be supporting this election cycle?


Just like Libya , where they walked in an the guys just gave up?

Really , your argument is going to be that if a leader is bad, then the police and military will just fall down and another more benevolent government will peacefully arrive.
 
2012-02-11 05:13:12 PM
odinsposse: Obama should introduce a nationally standardized concealed carry law just to watch the Republicans argue against it.

I wasn't aware that the president introduced laws. Maybe I should watch some more schoolhouse rock in case i missed something?

Actually, the house passed HR822 with largely bipartisan support for national right to carry reciprocity. In the same way that states honor each others driver's licenses, marriage licenses, armored guard carry licenses, the bill would require a state to allow a permit holder of another state to have their CCW.

I think the Senate has yet to take it up.
 
2012-02-11 05:15:01 PM
CapnBlues: Then they'll steal away the women, for use in whatever they want. And I do mean whatever.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-02-11 05:21:28 PM
Uchiha_Cycliste: Kumana Wanalaia: Amos Quito: [cache.ohinternet.com image 491x398]

Look, we've both agreed that you're an asshole, I think we can just let it go now.

I thinks it's enough that you, I and the rest of FARK knows. There's no getting through to a mosquito... they just annoy.



You're fickle, Uchiha_Cycliste.
 
2012-02-11 05:24:34 PM
baggins2000: Amos Quito: Mugato: Amos Quito: An armed populace is antithetical to the goals of those who seek a Centralized Authoritarian Government.

Yeah but what does your paranoia have to do with Obama specifically?

I didn't mention Obama specifically - but noted that the trend toward Centralized Authoritarian Government has continued regardless of who or which party is in power.


And the idea of an "armed populace" standing up to the government was cool back when everyone involved had muskets but it's a little silly now.


Remember what the Egyptian Military did to protect Mubarak's regime from the angry crowds in Egypt last year?

They didn't protect Mubarak's regime at all, did they?

Members of the military are people too. Have you noticed which US presidential candidate members of the military and veterans tend to be supporting this election cycle?

Just like Libya , where they walked in an the guys just gave up?



The people of Libya got by with a little help from their "friends".


baggins2000: Really , your argument is going to be that if a leader is bad, then the police and military will just fall down and another more benevolent government will peacefully arrive.


And what's the alternative? How should a populace deal with a corrupt, unbearably oppressive regime?

Just bend over and take it up the arse?
 
2012-02-11 05:24:35 PM
"As governor, Romney signed a 2004 measure instituting a permanent Massachusetts ban on military style assault weapons, to take the place of a Federal ban, which was then about to expire. The bill made Massachusetts the first state to enact its own such ban on specific semi-automatic weapons and some shotguns with specific accessories, and Romney supported the law with the comment: "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

-- wikipedia
 
2012-02-11 05:27:34 PM
Amos Quito: You seem to be resigned to the idea that might makes right, so you're ready to surrender and capitulate to what ever any tyrannical asshat dictates because they have the power.

That's sad. Do you also tell your daughters to go ahead and suck the dick of any rapist that happens to be bigger than they are?

As I mentioned earlier, the military cannot necessarily be counted on to defend a regime that is seen as excessively oppressive.


I am pointing out a clear flaw in your logic, not whether or not it's right or the only option. If you feel threatened by my statements, I cannot help you there. However, I must insist you not insult me without at least trying to counter my point.

I'll try again, but I'll more specifically address your assertion that the oligarchs are afraid of an armed population. The counterpoint that I present is that it doesn't matter If you stand up and die for your rights, or lay down and take your oppression, It is immaterial to the oligarchs who are and would be still rich, still powerful, and in control of the world.

-----> I am under no illusion that the powers that be are trying to disarm the population, because they have no reason to fear us. "They" are not coming after our guns (of which I own and maintain a small collection), because "they" aren't afraid of our weapons any more.


So, no, I wouldn't insist a woman be raped, nor would I insist you stand around and bow to the mighty. I wasn't making that point at all, and it was insulting of you to assume I was. They are not afraid of We the People militarily.



As for your point that one cannot rely on the military to support the oligarchs, I would like to point to every single case in human history in which the military sided with the populace over the "oligarchs" without it suddenly turning into a military-run regime run by the same or similar oligarchs. I would like to, but I don't believe that case exists.

Where the money points, the soldiers kill.
 
2012-02-11 05:28:37 PM
Obama has been GREAT for the gun morons.

WTF are they whining about? They insist it's not racism, but there's no other plausible explanation.
 
2012-02-11 05:31:47 PM
craigdamage: Also,any tard who doesn't believe in the power of armed citizens,

please google the following:
...
American Revolution


Armed citizens didn't win that one for us. The French did.

You might as well say horse cavalry won WW2, just because horse cavalry took part...
 
2012-02-11 05:38:01 PM
craigdamage: No guns have ever been "grabbed" from my possession. Gun control is about as much a threat to my rights as a Yeti.


Why don't you do some research and see what has happened to gun owners in California?

Have my firearms ever been taken away? No, but that's only because I live in one of the states that has not taken away the rights of law abiding gun owners.
 
2012-02-11 05:42:09 PM
SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Obama has been GREAT for the gun morons.

WTF are they whining about? They insist it's not racism, but there's no other plausible explanation.


No, it's not racism. They just wont vote for anyone who supports gun laws or believes they work.


That's why they're voting for this guy.
(new window)

Why do you always have to assume it's about race?
 
2012-02-11 05:44:56 PM
BuckTurgidson: A top official with the National Rifle Association said Friday that President Obama will move to "destroy" gun rights and "erase" the Second Amendment if he is re-elected in November so send us MONEY!

Did you know Fart-oreo is working with North Korea and Iran to take away your guns!!!
 
2012-02-11 05:48:02 PM
InmanRoshi: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Obama has been GREAT for the gun morons.

WTF are they whining about? They insist it's not racism, but there's no other plausible explanation.

No, it's not racism. They just wont vote for anyone who supports gun laws or believes they work.


That's why they're voting for this guy. (new window)

Why do you always have to assume it's about race?


Yeah, I can't speak for them because I'm not conservative, but Republican gun owners do not in any way support Mitt Romney. They mostly support Ron Paul, with Santorum being a distant 2nd. If Romney and Obama are the two choices this fall, the NRA will likely refuse to endorse either candidate, as they both have piss-poor records when it comes to their views on guns
 
2012-02-11 05:53:36 PM
Fark It: Yeah, I can't speak for them because I'm not conservative, but Republican gun owners do not in any way support Mitt Romney. They mostly support Ron Paul, with Santorum being a distant 2nd. If Romney and Obama are the two choices this fall, the NRA will likely refuse to endorse either candidate, as they both have piss-poor records when it comes to their views on guns

oh come on. you know damn well the NRA will endorse romney, because they're not about guns but rather about being an arm of the republican party. if they don't offer the endorsement, they cease to be valuable to the party, and then their power goes away. no, they'll issue a perfunctory "lesser of two evils" endorsement of Romney, because the republicans need the gun nut vote as part of their base.
 
2012-02-11 05:54:33 PM
The_Sponge: Why don't you do some research and see what has happened to gun owners in California?

Oh, it's TERRIBLE. I have to keep my glue gun, staple gun, and rubberband gun hidden because of the frequent, unannounced inspections by the Gun Grabbing Brigade. Why, one time I

/excuse me, there's a knock at the door
 
2012-02-11 05:56:21 PM
Amos Quito: You're fickle, Uchiha_Cycliste.

Keep in mind who you're dealing with here.

i79.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-11 06:03:42 PM
CapnBlues: i can only assume your lengthy absence was due to you jacking it to all the attention you got.

I think you should be done now, barring a tab of viagra under your tongue




Well I take back my apology then.
 
2012-02-11 06:06:17 PM
Lorelle: The_Sponge: Why don't you do some research and see what has happened to gun owners in California?

Oh, it's TERRIBLE. I have to keep my glue gun, staple gun, and rubberband gun hidden because of the frequent, unannounced inspections by the Gun Grabbing Brigade. Why, one time I

/excuse me, there's a knock at the door



Which as nothing to do with the fact that owners of SKS sporter rifles were forced to turn in their once legal firearms before January 1, 2000 or face criminal charges. Nevermind the fact that I would be committing a crime if I moved to California with my current collection of firearms. But thanks for playing.
 
2012-02-11 06:07:54 PM
If it wasn't for abortions, gun rights, and Conservative Jesus freaks, who would vote Republican?
 
2012-02-11 06:12:39 PM
intelligent comment below: If it wasn't for abortions, gun rights, and Conservative Jesus freaks, who would vote Republican?

Fiscal conservat- BWAHAHAHAHahaha! *cough* Sorry, couldn't do that with a straight face.
 
2012-02-11 06:14:44 PM
CapnBlues: oh come on. you know damn well the NRA will endorse romney, because they're not about guns but rather about being an arm of the republican party. if they don't offer the endorsement, they cease to be valuable to the party, and then their power goes away. no, they'll issue a perfunctory "lesser of two evils" endorsement of Romney, because the republicans need the gun nut vote as part of their base.

When two candidates are sufficiently pro-gun, the NRA endorses neither, regardless of party affiliation. Supporting neither candidate because neither is sufficiently pro-gun is not that much of a stretch.

Here in Illinois the main sponsor of our concealed carry bill is a Democrat. Suburban Republicans opposed concealed carry. Another suburban Republican representative is supporting Mayor Rahm Emanuel's plan to register and charge $65 each for ALL Illinois residents to have the privilege of owning handguns. The NRA cannot in good faith endorse someone who signed a permanent Assault Weapons Ban into effect as governor. The backlash would be enormous.
 
2012-02-11 06:24:56 PM
Amos Quito: LasersHurt: Amos Quito: clancifer: Do not stress, Gun Nut Republicans. Even if Obama were to try this, he would cave and rescind in a matter of days anyhow.

Four letters: N D A A

What does that have to do with absolutely anything?


If he (and Congress) are willing to give us a law that guts Amendments 3, 4, 5, (etc) - what makes you think they give a damn about the other Amendments?


Give this man a cigar
 
2012-02-11 06:25:00 PM
Fark It: CapnBlues: oh come on. you know damn well the NRA will endorse romney, because they're not about guns but rather about being an arm of the republican party. if they don't offer the endorsement, they cease to be valuable to the party, and then their power goes away. no, they'll issue a perfunctory "lesser of two evils" endorsement of Romney, because the republicans need the gun nut vote as part of their base.

When two candidates are sufficiently pro-gun, the NRA endorses neither, regardless of party affiliation. Supporting neither candidate because neither is sufficiently pro-gun is not that much of a stretch.

Here in Illinois the main sponsor of our concealed carry bill is a Democrat. Suburban Republicans opposed concealed carry. Another suburban Republican representative is supporting Mayor Rahm Emanuel's plan to register and charge $65 each for ALL Illinois residents to have the privilege of owning handguns. The NRA cannot in good faith endorse someone who signed a permanent Assault Weapons Ban into effect as governor. The backlash would be enormous.


Gun control was a Republican issue once, decades back. I don't think it was until at least the late 80's or early 90's that Democrats became identified with gun control.
 
2012-02-11 06:25:53 PM
Flint Ironstag: Magorn: Party Boy: NewportBarGuy: Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.

well.. there was this, too.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year

Thats so much, that the US has to import small arms.

I read last year that US troops were firing a quarter-million bullets for every insurgent killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (new window)

Could some military vet farker explain to me how that number is even remotely possible? I mean there is being a bad shot, and then there's this

In battle most gunfire isn't to hit your enemy, it's just to make him keep his head down so your people don't get shot. Snipers shoot to kill, and may use a couple of rounds a week. The vast numbers of ground troops spray thousands of rounds in the vague direction of where an enemy might be just to be on the safe side. If you actually hit one of the enemy, bonus!


For a real good time watch Restrepo.
 
2012-02-11 06:30:54 PM
bugontherug: Gun control was a Republican issue once, decades back

That was because gun control was born out of racism and fear of blacks. That's the reason why Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law, because the Black Panthers were asserting their rights, including their gun rights, to protect themselves from racist authorities and mobs. That's the reason why on Illinois' FOID card application, the only two boxes to check under race are "White" and "Black," because Daley didn't want blacks to have guns in Illinois.
 
2012-02-11 06:32:23 PM
Magorn: Party Boy: NewportBarGuy: Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.

well.. there was this, too.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year

Thats so much, that the US has to import small arms.

I read last year that US troops were firing a quarter-million bullets for every insurgent killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (new window)

Could some military vet farker explain to me how that number is even remotely possible? I mean there is being a bad shot, and then there's this


Most full-auto gun fire is suppression fire. It's not expected to hit anyone. It's meant to pin them down, preventing them from being a threat, and allowing your troops to maneuver.
 
2012-02-11 06:35:06 PM
bugontherug: Fark It: CapnBlues: oh come on. you know damn well the NRA will endorse romney, because they're not about guns but rather about being an arm of the republican party. if they don't offer the endorsement, they cease to be valuable to the party, and then their power goes away. no, they'll issue a perfunctory "lesser of two evils" endorsement of Romney, because the republicans need the gun nut vote as part of their base.

When two candidates are sufficiently pro-gun, the NRA endorses neither, regardless of party affiliation. Supporting neither candidate because neither is sufficiently pro-gun is not that much of a stretch.

Here in Illinois the main sponsor of our concealed carry bill is a Democrat. Suburban Republicans opposed concealed carry. Another suburban Republican representative is supporting Mayor Rahm Emanuel's plan to register and charge $65 each for ALL Illinois residents to have the privilege of owning handguns. The NRA cannot in good faith endorse someone who signed a permanent Assault Weapons Ban into effect as governor. The backlash would be enormous.

Gun control was a Republican issue once, decades back. I don't think it was until at least the late 80's or early 90's that Democrats became identified with gun control.


Gun control was originally a southern democrat issue. Its intent was to keep guns out of the hands of freed slaves so they couldn't shoot the assholes in white hoods.
 
2012-02-11 06:36:11 PM
I'm still waiting around for Bill Clinton to take away my guns like the NRA promised he would 18 years ago.
 
2012-02-11 06:47:07 PM
dennysgod: I'm still waiting around for Bill Clinton to take away my guns like the NRA promised he would 18 years ago.


You realize that Bill Clinton stomped on our gun rights in 1994, right?
 
2012-02-11 06:54:02 PM
The_Sponge: dennysgod: I'm still waiting around for Bill Clinton to take away my guns like the NRA promised he would 18 years ago.


You realize that Bill Clinton stomped on our gun rights in 1994, right?


But you see, the AWB didn't really take any guns away, so calling Clinton a gun-grabber is total right-wing hyperbole. Who needs a barrel shroud anyway?
 
2012-02-11 07:00:39 PM
Fark It: But you see, the AWB didn't really take any guns away, so calling Clinton a gun-grabber is total right-wing hyperbole. Who needs a barrel shroud anyway?

Correct, it didn't lead to confiscations, but it was still an awful piece of legislation that still trampled on the Second Amendment. There are countless examples how stupid it was, but the fact that USED 25 round magazines for Ruger 10/22s were once selling for $80+ before 2004.

Besides, what logical reason is there to say that I can't have a barrel shroud.

And at least you know what a barrel shroud is, unlike the airhead known as Representative Carolyn McCarthy:

Link (new window)

Her ignorance is all too common in the gun control crowd.

"A shoulder thing that goes up."
 
2012-02-11 07:03:27 PM
Fark It: But you see, the AWB didn't really take any guns away, so calling Clinton a gun-grabber is total right-wing hyperbole. Who needs a barrel shroud anyway?

I wish people would make up their mind. Either the AWB was a horrible infringement on gun rights that gutted the 2nd amendment and destroyed the gun industry or it was a completely ineffectual ban that barely touched any weapons and was stupid because it was so pointless.
 
2012-02-11 07:07:13 PM
The_Sponge: Which as nothing to do with the fact that owners of SKS sporter rifles were forced to turn in their once legal firearms before January 1, 2000 or face criminal charges. Nevermind the fact that I would be committing a crime if I moved to California with my current collection of firearms. But thanks for playing.

Oh Jeez Louise. I pity you if you feel that you absolutely cannot face the possibility of living without owning such a rifle,

Believe it or not, millions of Californians lead happy, fulfilling lives without them.
 
2012-02-11 07:07:27 PM
VictoryCabal: So the NRA is starting the long downhill slide into MADD-style lack-of-purpose crazy? How...unexpected?

Funny that you mention both groups, seeing as how both groups have been taken over by batshiat crazy zealots.
 
2012-02-11 07:12:29 PM
The_Sponge: dennysgod: I'm still waiting around for Bill Clinton to take away my guns like the NRA promised he would 18 years ago.


You realize that Bill Clinton stomped on our gun rights in 1994, right?


if you give me a million dollars, i'll make sure the federal government never illegalizes gun ownership.

hell, i'll give you a 90% discount. 100k, that's all it'll cost you. cause i, like the NRA, have MAGIC.
 
2012-02-11 07:13:57 PM
Lorelle: Oh Jeez Louise. I pity you if you feel that you absolutely cannot face the possibility of living without owning such a rifle,

Believe it or not, millions of Californians lead happy, fulfilling lives without them.



So what? Millions of Californians were leading happy and fulfilling lives when gay marriage was banned in the state.

So when will the 9th Circuit Court finally do something about the gun rights of Californians being taken away? I won't hold my breath on that one.
 
2012-02-11 07:14:25 PM
The_Sponge: Nevermind the fact that I would be committing a crime if I moved to California with my current collection of firearms. But thanks for playing.

But what does that have to do with Obama?
 
2012-02-11 07:14:27 PM
The_Sponge: Nevermind the fact that I would be committing a crime if I moved to California with my current collection of firearms.

So you love states' rights except when it impacts your life in a way you don't like?
 
2012-02-11 07:15:55 PM
CapnBlues: The_Sponge: dennysgod: I'm still waiting around for Bill Clinton to take away my guns like the NRA promised he would 18 years ago.


You realize that Bill Clinton stomped on our gun rights in 1994, right?

if you give me a million dollars, i'll make sure the federal government never illegalizes gun ownership.

hell, i'll give you a 90% discount. 100k, that's all it'll cost you. cause i, like the NRA, have MAGIC.



Hurrrrrr durrrrrr.
 
2012-02-11 07:16:10 PM
Satanic_Hamster: I wish people would make up their mind. Either the AWB was a horrible infringement on gun rights that gutted the 2nd amendment and destroyed the gun industry or it was a completely ineffectual ban that barely touched any weapons and was stupid because it was so pointless.

Discuss SOPA/PIPA's affect on piracy and it's regard for rights.

I say this because it's the exact same situation. The law stomped all over rights and made things a lot more difficult for regular people who normally would not be criminals outside that specific law while doing nothing to stop criminals.

I'm showing you how you're wrong. Please nod your head and thank me for explaining and don't go the typical Fark route of doubling down.
 
2012-02-11 07:17:02 PM
Lorelle: The_Sponge: Which as nothing to do with the fact that owners of SKS sporter rifles were forced to turn in their once legal firearms before January 1, 2000 or face criminal charges. Nevermind the fact that I would be committing a crime if I moved to California with my current collection of firearms. But thanks for playing.

Oh Jeez Louise. I pity you if you feel that you absolutely cannot face the possibility of living without owning such a rifle,

Believe it or not, millions of Californians lead happy, fulfilling lives without them.


Because fark the 4th Amendment!
 
2012-02-11 07:18:03 PM
Dwight_Yeast: The_Sponge: Nevermind the fact that I would be committing a crime if I moved to California with my current collection of firearms.

So you love states' rights except when it impacts your life in a way you don't like?



States' rights doesn't mean that a state can go against The Constitution or federal law.
 
2012-02-11 07:21:08 PM
The_Sponge: So what? Millions of Californians were leading happy and fulfilling lives when gay marriage was banned in the state.

Emphasis on "were." The gay ones who want to get married aren't as happy as heteros who aren't being discriminated against.
 
2012-02-11 07:22:11 PM
too-old: The_Sponge: Nevermind the fact that I would be committing a crime if I moved to California with my current collection of firearms. But thanks for playing.

But what does that have to do with Obama?



Not a thing. But when people claim that firearms aren't being taken away, I mention California as a reminder of "yes it can happen, and it did".
 
2012-02-11 07:23:33 PM
The_Sponge: Dwight_Yeast: The_Sponge: Nevermind the fact that I would be committing a crime if I moved to California with my current collection of firearms.

So you love states' rights except when it impacts your life in a way you don't like?


States' rights doesn't mean that a state can go against The Constitution or federal law.


States do not have "rights". States have powers. Rights are an exclusive property of individuals.
 
2012-02-11 07:24:48 PM
Amos Quito: Uchiha_Cycliste: Kumana Wanalaia: Amos Quito: [cache.ohinternet.com image 491x398]

Look, we've both agreed that you're an asshole, I think we can just let it go now.

I thinks it's enough that you, I and the rest of FARK knows. There's no getting through to a mosquito... they just annoy.


You're fickle, Uchiha_Cycliste.


I speak truth, if the truth harms, look inward.
 
2012-02-11 07:25:29 PM
Lorelle: The_Sponge: So what? Millions of Californians were leading happy and fulfilling lives when gay marriage was banned in the state.

Emphasis on "were." The gay ones who want to get married aren't as happy as heteros who aren't being discriminated against.



So what about Californians who aren't happy over the fact that their Second Amendment rights are being taken away by a state government. Never mind the fact that once legal rifles were declared illegal, and their were never grandfathered in.

Do you think the gangstas in South Central L.A. actually care that the hacks in Sacramento pass more gun control laws? Nope. But those laws do nothing but screw over people like me.
 
2012-02-11 07:26:13 PM
The_Sponge: Not a thing.

Glad to know this conversation is absolutely pointless.
 
2012-02-11 07:27:45 PM
Uchiha_Cycliste: I speak truth, if the truth harms, look inward.

Gotdamn, I was about to close the thread and see a funny man. I may just have to stay awhile
 
2012-02-11 07:28:30 PM
Of course Buildabear Hulahoop Fartbambo wants to take yer gunz. Then, he's gonna give em to his "attractive and successful" homies to pull a drive-by on Real America.
 
2012-02-11 07:29:00 PM
The_Sponge: dennysgod: I'm still waiting around for Bill Clinton to take away my guns like the NRA promised he would 18 years ago.


You realize that Bill Clinton stomped on our gun rights in 1994, right?



I had to Google what you where talking about since that bill, in no way shape or form, inhibited my ability to kill as many of Gods tasty animals that I wanted to for 10 years.

Which reminds me, I think that rabbit jerky I made is calling my name.
 
2012-02-11 07:30:58 PM
Lorelle: The_Sponge: So what? Millions of Californians were leading happy and fulfilling lives when gay marriage was banned in the state.

Emphasis on "were." The gay ones who want to get married aren't as happy as heteros who aren't being discriminated against.



I tell you what....I'll be fine with California's gun laws if the state passes similar laws that cover abortion:

1) You must submit an application in order to have an abortion.

2) You must also pass a written test before getting the green light

3) All abortions are recorded by the state.

4) There is a 10 day waiting period for all abortions.

Oh wait....you're not cool with that? Welcome to a situation where your rights have been farked with.
 
2012-02-11 07:32:07 PM
too-old: The_Sponge: Not a thing.

Glad to know this conversation is absolutely pointless.



Glad you know that you're stupid to realize that I was responding to specific post.
 
2012-02-11 07:35:25 PM
The_Sponge: Lorelle: The_Sponge: So what? Millions of Californians were leading happy and fulfilling lives when gay marriage was banned in the state.

Emphasis on "were." The gay ones who want to get married aren't as happy as heteros who aren't being discriminated against.


So what about Californians who aren't happy over the fact that their Second Amendment rights are being taken away by a state government. Never mind the fact that once legal rifles were declared illegal, and their were never grandfathered in.

Do you think the gangstas in South Central L.A. actually care that the hacks in Sacramento pass more gun control laws? Nope. But those laws do nothing but screw over people like me.


Lorelle is a known defender of prohibiting civilian ownership of rarely criminally misused classes of firearms. Because no possible rational justification exists for such prohibition, I have concluded that Lorelle is irrational.
 
2012-02-11 07:38:02 PM
The_Sponge: Lorelle: The_Sponge: So what? Millions of Californians were leading happy and fulfilling lives when gay marriage was banned in the state.

Emphasis on "were." The gay ones who want to get married aren't as happy as heteros who aren't being discriminated against.


I tell you what....I'll be fine with California's gun laws if the state passes similar laws that cover abortion:

1) You must submit an application in order to have an abortion.

2) You must also pass a written test before getting the green light

3) All abortions are recorded by the state.

4) There is a 10 day waiting period for all abortions.

Oh wait....you're not cool with that? Welcome to a situation where your rights have been farked with.


Imagine the holy hell that would that would stir up if a lawmaker actually proposed doing that.
 
2012-02-11 07:41:17 PM
The_Sponge: Glad you know that you're stupid to realize that I was responding to specific post.

Yes, because one state is harder to have guns under Bush makes ever State harder to get guns.

Even though the reverse is true.

Still trying to find a needle in a haystack to prove whatever the hell you are talking about?
 
2012-02-11 07:47:09 PM
The_Sponge: So what about Californians who aren't happy over the fact that their Second Amendment rights are being taken away by a state government. Never mind the fact that once legal rifles were declared illegal, and their were never grandfathered in.

Do you think the gangstas in South Central L.A. actually care that the hacks in Sacramento pass more gun control laws? Nope. But those laws do nothing but screw over people like me.


Indeed. Most Americans haven't been able to get their hands on machine guns since the 1930s. Life in the U.S. has been soooooo awful since then. We've had to resort to killing each other with the thousands of other types of guns available instead.
 
2012-02-11 07:53:47 PM
Dimensio: Lorelle is a known defender of prohibiting civilian ownership of rarely criminally misused classes of firearms. Because no possible rational justification exists for such prohibition, I have concluded that Lorelle is irrational.

Good golly, you're still around?!? I haven't seen you here in so long, I just assumed that you did a "Butterfingers Irving" (new window) and disappeared from the face of the Earth.
 
2012-02-11 07:56:14 PM
too-old: Uchiha_Cycliste: I speak truth, if the truth harms, look inward.

Gotdamn, I was about to close the thread and see a funny man. I may just have to stay awhile


do not count on me
I had to defend myself
I'll soon leave to read.
 
2012-02-11 07:58:19 PM
Uchiha_Cycliste: too-old: Uchiha_Cycliste: I speak truth, if the truth harms, look inward.

Gotdamn, I was about to close the thread and see a funny man. I may just have to stay awhile

do not count on me
I had to defend myself
I'll soon leave to read.


NOOOOOO...things are just starting to get good here.
 
2012-02-11 08:05:32 PM
The_Sponge: Lorelle: The_Sponge: So what? Millions of Californians were leading happy and fulfilling lives when gay marriage was banned in the state.

Emphasis on "were." The gay ones who want to get married aren't as happy as heteros who aren't being discriminated against.


I tell you what....I'll be fine with California's gun laws if the state passes similar laws that cover abortion:

1) You must submit an application in order to have an abortion.

2) You must also pass a written test before getting the green light

3) All abortions are recorded by the state.

4) There is a 10 day waiting period for all abortions.

Oh wait....you're not cool with that? Welcome to a situation where your rights have been farked with.


Sounds like the laws that Republicans want to pass in a lot of states requiring women to get an ultrasound and look at the picture before having an abortion. So... if you were going for hyperbole you missed the mark, but if you were going for a parallel analogy you aren't too far off.
 
2012-02-11 08:06:43 PM
iollow: They've been saying this since 2008, and it never happened. If Obama is anti-gun, he's keeping it to himself.

His election platform was anti-gun though.
 
2012-02-11 08:13:23 PM
badhatharry: The_Sponge: Lorelle: The_Sponge: So what? Millions of Californians were leading happy and fulfilling lives when gay marriage was banned in the state.

Emphasis on "were." The gay ones who want to get married aren't as happy as heteros who aren't being discriminated against.


I tell you what....I'll be fine with California's gun laws if the state passes similar laws that cover abortion:

1) You must submit an application in order to have an abortion.

2) You must also pass a written test before getting the green light

3) All abortions are recorded by the state.

4) There is a 10 day waiting period for all abortions.

Oh wait....you're not cool with that? Welcome to a situation where your rights have been farked with.

Imagine the holy hell that would that would stir up if a lawmaker actually proposed doing that.


They could just call it "common sense regulation" and dismiss any criticism as paranoid delusions.
 
2012-02-11 08:14:06 PM
Lorelle: Uchiha_Cycliste: too-old: Uchiha_Cycliste: I speak truth, if the truth harms, look inward.

Gotdamn, I was about to close the thread and see a funny man. I may just have to stay awhile

do not count on me
I had to defend myself
I'll soon leave to read.

NOOOOOO...things are just starting to get good here.



what is there to say? Know this guy is a sensationalist moran. We also know that gun rights have gotten better and there is no indication that will change. Arguably the only thing to discuss is whether or not this fear-mongering from the NRA is an effective strategy, and I'd wager it is. They do seem to be able to get what the want done, though in under-handed ways. While morality may make up a worthy argument, at the end of the day, the guns aren't going away; so while interesting, it's not a pragmatic one.
 
2012-02-11 08:16:58 PM
Uchiha_Cycliste: what is there to say? Know this guy is a sensationalist moran. We also know that gun rights have gotten better and there is no indication that will change. Arguably the only thing to discuss is whether or not this fear-mongering from the NRA is an effective strategy, and I'd wager it is. They do seem to be able to get what the want done, though in under-handed ways. While morality may make up a worthy argument, at the end of the day, the guns aren't going away; so while interesting, it's not a pragmatic one.

You don't know me very well, do you?? :)

Crap. Whitney Houston. Crap.
 
2012-02-11 08:18:37 PM
Now I'm just confused
 
2012-02-11 08:21:13 PM
Uchiha_Cycliste: Now I'm just confused

Click on "Commented" :(
 
2012-02-11 08:23:21 PM
well I'll be damned.... wonder if years of poly-drug abuse contributed.
 
2012-02-11 08:23:54 PM
The_Sponge:
Not a thing. But when people claim that firearms aren't being taken away, I mention California as a reminder of "yes it can happen, and it did".


They came into your home and took all your guns away? When was this?
 
2012-02-11 08:25:05 PM
Uchiha_Cycliste: well I'll be damned.... wonder if years of poly-drug abuse contributed.

Trying to get back on topic here...I wouldn't be surprised if that was the "smoking gun" that caused it.
 
2012-02-11 08:25:18 PM
The_Sponge:
Do you think the gangstas in South Central L.A. actually care that the hacks in Sacramento pass more gun control laws? Nope. But those laws do nothing but screw over people like me.


Like all those gang members in Britain who still have guns even though they were all banned? Oh wait they don't exist.
 
2012-02-11 08:26:18 PM
A Dark Evil Omen: craigdamage: Battle of Athens 1946

Used military weapons obtained from the National Guard.


There's also a world of difference between most of the military equipment fielded in 1946 and what any First World military establishment issues today.

American Revolution

State militias and significant amounts of French military against another state military force.


The small arms used by those state and local militias were pretty much "Run what ya brung." That's the principal reason why they put in the Second Amendment, in fact. That type of militia no longer exists.

Little Big Horn

The native warriors were equipped with weapons equal to or better than what Custer's men were carrying.

This is simply a lie, made up to cover up for Custer's stupidity. Most of the firearms used by Native Americans at the Little Bighorn were obsolete garbage. The difference was that they used far better tactics. They held the high ground. Custer went charging into a trap a competent general would probably have recognized, and placed his men in an indefensible position with no good escape route.

Deacons for Defense and Justice

At what point did they ever come into armed conflict with the military?

None of these examples come remotely close to supporting your argument unless you are also open to private ownership of nuclear missiles, carrier groups and advanced bioweapons.


Not strictly true. Irregular forces can make things very expensive, difficult and demoralizing for occupation troops. They have to be willing to accept casualties running as high as into the millions to do it, though. Will fat, lazy, slovenly, undisciplined, entitled, soft, ordinary Americans manage that? Just a guess, but I'd say, "Fark no!"
 
2012-02-11 08:33:30 PM
Magorn: Could some military vet farker explain to me how that number is even remotely possible? I mean there is being a bad shot, and then there's this

Not a vet, but it has been that way for a long time. I've heard that since the 70s at least. When you have no supply problems and a military that is funded well enough to shoot a lot in training, added to the fact that a superiority of fire keeps the other guy from getting a good shot. I don't think a high percentage of those 250k rounds are actually shot at the enemy. As mentioned above, American practice since WWII has been (when possible) to keep the enemy pinned down and annihilate them with mortars, artillery, and air support. I have no doubt the infantry prefers it that way, as closing with the enemy and shooting it out with rifles is a bit more dangerous.
 
2012-02-11 08:36:07 PM
Lorelle: Uchiha_Cycliste: well I'll be damned.... wonder if years of poly-drug abuse contributed.

Trying to get back on topic here...I wouldn't be surprised if that was the "smoking gun" that caused it.


false start. We, uh, jumped the gun.
 
2012-02-11 08:40:01 PM
forgotmydamnusername: Will fat, lazy, slovenly, undisciplined, entitled, soft, ordinary Americans manage that? Just a guess, but I'd say, "Fark no!"

Because all Americans are more fat, lazy, soft, slovenly, undisciplined and entitled than the ordinary people in any other part of the world?

I would rather believe that the circumstances make people into who they need to be. Quite a few resistance fighters in past revolutions gave up their regular lives to become hardened and dangerous men that were capable of taking on empires.
Would you take a circumstance that only exists in the present to make a decision on whether future generations can purchase and own their own weapons for reasons currently unforeseen?

/Most Americans couldn't hold their liquor in the 20's.
/So I guess prohibition is a good idea today.
 
2012-02-11 08:41:15 PM
The_Sponge: too-old: The_Sponge: Nevermind the fact that I would be committing a crime if I moved to California with my current collection of firearms. But thanks for playing.

But what does that have to do with Obama?


Not a thing. But when people claim that firearms aren't being taken away, I mention California as a reminder of "yes it can happen, and it did".


It did? Well, fark, I better tell my buddy with the massive gun collection out in Mojave.
 
2012-02-11 08:42:36 PM
Uchiha_Cycliste: false start. We, uh, jumped the gun.

Well, shoot...the queue is unbelievable.
 
2012-02-11 08:49:27 PM
Kibbler: I heard that Obama is working with the UN to build concentration camps for white men.

/True story


Yup. The proof of that is that there hasn't been a PEEP about this out of the White House. That means they're just trying to lull all the white men into a false sense of security and then as soon as Inauguration Day 2013, BAM!

/I guess you can believe anything, if you're stupid, racist and paranoid.
//I like guns. But the gun range isn't my first choice of a Valentine's Day date.
 
2012-02-11 09:13:49 PM
craigdamage: NRA are asshole liars.

Brady Campaign are the "delusional liberals"

However,I am not sure how much money the Bradys make off their silly and delusional misinformation. They really do seem sincere in that their goal is public safety. I don't think they are deliberate liars like the NRA. They are just extremely stupid.

I have actually sat down and conversed with Brady supporting liberals. I explained to them that a 20 round 5.7 mm magazine is no more lethat than a 15 round 9mm magazine which is no more lethal than a 8 round .45 magazine which is no more lethal than a 6 round .44 cylinder......etc.....and that none of those are any more dangerous than a can of gasoline,a truck full of fertilizer or box cutters.

I told them the origin of the "cop killer" ammo myth. I told the truth about the "Black-Talon" fiasco. (absurd exagerrations)

I also explained that modern "assault" rifles are basically high capacity pea shooters and actually far less accurate and powerful than a typical deer-rifle.

....etc.....etc....

Many seemed compelled by my logic and truth. Some even appeared to ease down a bit on their stance.


I have NEVER had such luck with conservative NRA types. They are steadfast in their unwavering ignorance.


The Brady people are Republican. Look into it. James Brady and his stupid wife are hardcore Republicans.

/Fact. (He was Reagan's Press Secretary, after all. You do not do that without some serious partisan cred.).
 
2012-02-11 09:24:05 PM
I haven't forgotten that Brady and spouse are Republicans.


The Brady Campaign today is pure liberal agenda.


The NRA is pure money making agenda.
 
2012-02-11 09:26:08 PM
Lorelle: Primum: Here's a funny one: this dummkopf at a gun show let a 7-year-old fire a mini-Uzi and the gun bounced up and the boy blew the side of his head off

Well, the advert for the gun-nut event where this happened did read:

"It's all legal & fun - No permits or licenses required!!!!"

I wish someone would leak that video.

Can't do that--it was the kid's father who filmed the entire incident, so he owns the rights to it. He really should consider selling it--no doubt there is more than one gun nut out there who would enjoy watching the kid's head get blown off over and over and over.


What the fark is wrong with you?
 
2012-02-11 09:32:28 PM
Mentat: So is this after he destroyed religious freedom by telling churches they can't force their religious beliefs on women by denying them birth control?

That's a cunning ploy to lull religious leaders to sleep before rescinding the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Someone needs to dose this LaPierre guy with about 100mgs of Thorazine.
 
2012-02-11 09:34:53 PM
craigdamage: I haven't forgotten that Brady and spouse are Republicans.


The Brady Campaign today is pure liberal agenda.


The NRA is pure money making agenda.


Bullshiat. I call bullshiat on the first bit. It's not a left or right issue with Brady, it's a goddamn vendetta by a women who lost her farking mind and could not comprehend that a mentally ill man shot her husband. He could have used a knife or some sort of bomb.

Anti-gun agendas are not "liberal". I know of a few GOPers who wholeheartedly supported gun laws that don't work (Henry Hyde, for example). It does tend to be a "left" issue, but certainly not exclusively..

I agree on the NRA-ILA part. It's sad how they've manhandled the agenda to suit their budgetary needs.
 
2012-02-11 09:54:00 PM
Ontos: Lorelle: Primum: Here's a funny one: this dummkopf at a gun show let a 7-year-old fire a mini-Uzi and the gun bounced up and the boy blew the side of his head off

Well, the advert for the gun-nut event where this happened did read:

"It's all legal & fun - No permits or licenses required!!!!"

I wish someone would leak that video.

Can't do that--it was the kid's father who filmed the entire incident, so he owns the rights to it. He really should consider selling it--no doubt there is more than one gun nut out there who would enjoy watching the kid's head get blown off over and over and over.

What the fark is wrong with you?


Never been to a gun show, eh? I've been going to gun shows since I've been 6 or 7. The "gun culture" in this country to really and truly farked. Out there, in the "gun culture" there is some farking scumbag fark who you watch that tape until disintegration, especially if the kid was a minority. When somebody jokes about hives of "scum and villainy", they were talking about gun show patrons. I've met some cool people at shows. But I've also met and seen every gun owner stereotype ever, including the worst of them all.

I've have idiots who smelled like death wearing their "Dockers" brand button down shirt inside out come up to me at random and want to talk about "NOBAMA!". I've seen honest to god farking Nazis, complete with replica Zyclon-B canisters (that smelled like farking death. Seriously, that sickly sweet smell you associate with death. I actually reported this guy's fat ass to the organizers of the show, he did not come back).

Despite all this I have had the pleasure of meeting like minded folks on the internet. "Round my age, roughly my interests and open to reasonable discussions that avoid the stupid partisan bullshiat. I love it. I finally feel like I'm not alone as a collector/shooter. I can finally dis-own the morons and try to take the hobby back.
 
2012-02-11 09:54:33 PM
oldernell: CapnBlues: i heard Obama's going to send the black panthers to the home of every gun owner. They're going to take away the guns first. Then they'll take everything of value to give to black people and other minorities. Then they'll steal away the women, for use in whatever they want. And I do mean whatever.

Is there a number 6 dance afterwards?


Not nearly enough Black Panthers for that. Although I do hope the two voter intimidator dorks from PA show up at someone's house. Justice will fall upon them since the idiot Holder failed to do anything about it.
 
2012-02-11 10:23:01 PM
Mugato: Rednecks probably masturbate to fantasies of the government trying to take their guns. They make their wives put on ATF uniforms before they beat them.

Wow, that's not racist or anything.
 
2012-02-11 10:23:53 PM
trotsky: Ontos: Lorelle: Primum: Here's a funny one: this dummkopf at a gun show let a 7-year-old fire a mini-Uzi and the gun bounced up and the boy blew the side of his head off

Well, the advert for the gun-nut event where this happened did read:

"It's all legal & fun - No permits or licenses required!!!!"

I wish someone would leak that video.

Can't do that--it was the kid's father who filmed the entire incident, so he owns the rights to it. He really should consider selling it--no doubt there is more than one gun nut out there who would enjoy watching the kid's head get blown off over and over and over.

What the fark is wrong with you?

Never been to a gun show, eh? I've been going to gun shows since I've been 6 or 7. The "gun culture" in this country to really and truly farked. Out there, in the "gun culture" there is some farking scumbag fark who you watch that tape until disintegration, especially if the kid was a minority. When somebody jokes about hives of "scum and villainy", they were talking about gun show patrons. I've met some cool people at shows. But I've also met and seen every gun owner stereotype ever, including the worst of them all.

I've have idiots who smelled like death wearing their "Dockers" brand button down shirt inside out come up to me at random and want to talk about "NOBAMA!". I've seen honest to god farking Nazis, complete with replica Zyclon-B canisters (that smelled like farking death. Seriously, that sickly sweet smell you associate with death. I actually reported this guy's fat ass to the organizers of the show, he did not come back).

Despite all this I have had the pleasure of meeting like minded folks on the internet. "Round my age, roughly my interests and open to reasonable discussions that avoid the stupid partisan bullshiat. I love it. I finally feel like I'm not alone as a collector/shooter. I can finally dis-own the morons and try to take the hobby back.


I realized I couldn't relate to my brother's gun nuttiness after he excitedly told me about his latest gun show purchase back in the early 90's, when we were both in Arizona. "It's a 100 round drum for my AK! But the best part is, it has a clock spring. You can leave it loaded, and if you need it, you can wind it up and it's ready to go!"
When are you going to "need" a 100 round drum as a civilian? Zombie attack? He can't live in California because of some of his guns. I'm fine with him living very far away.
 
2012-02-11 10:42:09 PM
Occam's Nailfile: Wow, that's not racist or anything.

How is that racist? Are all white people rednecks now?
 
2012-02-11 10:44:48 PM
Repo Man: When are you going to "need" a 100 round drum as a civilian?

"Need" has nothing to do with it. It sounds like your brother knows how to have a good time.
 
2012-02-11 10:57:18 PM
Fark It: Repo Man: When are you going to "need" a 100 round drum as a civilian?

"Need" has nothing to do with it. It sounds like your brother knows how to have a good time.


And yet, that is the word he used. Maybe he thought it would be a good thing to be ready (clock spring drum, no worries about the spring fatiguing like you would have with a conventional drum) in case Mexico invades.
 
2012-02-11 10:58:35 PM
blackhalo: I'm strongly pro-gun, a fiscal conservative and social libertarian. And I'll be voting for Obama because neither party can control spending, at least the Dems stay out of consensual sexual partnerships between adults and don't force me to pray to Jeebus, Obama has at least tried to stand up to Israel regarding the occupation, and Obama is plainly not anti-gun. He's also not pro-gun, but he's been content to leave it alone at the federal level. That's enough for me.

I know the rest of my pro-gun brethen get their camo panties in a twist about Operation Fast and Furious as a ruse to grab all our guns, and that Obama has just been playing nice so we can get converted into a socialist-fascist-muslim dictatorship, but all the evidence points to the contrary.

/slashie


This. There will be another AWB, though, and it will be in the next four years.

/both my AR's are pre-ban, and they aren't going anywhere.
 
2012-02-11 11:03:25 PM
way south: forgotmydamnusername: Will fat, lazy, slovenly, undisciplined, entitled, soft, ordinary Americans manage that? Just a guess, but I'd say, "Fark no!"

Because all Americans are more fat, lazy, soft, slovenly, undisciplined and entitled than the ordinary people in any other part of the world?


Actually, yeah. There's been nothing like the couch potatoes of America of the last 40 years or so since Louis XVI, and he was only one of a very few people in a position to live like that until very recent times.

I would rather believe that the circumstances make people into who they need to be. Quite a few resistance fighters in past revolutions gave up their regular lives to become hardened and dangerous men that were capable of taking on empires.
Would you take a circumstance that only exists in the present to make a decision on whether future generations can purchase and own their own weapons for reasons currently unforeseen?

/Most Americans couldn't hold their liquor in the 20's.
/So I guess prohibition is a good idea today.


I'm hardly against the 2nd Amendment. It's great. Very convenient. Thanks to that, I can and do have 38 guns in my safe for no reason in particular, and no one can say shiat. Historical context is what it is, though.
 
2012-02-11 11:04:44 PM
LasersHurt: I like how there's absolutely no evidence for this, you're just SURE he wants to ban guns. Good show.

P.S. Evidence means actual, real, provable stuff. Like recent attempts at banning guns, or suggesting the banning of guns in the last decade or so. You know, reality.



Right. Obama hasn't made any motions toward gun bans aside from putting an "assault weapons" ban mention in campaign literature, his change.gov website since being elected, verbally confirming it after election, and AG Holder saying that the administration wants it on camera.

Obama has said, repeatedly, that he wants to ban some guns, therefore I'm a paranoid whack-job for assuming he wants to ban some guns.

That makes sense.

I don't think he's going to try it, as that would set the Democrats back 20 years with gun owners, but he's said he wants it, so I'll forgive people if they believe the guy. I don't actually believe he'll do it, but I'm probably a racist for not trusting the guy. Or something.
 
2012-02-11 11:10:55 PM
TheJoe03: Occam's Nailfile: Wow, that's not racist or anything.

How is that racist? Are all white people rednecks now?


All black people aren't n___gers, and all hispanic people aren't wetbacks. But if you use those terms, and then go on to describe those persons as all being the same, and all lacking basic traits of humanity, then yeah, it's farking racist.

Let's try it, shall we?

"N---gers probably masturbate to fantasies of the government trying to take their guns. They make their wives put on ATF uniforms before they beat them"

"Wetbacks probably masturbate to fantasies of the government trying to take their guns. They make their wives put on ATF uniforms before they beat them"

Why is it less racist if you use the term "redneck"?
 
2012-02-11 11:31:52 PM
Occam's Nailfile: TheJoe03: Occam's Nailfile: Wow, that's not racist or anything.

How is that racist? Are all white people rednecks now?

All black people aren't n___gers, and all hispanic people aren't wetbacks. But if you use those terms, and then go on to describe those persons as all being the same, and all lacking basic traits of humanity, then yeah, it's farking racist.

Let's try it, shall we?

"N---gers probably masturbate to fantasies of the government trying to take their guns. They make their wives put on ATF uniforms before they beat them"

"Wetbacks probably masturbate to fantasies of the government trying to take their guns. They make their wives put on ATF uniforms before they beat them"

Why is it less racist if you use the term "redneck"?


Aaaand, there you have it.

The minute you disclose either gun ownership, or support of gun rights, you're a redneck. And they're one of a few classes in America you're allowed to disparage with impunity.
 
2012-02-11 11:36:46 PM
Sherman Potter: Occam's Nailfile: TheJoe03: Occam's Nailfile: Wow, that's not racist or anything.

How is that racist? Are all white people rednecks now?

All black people aren't n___gers, and all hispanic people aren't wetbacks. But if you use those terms, and then go on to describe those persons as all being the same, and all lacking basic traits of humanity, then yeah, it's farking racist.

Let's try it, shall we?

"N---gers probably masturbate to fantasies of the government trying to take their guns. They make their wives put on ATF uniforms before they beat them"

"Wetbacks probably masturbate to fantasies of the government trying to take their guns. They make their wives put on ATF uniforms before they beat them"

Why is it less racist if you use the term "redneck"?

Aaaand, there you have it.

The minute you disclose either gun ownership, or support of gun rights, you're a redneck. And they're one of a few classes in America you're allowed to disparage with impunity.


Heathen liberal atheist here. From my cold, dead hands.
 
2012-02-11 11:38:08 PM
Party Boy: NewportBarGuy: Is it time to increase the price of ammo because the sheep will be led to hoarding again? Oh, great.

well.. there was this, too.

A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year

Thats so much, that the US has to import small arms.


BULLshiat

There is the fact that the US military does not buy ammunition, it owns the manufacturing plants.

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-11 11:42:30 PM
Mrbogey: LasersHurt: Are you saying your gun rights are being infringed upon? Because if you are, surely you have evidence for this. Otherwise, this is just more "NO, REALLY, THE LIBS WANT TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY!!!"

"Bush didn't ban abortions... he must not have been against abortion...derp dee doo!"

Obama is not neutral towards gun rights. Given every chance he's appointed someone who doesn't support gun rights at major positions. And despite protests, he had in the 90s stated he was against personal gun ownership. Unlike gravity, no amount of anger or outrage at those "evil white Christian Republicans" can warp space and time to make reality fit your views.

Obama does not support the second amendment as an individual right to a weapon.

You should be outraged that in an attempt to raise negative publicity for guns your AG got innocent people killed and has faced no repercussions.


Actions speak louder than words. Obama has signed into law restoring gun rights to citizens in National Parks.

Romney, however, signed the only permanent Assault Weapons ban in American history as Governor of Massachusetts.

I'll take Obama, thanks.
 
2012-02-11 11:42:38 PM
Kanemano: BULLshiat

There is the fact that the US military does not buy ammunition, it owns the manufacturing plants.

Link (new window)



Which doesn't always have the capacity needed for all their needs, AND they still need to buy components.
 
2012-02-11 11:44:00 PM
forgotmydamnusername: Actually, yeah. There's been nothing like the couch potatoes of America of the last 40 years or so since Louis XVI, and he was only one of a very few people in a position to live like that until very recent times.

forgotmydamnusername: Historical context is what it is, though.

Historical context also describes how a society can change quickly within the span of a lifetime, or even a decade.

The Japanese Empire on the eve of WW2 made the mistake of thinking Americans were lazy and too enamored with their comforts to be a threat. People born around the roaring 20's (a relatively prosperous time in the US) had to brave the great depression, fight a world war, survive the nuclear age and witness the rise of terrorism. The sons and daughters of bootleggers and drunkards became "The greatest generation".

A lack of challenge at the present moment doesn't mean a civilization is incapable of rising to the call.
...Granted, it might take a few pushups to get back into shape.

I see the second amendment as a "come what may" policy.
Military planners and think tanks often underestimate or entirely ignore how war can change. I think it would be a bit arrogant to know how poorly we've guessed the future of yesterday and then say "well this can't happen tomorrow".
 
2012-02-11 11:48:38 PM
way south: forgotmydamnusername: Actually, yeah. There's been nothing like the couch potatoes of America of the last 40 years or so since Louis XVI, and he was only one of a very few people in a position to live like that until very recent times.

forgotmydamnusername: Historical context is what it is, though.

Historical context also describes how a society can change quickly within the span of a lifetime, or even a decade.

The Japanese Empire on the eve of WW2 made the mistake of thinking Americans were lazy and too enamored with their comforts to be a threat. People born around the roaring 20's (a relatively prosperous time in the US) had to brave the great depression, fight a world war, survive the nuclear age and witness the rise of terrorism. The sons and daughters of bootleggers and drunkards became "The greatest generation".

A lack of challenge at the present moment doesn't mean a civilization is incapable of rising to the call.
...Granted, it might take a few pushups to get back into shape.

I see the second amendment as a "come what may" policy.
Military planners and think tanks often underestimate or entirely ignore how war can change. I think it would be a bit arrogant to know how poorly we've guessed the future of yesterday and then say "well this can't happen tomorrow".


And we lost Vietnam, because their peasants could hang out forever in little cramped tunnels under the ground, broiling jungles, flooded rice paddies. When the going got tough, "our boys" started shooting smack and fragging their officers.
 
2012-02-11 11:50:53 PM
Fark It:
Heathen liberal atheist here. From my cold, dead hands.


Awesome response. Living in a society with millions of guns is just really great and peaceful. Having that attitude is not harmful to society at all. Britain is hell on earth without guns. /s
 
2012-02-11 11:51:53 PM
Occam's Nailfile: TheJoe03: Occam's Nailfile: Wow, that's not racist or anything.

How is that racist? Are all white people rednecks now?

All black people aren't n___gers, and all hispanic people aren't wetbacks. But if you use those terms, and then go on to describe those persons as all being the same, and all lacking basic traits of humanity, then yeah, it's farking racist.

Let's try it, shall we?

"N---gers probably masturbate to fantasies of the government trying to take their guns. They make their wives put on ATF uniforms before they beat them"

"Wetbacks probably masturbate to fantasies of the government trying to take their guns. They make their wives put on ATF uniforms before they beat them"

Why is it less racist if you use the term "redneck"?


Everything I know about modern race relations in America has lead me to believe that it's equally racist to substitute redneck, n-bomb or wetback into the above sentence as they all love guns. Sure, everything I know about modern race relations in America I learned off Son's of Anarchy, but hey, still doesn't make it wrong.

/You lot really should read the tale of Ably the Racist Dragon
//Pretty much stopped racism here forever
///Still love guns though, but in a culturally sensitive way
 
2012-02-11 11:54:13 PM
Sherman Potter: Occam's Nailfile: TheJoe03: Occam's Nailfile: Wow, that's not racist or anything.

How is that racist? Are all white people rednecks now?

All black people aren't n___gers, and all hispanic people aren't wetbacks. But if you use those terms, and then go on to describe those persons as all being the same, and all lacking basic traits of humanity, then yeah, it's farking racist.

Let's try it, shall we?

"N---gers probably masturbate to fantasies of the government trying to take their guns. They make their wives put on ATF uniforms before they beat them"

"Wetbacks probably masturbate to fantasies of the government trying to take their guns. They make their wives put on ATF uniforms before they beat them"

Why is it less racist if you use the term "redneck"?

Aaaand, there you have it.

The minute you disclose either gun ownership, or support of gun rights, you're a redneck. And they're one of a few classes in America you're allowed to disparage with impunity.


They're one of the few that deserve it.
 
2012-02-11 11:56:26 PM
Gyrfalcon: The minute you disclose either gun ownership, or support of gun rights, you're a redneck. And they're one of a few classes in America you're allowed to disparage with impunity.

They're one of the few that deserve it.


Neh. I think of gun nuts as basically furries. There's a minority of really sketchy ones that creep everyone out, but mostly they just like to hang out in private clubs and play dress up.
 
2012-02-12 12:04:58 AM
Umeraken Ideut: Dimensio: Umeraken Ideut: Although I can't care less about guns on either side of the issue, and I take umbrage with Primum's use of the word "funny", do incidents like this not even beg the question "do private citizens even need automatic weapons in the first place". I'm not saying yes or no, I'm merely saying to write it off as merely "dumb people making dumb decisions" is glancing over the issue, as most people, at one time or another, make a dumb decision or twelve. The least we could have is an honest debate and not this "ALL OR NONE" argument that seems to pervade any argument on second amendment rights.

Fully automatic firearms are not readily available to civilians in the United States. What additional regulation could be proposed to prevent the reported incident?

They're not? Is it because the ATF Form 4 (5320.4) is too hard to fill out, or because you're too lazy? Because that's basically all you need.


Wrong. You also need a letter from the chief CLEO in your area. As well as safe storage, with an inspection of said storage by the BATFE agent approving the tax stamp. You also (for the gun involved in that situation) need $12,000 to purchase the gun, and $200 for the tax stamp.
 
2012-02-12 12:07:31 AM
Umeraken Ideut: Dimensio: Umeraken Ideut: Dimensio: Umeraken Ideut: Although I can't care less about guns on either side of the issue, and I take umbrage with Primum's use of the word "funny", do incidents like this not even beg the question "do private citizens even need automatic weapons in the first place". I'm not saying yes or no, I'm merely saying to write it off as merely "dumb people making dumb decisions" is glancing over the issue, as most people, at one time or another, make a dumb decision or twelve. The least we could have is an honest debate and not this "ALL OR NONE" argument that seems to pervade any argument on second amendment rights.

Fully automatic firearms are not readily available to civilians in the United States. What additional regulation could be proposed to prevent the reported incident?

They're not? Is it because the ATF Form 4 (5320.4) is too hard to fill out, or because you're too lazy? Because that's basically all you need.

Also required is a significant amount of money, because civilian-available fully automatic firearms are a limited and never-increasing quantity.

What's your point? If I chose to, I can get one for about as much as an iPad, and you don't see a lot of people claiming that those are unobtainable.


No, you couldn't, at least not while in the US.

The "black market" thing is largely a myth. Unless you truly do know the right people, in which case you're not stupid enough to say anything about it online. You don't truly know the right people.
 
2012-02-12 12:29:56 AM
As profits in arms is up nearly 400% since Barry took office, I'd say if I were a gun maker, I'd vote for Obama as many times as I could.


Gun lovers are extremely easy to troll apparently.
 
2012-02-12 12:34:11 AM
way south: I see the second amendment as a "come what may" policy.
Military planners and think tanks often underestimate or entirely ignore how war can change. I think it would be a bit arrogant to know how poorly we've guessed the future of yesterday and then say "well this can't happen tomorrow".


www.fohguild.org
 
2012-02-12 12:34:11 AM
badhatharry: Mugato: badhatharry: Lots of delusional liberals in this thread.

That hit and run style of argument isn't very convincing here. This isn't Twitter, you can elaborate.

Sure. Obama's position on gun control is well known. He has nominated two Justices that believe gun ownership is not a fundamental right. One more and we all get New York City style gun laws.

The Fast and Furious debacle was a scheme to implement gun control.

The Obama administration banned the sale of 800,000 M1 Garande rifles.


First off, it's Garand. Second off, the origin of that import ban (for the CMP I might add) started with Bush. Obama said he wouldn't overturn it, and given the condition of the rifles in question, I don't blame him. We have plenty of manufacturers of M1's here in the states that are quite happy meeting the demand, why cost American jobs by importing hundreds of thousands of second rate poorly maintained pieces of iron oxide that we loaned the Koreans and other Asian countries when we were in extreme over supply of them? Almost none of these rifles have any collectors value that sets them apart from any other M1, and the federal government (Citizen Marksmanship Program, a federal program in the business of dispensing battle rifles to citizens and teaching them basic marksmanship, a program started in the very early 20th century) is not in the business of competing with established private companies. He did the right thing.

The whole Fast and Furious fiasco? It started with Bush. It was continued by the ATF under Holder. In Holder's defense, the BATFE has been a bunch of jackboot thugs run amok for a couple of decades now and with how fast and loose they run it wouldn't surprise me at all if they kept the details all to themselves looking for all the glory. No, I do not think Holder knew anything about it. It shouldn't be Holder who hangs, it should be the entirety of the BATFE.

Obama is not anti gun by virtue of his actions. He's merely anti competition with American Gun Makers.
 
2012-02-12 12:40:25 AM
intelligent comment below: Fark It:
Heathen liberal atheist here. From my cold, dead hands.

Awesome response. Living in a society with millions of guns is just really great and peaceful. Having that attitude is not harmful to society at all. Britain is hell on earth without guns. /s


Yes, and banning guns has done wonders for violent crime in the UK, it's one of the most peaceful countries in Europe. The Czech Republic, on the other hand, allows concealed carry and has easy to procure and cheap automatic weapons and is a total hellhole.
 
2012-02-12 12:46:16 AM
iq_in_binary: badhatharry: Mugato: badhatharry: Lots of delusional liberals in this thread.

That hit and run style of argument isn't very convincing here. This isn't Twitter, you can elaborate.

Sure. Obama's position on gun control is well known. He has nominated two Justices that believe gun ownership is not a fundamental right. One more and we all get New York City style gun laws.

The Fast and Furious debacle was a scheme to implement gun control.

The Obama administration banned the sale of 800,000 M1 Garande rifles.

First off, it's Garand. Second off, the origin of that import ban (for the CMP I might add) started with Bush. Obama said he wouldn't overturn it, and given the condition of the rifles in question, I don't blame him. We have plenty of manufacturers of M1's here in the states that are quite happy meeting the demand, why cost American jobs by importing hundreds of thousands of second rate poorly maintained pieces of iron oxide that we loaned the Koreans and other Asian countries when we were in extreme over supply of them? Almost none of these rifles have any collectors value that sets them apart from any other M1, and the federal government (Citizen Marksmanship Program, a federal program in the business of dispensing battle rifles to citizens and teaching them basic marksmanship, a program started in the very early 20th century) is not in the business of competing with established private companies. He did the right thing.

The whole Fast and Furious fiasco? It started with Bush. It was continued by the ATF under Holder. In Holder's defense, the BATFE has been a bunch of jackboot thugs run amok for a couple of decades now and with how fast and loose they run it wouldn't surprise me at all if they kept the details all to themselves looking for all the glory. No, I do not think Holder knew anything about it. It shouldn't be Holder who hangs, it should be the entirety of the BATFE.

Obama is not anti gun by virtue of his actions. He's merely anti competition with ...


Name one company that makes new production M1 Garands. It's a stupid policy. Even if they're not in the greatest condition they are still pieces of history that plenty of collectors here in the states would love to have, even if they're only good for spare parts. Agree with you on the BATFE though. They should have been disbanded long ago.
 
2012-02-12 12:49:22 AM
potterydove: iollow: They've been saying this since 2008, and it never happened. If Obama is anti-gun, he's keeping it to himself.

His election platform was anti-gun though.


I seem to recall "I believe in a citizen's right to defend himself. I believe in gun ownership." to be a line that he caught particular flak over.

WRONG, try again.
 
2012-02-12 12:51:00 AM
iq_in_binary: potterydove: iollow: They've been saying this since 2008, and it never happened. If Obama is anti-gun, he's keeping it to himself.

His election platform was anti-gun though.

I seem to recall "I believe in a citizen's right to defend himself. I believe in gun ownership." to be a line that he caught particular flak over.

WRONG, try again.


NO NO, HE"S GOING TO TAKE OUR GUNS AND OUR JEEERRROOBBBSSS
 
2012-02-12 12:53:46 AM
Fark It: iq_in_binary: badhatharry: Mugato: badhatharry: Lots of delusional liberals in this thread.

That hit and run style of argument isn't very convincing here. This isn't Twitter, you can elaborate.

Sure. Obama's position on gun control is well known. He has nominated two Justices that believe gun ownership is not a fundamental right. One more and we all get New York City style gun laws.

The Fast and Furious debacle was a scheme to implement gun control.

The Obama administration banned the sale of 800,000 M1 Garande rifles.

First off, it's Garand. Second off, the origin of that import ban (for the CMP I might add) started with Bush. Obama said he wouldn't overturn it, and given the condition of the rifles in question, I don't blame him. We have plenty of manufacturers of M1's here in the states that are quite happy meeting the demand, why cost American jobs by importing hundreds of thousands of second rate poorly maintained pieces of iron oxide that we loaned the Koreans and other Asian countries when we were in extreme over supply of them? Almost none of these rifles have any collectors value that sets them apart from any other M1, and the federal government (Citizen Marksmanship Program, a federal program in the business of dispensing battle rifles to citizens and teaching them basic marksmanship, a program started in the very early 20th century) is not in the business of competing with established private companies. He did the right thing.

The whole Fast and Furious fiasco? It started with Bush. It was continued by the ATF under Holder. In Holder's defense, the BATFE has been a bunch of jackboot thugs run amok for a couple of decades now and with how fast and loose they run it wouldn't surprise me at all if they kept the details all to themselves looking for all the glory. No, I do not think Holder knew anything about it. It shouldn't be Holder who hangs, it should be the entirety of the BATFE.

Obama is not anti gun by virtue of his actions. He's merely anti co ...


Springfield Farking Armory? On top of Auto-Ordnance, Armscorp, AMAC, LAI, Iver Johnson, and other small shops that provide some of the non-receiver/action related parts?
 
2012-02-12 12:57:00 AM
Couldn't get past the first page of link, Wow. Thank you Farkers, for easing my feeble mind into semi-restful sleep.
 
2012-02-12 12:57:14 AM
jbuist: I'm a paranoid whack-job for assuming he wants to ban some guns.



Yes, yes you are.
 
2012-02-12 12:59:18 AM
iq_in_binary: Springfield Farking Armory? On top of Auto-Ordnance, Armscorp, AMAC, LAI, Iver Johnson, and other small shops that provide some of the non-receiver/action related parts?

You seem to have the M1 Garand confused with the M1A. So, could you provide some link to a listing or product info page where new-production M1 Garands are available for purchase? Because I'd love to be proven wrong.
 
2012-02-12 01:05:45 AM
jbuist: LasersHurt: I like how there's absolutely no evidence for this, you're just SURE he wants to ban guns. Good show.

P.S. Evidence means actual, real, provable stuff. Like recent attempts at banning guns, or suggesting the banning of guns in the last decade or so. You know, reality.


Right. Obama hasn't made any motions toward gun bans aside from putting an "assault weapons" ban mention in campaign literature, his change.gov website since being elected, verbally confirming it after election, and AG Holder saying that the administration wants it on camera.

Obama has said, repeatedly, that he wants to ban some guns, therefore I'm a paranoid whack-job for assuming he wants to ban some guns.

That makes sense.

I don't think he's going to try it, as that would set the Democrats back 20 years with gun owners, but he's said he wants it, so I'll forgive people if they believe the guy. I don't actually believe he'll do it, but I'm probably a racist for not trusting the guy. Or something.


So, you have absolutely 0 evidence, but will claim that you do.


/Gun owner
//Lives in sportsman's paradice
/// I am not a scared little pussy who has to lie about the intentions of the president to justify my fear of him
 
2012-02-12 01:07:48 AM
Fark It:
Yes, and banning guns has done wonders for violent crime in the UK, it's one of the most peaceful countries in Europe. The Czech Republic, on the other hand, allows concealed carry and has easy to procure and cheap automatic weapons and is a total hellhole.


Violent crime falling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/violent_cr i me_falling_says_new.html

I'd take a perp with a knife over a gun any day, thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
 
2012-02-12 01:08:50 AM
Dedmon: So, you have absolutely 0 evidence, but will claim that you do.


/Gun owner
//Lives in sportsman's paradice
/// I am not a scared little pussy who has to lie about the intentions of the president to justify my fear of him


What I don't get; Why can't these coonts just say "I don't like him as a president, I think he's a putz, and I have a long term dislike of the parties actions over my life time." Why make crap up? I just don't get it.
 
2012-02-12 01:10:33 AM
intelligent comment below: Violent crime falling

As it is here in the states, despite being a "society with millions of guns."
 
2012-02-12 01:13:53 AM
And you're going to compare the Czech Republic to England? London has more residents than all of Czech. Sorry that's not a valid comparison at all.
 
2012-02-12 01:14:40 AM
Fark It: intelligent comment below: Violent crime falling

As it is here in the states, despite being a "society with millions of guns."


Wait, America? The place where they keep taking your guns? How can crime be falling?
 
2012-02-12 01:23:00 AM
intelligent comment below: And you're going to compare the Czech Republic to England? London has more residents than all of Czech. Sorry that's not a valid comparison at all.

One, that's not true. Two, both are heavily urbanized, and are next to each other in the UN's HDI rankings. Despite being significantly poorer in terms of per capita GDP, and having far more weapons than the UK, the Czech Republic is much safer and has less crime than the UK.
 
2012-02-12 01:23:45 AM
forgotmydamnusername: And we lost Vietnam, because their peasants could hang out forever in little cramped tunnels under the ground, broiling jungles, flooded rice paddies. When the going got tough, "our boys" started shooting smack and fragging their officers.

...And there were traitors and cowards during the revolutionary war, as well as the Civil war. Some men pissed themselves when confronted with cannons and bayonets. Otherwise good Men froze up on D-day in fear of German machine guns.
Sometimes people react poorly when tested or lash out in frustration because of a given situation. Warcrimes didn't start with modern times.
Many US soldiers during Vietnam also fought with great valor in hopeless situations, as they have in wars before and since. They were able to make sound judgements and deliver victory even when the equipment and politics failed them.
What's your point?

My point is that the character of humanity is flexible and no one nation has more potential for making great warriors than another. Everyone assumes that a particular flag imbues someone with power or that a certain lifestyle makes you more capable of violence or heroism.
Its not that simple.
A healthy lifestyle and plenty of exercise will make a person physically strong (a thing that any militia or military can duplicate given a few months) but psychological strength and cunning can be more of a grab bag of characteristics developed in an individuals life.

Just because most Americans are smarter than to take part in a suicidal banzai charge doesn't mean they would be incapable of using their weapons effectively, given the right motivation.

We lack motivation and that is both a good thing and a thing that can (unfortunately) change quickly.
 
2012-02-12 01:26:39 AM
intelligent comment below: Fark It: intelligent comment below: Violent crime falling

As it is here in the states, despite being a "society with millions of guns."

Wait, America? The place where they keep taking your guns? How can crime be falling?


How can crime (including violent crime) be a bigger problem in the UK than in the Czech Republic?

/there is no correlation between crime and civilian firearm ownership
 
2012-02-12 01:36:57 AM
Fark It:
How can crime (including violent crime) be a bigger problem in the UK than in the Czech Republic?

/there is no correlation between crime and civilian firearm ownership


Of course there is a correlation. There are also other factors, but when England banned guns they saw a drop in crime, a drop in murders. Meanwhile America, the gun nut society, has a murder and crime rate that makes 3rd world nations jealous.

And this is all with doctored crime statistics from police forces unwilling to write down real data.
 
2012-02-12 01:48:03 AM
Ontos: Lorelle: Primum: Here's a funny one: this dummkopf at a gun show let a 7-year-old fire a mini-Uzi and the gun bounced up and the boy blew the side of his head off

Well, the advert for the gun-nut event where this happened did read:

"It's all legal & fun - No permits or licenses required!!!!"

I wish someone would leak that video.

Can't do that--it was the kid's father who filmed the entire incident, so he owns the rights to it. He really should consider selling it--no doubt there is more than one gun nut out there who would enjoy watching the kid's head get blown off over and over and over.

What the fark is wrong with 7you?


Lorelle is possessed of an irrational hatred of firearms. Consequently, she irrationally assigns mental disorders to any individual who chooses to own any firearms.
 
2012-02-12 01:51:54 AM
intelligent comment below: Fark It:
How can crime (including violent crime) be a bigger problem in the UK than in the Czech Republic?

/there is no correlation between crime and civilian firearm ownership

Of course there is a correlation. There are also other factors, but when England banned guns they saw a drop in crime, a drop in murders. Meanwhile America, the gun nut society, has a murder and crime rate that makes 3rd world nations jealous.

And this is all with doctored crime statistics from police forces unwilling to write down real data.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England- h as-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html

England's crime rate (including violent crime) rose after they banned (most) guns. The rate of violent crime in the UK is far, far higher than other countries in the EU, and far higher than the violent crime rate in the U.S.
 
2012-02-12 01:57:12 AM
intelligent comment below: Meanwhile America, the gun nut society, has a murder and crime rate that makes 3rd world nations jealous.

To which third-world nations do you refer? Additionally, please explain, specifically, how firearms cause crime. Does a firearm emit a field that alters human brain chemistry to produce criminal behaviour?
 
2012-02-12 02:05:12 AM
Eric Holder: "This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we've seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico."

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-12 02:16:45 AM
badhatharry: Eric Holder: "This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we've seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico."

Link (new window)


For what reason would any sensible individual oppose prohibiting civilian access to a rarely criminally misused class of popular firearms based upon cosmetic appearance?
 
2012-02-12 02:17:38 AM
Why make crap up? I just don't get it.

If they fall for the bible, they'll fall for any god damn stupidassed thing.
 
2012-02-12 03:13:45 AM
Fark It:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England- h as-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html

England's crime rate (including violent crime) rose after they banned (most) guns. The rate of violent crime in the UK is far, far higher than other countries in the EU, and far higher than the violent crime rate in the U.S.


It rose for economic reasons, it's lower again now. And the homicide rate is lower than Canada.

You also can't compare it to America since American police agencies love to cook their books.
 
2012-02-12 03:16:07 AM
Dimensio:
To which third-world nations do you refer? Additionally, please explain, specifically, how firearms cause crime. Does a firearm emit a field that alters human brain chemistry to produce criminal behaviour?


Are you serious? A firearm allows anyone with a pulse the ability to kill someone else by pulling a trigger.

Homicides has declined significantly in the United Kingdom.

In America, they stay the same

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicid e _rate
 
2012-02-12 03:26:21 AM
Let it be known that Lorelle has NO RESPONSE when it came to my proposal for "common sense" regulations regarding abortions.
 
2012-02-12 03:26:57 AM
had, not has
 
2012-02-12 03:32:39 AM
Mr. LaPierre, who said "there is no greater freedom than to own a firearm," predicted that gun owners will rally en masse to defeat Mr. Obama in November.

Yeah, OK, I give up. I'm letting my membership lapse, I can sign up with law shield and register guns and find people to go to the range without these clowns. I can't take the affiliation with the forces of stupid anymore.

intelligent comment below: Dimensio:
To which third-world nations do you refer? Additionally, please explain, specifically, how firearms cause crime. Does a firearm emit a field that alters human brain chemistry to produce criminal behaviour?

Are you serious? A firearm allows anyone with a pulse the ability to kill someone else by pulling a trigger.

Homicides has declined significantly in the United Kingdom.

In America, they stay the same

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicid e _rate


And your reasoning for blaming this on firearm ownership rather than social safety nets, surveillance society, differing social mobility, divergent government paradigms, tits on prime-time TV, calling football soccer or spelling colour with a 'u' would be what, exactly?

There has been no correlation within the US (where cultural and large-scale political differences are less significant) between crime rate and gun control laws/enforcement. I don't believe the UK ever had real local differences in such so they have no data. You can't just take two arbitrary numbers and declare a correlation, you need multiple data points and some degree of variable control. Even if you actually did that (which, I repeat, you have not) you'd still have only a correlation, which would need to be substantially deepened to demonstrate a causative relationship.

Basically, using your logic I could note that the UK has more people on welfare than the US, and that My Little Pony is more popular here than across the pond, and conclude that Poverty is caused by Not Believing in the Power of Friendship. You getting this at all or am I banging my head on a pipe?
 
2012-02-12 03:33:19 AM
Fark It: iq_in_binary: Springfield Farking Armory? On top of Auto-Ordnance, Armscorp, AMAC, LAI, Iver Johnson, and other small shops that provide some of the non-receiver/action related parts?

You seem to have the M1 Garand confused with the M1A. So, could you provide some link to a listing or product info page where new-production M1 Garands are available for purchase? Because I'd love to be proven wrong.


Read that list again. They produce M1 Garands.
 
2012-02-12 03:47:30 AM
Jim_Callahan:

There has been no correlation within the US (where cultural and large-scale political differences are less significant) between crime rate and gun control laws/enforcement. I don't believe the UK ever had real local differences in such so they have no data. You can't just take two arbitrary numbers and declare a correlation, you need multiple data points and some degree of variable control. Even if you actually did that (which, I repeat, you have not) you'd still have only a correlation, which would need to be substantially deepened to demonstrate a causative relationship.


In the UK murder rates have dropped every year since 2000.
But obviously that has nothing to do with gun control, right? it's just a correlation. Guns don't give people an easy way to kill someone else.
 
2012-02-12 04:05:33 AM
intelligent comment below: In the UK murder rates have dropped every year since 2000.
But obviously that has nothing to do with gun control, right? it's just a correlation. Guns don't give people an easy way to kill someone else.


Head-banging it is, then. I guess I'll go off and do something less similar than trying to explain statistical rigor to a bonobo.
 
2012-02-12 04:07:03 AM
intelligent comment below: In America, they stay the same

Homicide rates in the United States of America have declined significantly since 1992. For what reason are you lying?
 
2012-02-12 04:07:30 AM
I don't get it. Murder rates drop for a decade each year in the UK. in America they stay steady.

But banning guns has nothing to do with it. Obviously.
 
2012-02-12 04:11:11 AM
United States [71][72] 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.0 5.0

I'm talking about a decade. 5 is huge. One of the 1st world countries worst.

And where are your stats?

Meanwhile, in the UK

United Kingdom [7] 1.71 1.79 2.1 1.75 1.60 1.38 1.42 1.46 1.26 1.17 1.17

Notice a difference here? But banning guns has NOTHING to do with this.
 
2012-02-12 04:16:57 AM
intelligent comment below: United States [71][72] 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.0 5.0

I'm talking about a decade. 5 is huge. One of the 1st world countries worst.

And where are your stats?

Meanwhile, in the UK

United Kingdom [7] 1.71 1.79 2.1 1.75 1.60 1.38 1.42 1.46 1.26 1.17 1.17

Notice a difference here? But banning guns has NOTHING to do with this.


For what reason, then, did homicide rates in the United States of America decline from 1992 to 2002 despite an absence of any significant prohibition upon civilian firearm ownership, apart from a prohibition upon a rarely criminally misused class of firearms?

Are you able to actually demonstrate causality, or are you merely asserting?
 
2012-02-12 04:27:23 AM
You mean the Brady Act, and Assault weapons bans had great effects of lowering crime? Well I'll be damned!
 
2012-02-12 04:28:48 AM
intelligent comment below: You mean the Brady Act, and Assault weapons bans had great effects of lowering crime? Well I'll be damned!

The "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004. No demonstrable increase in rates of violent crime occurred following this expiration, and no organization has been able to demonstrate that the "ban" resulted in any reduction of any rate of crime.
 
2012-02-12 04:29:27 AM
intelligent comment below: You mean the Brady Act, and Assault weapons bans had great effects of lowering crime? Well I'll be damned!

Additionally, you did not address my inquiry: for what reason did rates of homicide in the United States of America decrease from 1992 to 2002?
 
2012-02-12 04:34:30 AM
So you just said violent crime declined during the years of the assault weapons ban. What a strange coincidence!

And yes after 2002, you see the homicide rate jump up, 5.6 for 2 years then 5.7 and 5.6 until 2008 ironically after the NICS improvement act went into effect.

All coincidences of course.

But it's the gun grabbers side that "has no evidence" of course. LOL
 
2012-02-12 04:40:32 AM
intelligent comment below: So you just said violent crime declined during the years of the assault weapons ban. What a strange coincidence!

That the occurrence was a coincidence is not "strange". Firearms classified as "assault weapons" are typically rifles. Rifles are rarely used in the commission of homicide. Thus,
regulation of rifles is unlikely to affect rates of homicide, even if regulation of firearms can demonstrably affect rates of homicide. No evidence suggests that the "assault weapons ban" resulted in any reduction in crime; that rates of crime did not subsequently increase following the expiration of the ban is further evidence of the ban's ineffectiveness in reducing rates of crime. If you believe that prohibiting cosmetic features upon rifles, when functionally identical rifles remained available for civilian purchase during the time, resulted in a reduction of rates in violent crime, then I would appreciate an explanation as to how this result was accomplished, and why this result was not reversed once the ban was no longer in effect.

And yes after 2002, you see the homicide rate jump up, 5.6 for 2 years then 5.7 and 5.6 until 2008 ironically after the NICS improvement act went into effect.

All coincidences of course.


The alterations in rates of violent crime between the years that you have identified are statistically too small to be analyzed.

If you believe that the federal "assault weapons ban" reduced rates of homicide, then please explain how a prohibition upon cosmetic attachments on rarely criminally misused classes of firearms, while other functionally identical firearms remained available to the public, caused a decline in rates of homicide. An explanation from you would be informative, as the Department of Justice in the United States of America was entirely unable to demonstrate any effect of the ban on rates of crime.
 
2012-02-12 04:46:55 AM
The ban was directed at high capacity rifles used as killing machines that have no place in society. It didn't go far enough and of course was watered down by the NRA, which explains why society never saw its full effect.

And calling banning the use of high capacity magazines as cosmetic while ignoring the entire anti-crime act and its effects I posted is disingenuous.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was a good step in the right direction as the numbers have shown, and it was ruined by gun nuts like yourself who have misinterpreted the meaning of a well regulated militia.

If you can't see a drop in crime until the act was overturned then a rise in crime as one more example of you being wrong then there's no point in arguing this any more. You think you have a God given right to own any gun, with no restrictions, and have no clue as the harm it does to society. You are clueless and blind because you want your hobby covered by the Constitution.
 
2012-02-12 04:55:16 AM
intelligent comment below: The ban was directed at high capacity rifles used as killing machines that have no place in society.

Your dishonest misrepresentation of popular civilian sporting rifles that are rarely criminally misused demonstrates that you are not a credible source of information. The AR-15 platform of rifles, targeted by name in the now-expired ban, is popular amongst target shooters and has recently become popular amongst hunters and is rarely represented in homicides in the United States, thus your claim that such a firearm is a "killing machine" with "no place in society" is a demonstrable lie, and thus your issuance of it identifies you as a liar. Your statement is consistent with my observation that advocates of unreasonable restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership are frequently ill-informed, dishonest or irrational.

All rifles, of which "assault weapons" are a smaller subset, are less frequently used to commit homicide than are knives, blunt objects or even unarmed attacks. You have provided no demonstration that firearms targeted by the "assault weapons ban" are or have been commonly criminally misused in the United States of America. Extant data suggests that in fact they are rarely criminally misused.


And calling banning the use of high capacity magazines as cosmetic while ignoring the entire anti-crime act and its effects I posted is disingenuous.

Defining any magazine of a capacity greater than ten rounds as "high-capacity" is disingenuous, as the standard capacity for many firearm magazines is greater than ten rounds. Additionally, only the manufacture of new magazines in excess of ten rounds was prohibited; possession and sale of previously manufactured magazines remained legal.


The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was a good step in the right direction as the numbers have shown, and it was ruined by gun nuts like yourself who have misinterpreted the meaning of a well regulated militia.

Insulting me will not validate your position, nor will it validate the failed "assault weapons ban".


If you can't see a drop in crime until the act was overturned then a rise in crime as one more example of you being wrong then there's no point in arguing this any more.

You have demonstrated no significant increase in rates of violent crime following the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban. No crime data shows an increase in the use of rifles in homicides following the expiration of the ban. Your attempt to justify a demonstrably failed prohibition is consistent with my observation that advocates of unreasonable restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership are ill-informed, dishonest or irrational.


You think you have a God given right to own any gun, with no restrictions, and have no clue as the harm it does to society.

I am an atheist, and I have never suggested that firearm ownership be entirely unrestricted. Your claim therefore incorporates two demonstrably false assertions. Your reliance upon lies is necessary, because actual fact will not justify your position.
 
2012-02-12 05:03:19 AM
Additional examination of data demonstrates the claim that the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban increased rates of homicide to be a lie:

Rates of homicide for 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 are, in order,
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.5
5.6 - this is the first full year of the expiration of the ban
5.7
5.6

The alterations in rates of homicide are statistically insignificant both during and after the period of the ban, with no increasing trend at any time. An actual demonstrable change in the rate of homicide has occurred only more recently, as rates of homicide have decreased since 2007. intelligent comment below is therefore demonstrably lying in an attempt to justify a demonstrably failed law.
 
2012-02-12 05:09:20 AM
Dimensio: intelligent comment below is therefore demonstrably lying in an attempt to justify a demonstrably failed law.

He's just trolling, man, that was firmly established the first time we took apart his premise using basic statistics/science accessible to everyone over the age of 8 and he responded by blankly repeating the premise. You might want to stop feeding him.
 
2012-02-12 05:12:08 AM
Jim_Callahan: Dimensio: intelligent comment below is therefore demonstrably lying in an attempt to justify a demonstrably failed law.

He's just trolling, man, that was firmly established the first time we took apart his premise using basic statistics/science accessible to everyone over the age of 8 and he responded by blankly repeating the premise. You might want to stop feeding him.


I have concluded that intelligent comment below either is "trolling", as you suggest, or that he is an irrational and dishonest individual who cannot be trusted. Regardless, I have "favorited" his comments with a note linking to this discussion for future reference.
 
2012-02-12 06:54:20 AM
iq_in_binary: Fark It: iq_in_binary: Springfield Farking Armory? On top of Auto-Ordnance, Armscorp, AMAC, LAI, Iver Johnson, and other small shops that provide some of the non-receiver/action related parts?

You seem to have the M1 Garand confused with the M1A. So, could you provide some link to a listing or product info page where new-production M1 Garands are available for purchase? Because I'd love to be proven wrong.

Read that list again. They produce M1 Garands.


None of those companies currently produce M1 Garands. IAI made a Garand of dubious build quality for a couple of years but they don't any more. Again, I'd love to be proven wrong if you can give me link to one of those companies' product pages.
 
2012-02-12 07:00:31 AM
This argument is pointless. All you can do is keep running in circles while I provide facts to backup my argument.

I provided the name of the bill with a small provision that outlawed high capacity magazines, and all you can do is go on and on about how only a certain type of rifle (false) was restricted.

I provided evidence that the bill for over a decade was one piece that led to lower murder rates. You can also see NYC and their tough crime and tough gun stance that led to lower crime rates.

The report looked at 1.4 million guns involved in crime and determined that "since the law's enactment ... assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime - a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate"

Since then, in the 2000's, various laws were removed, restricted, or circumvented, and violent crime stayed high until the rest of the ban was removed.

And then the NICS goes into effect, crime drops 2 years in a row. Another convenient fact that you try and desperately explain away with absolutely no facts or reason just like everything else you said.

You have no reason to own a weapon that shoots more than 10 rounds per clip. Anything else is indeed a killing machine.

I can't get much more basic in my arguments here.

All you can do is cry trolling or correlation and pretend you actually have an argument to make.
 
2012-02-12 07:05:42 AM
And here are all the studies showing increased license to carry does not reduce crime and one study shows an increase. So where are your statistics again? But again, I'm the on trolling, right? Not idiots who cannot understand what the phrase a well regulated militia actually means.

________________

Academic studies that have rejected Lott's conclusions include the following. With the exception of the 2003 study by John J. Donohue, these studies generally contend that there seems to be little or no effect on crime from the passage of license-to-carry laws. Donohue's 2003 study finds an increase in violence.

Albert Alschuler, Two Guns, Four Guns, Six Guns, More Guns: Does Arming the Public Reduce Crime? Valparaiso U Law Rev. Spring 1997. Alschuler notes that while PPBM2029 (as perpetrators of crime) and PPBF64+ (as victims) are strongly correlated to high homicide rates in the dataset used by Lott & Mustard 1997, PPBF4049 is rated more highly as a predictor of homicide rate. Alschuler notes that Lott supplied him with his copy of Ludwig's 1996 paper as well as the Lott & Mustard data.

Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, Concealed Handguns: The Counterfeit Deterrent, 7 The Responsive Community 2 (Spring 1997). Zimring & Hawkins cite recognition of the legitimacy of defensive gun use as an impediment to the socially desirable goal of eliminating private ownership of handguns and set out to criticise Lott & Mustard.

Both Albert Alschuler and Jens Ludwig note a number of problems in their separate papers. Why, for example, should the concentration of older black women in a population predict higher crime rates in the Lott and Mustard model, but not the increased concentration of young men, age 20 to 29, who are vastly more likely to commit such offenses?

David Hemenway, 'Review of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws', New England Journal of Medicine, 1998.[10] Hemenway's review states

Lott finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws

Rutgers sociology professor Ted Goertzel stated that "Lott's massive data set was simply unsuitable for his task", and that he "compar[ed] trends in Idaho and West Virginia and Mississippi with trends in Washington, D.C. and New York City" without proper statistical controls. He alleged that econometric methods (such as the Lott & Mustard RTC study or the Levitt & Donohue abortion study) are susceptible to misuse and can even become junk science.[11]

Ian Ayres, Yale Law School, and John Donohue, Stanford Law School, 'Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis'. Stanford Law Review, 2003.[12]

Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University, "Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data", published in International Review of Law and Economics, 1998.[13]

Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, "Do 'Right-to-Carry' Laws Deter Violent Crime?" Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 209-213 (January 1998).

Mark Duggan, University of Chicago, "More Guns, More Crime," National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. W7967, October 2000, later published in Journal of Political Economy.[14]

Steven Levitt, University of Chicago, 'Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not'. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2004.[15] Levitt lists 'Laws allowing a right to carry concealed weapons' as number five in his list of 'Six Factors that Played Little or No Role in the Crime Decline'.

Jeffrey Miron, Boston University, 'Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis'. The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[16]

Tomislav V. Kovandzic and Thomas B. Marvell, "Right-To-Carry Concealed Firearms and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol?" Criminology and Public Policy 2, (2003) pages 363-396.

John J. Donahue III, Stanford Law School, 'The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis', Criminology and Public Policy, 2003.[17]

John Donohue and Ian Ayres. "More Guns, Less Crime Fails Again: The Latest Evidence from 1977-2006" Econ Journal Watch 6.2 (2009): 218-238.[18]
 
2012-02-12 07:10:07 AM
intelligent comment below: This argument is pointless. All you can do is keep running in circles while I provide facts to backup my argument.

I provided the name of the bill with a small provision that outlawed high capacity magazines,


High capacity magazines were not outlawed, pre-ban high-capacity magazines were still perfectly legal and transferrable during the "ban." New production "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" were outlawed.

So-called "assault weapons" with "high capacity clips" (as you expertly put it) are among the fastest-growing class of firearms sales-wise, yet violent crime and murder continue to drop. Our own Justice Department (under Clinton, no less) has found no correlation between the AWB and violent crime.
 
2012-02-12 07:16:19 AM
The AWB was one sentence in the larger bill that I quoted. The argument is not about just the AWB, but it was a good idea that was again, watered down by the NRA. If it would have applied to all guns it would have done a lot more than it did.
 
2012-02-12 07:18:52 AM
Zimring & Hawkins cite recognition of the legitimacy of defensive gun use as an impediment to the socially desirable goal of eliminating private ownership of handguns

No bias there.... that's definitely a scientific/academic agenda and not a social/political one.
 
2012-02-12 07:21:13 AM
intelligent comment below: If it would have applied to all guns it would have done a lot more than it did.

What does this even mean? The AWB was a lot more than one sentence. The AWB barred a certain set of cosmetic features from new-production and importation weapons, mostly rifles.
 
2012-02-12 07:22:15 AM
Right, the agenda is to create a peaceful society devoid of easy access to weapons that do nothing but kill people and give absolute power to people no smarter than a rock.

Some agendas are more biased than others. But how about you quote an NRA study, or Cato institute. I need a non biased opinion on this.
 
2012-02-12 07:24:21 AM
Do you know nothing about the topic you are debating? You have everything in common with the other idiots here before. the AWB was a small section in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement _Act
 
2012-02-12 08:03:51 AM
intelligent comment below: Do you know nothing about the topic you are debating? You have everything in common with the other idiots here before. the AWB was a small section in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement _Act

I'm talking about the AWB, not the Brady Act. The Brady Act was not a part of the Violent Crime Control and LE Act, it was separate.

Right, the agenda is to create a peaceful society devoid of easy access to weapons that do nothing but kill people and give absolute power to people no smarter than a rock.

Which is why only law enforcement should have access to such weapons, amiright?

Here you go, BTW:

"In 2001, Koper and Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, published a peer-reviewed paper called The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation. They found that:

"The ban may have contributed to a reduction in gun homicides, but a statistical power analysis of our model indicated that any likely effects from the ban will be very difficult to detect statistically for several more years. We found no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations. The findings should be treated cautiously due to the methodological difficulties of making a short-term assessment of the ban and because the ban's long-term effects could differ from the short-term influences revealed by this study."[11]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

It should be noted that the above mentioned report was funded by the DOJ.
 
2012-02-12 08:51:14 AM
high capacity rifles used as killing machines


That is laughably inane.

Modern military arms and munitions are far FAR from being "killing machines"

The current NATO platform "assualt" rifles fire a sub-caliber projectile at modest velocity, (don't confuse the Vietnam War era 55 grain 5.56 from 20" barrel)

The wound caused by this round when fired by an M4 carbine closely resembles a puncture wound from an icepick.

Since the decades after WWII,each new generation of military arms and munitions has become smaller and smaller and less lethal.

Even the 9mm pistol round is a GIANT compared the increasingly popular 5.7mm which has been falsely maligned by the misinformed Brady Campaign folks.

All this is funny to me.
"Why do you need ALL those bullets?" is a paradox question. It can be asked two differring ways. One--in the voice of some knee-jerk misinformed crybaby wuss. Or Two-- in the voice of a manly Elmer Keith type who carries a powerful six shot .44 or .45
"Boy...what do you need all them little bullets fer?"

If an "aasault weapon" is a killing machine....what is a gallon of gasoline?

Bags of fertilizer?

Box cutters?


.....etc.....

All the top mass killings in USA history were NOT done with firearms of any caliber.
 
2012-02-12 09:06:39 AM
intelligent comment below: Do you know nothing about the topic you are debating? You have everything in common with the other idiots here before. the AWB was a small section in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement _Act

Jesus, just shut up. This is why nobody takes pro-gun control people seriously, you sound like a raging nut bar. Do you even know what the fark the AWB really did? It drove the prices of high cap magazines up, separated guns in the bill into "pre ban" and "post ban" guns (shockingly, the "pre ban" guns jumped in price) and included guns that made no sense. M1 Carbines as "assault weapons"? Seriously?

Like most gun regulation the AWB was written by people that have no clue. It did nothing for any crime rates. Everything was still freely available, just more expensive. I know your trolling but you do a good job simulating anit-gun people: they are just as bad as idiots on the right much of the time.

As for Obama and the 2008 scare....the main benefactors were gun and ammo sellers. Gun owners, as a rule, possess the conservative persecution complex. I've wrangled it out of gun sellers: Obama's the best thing that ever happened to them. Huge profits from morons who ate up the rhetoric.

It's a dead issue anyway. No one wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Especially after multiple court cases and the debacle that was Fast and Furious.
 
2012-02-12 09:32:07 AM
trotsky: It's a dead issue anyway. No one wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Especially after multiple court cases and the debacle that was Fast and Furious.

That's why I still contend that if Obama wanted to throw his opponents into confusion, he needs to make a major give back to gun owners by repealing a ban or two. These restrictions aren't helping or hurting crime rates and Republicans are profiting from Obama's silence. They are just as likely to vote against him in such an effort just to be anti-Obama and "for the children".

Because the president hasn't done anything in regards to gun laws, his opponents can paint a picture of some massive conspiracy that's always waiting to happen right after the next election.
If he pushed in the opposite direction to what they are expecting, their biggest talking point with NRA conservatives will fall flat.
 
2012-02-12 10:54:41 AM
iq_in_binary: Actions speak louder than words. Obama has signed into law restoring gun rights to citizens in National Parks.

Romney, however, signed the only permanent Assault Weapons ban in American history as Governor of Massachusetts.

I'll take Obama, thanks.


That's why if it comes down to Romney vs Obama the NRA will either not endorse a candidate or endorse Libertarian.

Obama has the awful crew but clean personal record when it comes to votes and issuances. Romney has a bad personal record.
 
2012-02-12 01:17:19 PM
Mrbogey: iq_in_binary: Actions speak louder than words. Obama has signed into law restoring gun rights to citizens in National Parks.

Romney, however, signed the only permanent Assault Weapons ban in American history as Governor of Massachusetts.

I'll take Obama, thanks.

That's why if it comes down to Romney vs Obama the NRA will either not endorse a candidate or endorse Libertarian.

Obama has the awful crew but clean personal record when it comes to votes and issuances. Romney has a bad personal record.


You're assuming the NRA has the strength of their convictions, as well as they haven't gotten bugfark crazy with Obama Derangement Syndrome.

If the EVP quoted in the article represents the general feeling of the NRA, or even just the message they want to put out, they'll endorse Romney and flush whatever credibility they have left away.
 
2012-02-12 01:30:20 PM
Alphakronik: Gun lovers are extremely easy to troll apparently.

Gosh, yes. It's soooo much fun, too. And the same people get suckered in every.single.time. :)
 
2012-02-12 01:32:58 PM
Can anybody explain to me:

1. How President Obama can singlehandedly repeal the Second Amendment. . .when the President plays absolutely no part of the amendment process to the U.S. Constitution?

2. How there could be any kind of "gun ban" without a new constitutional amendment in the wake of SCOTUS rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010) which explicitly interpret the Second Amendment protecting the individual right to own firearms for self defense AND incorporate it to the states?

3. Why would President Obama waste time and effort on trying to push for "gun ban" legislation or constitutional amendments when there are actual things that need to be taken care of like the economy?

4. What actual statements has President Obama made to this "crystal clear" agenda the NRA is pointing towards? He appointed two SCOTUS justices, and Sotomayor voted in the minority in McDonald v. Chicago to oppose incorporation? Is that it?

. . .or is this all NRA just scaremongering to rally votes for the GOP since the RNC, FOX News and NRA are all arms of what is essentially the same political machine?
 
2012-02-12 02:20:34 PM
Silverstaff: Can anybody explain to me:

1. How President Obama can singlehandedly repeal the Second Amendment. . .when the President plays absolutely no part of the amendment process to the U.S. Constitution?

2. How there could be any kind of "gun ban" without a new constitutional amendment in the wake of SCOTUS rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010) which explicitly interpret the Second Amendment protecting the individual right to own firearms for self defense AND incorporate it to the states?

3. Why would President Obama waste time and effort on trying to push for "gun ban" legislation or constitutional amendments when there are actual things that need to be taken care of like the economy?

4. What actual statements has President Obama made to this "crystal clear" agenda the NRA is pointing towards? He appointed two SCOTUS justices, and Sotomayor voted in the minority in McDonald v. Chicago to oppose incorporation? Is that it?

. . .or is this all NRA just scaremongering to rally votes for the GOP since the RNC, FOX News and NRA are all arms of what is essentially the same political machine?


1) Executive orders banning the import or manufacture of weapons, ammunition, or certain parts. Requiring certain weapons related things to be registered then making it impossible to register on the list. Various hanky-panky methods with tax stamps or what have you.
Of course the president is not working single handedly. He's the highest ranking man in his party and in a position to set the policy for everyone.

2) Because politicians regularly overreach their powers and courts (who's judges are often politically aligned) will look the other way if its convenient to them.
We shouldn't even have needed precedent to explain one of the most clearly written amendments to the bill of rights... but there we are, picking and choosing which weapons can be owned as well as which citizens can own them. Our amendment rights are already being violated in violation of the constitution, but you don't see anyone in power crying foul.

3) We could ask this about a dozen issues. Why is pot or any other drug still illegal when it costs us more to run the drug war than the drug war has saved in lives or damages? Why did they bother even attempting prohibition when the outcome was obvious? Why do we care what gays or polygamists do in their own homes? Why do we have laws about abortions or family planning when it should be a family decision? Why do we send soldiers to fight in nations that have no apparent value to our foreign agenda? Why does the government have the ability to search without warrants or throw suspects into limbo in a Caribbean jail?

Because, politics.

If a president thinks he can get away with something and it will make him popular with the right campaign funding sources, he has good reason to attempt it. He can make illegal laws legal under the right conditions.

4) He hasn't. Obama has said very little about guns and his position has been somewhat opaque with just the general presumption that he isn't for gun ownership because he's a democrat. Outside of Holders shenanigans with F&F, not much has happened.
Thing is that its a divisive issue and all the same reasons that would make one man want to ban guns make another man want to speak up loudly in support of them.

The problem here is that the Republicans haven't done much themselves in support of the 2nd amendment.
Alot of loud talk and some grass roots efforts to push for concealed carry laws, yes. But no major repeals and even the AWB was simply left to expire, with no real push to do away with it sooner.

The powers that be don't really care about your rights, but they will blow plenty smoke up your posterior about it if they think it will get your money or your vote.
The NRA is simply dancing for its supper and I wish that the Democrats would turn the tables on them just to make this sad show stop.
...But they wont, since the Anti-guns are also dancing a similar lively jig as we speak.

And so, it continues for another election cycle.
Up until the right events happen, and another ban everyone can agree on, comes to pass.
 
2012-02-12 02:30:27 PM
way south: forgotmydamnusername: And we lost Vietnam, because their peasants could hang out forever in little cramped tunnels under the ground, broiling jungles, flooded rice paddies. When the going got tough, "our boys" started shooting smack and fragging their officers.

...And there were traitors and cowards during the revolutionary war, as well as the Civil war. Some men pissed themselves when confronted with cannons and bayonets. Otherwise good Men froze up on D-day in fear of German machine guns.
Sometimes people react poorly when tested or lash out in frustration because of a given situation. Warcrimes didn't start with modern times.
Many US soldiers during Vietnam also fought with great valor in hopeless situations, as they have in wars before and since. They were able to make sound judgements and deliver victory even when the equipment and politics failed them.
What's your point?

My point is that the character of humanity is flexible and no one nation has more potential for making great warriors than another. Everyone assumes that a particular flag imbues someone with power or that a certain lifestyle makes you more capable of violence or heroism.
Its not that simple.
A healthy lifestyle and plenty of exercise will make a person physically strong (a thing that any militia or military can duplicate given a few months) but psychological strength and cunning can be more of a grab bag of characteristics developed in an individuals life.

Just because most Americans are smarter than to take part in a suicidal banzai charge doesn't mean they would be incapable of using their weapons effectively, given the right motivation.

We lack motivation and that is both a good thing and a thing that can (unfortunately) change quickly.


My point is that while we can turn fairly pampered people into decent Marines, for example, it takes 3 or 4 months of what is essentially brainwashing to do it. An insurgency doesn't possess the resources for that. It's also an apples and oranges comparison, because the US forces we're pointing to here were regulars, and positively pampered as compared to say, an Afghanistani Mujaheddin in the field. One other quibble. If discipline hadn't broken down in a fairly widespread way in Vietnam, I rather doubt that it would presently be a unified, nominally Communist country. We lost. Don't tell me about "delivering victory". We kept winning the farking body count, and never really controlling the real estate, which is how you actually win.
 
2012-02-12 03:30:06 PM
intelligent comment below: And then the NICS goes into effect, crime drops 2 years in a row. Another convenient fact that you try and desperately explain away with absolutely no facts or reason just like everything else you said.

I have never claimed that the NICS system did not affect crime. Your claim is a lie. You are a known liar, and your claims are not credible.
 
2012-02-12 03:32:56 PM
intelligent comment below: The AWB was one sentence in the larger bill that I quoted. The argument is not about just the AWB, but it was a good idea that was again, watered down by the NRA. If it would have applied to all guns it would have done a lot more than it did.

My commentary addresses specifically the prohibition upon a subset of semi-automatic rifles, not the entirety of the law in which the prohibition was included. You are a known liar, and your claims are not credible.
 
2012-02-12 08:35:01 PM
I don't think your seeing the problem in your own example.

forgotmydamnusername: we can turn fairly pampered people into decent Marines

forgotmydamnusername: the US forces we're pointing to here were regulars, and positively pampered as compared to say, an Afghanistani Mujaheddin in the field

forgotmydamnusername: We kept winning the farking body count

Winning the bodycount is what matters on the soldiers level, and its something we manage to do even when instances have stripped us of the equipment advantage. Maybe the president and joint Chiefs can't figure out how to secure a victory, but that isn't the soldiers fault when he's been delivering the goods on one mission after another.

You seem to think that the only thing which can prepare a man for war is a life of poverty followed by two weeks of instruction from a Russian adviser with a box full of AK's. In practice this doesn't seem to be a military advantage compared to the proper training and equipment you'd find in a western army.
...And as events in Libya have pointed out, the method for running a military isn't forgotten when the conscripts go home. So the only thing in question is the matter of weaponry.
Equipment the 2nd amendment provides for, or would, if people would stop screwing with its definition just to break it.
 
2012-02-12 10:45:45 PM
St_Francis_P: i18.photobucket.com

/Only when you pry the gun from her cold, dead paws.



Paws have claws. She doesn't need a gun.

If there is one thing the recent troubles in Libya and Syria have proven, it's the importance of the 2nd Amendment.
I still can't believe that guy in Libya killed himself with his own gun.
 
2012-02-13 06:56:42 AM
way south: Up until the right events happen, and another ban everyone can agree on, comes to pass.

I'm pretty there was this little incident where a Congresswoman was shot in the head. If they wanted to make a move to clamp down on guns I'm fairly certain that was their moment. And look, they didn't.
 
2012-02-13 07:49:17 AM
Sid_6.7: way south: Up until the right events happen, and another ban everyone can agree on, comes to pass.

I'm pretty there was this little incident where a Congresswoman was shot in the head. If they wanted to make a move to clamp down on guns I'm fairly certain that was their moment. And look, they didn't.



That isn't proof that they won't.
If I recall it was a school shooting that triggeered the last big gun ban in the UK, and columbine for the AWB in the US.
Using the AWB as an example, many republicans balked at it but didn't work much to repeal it. Without the sunset clause it would probably still be in place.

The Gifford shooting didn't have enough of an emotional wave behind it, but that doesn't mean another incident won't.
This is why you have things like the bill of rights. So day to day incidents won't let the government enact laws we regret later.

/Even then, 9/11 had them trampling all over the first and fifth amendments.
/I'd say it's short sighted to think they won't take another swing at the 2nd, under the right circumstance.
 
Displayed 550 of 550 comments