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.

(New York Daily News)   NY Daily News editorial board outraged, I say OUTRAGED that Obama and Romney did NOT freak out and use the Aurora massacre for panicked petty political stumping   (nydailynews.com) divider line 327
    More: Asinine, NY Daily News, obama, NRA, Wayne LaPierre, morning, accident happened, anxiety disorders, body counts  
•       •       •

2828 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2012 at 12:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-22 09:44:01 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: [i1161.photobucket.com image 300x224]

:-)

But seriously, your ideas will never happen. Better to put your mind to actually solving why these crimes happen, as opposed to restricting the tools.

it's time for people to talk about this. It's time for rational discussion. It's time to ask where the needs actually are and where the "fun to have" accommodated within this reason will happen without it being the guiding factor.

and, yes, I believe our fascination with guns is a primary reason for our high death rate with respect to firearms.


When people are afraid of being terrorized, forcing them to give up the one means they have for self defense probably wont work.
After decades of watching gun control fail to prevent violence, fail to block illegal purchasing, fail to spot the warning signs and fail to deliver on any of the security its proponents promised, some might even think it makes more sense to go in the other direction.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-07-22 09:48:39 PM

keithgabryelski: and, yes, I believe our fascination with guns is a primary reason for our high death rate with respect to firearms.


If everybody had respect for our fellow man would our fascination with guns override that brotherly love and force us to shoot eachother?

Most murders stem from arguments. If you put every farker in one room and gave everyone a gun with one bullet, some people would die. People would die if you gave everyone a gallon of gas and a match instead of a gun. It has nothing to do with weapons. It has to do with our lack of respect for one another.
Look at how many people here can't discuss anything without resorting to insults......are they the ones who would torch someone or are they the ones people wind up torching?
 
2012-07-22 09:49:40 PM

way south: When people are afraid of being terrorized, forcing them to give up the one means they have for self defense probably wont work.
After decades of watching gun control fail to prevent violence, fail to block illegal purchasing, fail to spot the warning signs and fail to deliver on any of the security its proponents promised, some might even think it makes more sense to go in the other direction.


no one reasonable believes everyone should have a firearm.

And i'm talking about a complete ban -- at least in cities. That is a completely different thing than partial ban on certain mostly - unused weapons.
 
2012-07-22 09:50:40 PM

Lost Thought 00: HotWingConspiracy: There is quite literally no way to stop them.

Anyone owning more than X guns or rounds of ammunition must submit to annual mental examinations.


That would require money be put in US mental health facilities. Considering I can't walk down Market St without hearing ten different voices gibbering madly to beings only they can see, I'll let you extrapolate how likely that is.

/if we build one less fighter jet, the terrorists win!
 
2012-07-22 09:55:05 PM

Giltric: keithgabryelski: and, yes, I believe our fascination with guns is a primary reason for our high death rate with respect to firearms.

If everybody had respect for our fellow man would our fascination with guns override that brotherly love and force us to shoot eachother?

Most murders stem from arguments. If you put every farker in one room and gave everyone a gun with one bullet, some people would die. People would die if you gave everyone a gallon of gas and a match instead of a gun. It has nothing to do with weapons. It has to do with our lack of respect for one another.
Look at how many people here can't discuss anything without resorting to insults......are they the ones who would torch someone or are they the ones people wind up torching?


there is quite a difference between shooting a gun and stabbing some one.

btw, i haven't heard of one fight breaking out at a fark party.

face to face it quite different than a forum.
 
2012-07-22 09:57:15 PM

keithgabryelski: way south: When people are afraid of being terrorized, forcing them to give up the one means they have for self defense probably wont work.
After decades of watching gun control fail to prevent violence, fail to block illegal purchasing, fail to spot the warning signs and fail to deliver on any of the security its proponents promised, some might even think it makes more sense to go in the other direction.

no one reasonable believes everyone should have a firearm.

And i'm talking about a complete ban -- at least in cities. That is a completely different thing than partial ban on certain mostly - unused weapons.


How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.


Seriously, do you not see that? Your
 
2012-07-22 10:03:21 PM

Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your


prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?
 
2012-07-22 10:11:00 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your

prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?


Because there's over 200 million guns in this country. And zip guns can be made easily.
Congrats, you just created a black market for something that is saturated everywhere, not to mentioned take unprecedented liberties with the constitution (if your plan is to have any teeth). You also most likely gave rise to armed resistance, causing even more deaths to go along with the black market and perpetuatig even more of a police state. That's what a gun ban will do.

Your flawless logic amazes me.
 
2012-07-22 10:15:40 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your

prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?


Because, as the North Hollywood shootout and other incidents have shown, it didn't work.
Long arms cause the minority of all firearm death and fully automatic weapons were an extreme minority of those. Yet criminals are still getting them.

They applied the ideals of Alcohol prohibition to stopping the flow of drugs, thinking that maybe it would work this time.
Billions of dollars down the tube, hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed, and a stalemated war later, it didn't work.

Find a prohibition that works before you suggest its so simple as "trying harder".
 
2012-07-22 10:17:27 PM

Frank N Stein: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your

prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?

Because there's over 200 million guns in this country. And zip guns can be made easily.
Congrats, you just created a black market for something that is saturated everywhere, not to mentioned take unprecedented liberties with the constitution (if your plan is to have any teeth). You also most likely gave rise to armed resistance, causing even more deaths to go along with the black market and perpetuatig even more of a police state. That's what a gun ban will do.

Your flawless logic amazes me.


you should read my statements.

I think we should have an honest discussion -- start now about the needs and wants for guns.

and we need to change the hearts and minds of the people with regard to this.

and we should move to an amendment of the 2nd.

Armed resistance because of gun restrictions is not a reasonable act -- if you think it is, you are part of the problem.

You have no right of insurrection.

yes, this will take time -- but it is time to talk and move on this subject.
 
2012-07-22 10:19:08 PM

keithgabryelski: there is quite a difference between shooting a gun and stabbing some one.


Especially when alot of statistics include suicide as a death by firearm.

But if you look atthe fbi stats on crime..Link you'll see that people are dicks. They already use other objects more often then firearms. Without firearms people will still be dicks....the numbers for firearms would just be represented by a different inanimate object.
 
2012-07-22 10:19:39 PM

way south: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your

prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?

Because, as the North Hollywood shootout and other incidents have shown, it didn't work.
Long arms cause the minority of all firearm death and fully automatic weapons were an extreme minority of those. Yet criminals are still getting them.

They applied the ideals of Alcohol prohibition to stopping the flow of drugs, thinking that maybe it would work this time.
Billions of dollars down the tube, hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed, and a stalemated war later, it didn't work.

Find a prohibition that works before you suggest its so simple as "trying harder".


Also keep in mind that before the ban, there was a total of 2 deaths from legally owned machine guns. The ban is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
 
2012-07-22 10:23:23 PM

keithgabryelski: no one reasonable believes everyone should have a firearm.

And i'm talking about a complete ban -- at least in cities. That is a completely different thing than partial ban on certain mostly - unused weapons.


Some very reasonable nations do believe this because they have to deal with threats of terrorism and invasion.
The reason is that if you are suffering from random acts of internal chaos, you have to be prepared to respond.

Putting the guns away, so that only the minority of terrorists and criminals can continue to use them unopposed, wont bring the peace you are looking for.
 
2012-07-22 10:26:54 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your

prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?

Because there's over 200 million guns in this country. And zip guns can be made easily.
Congrats, you just created a black market for something that is saturated everywhere, not to mentioned take unprecedented liberties with the constitution (if your plan is to have any teeth). You also most likely gave rise to armed resistance, causing even more deaths to go along with the black market and perpetuatig even more of a police state. That's what a gun ban will do.

Your flawless logic amazes me.

you should read my statements.

I think we should have an honest discussion -- start now about the needs and wants for guns.

and we need to change the hearts and minds of the people with regard to this.

and we should move to an amendment of the 2nd.

Armed resistance because of gun restrictions is not a reasonable act -- if you think it is, you are part of the problem.

You have no right of insurrection.

yes, this will take time -- but it is time to talk and move on this subject.


You are an enemy of freedom. I'll sleep well knowing that your kind is in the fringe minority and your dangerous anti-freedom ideas will never gain traction.

That may seem like hyperbole, but I mean it. You want to create a police state because less than 1%. Your talk of "changing hearts and minds" would be nothing but a propaganda campaign to support the police state.

Move to North Korea or something. They have strict gun control and an all powerful government. You'd like it there.
 
2012-07-22 10:30:01 PM

keithgabryelski: You have no right of insurrection.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sure we do. We were born from an insurrection.
 
2012-07-22 10:36:16 PM

way south: keithgabryelski: no one reasonable believes everyone should have a firearm.

And i'm talking about a complete ban -- at least in cities. That is a completely different thing than partial ban on certain mostly - unused weapons.

Some very reasonable nations do believe this because they have to deal with threats of terrorism and invasion.
The reason is that if you are suffering from random acts of internal chaos, you have to be prepared to respond.

Putting the guns away, so that only the minority of terrorists and criminals can continue to use them unopposed, wont bring the peace you are looking for.


a fallacy that has plagued us: if you don't have a bigger weapon than criminals will rule the state.

that doesn't seem to exist in reality.

in any case, reality must set it in someday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

let's talk. talk about guns. talk about needs.
 
2012-07-22 10:41:08 PM

keithgabryelski: way south: keithgabryelski: no one reasonable believes everyone should have a firearm.

And i'm talking about a complete ban -- at least in cities. That is a completely different thing than partial ban on certain mostly - unused weapons.

Some very reasonable nations do believe this because they have to deal with threats of terrorism and invasion.
The reason is that if you are suffering from random acts of internal chaos, you have to be prepared to respond.

Putting the guns away, so that only the minority of terrorists and criminals can continue to use them unopposed, wont bring the peace you are looking for.

a fallacy that has plagued us: if you don't have a bigger weapon than criminals will rule the state.

that doesn't seem to exist in reality.

in any case, reality must set it in someday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

let's talk. talk about guns. talk about needs.


Canada has almost as many guns as the US (with increasingly loosening regulations) yet much less gun deaths.

This destroys your "less guns less crime" theory.

/did your keyboard cause you to post such rediculous ideas?
//do guns cause crime?
 
2012-07-22 10:45:29 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: How would your ban even be remotely effective without essentially creating police state? Your solution is to create another prohibition which will, if any other prohibition is any indication, create even MORE crime and murder. Your cure is worse than the symptom.

Seriously, do you not see that? Your

prohibition of alcohol is completely different than guns.

if automatic weapons ban works reasonably, why not apply it to handguns? all guns?

Because there's over 200 million guns in this country. And zip guns can be made easily.
Congrats, you just created a black market for something that is saturated everywhere, not to mentioned take unprecedented liberties with the constitution (if your plan is to have any teeth). You also most likely gave rise to armed resistance, causing even more deaths to go along with the black market and perpetuatig even more of a police state. That's what a gun ban will do.

Your flawless logic amazes me.

you should read my statements.

I think we should have an honest discussion -- start now about the needs and wants for guns.

and we need to change the hearts and minds of the people with regard to this.

and we should move to an amendment of the 2nd.

Armed resistance because of gun restrictions is not a reasonable act -- if you think it is, you are part of the problem.

You have no right of insurrection.

yes, this will take time -- but it is time to talk and move on this subject.


Please explain, specifically, how you will attain sufficient support for a repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Please explain, specifically, how all currently lawfully possessed firearms will be confiscated from their civilian owners. Explain how this confiscation will be enforced and explain how owners will be compensated for the loss of their property and for reimbursement of any fees paid for permits relating to that confiscated property, including concealed weapons permits.

Please explain, specifically, how you will guarantee the security and the safety of all newly disarmed civilians, having removed a viable means of defense from them.
 
2012-07-22 10:47:14 PM

Frank N Stein: You are an enemy of freedom. I'll sleep well knowing that your kind is in the fringe minority and your dangerous anti-freedom ideas will never gain traction.

That may seem like hyperbole, but I mean it. You want to create a police state because less than 1%. Your talk of "changing hearts and minds" would be nothing but a propaganda campaign to support the police state.

Move to North Korea or something. They have strict gun control and an all powerful government. You'd like it there.


that's a little harsh -- I love this country and am not moving. I do however vote -- and I will use my verbal skills to convince others.

You will post pictures of bullets and a gun shaped in a moderately threatening message.

Who here is the enemy of freedom? (see how that works when you take an extreme view?)

Changing hearts and minds might be just educating people as to what they need and don't need.

helmut use for children on bicycles, skate boards, and roller blades is up -- the idea of "freedom" is outweighed by the insanity of head injuries on 10 year olds.

seat belt use -- up.

smoking in public places? it's not a police state when most people agree with the law.
 
2012-07-22 10:48:46 PM

Dimensio: Please explain, specifically, how you will attain sufficient support for a repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Please explain, specifically, how all currently lawfully possessed firearms will be confiscated from their civilian owners. Explain how this confiscation will be enforced and explain how owners will be compensated for the loss of their property and for reimbursement of any fees paid for permits relating to that confiscated property, including concealed weapons permits.

Please explain, specifically, how you will guarantee the security and the safety of all newly disarmed civilians, having removed a viable means of defense from them.


has this not been done in a modern society many times?
 
2012-07-22 10:50:58 PM

keithgabryelski: Dimensio: Please explain, specifically, how you will attain sufficient support for a repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Please explain, specifically, how all currently lawfully possessed firearms will be confiscated from their civilian owners. Explain how this confiscation will be enforced and explain how owners will be compensated for the loss of their property and for reimbursement of any fees paid for permits relating to that confiscated property, including concealed weapons permits.

Please explain, specifically, how you will guarantee the security and the safety of all newly disarmed civilians, having removed a viable means of defense from them.

has this not been done in a modern society many times?


I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.
 
2012-07-22 10:51:53 PM

Giltric: keithgabryelski: You have no right of insurrection.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sure we do. We were born from an insurrection.


we have lawful remedies to alter our governments course.

We gave up our right of insurrection when our founding fathers signed the constitution.
 
2012-07-22 10:52:30 PM

Dimensio: I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.


in other countries.
 
2012-07-22 10:53:18 PM

keithgabryelski: Dimensio: I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.

in other countries.


How could any other country repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

You have still addressed none of my questions.
 
2012-07-22 10:59:05 PM

Dimensio: keithgabryelski: Dimensio: I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.

in other countries.

How could any other country repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

You have still addressed none of my questions.


has any modern nation ... oh geezus where the hell is my beer
 
2012-07-22 11:01:17 PM

keithgabryelski: Frank N Stein: You are an enemy of freedom. I'll sleep well knowing that your kind is in the fringe minority and your dangerous anti-freedom ideas will never gain traction.

That may seem like hyperbole, but I mean it. You want to create a police state because less than 1%. Your talk of "changing hearts and minds" would be nothing but a propaganda campaign to support the police state.

Move to North Korea or something. They have strict gun control and an all powerful government. You'd like it there.

that's a little harsh -- I love this country and am not moving. I do however vote -- and I will use my verbal skills to convince others.

You will post pictures of bullets and a gun shaped in a moderately threatening message.

Who here is the enemy of freedom? (see how that works when you take an extreme view?)

Changing hearts and minds might be just educating people as to what they need and don't need.

helmut use for children on bicycles, skate boards, and roller blades is up -- the idea of "freedom" is outweighed by the insanity of head injuries on 10 year olds.

seat belt use -- up.

smoking in public places? it's not a police state when most people agree with the law.


That is possibly the stupidest thing I've heard on Fark. Even dumber than most Teabagger derp. In fact, you match the Teabaggers' stereotype of "liberals" so well, I'm half convinced you're a false flag troll. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and just assume that you are a complete, utter moron who just happens to be on the extreme left fringe rather than the extreme right.
 
2012-07-22 11:02:13 PM

keithgabryelski: Dimensio: keithgabryelski: Dimensio: I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.

in other countries.

How could any other country repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

You have still addressed none of my questions.

has any modern nation ... oh geezus where the hell is my beer


You continue to respond, yet you have failed to actually address my questions.

If you are unable to explain the logistics of implementation of your proposal, then no reason exists to consider your proposal to be of any merit.
 
2012-07-22 11:07:25 PM

keithgabryelski: Giltric: keithgabryelski: You have no right of insurrection.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sure we do. We were born from an insurrection.

we have lawful remedies to alter our governments course.

We gave up our right of insurrection when our founding fathers signed the constitution.


Well the constitution is outdated right? Why hide behind it now, oh fair weather friend of freedom......
 
2012-07-22 11:07:59 PM

keithgabryelski: that doesn't seem to exist in reality.


Actually it has existed in many states in the past.
Which is where the second amendment and things like mandatory conscription came from. The constant need to be prepared, inside and out, because a nations enemies can be as insidious as they are plentiful.

The US isn't dealing with anything new, we just give it more technical descriptions.

/There is one noteworthy European superpower that repealed its citizens rights to self defense in the 1930's.
/Very popular government. The people agreed with everything its leadership suggested.
/...Didn't end well.
 
2012-07-22 11:08:50 PM

LordJiro: smoking in public places? it's not a police state when most people agree with the law.

That is possibly the stupidest thing I've heard on Fark. Even dumber than most Teabagger derp. In fact, you match the Teabaggers' stereotype of "liberals" so well, I'm half convinced you're a false flag troll. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and just assume that you are a complete, utter moron who just happens to be on the extreme left fringe rather than the extreme right.


What I like the most is you don't actually describe what your reasoning is.

My point: a police state (as generally defined) is the antithesis of a democratic state where people chose to restrict their rights and have remedies of repeal.

You just want to spit bile -- go right on.
 
2012-07-22 11:09:51 PM

Dimensio: keithgabryelski: Dimensio: keithgabryelski: Dimensio: I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.

in other countries.

How could any other country repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

You have still addressed none of my questions.

has any modern nation ... oh geezus where the hell is my beer

You continue to respond, yet you have failed to actually address my questions.

If you are unable to explain the logistics of implementation of your proposal, then no reason exists to consider your proposal to be of any merit.


you and I are done. I've answered your questions in previous messages and directly, twice -- you refuse to take context into account with my response, I don't believe you actually wish to discuss these points.

good day.
 
2012-07-22 11:11:42 PM

keithgabryelski: Dimensio: keithgabryelski: Dimensio: keithgabryelski: Dimensio: I am unaware of any previous occurrence of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution being repealed in "modern society". You have addressed none of my questions.

in other countries.

How could any other country repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

You have still addressed none of my questions.

has any modern nation ... oh geezus where the hell is my beer

You continue to respond, yet you have failed to actually address my questions.

If you are unable to explain the logistics of implementation of your proposal, then no reason exists to consider your proposal to be of any merit.

you and I are done. I've answered your questions in previous messages and directly, twice -- you refuse to take context into account with my response, I don't believe you actually wish to discuss these points.

good day.


You have, in fact, failed to provide any explanation of the means by which all firearms would be effectively confiscated and their owners compensated in full. Your claim that you have addressed my questions is, therefore, a lie. Consequently, you are a liar and your claims are not credible. Your dishonesty is consistent with my observation that advocates of civilian disarmament, which you have acknowledged yourself to be, are frequently ill-informed, dishonest or irrational.
 
2012-07-22 11:12:01 PM

Giltric:

Well the constitution is outdated right? Why hide behind it now, oh fair weather friend of freedom......


i know you're just poking .. but let me say:

just like states can not opt-out of the union -- you are not permitted to overthrow this government by force.

there are remedies to disagreement, you must use them.
 
2012-07-22 11:13:18 PM

hubiestubert: Criminals will kill people if they want. The UK and Japan have stringent restrictions, and yet, they still have murders. Well, Japan has a lot of "missing persons" reports that aren't solved, and the Yakuza invest heavily in building contacts, so infer what you will there. Stringent restrictions on arms didn't really stop a lot of violence in the UK, but it did force folks into peculiar rackets to get them. It put the IRA into the terrorist training business. It got them to make a LOT of bombs. It got them to go overseas to make contacts to smuggle weapons in.


This is just another application of the 80/20 rule. 20% of the people cause 80% of the problems. Career criminals are not the majority of people in America; and they will find a way to kill people if their job is killing. If they cannot get guns, then they'll use knives; take away the knives and they'll use clubs. The majority of people who use guns to kill other people--the 80% of killers--don't kill more than that one person. If they don't get caught, odds are they'll never kill again. (Example: John List murdered his entire family, and was caught 18 years later, having never had an encounter with the police since the murders)

So just "banning guns" is never going to stop either the career criminals--who kill for a living--or the majority of people who kill one person and never again in their lives. Only addressing the real issues will stop the problem.
 
2012-07-22 11:13:31 PM

way south: keithgabryelski: that doesn't seem to exist in reality.

Actually it has existed in many states in the past.
Which is where the second amendment and things like mandatory conscription came from. The constant need to be prepared, inside and out, because a nations enemies can be as insidious as they are plentiful.

The US isn't dealing with anything new, we just give it more technical descriptions.

/There is one noteworthy European superpower that repealed its citizens rights to self defense in the 1930's.
/Very popular government. The people agreed with everything its leadership suggested.
/...Didn't end well.


start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Pisto l s_Act_1903
 
2012-07-22 11:25:06 PM

keithgabryelski: start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Pisto l s_Act_1903


Ooh, an attempted info-spam of things I've already read... Which should have lead you to the 1938 German weapons act that banned Jews from gun ownership. Nice laws they got.
Well the important thing is that banning weapons from places like the British isles would lead to stopping terrorists and criminals from causing incidents.

/Except for all the parts where it didn't.
/Meanwhile, in Switzerland...
 
2012-07-22 11:32:11 PM

way south: keithgabryelski: start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Pisto l s_Act_1903

Ooh, an attempted info-spam of things I've already read... Which should have lead you to the 1938 German weapons act that banned Jews from gun ownership. Nice laws they got.
Well the important thing is that banning weapons from places like the British isles would lead to stopping terrorists and criminals from causing incidents.

/Except for all the parts where it didn't.
/Meanwhile, in Switzerland...


keithgabryelski has already established himself to be dishonest. His initial claim of an annual firearm-related homicide rate of 90,000 incidents per year in the United States of America demonstrates an unwillingness to conduct basic research regarding the subject that he is attempting to address. His failure to reassess his position following being informed of his substantial error is evidence that reality is not a basis for his advocacy of civilian disarmament.
 
2012-07-22 11:42:11 PM

Gyrfalcon: hubiestubert: Criminals will kill people if they want. The UK and Japan have stringent restrictions, and yet, they still have murders. Well, Japan has a lot of "missing persons" reports that aren't solved, and the Yakuza invest heavily in building contacts, so infer what you will there. Stringent restrictions on arms didn't really stop a lot of violence in the UK, but it did force folks into peculiar rackets to get them. It put the IRA into the terrorist training business. It got them to make a LOT of bombs. It got them to go overseas to make contacts to smuggle weapons in.

This is just another application of the 80/20 rule. 20% of the people cause 80% of the problems. Career criminals are not the majority of people in America; and they will find a way to kill people if their job is killing. If they cannot get guns, then they'll use knives; take away the knives and they'll use clubs. The majority of people who use guns to kill other people--the 80% of killers--don't kill more than that one person. If they don't get caught, odds are they'll never kill again. (Example: John List murdered his entire family, and was caught 18 years later, having never had an encounter with the police since the murders)

So just "banning guns" is never going to stop either the career criminals--who kill for a living--or the majority of people who kill one person and never again in their lives. Only addressing the real issues will stop the problem.


Very much so. Until America comes to grip with what is causing folks to turn to crime, and violent crime, we are going to have problems. It is in part cultural, it is in part alienation from our fellow citizens, but it has a LOT to do with economic conditions.

The military spends a lot of time and effort in training young men, and now young women, to kill. Social apes that we are, it takes a bit to get us to really hurt one another. There is scuffling, there is adrenaline, there are accidents, but people have to really be motivated to really hurt one another under normal conditions. You can train that away, and oddly enough, we often accidentally train folks, or give them strong enough motivation to overcome that inhibition. You can train kids from an early age away from those inhibitions. You can train young men and women as well, but societal conditions often arise that wear those away as well, and that is more the issue, that we are wearing down those inhibitions early and often with societal conditions that make violence a survival trait, and thus makes good sense to inculcate.

One of my crew was fairly well trained. He was a brawler, he was a big guy. He mixed it up fairly often, but because he was a big guy, he held back often. He broke a guy's arm in dust up at the bar. He had a guy in a lock, and the guy tried to wrench free, and wound up breaking his own arm. To his credit, my boy held it together to get the guy to the EMTs and then promptly went out back, threw up, and quit that night. There was a line that he was just not prepared to go to. Most folks have one. You have to train that away in most folks, and if you don't, there is something really wrong with that person. We have those inhibitions for a reason. As a society, we keep training young men and women away from those inhibitions, and then are surprised when they act.

We need to stop training them inadvertently. We need to address the underlying issues that cause our monkey brains to kick in and start shoving back against rival troops, or preying on our own for goodies.
 
2012-07-22 11:43:36 PM

way south: keithgabryelski: start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Pisto l s_Act_1903

Ooh, an attempted info-spam of things I've already read... Which should have lead you to the 1938 German weapons act that banned Jews from gun ownership. Nice laws they got.
Well the important thing is that banning weapons from places like the British isles would lead to stopping terrorists and criminals from causing incidents.

/Except for all the parts where it didn't.
/Meanwhile, in Switzerland...


i wasn't attempting to be snide. maybe the "start here" wasn't the right thing to say.

my point:
Britain did this without armed insurrection. Ireland was an occupied zone, in essence -- i don't count it.
 
2012-07-22 11:58:32 PM
To all the people (well I lost track if it was one or several) arguing for more gun control

Have you ever been target shooting at a range? Or trap shooting? Have you ever fired a gun at all? Don't you think you should try it before you decide unanimously to take away everyone's rights? Heck if anyone who is against guns lives near the Bay Area, CA, I would invite you to come shooting my "EVIL" AR-15 and handguns if you want.
 
2012-07-22 11:59:39 PM

StoneColdAtheist: Familiar enough to know that the United States does not operate under European law (ignoring the fact that I've been practically everywhere in western Europe and literally spent years of my life there).

But speaking of "never heard of" something, you seem to have never heard that a private right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution. Or is the document "just a piece of paper" to you?


Oh, keep in mind that all I said was that I would be in favor of a nationwide gun ban --I said nothing about how it would be enacted. If the proper legal channels were to deem that an amendment to the Constitution is necessary for such a ban to take place, then I would advocate making such an amendment before enacting the ban.
 
2012-07-23 12:12:45 AM

SCUBA_Archer: To all the people (well I lost track if it was one or several) arguing for more gun control

Have you ever been target shooting at a range? Or trap shooting? Have you ever fired a gun at all? Don't you think you should try it before you decide unanimously to take away everyone's rights? Heck if anyone who is against guns lives near the Bay Area, CA, I would invite you to come shooting my "EVIL" AR-15 and handguns if you want.


yes.

and when I next go to SF -- i'll ring you up.

My position doesn't mean I don't find guns beautiful mechanical devices and just darn fun.
 
2012-07-23 12:47:00 AM

SCUBA_Archer: To all the people (well I lost track if it was one or several) arguing for more gun control

Have you ever been target shooting at a range? Or trap shooting? Have you ever fired a gun at all? Don't you think you should try it before you decide unanimously to take away everyone's rights? Heck if anyone who is against guns lives near the Bay Area, CA, I would invite you to come shooting my "EVIL" AR-15 and handguns if you want.


I'm FOR gun ownership, but I never got to try an AR. OK if I come by?
 
2012-07-23 01:11:42 AM

SCUBA_Archer: To all the people (well I lost track if it was one or several) arguing for more gun control

Have you ever been target shooting at a range? Or trap shooting? Have you ever fired a gun at all? Don't you think you should try it before you decide unanimously to take away everyone's rights? Heck if anyone who is against guns lives near the Bay Area, CA, I would invite you to come shooting my "EVIL" AR-15 and handguns if you want.



To all the people arguing for a repeal of current gun regulations (more specifically the ones on my facebook page posting unprovoked statuses--independent of a discussion-- defending their 2nd amendment rights):

Have you ever lost a friend or loved one to a deranged idiot wielding a firearm? Don't you think you should show a little empathy towards those that have (and JUST DID), and STFU? If there are any of you out there in the Aurora, CO area, I'm sure the parents of the dead 6-year-old will invite you to the funeral.
 
2012-07-23 01:24:37 AM

keithgabryelski: Britain did this without armed insurrection. Ireland was an occupied zone, in essence -- i don't count it.


"This plan works if you don't count the fact that it spread terrorism and set the city ablaze several times"
...Not Disingenuous at all.

The British gun ownership rates were always low and it never prevented a tragedy.
Their mistreatment of subjects was also a bone of contention with the Americans, if you recall. Its not a model we want to follow.

/Meanwhile Israel, with its armed conscripts roaming the streets, can hold its own in a far worst neighborhood.
/Put a few Muslims in London and they start torching the place.
 
2012-07-23 01:32:09 AM

teeny: Have you ever lost a friend or loved one to a deranged idiot wielding a firearm? Don't you think you should show a little empathy towards those that have (and JUST DID), and STFU? If there are any of you out there in the Aurora, CO area, I'm sure the parents of the dead 6-year-old will invite you to the funeral.


Actually I have lost a friend to gun violence. It sucks, but it didn't change my mind about respecting constitutional rights.
...But don't let that stop you from making a one sided emotional argument to capitalize on someone elses pain for your personal political gain.

/Remember after 9/11 when people did that to push through the patriot act?
/Remember what a bad idea that turned out to be?
/When did it become a good idea?
 
2012-07-23 01:38:56 AM

teeny: SCUBA_Archer: To all the people (well I lost track if it was one or several) arguing for more gun control

Have you ever been target shooting at a range? Or trap shooting? Have you ever fired a gun at all? Don't you think you should try it before you decide unanimously to take away everyone's rights? Heck if anyone who is against guns lives near the Bay Area, CA, I would invite you to come shooting my "EVIL" AR-15 and handguns if you want.


To all the people arguing for a repeal of current gun regulations (more specifically the ones on my facebook page posting unprovoked statuses--independent of a discussion-- defending their 2nd amendment rights):

Have you ever lost a friend or loved one to a deranged idiot wielding a firearm? Don't you think you should show a little empathy towards those that have (and JUST DID), and STFU? If there are any of you out there in the Aurora, CO area, I'm sure the parents of the dead 6-year-old will invite you to the funeral.


Ah, the Think of the CHILDREN! argument that gets all manners of censorship and draconian measures passed.
 
2012-07-23 01:57:14 AM
This just in. Criminals do not follow the law, whether they be gun laws or laws on murder. Any idiot who makes that claim is just a goddam fool...and I include the author of this article.
 
2012-07-23 03:11:52 AM

CheapEngineer: That's all wonderful - I just have one question.

Why?


Why not? I find shooting to be a fun hobby. Competitions are also enjoyable, even though I routinely do relatively poorly -- I can't train as often as I'd like and many of the other shooters are considerably more skilled than I.

I mean, besides "cause it's cool", because frankly Stinger missiles are cool as well, but for some reason the govt won't let me have those either.

That's not really a fair comparison. The difference between a rifle and an anti-aircraft missile is enormous. The difference between an AR-15 and other common semi-auto rifles is essentially nil.

Seriously. I have a couple of guns, left by my father. They're neat gadgets, and I can see the interest in collecting and firing them at targets. I can even see the interest in having one around the house for security purposes, even though I 1) doubt I'll be near the gun when the shyt hits the fan and 2) would probably do more harm than good if I had it.

Ok, so we're essentially in agreement: collecting can be interesting and firing at targets are fun.

Much like people with Big-Ass dogs, *their* dog is a harmless little mushball but *everyone elses* dog had been abused to the point they kill anything that moves.

Dogs have a will of their own and can act on their own accord. They can be trained (or abused) to behave independently in certain ways. Even mild-mannered dogs can have a bad day, get overwhelmed, and bite.

Guns are inanimate pieces of metal, wood, and/or plastic with no will of their own. The responsibility for their use lies entirely with the user.

Does your need for unfettered access to guns and ammo overshadow any responsibility that having that kind of access enables the nutbags of the world to do?

I also have essentially unlimited access (within the bounds of my personal finances, of course) to fast vehicles and alcoholic beverages. I enjoy driving (while sober, of course) and drinking responsibly. My desire for cars and alcohol to be available to the public doesn't mean that I'm "enabling" drunk drivers or am responsible in any way for their totally independent actions.

Other countries have high levels of gun ownership -- I've cited Switzerland and their government issuing full-auto assault rifles to essentially every adult male as an example -- and much lower rates of violent crime, including mass shootings.

There have been various restrictions on firearms in the US in the past, such as the 1994-2004 AWB and various state-level laws, but those laws have had essentially no effect on violent crime. Lawful ownership of firearms in Chicago and Washington DC is very tightly controlled (so much so that people sued DC over the restrictions, took the case to the Supreme Court, and won.) and yet violent crime there is extraordinarily high.

This implies that violent crime is dependent on some factor other than mere access to violent crime. I think we, as a society, would be better of trying to fix that factor rather than trying to treat a symptom.

Because I am willing to stipulate gun training requirements, and special permits/interviews for unusual weapons *because* I don't believe being *careful* with dangerous toys is "stepping on my Gog given Rights".

Well, "unusual weapons" like machine guns, private artillery, explosives, etc. are already tightly regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. There's nothing really unusual, uncommon, or particularly dangerous about AR-15s and other semi-auto rifles.

I'm a big fan of training. I spent a few years in the army (though that had surprisingly little small arms training; I was a 19K tank crewman, so the emphasis in training was on the tank's weapons systems). I've also sought out private instruction, though I really should go back for more once I return to the US. I'm not really sure how I feel about mandatory training for common off-the-shelf guns, though: firearms-related accidental injuries and deaths are already at a historically low value and continue to decrease, suggesting that basic familiarity with guns isn't really an issue.

Still, it's a reasonable suggestion that is plausible, particularly compared to the "OMG BAN ALL GUNS" calls.

YMMV

Indeed.
 
2012-07-23 03:17:15 AM

way south:
/Put a few Muslims in London and they start torching the place.


not for nuthin': that's a disgusting thing to say.
 
Displayed 50 of 327 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report