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  
•       •       •

1612 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2012 at 10:53 PM (2 years 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
 
2012-08-09 03:08:29 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Historically speaking, whenever you hear someone say this, what they're proposing is not just a bad idea, it's the worst available idea mathematically possible. The military has always been the single worst social group in any given civilization to hand the ultimate decision of when to use force, partly because 99% of them are in the military because they weren't bright enough for a real job, and partly because of the "when all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" issue.


On the flip side, many firearm enthusiasts I know have had previous military experience themselves. So you have the same people, but now without the command structure. I'm not sure that's really an improvement.

And I get the feeling that you view firearms as a tool to keep rogue governments in check. Problem is, a rebellion would most likely be a drawn-out affair. Initial stores of ammunition would deplete and supply chains may be restricted. Burning through a great deal of ammunition when the shot:kill ratio is crap may not be feasible. I see these guys in Syria using their AK-47s to spray targets around corners and I wonder if they are even hitting anything. Suppressive fire and luck have their places, but eventually you're going to need a better plan.
 
2012-08-09 03:11:44 AM  

ssa5: 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?

I am quite positive had the Founding Fathers known in advance what this law would produce, we would not have the 2nd Amendment, at least not in any recognizable form in this present reality.

I just wish all you gun nuts would just f**king move to Texas and shoot yourselves, so the rest of humanity can progress.

Can anyone answer this; who is more dangerous to the average American today? Al Qaeda or a gun owner.

Better yet take a look at how many shootings occur on a daily basis, yearly, decade, since the end of the second world war. And then ask yourselves what the f**k have we gained really? Is Billy Bob and his inbred hick cousins really going to stop Soviet armor from advancing?


You know, the USA has a lower than the world average intentional homicide rate, while having far and away the most guns per capita? That doesn't seem to square with what you're proposing.
 
2012-08-09 03:13:05 AM  
scoplaw.blogs.com
 
2012-08-09 03:16:21 AM  

Fail in Human Form: MRmakesHappy: There is no reason as a normal citizen (in the USA) to own an automatic weapon that spits 100 bullets at your target every couple of seconds....period.

You're entitled to your opinion but the intent of the 2nd amendment shows you're wrong.


the "intent" of the 2nd amendment as it relates to modern weaponry is hardly self-evident.

hence the debate
 
2012-08-09 03:16:38 AM  

cptjeff: Heliodorus: 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.

Maybe, just maybe, I want to try hunting with an RPG. Is that so very bad? Why can't I buy one legally?

Guess what: you are talking about a machine explicitly designed to kill people. It's great that you can get yourself off looking at a picture of one, but that's a really, really crappy reason for justifying a regulatory stance.


Wow, from the looks of it, the only one getting themselves off is you with your haughtiness. Let me guess, because I harbor an amusement with fully automatic weapons it means that I sit in a dark room and play with myself while simultaneously watching Road House and reading Guns & Ammo?

Also, I'm pretty sure I never delineated what my stance was.

Unless the laws have changed it is still perfectly legal to own one. They're hard to find, and I would assume most of them are in the hands of the 'survivalists' (I would avoid these people) and other splinter groups. Oh wait, your just being obtuse in an attempt to..I guess show how little you know outside of hyperbole?
 
2012-08-09 03:26:39 AM  

violentsalvation: cptjeff: OgreMagi: As already stated, that weapon would not fall under the definition of "personal arms".

Given the absolutist stance you and the NRA are taking in other areas of the issue, that's rather irrelevant, don't you think?

It's a weapon. The second amendment says I have a right to arms. Doesn't specify personal arms or any crap like that. Just says arms.

The issue here is that, by admitting you think nuclear weapons should be off the table, you're agreeing that there should be limits. At that point, it's just a matter of where you think the limits should be, and you abandon any claim to a moral absolute.

I don't know any gun advocate or gun advocacy group that lobbies for a personal right to own nuclear weapons. I don't know why this is constantly brought up. "Yeah you should totally be allowed to pack your gun safe with suitcase nukes because you can also own a black scary rifle, it's your right, right?"

Nobody even brings crazy shiat like that up except people who favor gun control with their illogical fallacies.


That seems to be exactly the point. No one takes the second amendment at face value, since it doesn't differentiate between arms, personal arms, ordinance, or anything else. As such, the argument for gun ownership because it's a constitutional right is kind of out the window. Either it's scripture or it's not.
 
2012-08-09 03:28:52 AM  

Dokushin: ssa5: 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?

I am quite positive had the Founding Fathers known in advance what this law would produce, we would not have the 2nd Amendment, at least not in any recognizable form in this present reality.

I just wish all you gun nuts would just f**king move to Texas and shoot yourselves, so the rest of humanity can progress.

Can anyone answer this; who is more dangerous to the average American today? Al Qaeda or a gun owner.

Better yet take a look at how many shootings occur on a daily basis, yearly, decade, since the end of the second world war. And then ask yourselves what the f**k have we gained really? Is Billy Bob and his inbred hick cousins really going to stop Soviet armor from advancing?

You know, the USA has a lower than the world average intentional homicide rate, while having far and away the most guns per capita? That doesn't seem to square with what you're proposing.


The rest of earth is a shiathole. We should be comparing ourselves against other wealthy industrialized civilized first world nations where our homicide rate is around four times as much.
 
2012-08-09 03:29:15 AM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net


Gun restriction laws punish law-abiding citizens while propagating the MYTH that criminals care what the laws say.

"A well-regulated militia, necessary for the security of a free [state]," the militias regulate themselves. that's why they're militias; they are run and populated with armed, willing civilians. They get no pay for their service. They owe their allegiance to no one.
 
2012-08-09 03:35:45 AM  

Esc7: ssa5: 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?

I am quite positive had the Founding Fathers known in advance what this law would produce, we would not have the 2nd Amendment, at least not in any recognizable form in this present reality.

I just wish all you gun nuts would just f**king move to Texas and shoot yourselves, so the rest of humanity can progress.

Can anyone answer this; who is more dangerous to the average American today? Al Qaeda or a gun owner.

Better yet take a look at how many shootings occur on a daily basis, yearly, decade, since the end of the second world war. And then ask yourselves what the f**k have we gained really? Is Billy Bob and his inbred hick cousins really going to stop Soviet armor from advancing?

You don't seem to understand. These mass shootings are an unfortunate side effect to the necessity that someday, maybe, our democratic government will need to be remade via a bloody revolution and we constantly need the weapons to kill the forces of the state within reach at all times.

I think you'll agree it is a reasonable price to pay.


i also don't understand

do you honestly believe a bloody gun-capping revolution against the govt (and military) using our weaponry from walmart and online vendors could be successful, much less necessary?

and im curious what kind of corrupted "democratic govt" would warrant such a coup and what the revolution would change and who would initiate and coordinate it

bc it sounds like utopian delusional paranoid right-wing batshiattery to me

please illuminate
 
2012-08-09 03:39:03 AM  

Heliodorus: Unless the laws have changed it is still perfectly legal to own one.


upload.wikimedia.org

It used to be that Americans were more concerned with Right than Legal.

On the upshot, suicides are like 10x higher among gun owners, it may be a problem that fixes itself.
 
2012-08-09 03:40:47 AM  

wookiee cookie: i also don't understand

do you honestly believe a bloody gun-capping revolution against the govt (and military) using our weaponry from walmart and online vendors could be successful, much less necessary?

and im curious what kind of corrupted "democratic govt" would warrant such a coup and what the revolution would change and who would initiate and coordinate it

bc it sounds like utopian delusional paranoid right-wing batshiattery to me

please illuminate



do you really think this is the type of shiat people see coming?

As for successful, neither the Vietnamese nor the American revolutionaries should have been successful by any at-the-time analysis by military experts.

No one thinks this shiat is realistic. As I said before, that doesn't preclude the possibility.

Isolating what is necessary by what is needed at a specific point in time is, by definition, short sighted
 
2012-08-09 03:43:27 AM  

Dinjiin: dickfreckle: I know you think you're particularly clever for posting that. I'll let you bask in it for a moment.

There are two ways that I read his post. One was very literal and sarcastic, in which we go back to barrel-loaded muskets. The other is that we limit citizens to single-action pistols and bolt-action rifles.

I wouldn't have a problem with the latter. I say this as somebody who owns a Mossberg 500 and a Schmidt-Rubin K31 and was formerly issued an M16A2 and a Beretta M9 and has had some time with an M60.

Most people I've met are shiat shots with fully-automatic firearms unless they mount them on tripods. The kickback tends to cause their aim to drift upwards and their aim goes to shiat. That is in no way safe. But once you start mounting your automatic rifle on a tripod and are in a prone position or are behind a mound to take fire, terms such as "mowing people down" come into play. I don't think civilians should have that capability[1] as it goes well beyond having a firearm for "personal safety"[2]. I don't even think law enforcement should have it. Leave it for the military. [3]

Meanwhile, I have mixed feelings for allowing civilians to have semi-automatics. If you get a quality high capacity clip that rarely jams, you can discharge a fair amount of ammunition in a short amount of time. Again, that starts to go beyond having a firearm simply for personal protection. On the other hand, target shooting with a single-action pistol can get tiring fairly quick. I go plinking with friends with their .22 semi and it is quite a bit of fun (and the ammo is dirt cheap).


/[1] doesn't help my opinion in that all of the civies I've met who owned automatic rifles were batshiat crazy and/or paranoid as fark. Always a winning combination.
/[2] unless you want protection from law enforcement, the military or a death-squad of ninja
/[3] even the military dislikes full-automatics for small arms because of the reasons I stated, one reason the M16A2 dump ...


That was posted with neither of the meanings that you inferred. It was targeted to those few that seem to actually believe that the second amendment only applies to the firearms of the day at the start of the country or the most limited forms of modern technology available. It then pokes fun at them (perhaps badly) by suggesting that a right that they are using right now, one that they care about, could be interpreted in the same way as a right that they do not. There is no reason to attempt to limit people to any particular type of firearm. Just as locks only keep honest people honest, firearms regulations only stop those that care enough to follow the law anyway. Someone that wishes to cause harm will cause harm. Limiting firearms will not lessen this. Anyone with basic knowledge of chemistry and electronics can make a bomb. Anyone can drive a car through a crowd. If you take away one method of attack, someone with the wrong intent will switch to another method.

Most people would likely agree that background checks are reasonable. But even then, most criminals do not get their firearms from dealers. They get either friends or family members to purchase them, or they are purchased from someone else that either stole them, or had their friends and family members purchase them. If you really wanted to stop them, you would find and charge their supplier with the same crime that they commit, just as a bank robber could be charged with murder if his buddy offs one of the tellers.

At this point, adding restrictions only hurts those that don't want to commit crimes. We are not in grade school any more. Punishing everyone because a very small group of people decided to abuse their rights is wrong and only serves to agitate those that do not wish to cause harm to others.

As an aside, I will assume for a moment that you are talking about single action revolvers based on your remark of them being tiring. (If I did not assume correctly, I apologize in advance and the remainder of this post is only for the education of others) My Springfield Armory XD 9 is a semi-automatic single action pistol and it is not tiring at all. The "action" of a handgun only refers to the purpose of the trigger. Single action only releases the hammer or striker when pulled, while double action will both set the hammer and release it in a single pull. Racking the slide thus accomplishes the initial cocking of the hammer/striker and each cycle of the slide accomplishes the next.
 
2012-08-09 03:46:29 AM  

MurphyMurphy: wookiee cookie: i also don't understand

do you honestly believe a bloody gun-capping revolution against the govt (and military) using our weaponry from walmart and online vendors could be successful, much less necessary?

and im curious what kind of corrupted "democratic govt" would warrant such a coup and what the revolution would change and who would initiate and coordinate it

bc it sounds like utopian delusional paranoid right-wing batshiattery to me

please illuminate


do you really think this is the type of shiat people see coming?

As for successful, neither the Vietnamese nor the American revolutionaries should have been successful by any at-the-time analysis by military experts.

No one thinks this shiat is realistic. As I said before, that doesn't preclude the possibility.

Isolating what is necessary by what is needed at a specific point in time is, by definition, short sighted



For the whole of my adult life I have listened to 2Aers bleat about two things; 1- that guns are needed by the people in case the Govt ever gets out of control and that 2 - Govt is out of control.

And yet, nothing, aside from the occasional McVeigh using fertilizer or Gordon Kahl. When will they free us from this despotism? When Lord, when's gonna be our time?

***crickets***
 
2012-08-09 03:47:50 AM  

wookiee cookie: Fail in Human Form: MRmakesHappy: There is no reason as a normal citizen (in the USA) to own an automatic weapon that spits 100 bullets at your target every couple of seconds....period.

You're entitled to your opinion but the intent of the 2nd amendment shows you're wrong.

the "intent" of the 2nd amendment as it relates to modern weaponry is hardly self-evident.

hence the debate


The intent is clear and the tools involved change with the times. Unless you're proposing arming the military and police with muskets and cannons as well.
 
2012-08-09 03:47:58 AM  

Kolonel Matt: At this point, adding restrictions only hurts those that don't want to commit crimes


glamazonsblog.com
Agrees
 
2012-08-09 03:49:54 AM  
Doesn't stricter gun control work to limit the number of guns made every year as well?(Less demand).
Therefore the only guns left after a few years of effective gun control are those that are really expensive and/or older and well maintained?
 
2012-08-09 03:54:37 AM  

Actor_au: Doesn't stricter gun control work to limit the number of guns made every year as well?(Less demand).
Therefore the only guns left after a few years of effective gun control are those that are really expensive and/or older and well maintained?


So you're proposing limiting our rights through economics?
 
2012-08-09 03:55:17 AM  

Captain_Ballbeard: MurphyMurphy: wookiee cookie: i also don't understand

do you honestly believe a bloody gun-capping revolution against the govt (and military) using our weaponry from walmart and online vendors could be successful, much less necessary?

and im curious what kind of corrupted "democratic govt" would warrant such a coup and what the revolution would change and who would initiate and coordinate it

bc it sounds like utopian delusional paranoid right-wing batshiattery to me

please illuminate


do you really think this is the type of shiat people see coming?

As for successful, neither the Vietnamese nor the American revolutionaries should have been successful by any at-the-time analysis by military experts.

No one thinks this shiat is realistic. As I said before, that doesn't preclude the possibility.

Isolating what is necessary by what is needed at a specific point in time is, by definition, short sighted


For the whole of my adult life I have listened to 2Aers bleat about two things; 1- that guns are needed by the people in case the Govt ever gets out of control and that 2 - Govt is out of control.

And yet, nothing, aside from the occasional McVeigh using fertilizer or Gordon Kahl. When will they free us from this despotism? When Lord, when's gonna be our time?

***crickets***


well, as one person that would probably be labeled a gun nut

let's hope all we continue to hear is crickets. for the rest of our lives

/You asked for illumination, but in your followup didn't contradict a thing I said. Does this mean you acknowledge the possibility that I might be right?
 
2012-08-09 03:57:24 AM  

MurphyMurphy: Captain_Ballbeard: MurphyMurphy: wookiee cookie: i also don't understand

do you honestly believe a bloody gun-capping revolution against the govt (and military) using our weaponry from walmart and online vendors could be successful, much less necessary?

and im curious what kind of corrupted "democratic govt" would warrant such a coup and what the revolution would change and who would initiate and coordinate it

bc it sounds like utopian delusional paranoid right-wing batshiattery to me

please illuminate


do you really think this is the type of shiat people see coming?

As for successful, neither the Vietnamese nor the American revolutionaries should have been successful by any at-the-time analysis by military experts.

No one thinks this shiat is realistic. As I said before, that doesn't preclude the possibility.

Isolating what is necessary by what is needed at a specific point in time is, by definition, short sighted


For the whole of my adult life I have listened to 2Aers bleat about two things; 1- that guns are needed by the people in case the Govt ever gets out of control and that 2 - Govt is out of control.

And yet, nothing, aside from the occasional McVeigh using fertilizer or Gordon Kahl. When will they free us from this despotism? When Lord, when's gonna be our time?

***crickets***

well, as one person that would probably be labeled a gun nut

let's hope all we continue to hear is crickets. for the rest of our lives

/You asked for illumination, but in your followup didn't contradict a thing I said. Does this mean you acknowledge the possibility that I might be right?


my bad, i misattributed a previous comment to you that wasn't yours. my mistake. i've had a few
 
2012-08-09 03:59:06 AM  

Captain_Ballbeard: Kolonel Matt: At this point, adding restrictions only hurts those that don't want to commit crimes

[glamazonsblog.com image 600x338]
Agrees


Only if you are living in a world where him not having guns would have magically made him not able to harm people. Here in reality, we know better. Had he not used the "high capacity" drum magazine, it likely would not have jammed, allowing him to do even more harm. Even with just a bolt action much harm can be done. Just look here: Mad Minute

Keep in mind this was done at 300 yards. Much easier to aim up close.
 
2012-08-09 04:01:46 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: 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.


And just how would the enforcement of the laws "we already have" -- these ones you cited in particular -- have helped in any of those circumstances?


Esc7: You don't seem to understand. These mass shootings are an unfortunate side effect to the necessity that someday, maybe, our democratic government will need to be remade via a bloody revolution and we constantly need the weapons to kill the forces of the state within reach at all times.

I think you'll agree it is a reasonable price to pay.


Indeed. God bless us every one.
 
2012-08-09 04:05:23 AM  

TsukasaK: Well that didn't take long.

Bring on the:

[i79.photobucket.com image 375x523]


The funny thing is that the quote from Uchiha_Cycliste isn't far from the truth: a certain gun nut who frequents this site got a vacation (I think/hope) after threatening me.
 
2012-08-09 04:05:50 AM  

wookiee cookie: Esc7: ssa5: 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?

I am quite positive had the Founding Fathers known in advance what this law would produce, we would not have the 2nd Amendment, at least not in any recognizable form in this present reality.

I just wish all you gun nuts would just f**king move to Texas and shoot yourselves, so the rest of humanity can progress.

Can anyone answer this; who is more dangerous to the average American today? Al Qaeda or a gun owner.

Better yet take a look at how many shootings occur on a daily basis, yearly, decade, since the end of the second world war. And then ask yourselves what the f**k have we gained really? Is Billy Bob and his inbred hick cousins really going to stop Soviet armor from advancing?

You don't seem to understand. These mass shootings are an unfortunate side effect to the necessity that someday, maybe, our democratic government will need to be remade via a bloody revolution and we constantly need the weapons to kill the forces of the state within reach at all times.

I think you'll agree it is a reasonable price to pay.

i also don't understand

do you honestly believe a bloody gun-capping revolution against the govt (and military) using our weaponry from walmart and online vendors could be successful, much less necessary?

and im curious what kind of corrupted "democratic govt" would warrant such a coup and what the revolution would change and who would initiate and coordinate it

bc it sounds like utopian delusional paranoid right-wing batshiattery to me

please illuminate


Sorry I guess sarcasm doesnt travel well over a smart phone.
 
2012-08-09 04:14:12 AM  

Fail in Human Form: wookiee cookie: Fail in Human Form: MRmakesHappy: There is no reason as a normal citizen (in the USA) to own an automatic weapon that spits 100 bullets at your target every couple of seconds....period.

You're entitled to your opinion but the intent of the 2nd amendment shows you're wrong.

the "intent" of the 2nd amendment as it relates to modern weaponry is hardly self-evident.

hence the debate

The intent is clear and the tools involved change with the times. Unless you're proposing arming the military and police with muskets and cannons as well.


no not clear hence the differing interpretations, esp as relates to the introductory "well-regulated militia" clause

tools change? youdontsay.jpg

and er no, not proposing the other thing, how you inferred that from my comment, who the hell knows
 
2012-08-09 04:21:57 AM  

The_Sponge: cptjeff: A WELL REGULATED militia....

The Constitution says we can regulate them.


You do realize that the original intent of "well regulated" meant well armed/equipped/trained?


Even Scalia agrees upon that.
 
2012-08-09 04:27:01 AM  

MurphyMurphy: Captain_Ballbeard: MurphyMurphy: wookiee cookie: i also don't understand

do you honestly believe a bloody gun-capping revolution against the govt (and military) using our weaponry from walmart and online vendors could be successful, much less necessary?

and im curious what kind of corrupted "democratic govt" would warrant such a coup and what the revolution would change and who would initiate and coordinate it

bc it sounds like utopian delusional paranoid right-wing batshiattery to me

please illuminate


do you really think this is the type of shiat people see coming?

As for successful, neither the Vietnamese nor the American revolutionaries should have been successful by any at-the-time analysis by military experts.

No one thinks this shiat is realistic. As I said before, that doesn't preclude the possibility.

Isolating what is necessary by what is needed at a specific point in time is, by definition, short sighted


For the whole of my adult life I have listened to 2Aers bleat about two things; 1- that guns are needed by the people in case the Govt ever gets out of control and that 2 - Govt is out of control.

And yet, nothing, aside from the occasional McVeigh using fertilizer or Gordon Kahl. When will they free us from this despotism? When Lord, when's gonna be our time?

***crickets***

well, as one person that would probably be labeled a gun nut

let's hope all we continue to hear is crickets. for the rest of our lives

/You asked for illumination, but in your followup didn't contradict a thing I said. Does this mean you acknowledge the possibility that I might be right?


i asked for the illumination, but honestly your response included apples/oranges fallacy with the vietnamese and american revolution and also evaded direct answers to my questions

this was especially derpy:

"isolating what is necessary by what is needed at a specific point in time is, by definition, short sighted"

um, too much to unpack there, eff it
 
2012-08-09 04:29:13 AM  

Actor_au: Doesn't stricter gun control work to limit the number of guns made every year as well?(Less demand).


If the laws were particularly strict, yes, such laws would limit the number of legal guns produced in the country.

Of course, they'd likely have little effect on illegal imports or manufacture of guns.

Therefore the only guns left after a few years of effective gun control are those that are really expensive and/or older and well maintained?

Sure, in much the same way that after decades of a "war on drugs", illegal drug use is down. Oh wait, it isn't.

If kept in good condition and maintained reasonably well, guns don't really "wear out" from being idle. Even moderate use doesn't put too much wear on modern firearms.

/Mass shootings are (thank goodness) quite rare, but receive a lot of media coverage. Less-newsworthy violent crimes are committed far more frequently, so if one is serious about reducing violent crime it'd probably be sensible to work to reduce the more common crimes first, preferably by addressing the issues that cause people to turn to violent crime (e.g. poverty, gangs, drugs, etc.) rather than treating a symptom.
//While the US has the most number of guns-per-capita in the US, other countries have substantial numbers of guns as well. Nearly every Swiss household has an automatic rifle and ammo in the house (military service is mandatory for able-bodied/minded males). Crime is extremely low. Same thing with Canada, Norway, Sweden, etc. Even though they have a fairly high number of guns-per-capita their violent crime rates are disproportionately lower. It seems that violent crime rates are affected more by other factors than availability/ownership of guns.
 
2012-08-09 04:34:32 AM  

Esc7: wookiee cookie: Esc7: ssa5: 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?

I am quite positive had the Founding Fathers known in advance what this law would produce, we would not have the 2nd Amendment, at least not in any recognizable form in this present reality.

I just wish all you gun nuts would just f**king move to Texas and shoot yourselves, so the rest of humanity can progress.

Can anyone answer this; who is more dangerous to the average American today? Al Qaeda or a gun owner.

Better yet take a look at how many shootings occur on a daily basis, yearly, decade, since the end of the second world war. And then ask yourselves what the f**k have we gained really? Is Billy Bob and his inbred hick cousins really going to stop Soviet armor from advancing?

You don't seem to understand. These mass shootings are an unfortunate side effect to the necessity that someday, maybe, our democratic government will need to be remade via a bloody revolution and we constantly need the weapons to kill the forces of the state within reach at all times.

I think you'll agree it is a reasonable price to pay.

i also don't understand

do you honestly believe a bloody gun-capping revolution against the govt (and military) using our weaponry from walmart and online vendors could be successful, much less necessary?

and im curious what kind of corrupted "democratic govt" would warrant such a coup and what the revolution would change and who would initiate and coordinate it

bc it sounds like utopian delusional paranoid right-wing batshiattery to me

please illuminate

Sorry I guess sarcasm doesnt travel well over a smart phone.


needed to crank the derp to 11 or else poe's law wins
 
2012-08-09 04:51:33 AM  

wookiee cookie: i asked for the illumination, but honestly your response included apples/oranges fallacy with the vietnamese and american revolution and also evaded direct answers to my questions

this was especially derpy:

"isolating what is necessary by what is needed at a specific point in time is, by definition, short sighted"

um, too much to unpack there, eff it



I'm sorry I got your fruit basket all mixed up. By all means, provide a more apt analogy.

As to the second, is one sentence too difficult for you to "unpack" ? I may be drunk, but that is pretty damn to the point.

As far as the answer to your question, I think I covered it with: "No one thinks this shiat is realistic. As I said before, that doesn't preclude the possibility."

Of course, god forbid you have to "unpack it" :-/
 
2012-08-09 05:42:19 AM  

James F. Campbell: TsukasaK: Well that didn't take long.

Bring on the:

[i79.photobucket.com image 375x523]

The funny thing is that the quote from Uchiha_Cycliste isn't far from the truth: a certain gun nut who frequents this site got a vacation (I think/hope) after threatening me.


well this was an odd way to be beckoned into a thread.... Though I must admit, I meant most of what I said in that particular thread.
 
2012-08-09 05:43:32 AM  
no evasive analogies needed. could a modern american gun revolution against the gov't be successful? yes or no. reason, observation, brain says no. i have no idea what right-wingers "think". that's why i ask. and yet this "armed populace against govt oppression" pony show is trotted out all the time

and how can something "no one thinks is realistic" also be a possiblity? is this some kind of zen koan? bc it looks like contradictory derp.

re: necessity: without picking apart the sentence for all the connotations and assumptions (which is what "unpacking" means, and is tedious and boring) in short, your statement basically refutes the reason to do anything "necessary" at all. it's nonsense. and it doesn't answer the specifics i asked for: "what conditions would make it nessa to revolt against the govt?" bueller?

but continue to evade all the specifics i wondered about in my original post (what to change in the govt with this revolution and who would lead it)

evading direct and honest questions is where right-wingers are vikings

maybe you should sober up before you attempt posting a response. drunk is not working in your favor here.
 
2012-08-09 05:45:35 AM  

MurphyMurphy: wookiee cookie: i asked for the illumination, but honestly your response included apples/oranges fallacy with the vietnamese and american revolution and also evaded direct answers to my questions

this was especially derpy:

"isolating what is necessary by what is needed at a specific point in time is, by definition, short sighted"

um, too much to unpack there, eff it


I'm sorry I got your fruit basket all mixed up. By all means, provide a more apt analogy.

As to the second, is one sentence too difficult for you to "unpack" ? I may be drunk, but that is pretty damn to the point.

As far as the answer to your question, I think I covered it with: "No one thinks this shiat is realistic. As I said before, that doesn't preclude the possibility."

Of course, god forbid you have to "unpack it" :-/


no evasive analogies needed. could a modern american gun revolution against the gov't be successful? yes or no. reason, observation, brain says no. i have no idea what right-wingers "think". that's why i ask. and yet this "armed populace against govt oppression" pony show is trotted out all the time

and how can something "no one thinks is realistic" also be a possiblity? is this some kind of zen koan? bc it looks like contradictory derp.

re: necessity: without picking apart the sentence for all the connotations and assumptions (which is what "unpacking" means, and is tedious and boring) in short, your statement basically refutes the reason to do anything "necessary" at all. it's nonsense. and it doesn't answer the specifics i asked for: "what conditions would make it nessa to revolt against the govt?" bueller?

but continue to evade all the specifics i wondered about in my original post (what to change in the govt with this revolution and who would lead it)

evading direct and honest questions is where right-wingers are vikings

maybe you should sober up before you attempt posting a response. drunk is not working in your favor here.
 
2012-08-09 05:57:25 AM  

Seabon: Reasonable people may differ on where exactly to draw the line.

/The NRA is not reasonable.


The NRA is highly reasonable. They're simply the biggest target. There are groups out there specifically looking to end background checks, the NFA, etc...

Funbags: Someone explain why the gun-nuts and/or NRA oppose severely restrictive gun control?


Let's see. Imagine that - People who love guns, love collecting and shooting them, objecting to 'severe gun control' that impacts their ability to enjoy their hobby. Color me shocked. The NRA is the beginning step for 'gun nuts'. Hunters, self defense people, reasonable non-racist types join the NRA. Racist farks join places like stormfront. Even the racist type gun nuts recognize that any gun control measures are likely to impact them before it impacts the communists/fascists, brown people, etc...

As somebody who prepares for the zombie apocalypse, once that hits I don't care what the color of your skin is - are you still a living, breathing human? Yes? Great. Can you cooperate with me, and not stab/shoot me in the back? Yes? Excellent, welcome to the team. But then, I'm not obsessed with Obama, communism or fascism. I'm just an ordinary gun nut. I like collecting and shooting guns. I'll react to threats to that, but otherwise I'm pretty laid back.

We'd all be a lot safer if they'd focus their efforts on making sure the American public has unlimited access to armor-piercing ammunition, grenades, and RPGs.

That would be so cool. ;)

Note: I actually own a dummy RPG (Rifle Propelled Grenade, predates Rocket PGs and the underslung mounts). It's got a solid rubber 'warhead'. I play a sort of horseshoes with it(closest to the center of the circle wins), it's great fun. Somebody once went: 'Isn't that dangerous?', to which I replied 'Not anymore than the real rounds I can fire through the gun with considerably less effort'.

redmid17: Wouldn't do any good except in states that require gun registration.


Well, that and people feared that the legislation would allow witch hunts/prosecution of somebody for not reporting when they didn't notice. Now while many would think that keeping track of your guns is easy, and it can be, I don't by habit inventory my set every day. Let's say I was on vacation and didn't notice that I was burgled and the thief was subtle and didn't take everything, just a couple guns. It could be a while before I noticed. Then the cops come calling and ask why I didn't report it stolen. Why? I was gone/didn't find out.

Unlikely, yes. 99.9% of thieves are going to leave enough traces that I'll be inventorying up and reporting assuming they don't take all of them(and I'll notice when I get home), but enough for the NRA to oppose it.
 
2012-08-09 06:30:11 AM  
Okay, haven't had a lot of sleep but I'm going to do my best at creating a break down of the 2nd Amendment/ gun control debate. Get ready for a tl;dr.

First off, as stated earlier the opening clause "A well regulated militia, being necessary for a free state" is not a grammatically complete sentence/thought. Since a well regulated militia is necessary, the right of the people shall not be infringed. The people have a right to keep and bear arms as it may become necessary for the people to come to the defense of the nation. In the context as written well regulated meant well equipped/trained. Should weapons training be mandatory with every firearms purchase? If it were not cost prohibitive, sure. If it is (and yes, it probably is if it were mandatory) then the option should be available, which it is. If training cannot be given, then the right still cannot be prohibited as there would be no means of having the militia armed except by the government. If the government is the threat to the nation, then that doesn't work out well.

Next up, proposed bans or further restrictions on Assault Weapons. Automatic fire weapons are already highly regulated, and there aren't many people who have a problem with that, pro 2nd Amendment or not. A common argument is "not seeing the need" for someone to own an automatic weapon or one which is classiffied as an assault weapon. That's quite alright, but not seeing why someone would want or need something is not a justifiable reason to prohibit them from having it. It is extremely cost prohibitive to purchase an automatic fire weapon and there are many background checks to go through as well as being under government scrutiny. It is a general truth that criminals do not want to bring themselves under intense scrutiny, which is why nearly all criminals who use firearms do not carry them openly, even in states which allow the open carry of firearms (which is why a call to restrict or disallow open carry due to "public safety" is fallacious. A firearm in a holster, be it visible or otherwise is not a threat to the public until it leaves that holster.) That brings us to semi-automatic rifles which are the next on the list for further restrictions or an outright ban. It was ruled in the Dc v Heller decision that any firearm in common lawful useage is exempt from any such ban which rules out the AR-15, the most common target of such proposals. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the United States currently in both sales and useage. Also, proposals to ban assault weapons often are written by legislators or lobbyists with little knowledge about the firearms in question be it how to define said weapons/ misrepresentations on the abitlities of said weapons/ misrepresentations on the means necessary to purchase said weapons/ etc. and are rightfully mocked for failing to do their homework when proposing to limit the liberties of the general public.

Next up is the proposal to limit magazine capacity. Despite the line of thought that more bullets in a magazine = more death, this is not necessarily true. Also, there is little consensus on what constitute "high capacity". California restricts magazine size to 10 rounds. Many pistols of many caliburs have factory stock magazines of higher capacity. So what would the limit be? 5? 2? Only single shot weaponry? The problem is that many of the people who propose capacity limitations do not have a low end because their ultimate goal is to restrict firearms useage and ownership. Higher capacity magazines do have a tendency to jam which limits the usefulness of that weapon. Furthermore, without much training it is not very difficult to change the magazine of a semiautomatic weapon (in this case we're using a semi-automatic pistol as it is more commonly used unlawfully than a rifle by an order of magnitude). Proposals to limit magazine size would have no appreciable effect on the number of deaths in one on one shootings or mass shootings and thus only have a net effect of inconveniencing the law abiding target shooter.

Then we come to ammunition limitations. When news stories report someone had 6000 rounds the general reaction from people without knowledge of firearms useage is that this is a warning sign that a person had malicious intent. To the average target shooter though, it is quite easy to use 200 rounds or more in a single target practice session depending on the calibur and weapon. Proposing a limit on the amount of ammunition which can be bought by a law abiding citizen or where that ammunition can be bought only burdens the law abiding citizen. Purchase of ammunition by mail or internet already requires that the ammunition be sent to a licensed firearms dealer (in my state at least). The same goes with online purchase of firearms. The FFL then does the required WICS background check before the weapon can legally be transferred to the person who ordered it. Don't pass the background check, don't get the weapon. Period.

Next we'll tackle the Gun Show Loophole. Any firearm purchased from a licensed dealer at a gun show goes through the same background check. End of discussion. If the dealer has a sale with no background check they lose their license and deal with some very serious federal punishment. So that brings us to private sale from one person to another. There is no background check required because it is a private sale and thus is difficult to the point of impossible for the government, state or federal, to regulate and monitor. A good fix on this would be something another Farker proposed in another thread. A smart phone app which tied into the WICS database, free to the public. No personal information given beyond Yes, the sale is legal or No, the sale is not legal. That might help mitigate the private sale of firearms to those who are legally ineligible to purchase and own them, but there is no way to know really. Couldn't hurt though.

Many times statistics are thrown around with the intent to show that there is a serious gun violence problem in the United States. Often times the most damning of these are provided by the Violence Policy Center. If you take anything from the Violence Policy Center as direct truth, you're most likely being mislead as they have been verifiably shown to be misleading in their information, as their ultimate goal is the complete ban and destruction of all civilian owned firearms. One of their most common tactics are including suicides in homicide statistics, including lawful self defense homicides as murder, including accidental or negligent homicides and not disclosing such, and refusing to eliminate known gang members from their statistics when showing the number of children killed by firearms. Is there a gun violence problem in America? One could argue that any gun violence is a problem, and would be inherently true. However, the violence is what needs to be addressed, not the tools or methodology used.

Which brings us to my closing (I'm sure if you made it this far you're thankful). A more effective means of curbing gun violence is addressing and fixing the situations which bring about the violence. Poverty, drug prohibition, and an inadequate mental health care system. There is no single solution, which is what further gun regulations/bans are proposed to be. Some other solutions to the actual problem of violent crime are:

1) Bolstering our mental health care through additional funding and a public awareness program to reduce the stigma of seeking or requiring mental health care. Also, connecting mental health professionals to the WICS database. If someone is deemed a danger to themselves or society, mental health physician should have the means of black listing that person from being able to purchase or own a firearm until deemed mentally fit, at which point they can undergo an evaluation/ hearing to have that right reinstated.
2) Lifting the prohibition on cannabis and regulating it in a similar fashion to alcohol ( a mind altering substance with worse health repercussions than cannabis, which is legal to purchase, consume, and create). Decriminalisation of substance use and treating substance addiction/ abuse as a medical issue rather than a crime would also help society quite a bit. The guy who has an addiction to heroin, pain killers, etc. needs medical help, not jail time. The guy who has an addiction and commits a crime to feed his addiction needs medical help and jail time.
3) Gang violence will take a hit with the previous suggestion being implemented, as much gang violence is fueled by drug sales. There also needs to be a public push to ostracize the culture of glorifying gang violence and the subsequent derision for education. Funds freed up by the seriously reduced or dissolved DEA can be used to target low income areas for increased education, birth control advocacy, mentoring/ role model programs.

Sorry about the wall of text, but this is something I'm quite interested and mentally invested in.
 
2012-08-09 06:31:54 AM  
i84.photobucket.com

Submitter?
 
2012-08-09 06:32:03 AM  
I am beginning the think media favors the rich. I can't be sure, because I am too stupid to equate big paychecks with favoring the rich. But, I am starting to believe the media favors the needs of the rich.

Wealthy people like it when only those on the payroll have guns, because it is easier to fix prices and collect money when the debtors are unarmed.
 
2012-08-09 06:44:47 AM  

Loaded Six String: Sorry about the wall of text, but this is something I'm quite interested and mentally invested in.


Bravo. You pretty much nailed my views on the subject as well.
 
2012-08-09 06:54:42 AM  

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.


Crap, I hope not. I can't dance while I knife fight.
 
2012-08-09 06:56:35 AM  

wookiee cookie: no evasive analogies needed. could a modern american gun revolution against the gov't be successful? yes or no. reason, observation, brain says no. i have no idea what right-wingers "think". that's why i ask. and yet this "armed populace against govt oppression" pony show is trotted out all the time

and how can something "no one thinks is realistic" also be a possiblity? is this some kind of zen koan? bc it looks like contradictory derp.

re: necessity: without picking apart the sentence for all the connotations and assumptions (which is what "unpacking" means, and is tedious and boring) in short, your statement basically refutes the reason to do anything "necessary" at all. it's nonsense. and it doesn't answer the specifics i asked for: "what conditions would make it nessa to revolt against the govt?" bueller?

but continue to evade all the specifics i wondered about in my original post (what to change in the govt with this revolution and who would lead it)

evading direct and honest questions is where right-wingers are vikings

maybe you should sober up before you attempt posting a response. drunk is not working in your favor here.


If I may interject my own response please. An armed revolution would be necessary in the circumstance of a governing body seriously restricting representation by the public in government affairs. An example would be a head of office declaring martial law, removing the cabinet from office, and delaying or abolishing the electoral process, determining all government appointment from within the government.

As to whether an armed revolt in the US would be succesful, you might be surprised. Yes it is often brought up that the government has a standing military with superior firepower, however that military is formed of soldiers who are citizens first and foremost. It is unlikely that a majority of the armed forces would obey an order to fire upon fellow citizens, especially if the example of tyranny given had occurred. Every member of the armed forces is sworn to protect the nation from all threats, foreign and domestic. That would be the difference from a revolution and a coup d' etat (sp?). An armed revolt with no tyrannical spark to set it off would be quelled as a domestic threat. Just as a government removing the representation of the citizenry is also a domestic threat.

So then there's the nitty gritty. What if the military and the armed citizenry did in fact clash? Artillery and air strikes would be out of the question as there would be too much colateral damage to innocent citizenry. Nuclear arms and biological warfare are out for the same reason, as well as being against international treaty, which would bring aid from other countries to the rebellion. So any fight would have to be waged by infantry and light armored units. Guerrilla tactics are very capable against a larger better equipped enemy. They worked in the American Revolution, the Vietnam War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any armed rebellion would be able to easily organize with use of cell phones and internet useage, unless the government has a way of removing both of those from availability. An armed rebellion's priorities would be to take control of important installations (military bases if possible, utilities, supply stations for food, fuel, ammunition, etc.) and finally march on the capitol with the intent of creating a checkmate. Government would lose control and the nation would be in turmoil. It would be a long, bloody conflict, not an easy military sweep by any stretch of the imagination. The only way the conflict would end would be government acquiescing or the decimation of the nation's population and citizenry.

Let's say the governing body concedes so we can come to the final point: what would be done to change the government in such an outcome? Most likely, the officials responsible would be put on trial or dead. Next, it would be determined by leaders of the rebellion and supportive government/ legal experts as to how the previous system failed and what measures could be done to repair or improve it, probably serious restructuring of the elective process as well as the influence of money in the government system. Then would come emergency elections and damage control/ rebuilding.

And no, I honestly do not fantasize about armed rebellion, nor am I affiliated with either of our major political parties, nor the Tea Party. Just thought I should get that out of the way before someone trips on an ad hominem and embarasses themselves. It doesn't make for good discussion.
 
2012-08-09 07:11:20 AM  

Captain_Ballbeard: Heliodorus: Unless the laws have changed it is still perfectly legal to own one.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 222x222]

It used to be that Americans were more concerned with Right than Legal.

On the upshot, suicides are like 10x higher among gun owners, it may be a problem that fixes itself.


Okay, I'm going to assume that you were a little tipsy when the idea to post this popped into your head. I'm doing this to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not whoring out the dark historical moments of inhumane treatment and ideology in the US because you have a problem with guns. The battle over slavery was an example of right vs. legality. The political positions over gun control/ownership is not a clear cut situation of right and wrong. You may think it is so, but your wrong. That paradigm in your head is nothing more than your opinion. Everyone has an opinion, you are not special. Just as you feel the need to put as many restrictions on guns as possible, there are just as many who do not. Otherwise, you have accomplished the liberal equivalent of a Jesus freak who whores out the bible to bind legitimacy to their baseless discrimination against women, gays, etc.

More importantly, I know a lot of people who own guns and a lot that do not. Funny thing is that regardless of their feelings, the moral/ethical ones do not relish the death of their ideological opponents.

Finally, I don't own a gun currently. So there's that.
 
2012-08-09 07:19:35 AM  
Now just for fun, I'll take on some of the fallacies that come up.

1) Why can't I own a nuclear bomb/ rpg/ etc? Well, first of the amendment is just for arms which are defined as being able to be carried and used by a single person. Nuclear bombs, even suitcase bombs, are defined as WMDs, ordnance, what have you, but not arms. RPGs if they have an explosive warhead are defined as destructive devices. Destructive devices are highly regulated, highly cost prohibitive when legal for ownership, and not really in demand except when brought up by someone being snarky in a gun control discussion.

2) If someone had been armed x situation would have ended differently. Sometimes brought up in earnest, sometimes used to mock. This is really not a good argument as each situation is different. Aurora shooting? Probably not, given the gas canisters. A one on one violent crime? Definitely more feasible. The point is that most violent crime is not mass shootings, but gang violence or one on one violence. I'm fairly certain that when this particular gem was first used, it was in reference to a violent crime which happened in a gun free zone. Gun free zones do nothing but to prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying their lawful weapons in an area which more often than not does not have adequate security to prevent crime and thus creates the perfect hunting ground for the average mugger, rapist, or sadly, the homicidal spree shooter. Gun free zones on college campuses are an awful idea as most college campuses are open to the public. Look up the violent crime stats of your local or favorite university. I can nearly guaruntee you that there is a surprisingly high number of rapes and armed robbery.

3) Accidental discharges are exceedingly rare, but are more commonly found in news articles than negligent discharges. Fact of the matter is, guns don't go off by themselves. The owner of the weapon was doing something negligent. I can't stand hearing about a person who was cleaning their gun and it went off. There is no amount of face palming vigorous enough for someone who tries to clean a weapon that they didn't verify as being unloaded and had a locked open action. Double the amount of face palm if it was a cop, because it seems that negligent discharges by a police officer are by default "accidental". Bite me, you did something stupid.

4) The useage of the phrase gun nut describe all firearms owners and enthusiasts. Come on. You should be better than that if you're going to have an adult discussion. Also, knock it off with the insistence that all firearms owners have small penises. That stopped being funny when the H3 hit the market and you're not doing anything constructive. Just admit that someone likes something you don't like and grow up.
 
2012-08-09 07:21:40 AM  

Firethorn: Loaded Six String: Sorry about the wall of text, but this is something I'm quite interested and mentally invested in.

Bravo. You pretty much nailed my views on the subject as well.


Thank you. I have a concealed weapons license and my father is active in gun rights. It is one of the few things I can speak of with and informed basis and comes up more often than Star Trek :P
 
2012-08-09 07:30:40 AM  
I almost forgot one of the more popular fallacies.

5) "Anyone who has a concealed weapons license and carries a weapon must be afraid of the world. I'd hate to be so fearful and paranoid." Granted, I can't speak for all CCL owners, but at least in my case and the case of everyone I know who has one, it pretty much works out to be the Boy Scout motto. "Always be prepared." That's it. No booga booga involved. Most people have a fire extinguisher in their home in case of fire. Do they live in constant fear of fire? No. Most concealed carriers do not live in constant fear of having to defend themselves from violence, but like to be prepared in case the need were to arise. I carry a Leatherman multi-tool with me on a daily basis for that exact same line of reasoning. I still haven't had to use that damn can opener yet, but the blade, pliers, and screwdrivers have been useful on many occasions where I otherwise would not have known beforehand that I would have use of them.
 
2012-08-09 07:39:59 AM  

redmid17: Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right


BULLshiat!

Try shouting fire in a movie house.
Calling a cop a farking asshole.
Giving porn to schoolchildren.
Protest the GOP convention.

The 'right to free speech' is so regulated and controlled that it doesn't mean anything.
 
2012-08-09 07:59:04 AM  

Loaded Six String: Most concealed carriers do not live in constant fear of having to defend themselves from violence, but like to be prepared in case the need were to arise. I carry a Leatherman multi-tool with me on a daily basis for that exact same line of reasoning. I still haven't had to use that damn can opener yet, but the blade, pliers, and screwdrivers have been useful on many occasions where I otherwise would not have known beforehand that I would have use of them.


How often have you used the concealed gun?

I'm 50 years old and travel pretty extensively. I have NEVER had a reason to use a concealed weapon.
The few times that I might have needed one, there wouldn't have been time to draw safely.

Do you carry a defibrillator everywhere you go? That would be more useful.
Do you carry a first aid kit everywhere you go? That would be more useful.
Do you carry a hammer everywhere you go? That would be more useful.

There are literally MILLIONS of things that are more useful to carry than a gun.
Things that are easier, safer and more likely to save a life.
But you choose to carry the one thing whose sole purpose is killing humans.

You have the right to carry a gun. Don't pretend that it is logical to do so.
 
2012-08-09 08:14:42 AM  

Without Fail: redmid17: Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

BULLshiat!

Try shouting fire in a movie house.
Calling a cop a farking asshole.
Giving porn to schoolchildren.
Protest the GOP convention.

The 'right to free speech' is so regulated and controlled that it doesn't mean anything.


Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
 
2012-08-09 08:17:04 AM  
Dear morons. The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the people from the government.
 
2012-08-09 08:21:37 AM  

wookiee cookie: Fail in Human Form: MRmakesHappy: There is no reason as a normal citizen (in the USA) to own an automatic weapon that spits 100 bullets at your target every couple of seconds....period.

You're entitled to your opinion but the intent of the 2nd amendment shows you're wrong.

the "intent" of the 2nd amendment as it relates to modern weaponry is hardly self-evident.

hence the debate


Then adopt a new amendment to make it self evident (for or against) modern weaponry.
 
2012-08-09 08:23:53 AM  

rohar: Without Fail:
Try shouting fire in a movie house.


This is something that could and should have been resolved under property rights instead of limiting free speach
 
2012-08-09 08:27:21 AM  

cptjeff: Anyway, good night. I have to meet a few people on the Hill tomorrow, and need some sleep. Yes, that is my passive aggressive way of telling you that my opinion on this shiat matters a whole lot more than yours.


mlkshk.com
That's not how "passive aggressive" works!
 
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 »
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