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.

(The New York Times)   Poll: 6 out of 10 Americans say they don't want new guns laws or stricter ones. Media: "Mixed views are found, but most people like new guns laws"   (nytimes.com) divider line 268
    More: Fail, Americans, gun laws, mass shooting, target shooting  
•       •       •

1609 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2012 at 10:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-08 06:10:01 PM
Going by that headline, I read a different article than subby.
 
2012-08-08 08:14:46 PM

NYT polls 1 specific new gun reg, finds majority support for it, types it up as "Polls Find Opposition to Stricter Gun Laws" #liberalmedia

- Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) August 8, 2012
 
2012-08-08 08:19:47 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: NYT polls 1 specific new gun reg, finds majority support for it, types it up as "Polls Find Opposition to Stricter Gun Laws" #liberalmedia- Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) August 8, 2012


That would make sense if it was something like Fox News, but we are talking about the New York Times, the bastion of Liberalism.
 
2012-08-08 08:42:06 PM

cman: That would make sense if it was something like Fox News, but we are talking about the New York Times, the bastion of Liberalism.


What are you basing that on?

Be specific. Provide evidence.
 
2012-08-08 08:46:01 PM

cman: Dusk-You-n-Me: NYT polls 1 specific new gun reg, finds majority support for it, types it up as "Polls Find Opposition to Stricter Gun Laws" #liberalmedia- Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) August 8, 2012

That would make sense if it was something like Fox News, but we are talking about the New York Times, the bastion of Liberalism.


i575.photobucket.com

The NYT promotes their own agenda, nothing else. There is no such thing as the liberal media.
 
2012-08-08 09:08:48 PM
Can we skip the tired 2nd Amendment arguments and just get straight to the gun porn?
 
2012-08-08 09:23:16 PM

fusillade762: Can we skip the tired 2nd Amendment arguments and just get straight to the gun porn?


news.bbcimg.co.uk

What a guy who probably loved gun porn looked like.
 
2012-08-08 09:24:51 PM
What article is subby reading?
 
2012-08-08 09:26:50 PM

Lionel Mandrake: What article is subby reading?


The actual results are buried, so Subby probably read half the article.
 
2012-08-08 10:18:29 PM
"I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

2.bp.blogspot.com

The derp is strong with this one.
 
2012-08-08 10:57:34 PM
I didn't pay tne NYTimes tax, so it wants me to log in.
 
2012-08-08 10:57:50 PM

Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.


Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?
 
2012-08-08 10:59:58 PM
Screw this, where's our thread about Romney touting Romneycare!!
 
2012-08-08 11:02:28 PM

dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?


A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?
 
2012-08-08 11:07:37 PM
The only gun control changes i'd make would be stronger enforcements against international arms shipments to rogue actors, and reopening the auto weapons registry for select numbers of US produced arms and surplus weapons.
 
2012-08-08 11:08:10 PM

redmid17: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?


So why can't I bear nuclear arms?
 
2012-08-08 11:08:31 PM

redmid17: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?


Sounds good to me. Always wanted a harem and slaves. Blimb city here I come!
 
2012-08-08 11:10:24 PM
There was a lot about belief in that article, and nothing about how voters gather evidence for their beliefs.
 
2012-08-08 11:10:34 PM

babygoat: So why can't I bear nuclear arms?


Because you can't hug your children with nuclear arms!

*smacks himself upside the head*

Thanks, I needed that.
 
2012-08-08 11:10:39 PM
Either I'm being censored or Fark is eating my comments.

We don't need more laws for the criminals to ignore. We need to enforce the ones we already have.
 
2012-08-08 11:11:39 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Either I'm being censored or Fark is eating my comments.

We don't need more laws for the criminals to ignore. We need to enforce the ones we already have.


We need to bring back old-fashioned street fights, like in the Beat It music video.
 
2012-08-08 11:12:00 PM

babygoat: redmid17: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?

So why can't I bear nuclear arms?


Nuclear weapons are ordnance and not subject to the 2nd amendment.
 
2012-08-08 11:12:49 PM

RedPhoenix122: Smeggy Smurf: Either I'm being censored or Fark is eating my comments.

We don't need more laws for the criminals to ignore. We need to enforce the ones we already have.

We need to bring back old-fashioned street fights, like in the Beat It music video.


Dance off to the death
 
2012-08-08 11:14:21 PM

redmid17: babygoat: redmid17: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?

So why can't I bear nuclear arms?

Nuclear weapons are ordnance and not subject to the 2nd amendment.


How do you know they're not subject to the 2nd amendment? I am being serious.
 
2012-08-08 11:14:42 PM

redmid17: babygoat: redmid17: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?

So why can't I bear nuclear arms?

Nuclear weapons are ordnance and not subject to the 2nd amendment.


I don't understand.
 
2012-08-08 11:15:22 PM
The New York Times only hires big-time liberals, like Judith Miller.
 
2012-08-08 11:17:21 PM
I've been around for almost 55 years. NOT ONCE in all of that time, has anybody ever asked me what I thought of ANYTHING.
 
2012-08-08 11:18:24 PM

Coelacanth: I've been around for almost 55 years. NOT ONCE in all of that time, has anybody ever asked me what I thought of ANYTHING.


So... how do you feel about that?
 
2012-08-08 11:18:50 PM

babygoat: redmid17: babygoat: redmid17: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?

So why can't I bear nuclear arms?

Nuclear weapons are ordnance and not subject to the 2nd amendment.

How do you know they're not subject to the 2nd amendment? I am being serious.


The 2nd amendment is for a well regulated militia. A weapon that causes massive amounts of collatoral damage is not well regulated. It is a sloppy weapon unlike the precision of a fine rifle. We're supposed to slay tyranny, not everybody.
 
2012-08-08 11:19:09 PM

babygoat: So why can't I bear nuclear arms?


You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.
 
2012-08-08 11:19:20 PM

dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?


100 round magazine clips don't exist, and you can't just pick up an automatic weapon at your local gun shop, they are already heavily restricted. It figures that NY times decides to quote someone who has no idea what he is basing his opinions on.
 
2012-08-08 11:19:53 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Either I'm being censored or Fark is eating my comments.

We don't need more laws for the criminals to ignore. We need to enforce the ones we already have.


There seems to be plenty of "enforcement" going on, what we need to do is prioritize enforcement.
 
2012-08-08 11:20:02 PM
armsplural of arms (Noun)
Noun:
Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".


Seems to me like you could stretch that definition to include any type of military hardware. Since you can't have certain weapons, then you are admitting that there are or should be limits to the 2nd amendment. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ban certain types of weapons from public ownership. You don't need an RPG to hunt, defend your home, or even join a militia. Reasonable people may differ on where exactly to draw the line.

/The NRA is not reasonable.
 
2012-08-08 11:20:36 PM
With consideration to the recent shootings, now is not the time to talk about gun control.
 
2012-08-08 11:20:47 PM

babygoat: redmid17: babygoat: redmid17: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?

So why can't I bear nuclear arms?

Nuclear weapons are ordnance and not subject to the 2nd amendment.

How do you know they're not subject to the 2nd amendment? I am being serious.


Ordnance (ie cannons) has never really been in the hands of private citizens. Historically they've been owned by the government, not the private militia. You can own cannons nowadays, but they are heavily regulated. Besides nuclear arms are heavily regulated by international treaty, which is binding on the laws of the country anyway. Long story short, the historical precedence that allows firearm ownership to be an individual right doesn't really apply to ordnance. This is why citizens can't own fully armed M1A1s and F-16s.
 
2012-08-08 11:20:57 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Either I'm being censored or Fark is eating my comments.

We don't need more laws for the criminals to ignore. We need to enforce the ones we already have.


Exactly which gun laws were ignored by Jared Loughner, James Holmes, and Wade Michael Page?
 
2012-08-08 11:21:33 PM

Esc7: redmid17: babygoat: redmid17: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

A lot of things weren't invented when the constitution was written. Should Congress lack the ability to regulate interstate commerce via air or rail since those didn't exist in 1783?

So why can't I bear nuclear arms?

Nuclear weapons are ordnance and not subject to the 2nd amendment.

I don't understand.


One of the supremes , scalia? seemed to draw the line at whether you could carry a weapon or not.
muskets but not cannons.
Shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles would be an example of what he considered a grey area
 
2012-08-08 11:26:18 PM

violentsalvation: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

100 round magazine clips don't exist, and you can't just pick up an automatic weapon at your local gun shop, they are already heavily restricted. It figures that NY times decides to quote someone who has no idea what he is basing his opinions on.


100 round mags don't exist? Reality would like a word with you.
 
2012-08-08 11:27:11 PM

max_pooper: Smeggy Smurf: Either I'm being censored or Fark is eating my comments.

We don't need more laws for the criminals to ignore. We need to enforce the ones we already have.

Exactly which gun laws were ignored by Jared Loughner, James Holmes, and Wade Michael Page?


Well Page and Holmes were illegally carrying concealed weapons. In addition, Loughner and Holmes probably should have been reported by their colleges for being mentally unsound. Loughner would have required a mental health clearance from his college to re-enroll in school.
 
2012-08-08 11:33:02 PM

nyseattitude: violentsalvation: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

100 round magazine clips don't exist, and you can't just pick up an automatic weapon at your local gun shop, they are already heavily restricted. It figures that NY times decides to quote someone who has no idea what he is basing his opinions on.

100 round mags don't exist? Reality would like a word with you.


100 round "magazine clips"
 
2012-08-08 11:33:20 PM
The problem is we've done the gun law thing before. Sometimes licensing, sometimes banning.
Its hit a point where people realize this is a political obsession with a theory that doesn't work.

You've got untreated mental cases slipping through the cracks, you've got the FBI ignoring threats because they don't know how to enforce existing rules, you've got the ATF practically giving guns away while running amuck, you've got the losing drug war ramping up the costs, and you've got a public that is suspicious of their government reaching for more authority when its misused everything it has already been given.

The poiliticos want to talk about this, but the voters seeing them speak will be thinking "You really don't have a handle on the whole crime thing..."

If you want to reign in our violence problems then you need to fix the economy, end the drug war, and boost the availability for mental health care. Everything else is useless theater.

babygoat: So why can't I bear nuclear arms?


If you can find one for sale, by all means file for the paperwork.
Otherwise its like asking if phasers are covered by the 2nd amendment.

/I think they should be.
/but I'm an extremist, like that.
 
2012-08-08 11:33:25 PM
Eh, it's sort of a mixed bag as to where the bias here is found, since it's difficult to point out bias when the poll itself is confusing. The SEO-friendly URL includes the phrase "polls-find-opposition-to-stricter-gun-laws," which in and of itself is pretty much true and neutral. The headline itself is "Mixed Views Are Found on Stricter Laws for Guns," which while technically true, avoids using any words that indicate that most people don't want stricter gun control. The article then goes on to detail how the majority of people are satisfied (or realize the futility of) current gun control regulations, but people generally want high-capacity magazines restricted.

But then again, if a majority of people want to see something happen with regards to high-capacity magazines, doesn't that directly contradict the views of those same people who think that current gun control laws are adequate? It's entirely possible that the NYT is overplaying the dissenters in order to portray a controversy where none exists, and it's also entirely possible that those polled are inconsistent and proclaim largely illogical beliefs, which some poor bastard at the Times has to report on but also avoid any perception of liberal media bias.

It's hard to tell, but I think it's a combination of the two, since both the article and source are pretty inconsistent and stupid.
 
2012-08-08 11:34:52 PM

max_pooper: Smeggy Smurf: Either I'm being censored or Fark is eating my comments.

We don't need more laws for the criminals to ignore. We need to enforce the ones we already have.

Exactly which gun laws were ignored by Jared Loughner, James Holmes, and Wade Michael Page?


Murder. Unlawful discharge of a firearm. Brandishing a firearm. Enciting panic. Domestic terrorism.
 
2012-08-08 11:37:21 PM

violentsalvation: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

100 round magazine clips don't exist, and you can't just pick up an automatic weapon at your local gun shop, they are already heavily restricted. It figures that NY times decides to quote someone who has no idea what he is basing his opinions on.


You know he means "magazine" not "magazine clips," don't be obtuse.
 
2012-08-08 11:39:05 PM

violentsalvation: you can't just pick up an automatic weapon at your local gun shop,


Sure you can, if you pay the requisite tax stamp and transfer fee.
 
2012-08-08 11:39:58 PM

violentsalvation: nyseattitude: violentsalvation: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

100 round magazine clips don't exist, and you can't just pick up an automatic weapon at your local gun shop, they are already heavily restricted. It figures that NY times decides to quote someone who has no idea what he is basing his opinions on.

100 round mags don't exist? Reality would like a word with you.

100 round "magazine clips"


So you're one of those morons who believe that the word "clip" can never under any circumstances be used to describe a cartridge for holding ammunition despite being in the popular vernacular for a long time?

I now know that I can pretty much assume anything you say on this subject is pure ignorance. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2012-08-08 11:40:18 PM
Well that didn't take long.

Bring on the:

i79.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-08 11:41:08 PM

dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?


Maybe, just maybe, I want to target shoot with an automatic weapon. You know, kind of like if I was interested in racing, I would start off taking my car to a track and then eventually try a different car. And contrary to what movies/television portray, you can't lay a meaning full spray of automatic fire from a 10 round clip.


GAT_00: fusillade762: Can we skip the tired 2nd Amendment arguments and just get straight to the gun porn?

[news.bbcimg.co.uk image 226x282]

What a guy who probably loved gun porn looked like.


So.. your trying to imply that having an interest in guns also means there is a underlying hatred of non-white people that will eventually lead to an act of domestic terrorism? Because if you are, then I have some bad news for everyone who owns a German Shepard. Well okay, really just bad news for invalids, gays, gypsies, Jews, and Slavs. Because this is what a guy who likes German Shepards looked like:

3.bp.blogspot.com

Or maybe you can stop conflating and generalizing one severely disturbed person with the a the rest of society.
 
2012-08-08 11:41:42 PM

Esc7: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."


"I'm not saying you should outlaw guns sports cars, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons ferraris and corvettes if you just want to target shoot drive," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms travel, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon automobile."
 
2012-08-08 11:42:36 PM
Stricter laws might move the needle just a tiny bit, but when you have as much as guns as you have people, there is just no way to control it to make a difference.

People need to understand random shootings is as American as apple pie, we are just going to have to get use it. It is part of our culture.
 
Displayed 50 of 268 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report