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

(CNN)   CNN Editorial: Average Americans don't need an AK-47. James Homes Editorial: I did ok without one. Fark Comments Editorial: You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation   (cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, Un-American, assault weapons, gun culture, Urban League, ordinary Americans, syndicated columnist  
•       •       •

1551 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 12:03 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-01 01:23:39 PM  

friday13: dittybopper: in case you aren't smart enough to get it, I can completely nullify that by surrounding the GPS antenna with foil, preventing it from receiving a signal or from transmitting it's location.

But if you wrap the safety in foil, how will you change it?


That's a pretty ignorant statement.

By that, I mean that you have no idea how a mechanical safety/selector switch* that is integrated with an electronic radio transceiver would possibly work, nor do you understand how a GPS unit determines its location, nor do you understand how it would report that location to the police.

*Not every full-auto gun has the safety and selector switch integrated: Some have separate controls, though the modern trend has been to integrate them.
 
2012-08-01 01:23:58 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Again, gun owners are fine with massacres carried out by their brethren. This isn't an issue for them.


Again, Muslims are fine with massacres carried out by their brethren. This isn't an issue for them.

//your 'logic' at work.
 
2012-08-01 01:24:06 PM  
I'm just gonna leave this here:
Link - Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
 
2012-08-01 01:24:40 PM  

Magnanimous_J: hillbillypharmacist: I'm doing my part!

Do you eat them? I've heard from some that they are full of germs.


All meat is full of germs. That's what fire is for.
 
2012-08-01 01:24:44 PM  

friday13: You see this image?

[www.airsoftretreat.com image 640x480]

That is a safety. It has three settings: No firing (top), semi-auto (middle), and full auto (bottom).

There is NO legitimate reason that ANY NON-MILITARY PERSON should have that set on full auto, nor is there one for 50-round mags, unless fighting a tyrranical government, and even then, you really should be focusing more on aiming then spraying (aim for the face, you noobs). So here's my solution:

Guns should have GPS built in that triggers any time the safety is set to full auto. That way the cops can find your ass before you reload after shooting up the park/theater/wherever.


You do know that since 1936, you can't just walk in to a gun store and buy one of those, right? You do know that since 1936 only TWO legally-owned fully automatic weapons have been used in crimes, right? And that one of those was owned by a police officer who blasted an informant with it? And that it happened in 1988, and that was the last time? Right? You do know that in order for a civilian to own a full-auto anything that they undergo a rigorous background check and that those firearms are registered, right? No, of course you don't know any of that because you're a farking idiot just like everyone else calling for a ban on "assault weapons" without actually knowing a damn thing about guns of any kind.
 
2012-08-01 01:25:42 PM  

Magnanimous_J: Do you eat them? I've heard from some that they are full of germs.


I wouldn't kill them if I couldn't eat them. But I won't be making any pork tartare out of them, no.

These guys became twenty pounds of bratwurst.
 
2012-08-01 01:26:08 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: devildog123: I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States".

I think you skipped the 'National Guard' part.


No, he didn't.
 
2012-08-01 01:26:39 PM  

Magnanimous_J: hillbillypharmacist: I'm doing my part!

Do you eat them? I've heard from some that they are full of germs.


My friends in Arizona tell me the meat is fine.
 
2012-08-01 01:26:47 PM  

dittybopper: Magnanimous_J: hillbillypharmacist: I'm doing my part!

Do you eat them? I've heard from some that they are full of germs.

All meat is full of germs. That's what fire is for.


Yeah, but there is a difference between a majestic mountain elk and a Baltimore sewer rat.
 
2012-08-01 01:30:07 PM  

DORMAMU: CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker: Slaves2Darkness: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?

Because swimming pools and cars have primary functions that aren't killing people/causing physical damage. This argument was just as stupid when people started bringing it up two weeks ago.

Yet they are every bit as lethal when improperly used...

Are their more guns in the u s of a or swimming pools? Which has got a higher fatality rate?

While unorthodox, his comparison is valid.

Or if you prefer, the internet was designed to make sure the military could nuke the world into a burnt cinder. The internet has a lethal purpose. Ban it.

No, he doesn't have a valid point, but its cute that you are able to twist logic until it supports your worldview.

And it is nice you can dismiss anything that threatens yours.

the results are what matters. Firearms have legitimate intended and designed uses other than homicide. This is fact. Target shooting is an olympic sport is you need proof.

I even provided an example of something that was designed to be integral in the most lethal (potentially) weapon system of all time, the nuclear strike to satisfy your original intent facet of your argument. T ...


Its not about intent. Its about function. Its clear you don't understand that, and I'm sorry for you.

And they can have Olympic shooting events without everyone being able to buy semi-automatic rifles with 100 round magazines. "Massacre" is not an olympic shooting event.
 
2012-08-01 01:32:00 PM  

friday13: dittybopper: in case you aren't smart enough to get it, I can completely nullify that by surrounding the GPS antenna with foil, preventing it from receiving a signal or from transmitting it's location.

But if you wrap the safety in foil, how will you change it?


Foil is flexible....
 
2012-08-01 01:36:49 PM  

Magnanimous_J: dittybopper: Magnanimous_J: hillbillypharmacist: I'm doing my part!

Do you eat them? I've heard from some that they are full of germs.

All meat is full of germs. That's what fire is for.

Yeah, but there is a difference between a majestic mountain elk and a Baltimore sewer rat.


The rat is probably cleaner and has fewer parasites. Fastidious creature, the rat.
I'm still not gonna eat the filthy thing, though.

Broil me up some of that jumbo Bambi.
 
2012-08-01 01:38:08 PM  

devildog123: OK, fine, we'll go with the government's definition of the militia then. I pull this out every damn time someone makes the argument.

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States". Does this mean I can own whatever the fark I want?


As long as I've been in the military, I'm still waiting for all these 17-45 years olds to show up and take part in excercises. I've worked with a plenty of members of the National Guard, but have never met a single person from unorganized militia laid out in part (b)(2). Most curiously, none of the National Guard have managed to bring their arms from home as specified in the ammendment.
 
2012-08-01 01:38:38 PM  

BongSire TurgidGoebbels: evoke: Need? There are loads of things I don't really "need". My AR-15 makes my life more enjoyable. And I have a right to own it according to the constitution. I never shot anyone. Fark off libs.

Hey, not all libs are gun-grabbing loonies. I am an atheist libby lib libtard, and I pack heat. I love guns, love taking them to the range to poke holes in targets, and I keep one loaded and locked just in case.

/Glock 20, 10mm
//Ruger LCP, .380
///Ruger .22 revolver


The problem arises when you vote for uncle sunshine and unicorns based on his social views and then he goes all gun grabby because thats also one of his stances. (using you as in libby lib libtard not you as an individual) My problem with seeing eye to eye with uncle sunshine on most of the other stuff is that he is trying to constantly make ALL my competition guns illegal with some back door amendment to a cybersecurity bill. Let me enjoy my STI, M&P15 (well M&P recievers), and my Siaga 12 in peace FFS.
 
2012-08-01 01:38:38 PM  

give me doughnuts: DeArmondVI: In the wake of Aurora it is clear that the best thing we can do as a society is nothing.

Laws aren't meant to protect us directly. Rather, they're meant to protect our guns, which in turn will do the actual protecting. And, as of now, the laws protect our guns just fine.

If we need to find someone at fault here, it would be those that went to see the movie. They knew that they were going out in public, and they also knew that sometimes out in public there are bad guys. They should have been prepared for the OK Corrall, but instead they acted as though they were going out for a stroll on Sesame Street. That's what happens when you don't excercise your Second Amendment rights.

/needs another shower now

That's because like so many people, you are focusing on the tools, and not the twisted mind that wielded them. Better psychological/psychiatric diagnosis and treatment and social support systems will prevent rampages like Aurora and Virginia Tech far better than trying to ban or eliminate the weapons they happened to use.


I'll meet with you halfway. I do think that the government does need to spend more time and money in addressing mental illness in the country. It's just a shame that most gun advocates that I know are also conservatives that don't believe the government has any business in creating programs for social betterment. Out of curiosity, has the NRA come out in support of new taxes to help create a better mental health infrastructure? Or is LaPierre still spending his time claiming that Obama not taking guns away in his first term is proof that he plans to do so during his second?
 
2012-08-01 01:39:21 PM  

Frank N Stein: You see, CNN, in a free society things are not banned based on the perceived "need" of the item/material in question. If you want it banned, it's your job to come up with a compelling farking reason for that thing to be banned. The fact that so-called "assault weapons" are used in about 2% of violent gun crimes isn't compelling enough.

/I'll kill time before work monitoring this thread
//Watching the anti-gun nuts get schooled as usual


I'm gun owner pointing out every technical mistake that non gun owners make is small minded, especially since the normenclature can be varied and still be correct. When they say ak 47 they almost always mean a semiauto short barreled rifle with the ability to take a high capacity magazine. Picking everyone apart when you understand the meaning is pointless unless you just need to feel smart, a trait not usually found in people who actually are.
 
2012-08-01 01:39:54 PM  

CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker: Slaves2Darkness: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?

Because swimming pools and cars have primary functions that aren't killing people/causing physical damage. This argument was just as stupid when people started bringing it up two weeks ago.

Yet they are every bit as lethal when improperly used...

Are their more guns in the u s of a or swimming pools? Which has got a higher fatality rate?

While unorthodox, his comparison is valid.

Or if you prefer, the internet was designed to make sure the military could nuke the world into a burnt cinder. The internet has a lethal purpose. Ban it.

No, he doesn't have a valid point, but its cute that you are able to twist logic until it supports your worldview.

And it is nice you can dismiss anything that threatens yours.

the results are what matters. Firearms have legitimate intended and designed uses other than homicide. This is fact. Target shooting is an olympic sport is you need proof.

I even provided an example of something that was designed to be integral in the most lethal (potentially) weapon system of all time, the nuclear strike to satisfy your original intent facet of your argument. T ...

Its not about intent. Its about function. Its clear you don't understand that, and I'm sorry for you.

And they can have Olympic shooting events without everyone being able to buy semi-automatic rifles with 100 round magazines. "Massacre" is not an olympic shooting event.


So a person decides to use something in a function that kills several it should be banned? Regardless if it has other legitimate functions? That is your argument. I garuntee you if an olympic shooter decided to, they could take their sport rifle and go sniping ala dc sniper quite well.

Cars are gone, cleaning chemicals, diesel fuel as well.

I noticed you did not answer my question about which deaths are more atrocious.
 
2012-08-01 01:41:19 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: HotWingConspiracy: Again, gun owners are fine with massacres carried out by their brethren. This isn't an issue for them.

Again, Muslims are fine with massacres carried out by their brethren. This isn't an issue for them.

//your 'logic' at work.


There's certainly some truth to the underlying sentiment that people are less troubled by evil committed by those who are more like them. It's because the more like us someone is, when someone like us does something f*cked up we can easily think of thousands of examples of other people like us not doing that. We can then rationalize to ourselves "Well, they're not really (insert trait here - responsible gun-owner / Christian / Muslim / Republican / Pro-lifer / etc.)" and comfort ourselves in the No True Scotsman fallacy. But even then, we are aware that "he" or "she" or "they" are actually like us in enough ways that we get defensive about it. So you have people trying to defend the indefensible under the illusion that trying to put in protective measures, like regulations, are going to encroach on us more than they really are.

In the United States, gun-owners are largely in support of reasonable gun regulations. The slight majority of them even favor much stricter policies for obtaining assault weapons. But here we have a situation where the "conversation" each side is having at the other (because we've long since past the possibility of talking with each other, sadly) is about "gun ownership" in the broad sense, even if neither side truly intended for the discussion to be that broad. And that makes any real discussion, any real conversation, any real attempt at consensus on how to address a potential problem a massive issue in and of itself. Because "No True Scotsman..." does what folks like Homes, Loughner, etc. did, some people are reluctant to even admit there is a problem to be solved that has anything to do with keeping firearms out of the hands of people intent to do harm to innocents.
 
2012-08-01 01:42:15 PM  

Disposable Rob: I've worked with a plenty of members of the National Guard, but have never met a single person from unorganized militia laid out in part (b)(2).


Hi, nice to meet you. Unfortunately, I'm a terrible shot, so the country will have to be in some pretty deep shiat if they're to the point that they come calling for me.
 
2012-08-01 01:43:01 PM  

CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker: Slaves2Darkness: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

We know the faster you go the more likley you are to get killed or kill some one else with a motor vehicle. So Seriously, plese offer mea reasonable and rational explanantion as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer or rescue personel need to go faster then 30 MPH? All motor vehicles should be forced by law to go no faster then 30 MPH.

Yeah that is the argument you are making, do you see how stupid it is?

How about this one? We know that swimming pools are more dangerous to children then guns. Swimming pools kill more children each year then guns do. Seriously, offer me a reasonable explanantion as to why someone who is not an adult is allowed to swim?

Because swimming pools and cars have primary functions that aren't killing people/causing physical damage. This argument was just as stupid when people started bringing it up two weeks ago.

Yet they are every bit as lethal when improperly used...

Are their more guns in the u s of a or swimming pools? Which has got a higher fatality rate?

While unorthodox, his comparison is valid.

Or if you prefer, the internet was designed to make sure the military could nuke the world into a burnt cinder. The internet has a lethal purpose. Ban it.

No, he doesn't have a valid point, but its cute that you are able to twist logic until it supports your worldview.

And it is nice you can dismiss anything that threatens yours.

the results are what matters. Firearms have legitimate intended and designed uses other than homicide. This is fact. Target shooting is an olympic sport is you need proof.

I even provided an example of something that was designed to be integral in the most lethal (potentially) weapon system of all time, the nuclear strike to satisfy your original intent facet of your argument. T ...

Its not about intent. Its about function. Its clear you don't understand that, and I'm sorry for you.

And they can have Olympic shooting events without everyone being able to buy semi-automatic rifles with 100 round magazines. "Massacre" is not an olympic shooting event.


Almost forgot, I have never stated hundred round drums are essentisl. I have stated several times on fark I feel it is excessive. I support reasonable gun regulation, not knee jerk bans.
 
2012-08-01 01:43:20 PM  

DeArmondVI:
I'll meet with you halfway. I do think that the government does need to spend more time and money in addressing mental illness in the country. It's just a shame that most gun advocates that I know are also conservatives that don't believe the government has any business in creating programs for social betterment. Out of curiosity, has the NRA come out in support of new taxes to help create a better mental health infrastructure? Or is LaPierre still spending his time claiming that Obama not taking guns away in his first term is proof that he plans to do so during his second?


IDK. I'm not in the NRA, so I don't get their newsletters.
 
2012-08-01 01:43:47 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: wildcardjack: They're an invasive species and hostile.

I'm doing my part!
[desmond.imageshack.us image 640x426]
I just use a shotgun, though. There's no need for an assault rifle. Once you fire the first shot, they all run.


So what you're saying is we need to improve access to suppressors.
 
2012-08-01 01:44:13 PM  
It's very simple why the NRA opposes bans of any sort on guns. Look how the government works. For the sake of this argument, let's refer to a any type thing a citizen can have to be called "power". Powers are an abstraction and are not required to be things but can also be rights or ideas. Once the government takes a power away from the citizenry, it very VERY rarely returns it. Look at how 9/11 was used to take many powers from us. We'll never get them back short of a revolution.
So, the government says, "You don't need this one little power do you? We can take it and you'll still be just fine." Many reasonable people think that giving up that one power forever is okay and it happens. Some years down the road the government asks, "Look at this power. It's not THAT much different from the one you already gave up. How about you give up this one too." There are more dissenters this time, but it still gets done and that power is forever taken from the people. Yes, it's the slippery slope argument. It does happen.

There are a large number of people who say that guns should not be owned by anyone, and anecdotal evidence is that that crowd is growing because there are more and more people growing up in urban environments where safe gun usage and exposure is less common than in rural areas. There are fewer hunters and than there used to be, and those numbers continue to decline. It's not inconceivable that there will come a time in the next 100 years in the US when gun ownership is under a very real attack. If it weren't for the second amendment, and the difficulty of changing the constitution, there'd already be plenty of places where gun ownership would likely be outlawed.

I'd wager that many people who sit around and think about gun policy and politics a great deal have thought of this argument. It's much harder to get the government to give back a power than it is to prevent them from taking it at all. In light of what the future may hold, it may be that they're just holding off the inevitable as long as they can. I know I'll never support anyone that advocates taking away gun rights, but that doesn't mean that I won't be outnumbered eventually.

CLOSE THE FREAKING GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE!
 
2012-08-01 01:44:45 PM  

devildog123: Jacko8x: CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right

I still have a hard time believing that it is a right:

The Second Amendment
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We, as a people, need to stop ignoring the first half. We are long overdue in this country on having a discussion on what the first half actually means (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,). Let's have this talk before we decide that you have the legal right to shoot and kill the door-to-door salesman that came on your property. Allowing anyone to buy a gun does not sound like a well regulated militia to me......

OK, fine, we'll go with the government's definition of the militia then. I pull this out every damn time someone makes the argument.

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

I'm an able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, and a citizen of the United States. I'm in "the militia of the United States". Does this mean I can own whatever the fark I want?


That regulation discriminates against women. Men aged between 17 and 45 are assumed to be in a militia and are therefore the government can't abridge their right to keep and bear arms, but women? Gotta join the National Guard, but we all think it's cute that you wanna own a gun and "protect yourself" *pats head*.

Why are you a misogynist about the second amendment?

/purpose clauses in the bill of rights aren't what we apparently think they are in this thread
//The only legal statement made in the second amendment is that the right "of the people" to "keep and bear" "arms" shall not be abridged (except as specified in the 200 or so years of case law surrounding the amendment.)
///Said it before and I'll say it again: Anyone who makes the debate seem like it's based on more than just opinion is full of it. There's NO right answer hidden somewhere in the constitution.
 
2012-08-01 01:47:27 PM  

incendi: Disposable Rob: I've worked with a plenty of members of the National Guard, but have never met a single person from unorganized militia laid out in part (b)(2).

Hi, nice to meet you. Unfortunately, I'm a terrible shot, so the country will have to be in some pretty deep shiat if they're to the point that they come calling for me.


I find it hard to believe he's never met a male civilian citizen between 17 and 45.
 
2012-08-01 01:49:42 PM  
Since when does CNN get to decide what free people need or don't need?
 
2012-08-01 01:50:27 PM  

Disposable Rob:
As long as I've been in the military, I'm still waiting for all these 17-45 years olds to show up and take part in excercises. I've worked with a plenty of members of the National Guard, but have never met a single person from unorganized militia laid out in part (b)(2). Most curiously, none of the National Guard have managed to bring their arms from home as specified in the ammendment.


I'd come, but the military would turn me away at the gate at best. If they noticed I had brought a gun, I'd be arrested.

When the military decides they want something to do with the militia instead of looking down their noses at us, I'll be there.
 
2012-08-01 01:52:11 PM  
dittybopper:
So if I don't vote for the biggest ass buckets, and neither does anyone else, that guarantees that my son, or his son, or my great grandson won't have to fight? How about my great-great-grandson? You can guarantee that?

Of course not, but if it comes to that then a lot of people, probably many of them gun owners, have allowed it to happen. America spends a LOT of time discussing the right to bear arms, while allowing so many other rights to be constantly eroded by power-hungry politicians and their corporate cronies.

izit.org
(etc.)
 
2012-08-01 01:55:31 PM  

CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right



How about no? Does no work for you?
 
2012-08-01 01:57:06 PM  

give me doughnuts: DeArmondVI:
I'll meet with you halfway. I do think that the government does need to spend more time and money in addressing mental illness in the country. It's just a shame that most gun advocates that I know are also conservatives that don't believe the government has any business in creating programs for social betterment. Out of curiosity, has the NRA come out in support of new taxes to help create a better mental health infrastructure? Or is LaPierre still spending his time claiming that Obama not taking guns away in his first term is proof that he plans to do so during his second?

IDK. I'm not in the NRA, so I don't get their newsletters.


Well, I certainly can't fault you for that : )

Getting back on point, Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist What more could have been done? Or, could nothing have been done and we just happen to live in a society where random acts of senseless violence that kill multiple individuals happen at periodic intervals?
 
2012-08-01 01:59:29 PM  

DORMAMU: So a person decides to use something in a function that kills several it should be banned? Regardless if it has other legitimate functions? That is your argument. I garuntee you if an olympic shooter decided to, they could take their sport rifle and go sniping ala dc sniper quite well.

Cars are gone, cleaning chemicals, diesel fuel as well.

I noticed you did not answer my question about which deaths are more atrocious.


Its not about the function you "use it for" its about functionality in general. The primary function of a car isn't to run people over.

DORMAMU: Almost forgot, I have never stated hundred round drums are essentisl. I have stated several times on fark I feel it is excessive. I support reasonable gun regulation, not knee jerk bans.


Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.
 
2012-08-01 02:00:17 PM  

The_Sponge: CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right


How about no? Does no work for you?


Que?
 
2012-08-01 02:00:50 PM  

CPennypacker: DORMAMU: So a person decides to use something in a function that kills several it should be banned? Regardless if it has other legitimate functions? That is your argument. I garuntee you if an olympic shooter decided to, they could take their sport rifle and go sniping ala dc sniper quite well.

Cars are gone, cleaning chemicals, diesel fuel as well.

I noticed you did not answer my question about which deaths are more atrocious.

Its not about the function you "use it for" its about functionality in general. The primary function of a car isn't to run people over.

DORMAMU: Almost forgot, I have never stated hundred round drums are essentisl. I have stated several times on fark I feel it is excessive. I support reasonable gun regulation, not knee jerk bans.

Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.


If it were not a right then there would already be places in the US that would have made it illegal. Look at DC and Chicago and their gun laws that the Supreme Court had to shoot down.
 
2012-08-01 02:01:47 PM  

CPennypacker: DORMAMU: So a person decides to use something in a function that kills several it should be banned? Regardless if it has other legitimate functions? That is your argument. I garuntee you if an olympic shooter decided to, they could take their sport rifle and go sniping ala dc sniper quite well.

Cars are gone, cleaning chemicals, diesel fuel as well.

I noticed you did not answer my question about which deaths are more atrocious.

Its not about the function you "use it for" its about functionality in general. The primary function of a car isn't to run people over.

DORMAMU: Almost forgot, I have never stated hundred round drums are essentisl. I have stated several times on fark I feel it is excessive. I support reasonable gun regulation, not knee jerk bans.

Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.


If it were not a right then there would already be places in the US that would have made gun ownership illegal.
 
2012-08-01 02:02:01 PM  

Explodo: CPennypacker: DORMAMU: So a person decides to use something in a function that kills several it should be banned? Regardless if it has other legitimate functions? That is your argument. I garuntee you if an olympic shooter decided to, they could take their sport rifle and go sniping ala dc sniper quite well.

Cars are gone, cleaning chemicals, diesel fuel as well.

I noticed you did not answer my question about which deaths are more atrocious.

Its not about the function you "use it for" its about functionality in general. The primary function of a car isn't to run people over.

DORMAMU: Almost forgot, I have never stated hundred round drums are essentisl. I have stated several times on fark I feel it is excessive. I support reasonable gun regulation, not knee jerk bans.

Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

If it were not a right then there would already be places in the US that would have made it illegal. Look at DC and Chicago and their gun laws that the Supreme Court had to shoot down.


i1.ytimg.com
 
2012-08-01 02:05:52 PM  
I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.
 
2012-08-01 02:09:12 PM  

Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.


CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

 
2012-08-01 02:09:23 PM  

CPennypacker: The_Sponge: CPennypacker: Oh look another one of these threads

Repeal the second amendment

Gun ownership should be legal but it shouldn't be a right


How about no? Does no work for you?

Que?



Instead of playing games, you should just be honest and admit that you're a gun-grabber.
 
2012-08-01 02:09:54 PM  
CPennypacker

First, I need to appologize for my wall o texts. On mobile, not easy to snip.

Second, I do have to commend you 4 remaining quite civil.

I suspect our current loop/circle of discussion is, in part, due to a divergance in definition.

To illustrate, you see firearms as weapons and only weapons (correct me if I am wrong). I view them as tools, just like cars, the net, an axe, even pools. Yes firearms are weapons, but weapons are tools to me.

Tools can be grossly misused or negligently used causing grave damage/destruction. But tools can also aid an individual to achieve their desired effect. Tools make tha desired effect easier, faster, or simpler to obtain.

Yes, there tools that are ridiculous and I question their practicality or general usefullness (file 100 round drum here.

A large part of my view of firearms as tools is my parents never kept them secret and started teaching me at a relatively young age how dangerous they were. When they felt I had matured enough, I was allowed to use them under very strict circumstances.

I am curious as to your experiences with firearms. Would you care to eloborate? This is no way meant as an ttack on your upbringing or your life experiences. It is merely an attempt to better understand you so I can work on understanding your position and argument better and stop the chinese fire drill we appear to be stuck in.

/strong military family history
//usmc vet
///mother owns a piece of american history: .32 cal model 1869 winchester lever action, perfectly functioning
 
2012-08-01 02:10:10 PM  

Kome: The slight majority of them even favor much stricter policies for obtaining assault weapons.


OK, what do this slight majority want to ban?

Is this one OK?
www.shedracing.net

What about this one?
www.shedracing.net

Or?
www.shedracing.net

This one?
www.shedracing.net

In your educated opinion, which of these are acceptable?

Just to be clear, those four rifles are functionally identical. They are semi-automatic centerfire rifles with detachable magazines. The top is a Remington 7400, the second is a Ruger Mini 14. The Ruger is nearly identical to the AR below it, as it fires the same cartridge, and high capacity (30 round) magazines are readily available.

What anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together has been saying all along is that semi-auto "Assault Weapons" bans are idiotic, because there is no such thing. A semi-auto rifle is a semi auto rifle, and one with a pistol grip is no more "deadly" than one without. You and others want to ban guns that look scary, and that is irrational.

Like it or not, in a post Heller and McDonald United States, gun ownership is an enumerated, fundamental constitutional right, and semiautomatic firearms are in common use, and have been since World War 2. Hundreds of thousands of semi-automatic rifles have been sold to US Citizens directly from the government under the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The 4th and 7th Circuit Courts have both ruled that even laws regarding gun ownership by criminals are subject to intermediate scrutiny, implying strict scrutiny for the law abiding.

Assault weapons bans would fail either test, and wouldn't even get past rational basis (Which SCOTUS rejected outright in Heller). Aside from the "common use" (specified in Heller) There is no crime problem with rifles in general, let alone so called "Assault Weapons" There never has been, and there never will be.
 
2012-08-01 02:10:43 PM  

CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.


Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.
 
2012-08-01 02:10:49 PM  

Corvus: Submitard:Fark Comments Editorial: You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation

Good point! With rape laws and murder laws on the books rape and murders still happen. So let's get rid of those laws too right? Or does this stupid thinking only magically work for gun laws?


We already have laws for misuse of, and crimes committed with a firearms: Discharging a firearms within city limits, armed robbery, murder, etc. Your argument makes no sense what-so-ever.

I hope you're simply being willfully obtuse.
 
2012-08-01 02:11:12 PM  
"Assault weapon" politics:

1.) Find perfectly legitimate and practical firearms that have a scary/military appearance.
2.) Use confusing terminology to convince the public that such firearms are actually fully-automatic death-sprayers and that "no one needs those"
3.) Sign a gun ban, pass it of as "common sense legislation" in the name of public safety, make a name for you as a politician taking a hard line against your own manufactured threat.
4.) Rinse, repeat.

Works great for the "War on Terror" too!
 
2012-08-01 02:12:12 PM  

Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.


I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?
 
2012-08-01 02:13:25 PM  

Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.


Laws and Democracy, how do they work?

Also, gun ownership in a crowded city is different from gun ownership in a small town is different from gun ownership on a farm and should be treated differently legally. A misfire on a farm could put a hole in your barn. A misfire on a NYC subway could kill 7 people.
 
2012-08-01 02:17:01 PM  

CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.


In many respects it is already regulated. Nevada restricts magazine capacity. Another state might not. That is their choice of regulation, or lack there of. I would rather the states handle that.

I do wish it was a little more consistant in regards to licensed concealed carry tho. More for transporting, it is easier if you got a concealed carry permit.

Making it a right ensures its legality.

Course then we get into the semantics of law nuances and that is a headache neither of us need at this point.
 
2012-08-01 02:17:26 PM  

DORMAMU: CPennypacker

First, I need to appologize for my wall o texts. On mobile, not easy to snip.

Second, I do have to commend you 4 remaining quite civil.

I suspect our current loop/circle of discussion is, in part, due to a divergance in definition.

To illustrate, you see firearms as weapons and only weapons (correct me if I am wrong). I view them as tools, just like cars, the net, an axe, even pools. Yes firearms are weapons, but weapons are tools to me.

Tools can be grossly misused or negligently used causing grave damage/destruction. But tools can also aid an individual to achieve their desired effect. Tools make tha desired effect easier, faster, or simpler to obtain.

Yes, there tools that are ridiculous and I question their practicality or general usefullness (file 100 round drum here.

A large part of my view of firearms as tools is my parents never kept them secret and started teaching me at a relatively young age how dangerous they were. When they felt I had matured enough, I was allowed to use them under very strict circumstances.

I am curious as to your experiences with firearms. Would you care to eloborate? This is no way meant as an ttack on your upbringing or your life experiences. It is merely an attempt to better understand you so I can work on understanding your position and argument better and stop the chinese fire drill we appear to be stuck in.

/strong military family history
//usmc vet
///mother owns a piece of american history: .32 cal model 1869 winchester lever action, perfectly functioning


I have a lot of hunters in my family and I have a lot of experience shooting at ranges. A lot of my family members own pistols and rifles. I live in NYC and do not own a gun. I enjoy guns. I see why people own them. But I also see that they are dangerous. I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.

Guns are tools, but they are dangerous tools and should be reglated as such. Thats my view. Cars are dangerous tools too. You need to pass a driving test and carry insurance. You need to pass inspections. We need similar implementations for gun ownership in my opinion.
 
2012-08-01 02:20:09 PM  

CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.

Laws and Democracy, how do they work?

Also, gun ownership in a crowded city is different from gun ownership in a small town is different from gun ownership on a farm and should be treated differently legally. A misfire on a farm could put a hole in your barn. A misfire on a NYC subway could kill 7 people.


Your statement implies that you either enjoy hyperbole or know nothing of guns. I'll assume mainly hyperbole with a side order of lack of experience.

Do you have no room in your view for someone who lives in a city yet enjoys shooting in a controlled environment or who travels to the countryside to shoot?
 
2012-08-01 02:23:08 PM  

Disposable Rob: As long as I've been in the military, I'm still waiting for all these 17-45 years olds to show up and take part in excercises.


Been there, done that, have the DD214 to prove it, and it's almost certain if you are active duty that I did it before you (I'd be close to 30 year retirement right now).

I've worked with a plenty of members of the National Guard, but have never met a single person from unorganized militia laid out in part (b)(2).


Yes you have. Every single able-bodied male you've met aged 18 to 44 is part of the unorganized militia. Sadly, I've fallen out of that age category, but would show up if called.

Most curiously, none of the National Guard have managed to bring their arms from home as specified in the ammendment.


The Second Amendment doesn't specify that. Read it again. I think you are confusing the Second Amendment with the Second Militia Act of 1792, which did *REQUIRE* that militia members arm themselves. It was superseded in 1903. The Second Amendment only *PROTECTS* the right of individuals to arm themselves. Congress still has the power to call for and arm the militia.
 
2012-08-01 02:24:15 PM  

blunttrauma: Kome: The slight majority of them even favor much stricter policies for obtaining assault weapons.

OK, what do this slight majority want to ban?

Gun pic
Gun pic
Gun pic
Gun pic


I vote 1,.2, 3 and 4.

Do I win, do I win?
 
Displayed 50 of 315 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report