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 315
    More: Stupid, Un-American, assault weapons, gun culture, Urban League, ordinary Americans, syndicated columnist  
•       •       •

1545 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 12:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-02 12:44:53 AM  

blunttrauma: Well, all of the "Reasonable regulation" proposed or passed so far, nationwide, treats them completely different.


Then that's unreasonable. I again don't see how any of that is particularly relevant to the point I was trying to make earlier.

I have never seen a poll anywhere that shows anyone favors convicted felons owning firearms.

And yet proposed changes to gun control laws that attempt to better prevent convicted felons from obtaining firearms is consistently met with absolute resistance from gun lobbying groups. Just look at the response folks like the NRA had when president Obama said a week ago that more must be done to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the mentally unstable. They went batsh*t crazy and accused him of trying to take their guns away - which sends an even more comically disturbing message that they consider themselves criminals and/or mentally unstable, although I don't think they intended for that message. And then last year after the Tuscon shooting, again when Obama came out and said essentially a dialogue needs to be had, other gun lobbying groups accused him of having the worst record on the 2nd amendment rights ever, in spite of the fact that he's done absolutely nothing regarding the second amendment policy wise. The worst he's ever done is to say that we need to have a real dialogue to keep guns away from those who seek to do harm to innocents.

Reasonable people can have the discussion on what we can do to change a system that is broken, but some groups simply won't even hear that it's broken. Considering the myriad of causes that come into play that leads to a shooting of the caliber like Tuscon or Aurora, there are a lot of conversations that need to be had. One is clearly about mental health. Maybe we need to de-stigmatize seeking mental health and make it more accessible to people who can benefit from it. I don't know if that's the answer, but it's an answer and it's a potential starting point for discussion. But another is clearly about the ease with which these people get firearms. Things need to change so that responsible gun owners can continue to own guns if they choose to, and to keep them out of the hands of those intent to do harm. Maybe that means stricter policies regarding the sale of firearms, and like the above suggestion about mental health I really don't know if that's the answer, but it's an answer and why not use that as a starting point for a calm and rational dialogue?

You don't seem to be ignorant of the law, or ignorant of the current situation, and you seem pretty well-informed on some relevant data. All that in spite of your initial mistake on equating gun regulation with gun banning in my earlier post, but hey this isn't exactly a topic of conversation that doesn't spark emotional reactions so we can overlook that. But overall that's fantastic, and I think you can add a much-needed voice to the discussion and I appreciate you engaging me in this. The country needs more of that, on both ends (because the gun-control side certainly has its share of nutters, too). But based on public reactions from groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America in the aftermath of these mass shootings - which, once again, happen at least once a year in the United States (which is insanely more frequently than in any other industrialized country in the world) - you are not very representative of people who typically speak out against gun-control or gun-regulation discussions. Which is a damn shame. You bring a better attitude and a willingness to engage into the conversation, instead of a lot of irrelevant and inaccurate hyperbole and insults.
 
2012-08-02 12:45:04 AM  

Happy Hours: syrynxx: 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?

The spring system on the Beta C-Mag allows for indefinite storage while loaded, vs. conventional magazines whose spring tension decays over time due to metal fatigue. Even with only a few rounds stored in a Beta C-Mag, it's a better magazine for home defense than a stock one. Also, you might want to look up all the words in the Second Amendment you claim to support.

That doesn't really explain why you need 100 rounds.


We've had some Jehovah Witnesses in the neighborhood. I just want to be sure. And a bunch of goddamn Colombians are all pissed of at me for some reason.
 
2012-08-02 01:13:23 AM  
We already regulate guns and other arms in America and for good reason. I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear. Few would argue that chemical or biological weapons are included in the 2nd Amendment's protections. I suspect few people would suggest that hand grenades should be sold at Wal-Mart and legally carried into whatever public space one wishes. Few would favor the sale of grenade launchers or hand held stinger missiles to the general public. We already outlaw or highly regulate fully automatic machine guns and large caliber machine guns now.

We're not going to be a whole lot safer by eliminating the sale of "assault rifles" or 100 round drums, but it's also not going to really inconvenience hunters or people that are trying to protect their homes or businesses either.

But clearly the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you get the right to own whatever farking armament that you can possibly bear, even if that was the Founder's original intent, the very idea is ridiculous given the immense growth in firepower since the days of the barrel loaded muskets.
 
2012-08-02 01:15:02 AM  

simkatu: We already regulate guns and other arms in America and for good reason. I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear. Few would argue that chemical or biological weapons are included in the 2nd Amendment's protections. I suspect few people would suggest that hand grenades should be sold at Wal-Mart and legally carried into whatever public space one wishes. Few would favor the sale of grenade launchers or hand held stinger missiles to the general public. We already outlaw or highly regulate fully automatic machine guns and large caliber machine guns now.

We're not going to be a whole lot safer by eliminating the sale of "assault rifles" or 100 round drums, but it's also not going to really inconvenience hunters or people that are trying to protect their homes or businesses either.

But clearly the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you get the right to own whatever farking armament that you can possibly bear, even if that was the Founder's original intent, the very idea is ridiculous given the immense growth in firepower since the days of the barrel loaded muskets.


Arms =/= ordnance
 
2012-08-02 01:29:03 AM  
The more guns the better. It's like an accelerated broken window fallacy for the healthcare industry collapse.
 
2012-08-02 03:51:40 AM  
I am generally as liberal and far left leaning as they come. I also really enjoy shooting my SGL-21 with friends when we want to blow off steam and kill pumpkins. (an sgl-21 is what everyone would refer to as an ak-47, the receivers are made in the ak plant in russia)
 
2012-08-02 07:19:26 AM  

simkatu: I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear.


*TWEEET*. Oblique use of "Nuclear Strawman" argument, 5 yard penalty.
 
2012-08-02 09:52:05 AM  
Saying that people don't need a gun above a certain level of power is like saying that people don't need a car or motorcycle above a certain level of power.
 
2012-08-02 11:17:45 AM  

dittybopper: simkatu: I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear.

*TWEEET*. Oblique use of "Nuclear Strawman" argument, 5 yard penalty.


Considering Justice Scalia recently said handheld rocket launchers might be constitutional for people to own, I don't think a tactical nuke is necessarily a strawman argument. It's, at worst, a slight exaggeration of something a Supreme Court Justice said.
 
2012-08-02 11:31:22 AM  

Kome: dittybopper: simkatu: I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear.

*TWEEET*. Oblique use of "Nuclear Strawman" argument, 5 yard penalty.

Considering Justice Scalia recently said handheld rocket launchers might be constitutional for people to own, I don't think a tactical nuke is necessarily a strawman argument. It's, at worst, a slight exaggeration of something a Supreme Court Justice said.


RPGs are legal for civilians to own, provided you have the proper FFL. Nukes are ordnance. Anything that cannot be handled by a single person or small crew is not an "arm."
 
2012-08-02 12:03:11 PM  

redmid17: Kome: dittybopper: simkatu: I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear.

*TWEEET*. Oblique use of "Nuclear Strawman" argument, 5 yard penalty.

Considering Justice Scalia recently said handheld rocket launchers might be constitutional for people to own, I don't think a tactical nuke is necessarily a strawman argument. It's, at worst, a slight exaggeration of something a Supreme Court Justice said.

RPGs are legal for civilians to own, provided you have the proper FFL. Nukes are ordnance. Anything that cannot be handled by a single person or small crew is not an "arm."


And twirling, always twirling into the future!

I love the ordnance argument! How are we using the word today?

/Sorry kids, the suitcase nuke argument is just as legit as the "what if the world goes crazy and I need to shoot 500 rioters before they rape my family and burn my house down?" argument.
 
2012-08-02 12:12:02 PM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Saying that people don't need a gun above a certain level of power is like saying that people don't need a car or motorcycle above a certain level of power.


no
 
2012-08-02 12:34:41 PM  

redmid17: Anything that cannot be handled by a single person or small crew is not an "arm."


Can't be handled by a single person or small crew?
 
2012-08-02 12:34:42 PM  

redmid17: Kome: dittybopper: simkatu: I doubt anyone here would argue that we should allow the open carry of tactical nuclear weapons, even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we have a right to "bear arms" and tactical nukes are arms that a single person can bear.

*TWEEET*. Oblique use of "Nuclear Strawman" argument, 5 yard penalty.

Considering Justice Scalia recently said handheld rocket launchers might be constitutional for people to own, I don't think a tactical nuke is necessarily a strawman argument. It's, at worst, a slight exaggeration of something a Supreme Court Justice said.

RPGs are legal for civilians to own, provided you have the proper FFL. Nukes are ordnance. Anything that cannot be handled by a single person or small crew is not an "arm."


How far into the future do you think we have to go before we have a handheld nuke launcher? The pace of technological advances in weapons/ordnance is no less impressive than the advances in robotics, computers, surveillance, etc. We are really good at developing efficient ways of destroying things, just as we are really good at developing ways of saving and constructing things.
 
2012-08-02 01:27:45 PM  

Kome: Then that's unreasonable. I again don't see how any of that is particularly relevant to the point I was trying to make earlier.


The problem with trying to ban so-called "Assault Weapons" is that there is no such thing. It is a completely made up term to play on the emotions of the uneducated. During the debates for the Federal AW Ban It was determined that what made guns "Bad" were specific "Evil Features", for example a folding/collapsible stock, or a flash hider, or a bayonet lug. Those opposed said that was ridiculous, that those things make no difference. Sen Dianne Feinstein insisted that those were the problem, so guess what, gun makers took them off. After the federal ban, you could still go buy an AR15, just it would have a fixed stock, a normal crowned barrel (or a muzzle brake) and the gas block wouldn't have a lug for a bayonet. Again, the Ruger Mini-14, which operates the same way (Gas-operated semi-auto) fires the same round as the AR family, but has a more traditional wood stock was never even threatened with a ban. They are even legal in CA, where guns with any evil features are prohibited. (Without getting in to the "Bullet Button" making magazines non-detachable) The law in CA is so convoluted, even the police have a hard time figuring out what is and is not legal. (Google Calguns AW Flowchart to see just how ridiculous it is)

Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines have been around since 1885, and functionally there is no difference between a Mannlicher 1885 Automatic rifle and an AR15, and trying to differentiate between a so-called "Assault Weapon" and any other semi-automatic rifle is ridiculous. The folks who want to ban/regulate Assault Weapons don't like them because they are scary looking, and that is irrational. If it looks like a machine gun, it must be a machine gun, and is bad. Folks on the gun control side, play to this ignorance, and intentionally mislead the public, (see the NBC Chicago piece on the need for an AW ban, where ATF Agent Andrew Traver takes a reporter to the range to shoot a full auto AK47 to show how a ban on semi-auto firearms is needed. By the way, Traver is President Obama's nominee for head of ATF. Based on that news report, he is either stupid (doesn't know full auto firearms are not generally available) or dishonest (Intentionally demonstrating a machine gun to influence a ban on non machine guns). Now why do you think people have a problem with that clown being in charge of ATF? When you add nitwits like Rep Carolyn McCarthy, writing legislation about things she knows nothing about (search youtube for Carolyn McCarthy barrel shroud), law abiding gun owners tend to get nervous.

And like it or not, Semi Auto rifles are in common use, (~18% of guns sold last year are ARs, and you can buy them at Wal-Mart, hard to argue against common use) and are used for legal purposes all over the country, target shooting, hunting, and self defense.

And yet proposed changes to gun control laws that attempt to better prevent convicted felons from obtaining firearms is consistently met with absolute resistance from gun lobbying groups. Just look at the response folks like the NRA had when president Obama said a week ago that more must be done to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the mentally unstable. They went batsh*t crazy and accused him of trying to take their guns away - which sends an even more comically disturbing message that they consider themselves criminals and/or mentally unstable, although I don't think they intended for that message. And then last year after the Tuscon shooting, again when Obama came out and said essentially a dialogue needs to be had, other gun lobbying groups accused him of having the worst record on the 2nd amendment rights ever, in spite of the fact that he's done absolutely nothing regarding the second amendment policy wise. The worst he's ever done is to say that we need to have a real dialogue to keep guns away from those who seek to do harm to innocents.

Ask yourself this question, "Who is more effected by gun control laws, criminals, or the law abiding?" The only people who are effected by new gun laws are the people who don't break laws in the first place. Even if the so-called "Gun Show loophole" is closed, and all firearms transfers must go through an FFL, do people really believe Billy Burglar won't trade the pistol he stole to Marty Mugger for a couple rocks because it is illegal? But wait, we have examples of places that don't have the "Gun show loophole" California banned transfers between individuals back in 1990,(except for long guns over 50 years old). CA must be nearly crime free. According to Census.gov, CA is 14th in violent crime rate. So either criminals don't follow gun laws, or maybe all those crimes were done with WW2 era bolt-action Mausers. CA evidently thinks the latter, because they are closing that "Loophole" Jan 1 2014, and creating a long gun registry, even though there is no evidence at all the existing handgun registry stopped any crimes. In fact Canada did away with their gun registry, because it was ridiculously expensive ( $1B+), and had no measurable effect on crime.

Reasonable people can have the discussion on what we can do to change a system that is broken, but some groups simply won't even hear that it's broken. Considering the myriad of causes that come into play that leads to a shooting of the caliber like Tuscon or Aurora, there are a lot of conversations that need to be had. One is clearly about mental health. Maybe we need to de-stigmatize seeking mental health and make it more accessible to people who can benefit from it. I don't know if that's the answer, but it's an answer and it's a potential starting point for discussion. But another is clearly about the ease with which these people get firearms. Things need to change so that responsible gun owners can continue to own guns if they choose to, and to keep them out of the hands of those intent to do harm. Maybe that means stricter policies regarding the sale of firearms, and like the above suggestion about mental health I really don't know if that's the answer, but it's an answer and why not use that as a starting point for a calm and rational dialogue?

You are making the assumption that the system is broken. I would make the argument that evil crazy people or criminals will be able to get guns regardless of laws,

Sideshow Bob was seeing a shrink. The problem is, not everyone who sees a shrink is dangerous and needs to have their rights removed. Frankly I think anything done will have a worse effect on the problem. People will be less likely to seek help if they fear the the doctor will report them being under care to ATF, and lose their rights. The other factor is Sideshow Bob was a very smart, very evil guy, who rigged his house with bombs. People assume if evil people couldn't get guns, then mass murders wouldn't happen, but forget the worst mass murders in US history did not involve guns (Bath School and OKC Bombings).

You don't seem to be ignorant of the law, or ignorant of the current situation, and you seem pretty well-informed on some relevant data. All that in spite of your initial mistake on equating gun regulation with gun banning in my earlier post, but hey this isn't exactly a topic of conversation that doesn't spark emotional reactions so we can overlook that.

As I mentioned, past experience has shown there is no appreciable difference between the two.

But overall that's fantastic, and I think you can add a much-needed voice to the discussion and I appreciate you engaging me in this. The country needs more of that, on both ends (because the gun-control side certainly has its share of nutters, too). But based on public reactions from groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America in the aftermath of these mass shootings - which, once again, happen at least once a year in the United States (which is insanely more frequently than in any other industrialized country in the world) - you are not very representative of people who typically speak out against gun-control or gun-regulation discussions. Which is a damn shame. You bring a better attitude and a willingness to engage into the conversation, instead of a lot of irrelevant and inaccurate hyperbole and insults.

I would say the reverse is also true. Based on reactions of the various anti-gun groups, screaming for more gun bans before the smoke even cleared.

Frankly, people claiming President Obama is not anti gun because he hasn't passed any legislation is meaningless. He is a very sharp politician, and remembers what happened the last time. He is also aware Congress remembers last time. His record before he took office is completely anti-gun, (as expected from a product of the Chicago Democratic machine), and there was also the bit about telling Sara Brady he was working on things "Under the radar" and the fact his Justice Department testified to congress with misleading statistics on the prevalence of US made firearms in Mexico, while running a retarded operation to actually supply Mexican drug dealers with firearms. Read up on Fast and Furious. Watch the whistle blower's testimony before Congress, and ask yourself what possibly would be the goal of this? It is pretty sad that an operation is so stupid that the only reason to make sense is the conspiracy theory.

I suppose it is possible he completely changed his stance upon swearing in, but I doubt it.
 
Displayed 15 of 315 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