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 23
    More: Stupid, Un-American, assault weapons, gun culture, Urban League, ordinary Americans, syndicated columnist  
•       •       •

1535 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 12:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-01 12:32:51 PM
3 votes:
Legalize drugs and watch gun violence drop.
2012-08-01 12:09:14 PM
3 votes:
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
2012-08-01 12:36:20 PM
2 votes:

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.


Need is irrelevant.

The primary rationale in the 2nd amendment indicates everyone gets to have a gun so a militia can be raised when needed, but folks get their guns even when not in the militia. The folks writing it still remembered a nasty war where they rebelled against their country, and were able to do so because everyone was armed before they started assembling, not after. And they were armed with the same stuff the government soldiers had.

The 2nd Amendment protects the ability to respond to both an external threat and an internal one from an oppressive regime.

Yes, it's unlikely we'll ever need it. Yes, it makes our day-to-day world a little more dangerous all around. Freedoms are like that--we have rights, but there's an unspoken (unfortunately so) responsibility to use them carefully, and there will always be people who abuse the right and ignore the responsibility. Just because someone does so, however, should never cause the rest of us to lose the right.

If we tried, we could probably round up all the guns, or most of them. It would probably make life safer for people. But we need to remember that life in general isn't safe, and accept a little more risk in our lives in order to maintain our rights.
2012-08-01 12:11:12 PM
2 votes:

Aarontology: 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?

Law enforcement doesn't either.


I've always thought that the most reasonable standard for determining what firearms people could own would be "anything that police use." The police, after all, are civilians. They are far more like the traditional militia than any of those backwood yokel groups.

It would also be a good reason to restrain the militarization of police forces.
2012-08-01 11:50:14 AM
2 votes:

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.


This does:

i49.tinypic.com

Korean shop owners defending their property during the LA Riots.
2012-08-01 09:39:15 AM
2 votes:
It's reached the point where I cringe any time a non-gun-enthusiast says "AK 47," because 99% of the time they're REFERRING TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GUN.
2012-08-01 02:09:23 PM
1 votes:

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 12:46:02 PM
1 votes:
Nope. Don't need one.

Why? Because I've already got one.

No Such Agency:
1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?
2. if you need a gun for hunting... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?
3. if you need a gun to protect yourself from tyrannical government... lol good luck, maybe you shouldn't have spent your adult life voting for the biggest ass buckets on the ballot.

Then again I'm not American, so perhaps I simply don't understand some obvious reason citizens should not be restricted from stockpiling small arms with few if any restrictions to protect the public from violent nutters.


I'm expecting to fire anywhere between zero to twenty-eight shots on my way to my rifles, then a number between zero and 120 when I reach my AK. Depends on the situation. Sure, there will be a few realods in there, but I'm quick enough that the time won't be significant.

I don't hunt, so zero.

My gun protects me from tyrannical government by existing. Consider this: there are almost 89 firearms in the USA for every 100 people. If any government should wish to exercise tyranny on the American population, think about the expense. That's the function the guns serve: to make any foreign or domestic jackboot crew think twice about trying to crush the American people, because we'd cost too damn much in blood to put down.

As for why we should have them: because we're free. We toyed with the idea of being subjects, said "No thank you, George," and rose up and freed ourselves. We paid for that freedom with our own blood, twice if you're on the "Civil War was about slavery" side. Three times if you're crazy enough to think England cared about the War of 1812. Freedom is the reason I am armed, for I will have no man, be he drugged up mugger, home invader, or homeland invader, encroach upon my freedom.

And if that's not a good enough reason for you, I say screw you and your little queen too.
2012-08-01 12:41:58 PM
1 votes:

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
2012-08-01 12:37:29 PM
1 votes:

No Such Agency: dittybopper:
Then again I'm not American, so perhaps I simply don't understand some obvious reason citizens should not be restricted from stockpiling small arms with few if any restrictions to protect the public from violent nutters.


i47.tinypic.com
2012-08-01 12:33:57 PM
1 votes:

Jacko8x: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,).


We've had this discussion. The Supreme court has had this discussion. Look up Heller v DC, then get back into the conversation.
2012-08-01 12:33:17 PM
1 votes:
Every time I look into one of these threads I get the impression many of the anti gun control people are actually living in Somalia and not in the US. Are you really in serious danger of being attacked by a small army in your home so you need a huge gun with plenty of ammunition for self-defense?

(Don't really understand where the Second Amendment says you have the right to own any gun you want, it just says you have the right to bear arms...)
2012-08-01 12:31:07 PM
1 votes:

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......
2012-08-01 12:23:35 PM
1 votes:
Better to have guns and somewhat more dangerous crime than no guns and no crime.
2012-08-01 12:21:36 PM
1 votes:
Is this the thread where people argue that CCW holders will inevitably shoot at each other because they lack the training and cannot identify the original aggressor in a mass shoot out amongst chaos and panic from the general population?

Then the Fark CCW holders try to justify their firearm expertise then try to rationally explain what they would have done in a a mass shooting situation to incapacitate the original shooter.

My favorite type of thread.
2012-08-01 12:20:56 PM
1 votes:
dittybopper:
Which brings up an interesting point: Why should we extend game laws that were intended to limit the capabilities of hunters in order to foster a mentality of "fair chase", and to assure that game species thrive so that future hunters would be able to hunt, to guns, magazines, and/or accessories not generally intended to be used for hunting?

Well there is the small matter that perhaps magazines intended to make it less convenient for a hunter to massacre every deer in his wood lot ALSO make it less convenient for some loony toon to massacre every human being in a crowded cinema.

1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?
2. if you need a gun for hunting... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?
3. if you need a gun to protect yourself from tyrannical government... lol good luck, maybe you shouldn't have spent your adult life voting for the biggest ass buckets on the ballot.

Then again I'm not American, so perhaps I simply don't understand some obvious reason citizens should not be restricted from stockpiling small arms with few if any restrictions to protect the public from violent nutters.
2012-08-01 12:19:36 PM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people


Do Iraqis not count anymore?
2012-08-01 12:17:47 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-08-01 12:14:06 PM
1 votes:

Bloody William: I'll be honest, I used to be a kneejerk gun control-supporting liberal. However, I'm a tech journalist, and eventually I realized the same bullshiat general media pulls with any technology coverage is exactly the same as the bullshiat they pull with gun coverage, and that there's a lot of ignorance out there. I researched the subject a bit and learned to appreciate guns, even if I don't have any non-Nerf ones myself.

Basically, I'm anti-gun control now because Gibsons have been hacked and GUIs were written in Visual Basic to track criminals.


I'm glad you brought this up. I've stated in other threads that it kills me when the same farkers that rail on journalist/law makers misunderstanding of technology, yet freely buy into misunderstanding/ignorance of firearms.

And again, as I've said in other threads...

When you rant against "assault rifles" you sound just as retarded as Senator Stevens when he talked about the internet being a "series of tubes" and ranting against net neutrality
2012-08-01 12:07:22 PM
1 votes:
Average Americans don't need or want an AK-47, unless you consider 3 inches average.
2012-08-01 12:03:35 PM
1 votes:

Pokey.Clyde: [i286.photobucket.com image 850x708]

/obligatory


I'll be honest, I used to be a kneejerk gun control-supporting liberal. However, I'm a tech journalist, and eventually I realized the same bullshiat general media pulls with any technology coverage is exactly the same as the bullshiat they pull with gun coverage, and that there's a lot of ignorance out there. I researched the subject a bit and learned to appreciate guns, even if I don't have any non-Nerf ones myself.

Basically, I'm anti-gun control now because Gibsons have been hacked and GUIs were written in Visual Basic to track criminals.
2012-08-01 11:56:39 AM
1 votes:

tlchwi02: i like guns. I hunt, i own many of them, i have all my licenses.

But i do not understand why a civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle and extended magazines. The US military managed to win WW2 with the average soldier armed with an 8 round semi-auto rifle. Why does some rando person need more firepower than that? what sort of insane deer/20 person home invader assault team do people think are going to come after them?


Yes, because riots never happen. Looting in the aftermath of a major disaster never happens. Multiple criminal home invasions never happen.

I'd also point out that the average US soldier in WWII also had a guy with a for-real machine gun in his squad (Usually a BAR), he also carried a varying number of grenades, and he typically was facing an opponent carrying a 5 shot bolt action rifle (so having an 8 shot semi-auto gave him a significant advantage).

Don't get stuck on stupid.
2012-08-01 07:59:34 AM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report