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  
•       •       •

1611 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
 
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.
 
2012-08-08 11:43:54 PM

max_pooper: 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.


And what are your opinions on shoulder things that go up?
 
2012-08-08 11:44:13 PM

eraser8: 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.


The fact that Fox News says so over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
 
2012-08-08 11:45:46 PM
So am I supposed to believe that if we ban most firearms, then people will stop going around mass-murdering crowds?

i.imgur.com

Maybe we should pass stricter international IED treaties while we're at it.
 
2012-08-08 11:46:13 PM

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.


Doesn't seem like these laws were a deterrent when they put bullet holes in innocent victims like 9 year old kids.

As I have said, violent shootings are part of our culture, we will get use to it like everything else we can't stop.
 
2012-08-08 11:46:14 PM

redmid17: 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."


Hey! I didn't have a dog in this fight because they're generally stupid, but you'll take my Porsches from my cold dead hands!
 
2012-08-08 11:49:15 PM

rohar: redmid17: 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."

Hey! I didn't have a dog in this fight because they're generally stupid, but you'll take my Porsches from my cold dead hands!


Dogs are often not very intelligent, especially ones that engage in fighting. However I will never take your Porsches. If I could afford one, I would be doing drunk doughnuts in my backyard as we speak.
 
2012-08-08 11:50:38 PM

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


For someone being pedantic about the word clip, you sure don't understand the difference between automatic and fully automatic weapons.

You can in fact pick up automatic weapons at your local gun shop, most of the weapons sold there are automatic weapons.
 
2012-08-08 11:50:40 PM

SeismicJizzer: 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.

Doesn't seem like these laws were a deterrent when they put bullet holes in innocent victims like 9 year old kids.

As I have said, violent shootings are part of our culture, we will get use to it like everything else we can't stop.


Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.
 
2012-08-08 11:52:41 PM
I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.
 
2012-08-08 11:53:42 PM

Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.


Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right
 
2012-08-08 11:54:21 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.


Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.
 
2012-08-08 11:55:12 PM

magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.


Nuclear weapons don't fall under the historical precedent for individual ownership that firearms do.
 
2012-08-08 11:55:28 PM

redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right


So? Maybe they need to be even more regulated?
 
2012-08-08 11:55:38 PM

redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right


Its also the only right that kills people every day.
 
2012-08-08 11:56:07 PM
Well, this thread is sure to be productive.

Anyone up for Words with Friends?
 
2012-08-08 11:57:02 PM

redmid17: magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.

Nuclear weapons don't fall under the historical precedent for individual ownership that firearms do.


So a .50 cal fully automatic belt fed vehicle mounted machine gun then?
 
2012-08-08 11:58:23 PM

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

For someone being pedantic about the word clip, you sure don't understand the difference between automatic and fully automatic weapons.

You can in fact pick up automatic weapons at your local gun shop, most of the weapons sold there are automatic weapons.


Gee, I wonder which he meant. A blowback or recoil operated self reloading firearm or a f*cking machine gun..
 
2012-08-08 11:58:26 PM

Pincy: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

So? Maybe they need to be even more regulated?


Is it legal guns that are used in the overwhelming % of crime or are they illegally acquired weapons?

magusdevil: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

Its also the only right that kills people every day.


I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment has actually killed anyone. Legally owned firearms do indeed kill people, but the vast, vast majority of gun homicides are illegally obtained and being illegally used (even prior to the homicide).
 
2012-08-08 11:59:21 PM

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

For someone being pedantic about the word clip, you sure don't understand the difference between automatic and fully automatic weapons.

You can in fact pick up automatic weapons at your local gun shop, most of the weapons sold there are automatic weapons.

Gee, I wonder which he meant. A blowback or recoil operated self reloading firearm or a f*cking machine gun..


Well he said automatic weapon, but I guess you're the mind reader.
 
2012-08-08 11:59:55 PM
remember the USSR? their Olympics coverage was full of things like "USSR fights off challenge to take silver" when the field was them, us and some also rans. this article is like that. they used the numbers in different ways to try and bolster whatever point it was making. misrepresentation at it's fineness.
 
2012-08-09 12:00:45 AM

redmid17: rohar: redmid17: 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."

Hey! I didn't have a dog in this fight because they're generally stupid, but you'll take my Porsches from my cold dead hands!

Dogs are often not very intelligent, especially ones that engage in fighting. However I will never take your Porsches. If I could afford one, I would be doing drunk doughnuts in my backyard as we speak.


There's actually a lot of symmetry with both subject matters. We pass all sorts of laws to react to what people are doing with these devices. Hell, many municipalities will confiscate and crush your car for engaging in street drags. It still happens. Even when I can make it to 7 perfectly safe road tracks within a day's drive, there's still idiots street racing all around me. No amount of laws will change that.

Until these people have some connection to society, some reverence for the safety of their neighbors, some feeling of inclusion, both things will continue to happen.

We can stop both by fostering a better society, not by passing more restrictive laws.

/I live on acreage with a loop in my driveway
//I have to admit guilt to the drunken doughnuts :)
 
2012-08-09 12:00:54 AM

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.


I'm beginning to believe you have either a serious drinking/drug habit, or suffer from some other condition characterized by making perfect sense in one post, and then completely throwing a derp rod in the next.

I'd ask you to elaborate, with evidence, why you find the NYT to be a "bastion of liberalism," but someone already did about 60 posts ago, and you're nowhere to be found. Either you went to bed, or you know this is the cheapest, most demonstrably false canard in the conservative's playbook. That, and I have never - ever - once heard anyone successfully defend the "liberal media" claim that wasn't simply them yelling "liberal media!" louder than the first time. You're better off trying to demonstrate that water isn't wet.

With some luck you're just taking a break to look at porn, and will back to defend your comment. But again, it will be the first time I've ever seen that done regarding this particularly tired falsehood. It's just a crutch people use whenever the particular media outlet doesn't specifically fellate their own opinion. Remember, I could just as easily call the NYT a "bastion of conservatism" because they have the gall not to print a front page headline of "Democratic Socialism: Great Idea, or Best Idea, EVAH!!?"

That's how your claims sound. Waaaah! Some newspaper doesn't galvanize my existing opinions! Unfair!
 
2012-08-09 12:03:36 AM

redmid17: Pincy: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

So? Maybe they need to be even more regulated?

Is it legal guns that are used in the overwhelming % of crime or are they illegally acquired weapons?

magusdevil: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

Its also the only right that kills people every day.

I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment has actually killed anyone. Legally owned firearms do indeed kill people, but the vast, vast majority of gun homicides are illegally obtained and being illegally used (even prior to the homicide).


And yet the NRA opposes requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns... that's weird.
 
2012-08-09 12:04:12 AM

magusdevil: redmid17: magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.

Nuclear weapons don't fall under the historical precedent for individual ownership that firearms do.

So a .50 cal fully automatic belt fed vehicle mounted machine gun then?


There are .50 cal M60s in civilian hands right now. I don't think that there are any restrictions on mounting it on a vehicle provided it stays on private land. I imagine there are a few laws preventing that at state and municipal levels. Automatic weapons have to be either pre-68 or pre-86 depending on domestic or foreign manufacture.
 
2012-08-09 12:05:59 AM

redmid17: There are .50 cal M60s in civilian hands right now.


.50 caliber M60s? Um, no by definition there are not. The M60 fires a NATO standard 7.62 round.
 
2012-08-09 12:06:24 AM

magusdevil: redmid17: Pincy: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

So? Maybe they need to be even more regulated?

Is it legal guns that are used in the overwhelming % of crime or are they illegally acquired weapons?

magusdevil: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

Its also the only right that kills people every day.

I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment has actually killed anyone. Legally owned firearms do indeed kill people, but the vast, vast majority of gun homicides are illegally obtained and being illegally used (even prior to the homicide).

And yet the NRA opposes requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns... that's weird.


Wouldn't do any good except in states that require gun registration.
 
2012-08-09 12:06:27 AM

magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.


No. It's a sloppy weapon that causes an unnecessary amount of collateral damage. I want dead tyrants, not dead innocent civilians.

magusdevil: redmid17: magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.

Nuclear weapons don't fall under the historical precedent for individual ownership that firearms do.

So a .50 cal fully automatic belt fed vehicle mounted machine gun then?


That, yes provided you do nothing to harm the life, liberty or property of others through fraud or force. A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.
 
2012-08-09 12:08:45 AM

magusdevil: redmid17: There are .50 cal M60s in civilian hands right now.

.50 caliber M60s? Um, no by definition there are not. The M60 fires a NATO standard 7.62 round.


my bad, i was think m2
 
2012-08-09 12:10:42 AM

Smeggy Smurf: A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.


A belt fed fully automatic .50 is nothing like precise under any circumstances. I operated one off the top of a Bradley in the Infantry, no amount of attention by any armorer will make it precise.
 
2012-08-09 12:13:56 AM

magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.

A belt fed fully automatic .50 is nothing like precise under any circumstances. I operated one off the top of a Bradley in the Infantry, no amount of attention by any armorer will make it precise.


dl.dropbox.com

Carlos Hathcock disagrees.
 
2012-08-09 12:14:17 AM

magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.

A belt fed fully automatic .50 is nothing like precise under any circumstances. I operated one off the top of a Bradley in the Infantry, no amount of attention by any armorer will make it precise.


I was under the impression that the coax gun on the bradley was a 30 cal.
 
2012-08-09 12:16:45 AM

magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.

A belt fed fully automatic .50 is nothing like precise under any circumstances. I operated one off the top of a Bradley in the Infantry, no amount of attention by any armorer will make it precise.


No, hes right. A converted M2 was used by Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam to get confirm kills as a sniper out to 2,460 yards. His record held till the afghan war.
 
2012-08-09 12:18:35 AM
Hey, 4 in 10 is a majority in the Senate, right?
 
2012-08-09 12:18:37 AM

Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.


you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.
 
2012-08-09 12:19:50 AM

Antimatter: magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.

A belt fed fully automatic .50 is nothing like precise under any circumstances. I operated one off the top of a Bradley in the Infantry, no amount of attention by any armorer will make it precise.

No, hes right. A converted M2 was used by Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam to get confirm kills as a sniper out to 2,460 yards. His record held till the afghan war.


Yup. Belt fed does not necessarily mean going fully auto. Since I'm only talking 1500 yards, that's plenty.
 
2012-08-09 12:23:28 AM

Ned Stark: you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.


Correct. The Heller decision held that the prefatory clause of the 2nd does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.
 
2012-08-09 12:28:00 AM
Ya know, if we are taling about limiting the second ammendment to only the technology that the founders had, I must be compelled to suggest limiting the first ammendment to printing presses and oral speach. Seems only fair right? The founding fathers could have never thought up of a series of tubes to send messages accross the country, or broadcasting speach over the air.
 
2012-08-09 12:28:04 AM

HeadLever: Ned Stark: you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.

Correct. The Heller decision held that the prefatory clause of the 2nd does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.


Easy way to fix the obesity crisis: mandate that everyone who owns a gun (ie, the south, ie, the fat-ass rednecks) must be physically fit enough and active in a militia that trains once a week.
 
2012-08-09 12:30:31 AM
Personally, I think the US should go with the 'Swiss Model' regarding gun ownership.
 
2012-08-09 12:37:54 AM

anarchy_x: Personally, I think the US should go with the 'Swiss Model' regarding gun ownership.


Would be too expensive. Hundreds of thousands hit the age of majority each year, and there is just no way to realistically arm that many people.

Now, a once in a lifetime tax credit for gun ownership could be interesting.
 
2012-08-09 12:40:31 AM

redmid17: 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."


Did someone recently use a sports car to kill a lot of people at their place of worship? No? Then shut up.
 
2012-08-09 12:40:53 AM
No matter how a gun control activist may seem to *feel* about the situation, I think we've come to a general consensus in this nation regarding firearms.

That being, legislation can only go so far in solving any problem. Indeed, the wide spectrum that we have in gun control laws from state to state seem to complicate and undermine each other. There reaches a point where we have to recognize that education and mental healthcare measures will go much further in accomplishing a goal of 'as close to peace as anyone can hope'. And that there reaches a point where as long as a human can hold free will and experience passion and grief... we will always have senseless violence.

We can take a good lesson from the story of Pandora's Box. In fact, there are few better examples other than nuclear proliferation. This is about damage control. NO MATTER what measure or laws you put into place, you can't put calamity back into the box. It just isn't going to happen. All you can do is try to teach the world how to responsibly (and logically) deal with the monster we've all unleashed upon it.
 
2012-08-09 12:41:02 AM

way south: magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.

A belt fed fully automatic .50 is nothing like precise under any circumstances. I operated one off the top of a Bradley in the Infantry, no amount of attention by any armorer will make it precise.

[dl.dropbox.com image 640x405]

Carlos Hathcock disagrees.


James Cagney, Public Enemy (1931), go to 01:05 on the time index Link

That's live ammo and the gunner was my grandfather's best friend who was nicknamed, "The Maestro."
 
2012-08-09 12:41:24 AM

Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.


#1, That's a dependent clause (actually, not a clause at all since it has no actual verb ["being" is a participle here, used as an adverb modifying "necessary"]), and so is merely descriptive. The operative part is the independent clause, the part that can stand alone as a grammatically complete and correct sentence in its own right. That's basic English grammar, then and now. In this case, the dependent clause specifies a reason for the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, not a limitation upon it.

#2, Three consecutive drafts of the Second Amendment submitted to Congress prior to ratification began:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State,...
This shows beyond any doubt whatsoever what the term "Militia" was understood to mean at the time: it meant the body of the people. The populace. Not just some of them. Not just a specialized group of them. Almost all of them. Those drafts also included an exemption for those "religiously scrupulous of bearing arms," meaning Quakers and the like. The wording of that exemption was debated and changed over those drafts, but not that first part with the definition of "Militia."

Both were removed from the final ratified version. The explicit definition of "Militia" was removed only because it was considered redundant!

So, the "well regulated Militia" means all adult citizens who have no religious or moral objections to bearing arms, and who have not waived their Rights by, for instance, being convicted of a felony crime.

You can rationally debate whether the Second Amendment has perhaps outlived its usefulness, now results in more net harm than good to society, etc. Fine. Just get ⅔ (²/₃) of the members of each of the two Houses of Congress, and then ¾ of the States, to agree with you (since the only way to repeal or even alter an Amendment is with another Amendment).

But you can not rationally debate that the Second Amendment says and means anything other than what it actually says and means in the grammar and idiom of the day (and modern grammar as well).

In modern grammar and idiom conveying the intent of the Framers, it would read something like this:

"Because a well-armed and well-equipped populace is vital to the security of a free society, the inherent and inalienable right of all adult citizens to keep and bear hand-wieldable weaponry and any ammunition and other equipment needed for the operation of same shall not be infringed."
 
2012-08-09 12:45:36 AM

HMS_Blinkin: redmid17: 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."

Did someone recently use a sports car to kill a lot of people at their place of worship? No? Then shut up.


Did you bother to see if this issue was already properly handled before you shot your mouth off providing more of the derision that creates the monsters in our society?

No? Maybe you're not helping.
 
2012-08-09 12:49:06 AM

HMS_Blinkin: redmid17: 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."

Did someone recently use a sports car to kill a lot of people at their place of worship? No? Then shut up.


No but have plenty of cars cause accidents that cause as many deaths as what happened in that place of worship? Yes? Then shut up
 
2012-08-09 12:49:57 AM

COMALite J: Both were removed from the final ratified version. The explicit definition of "Militia" was removed only because it was considered redundant!


That's what you get for not having your framers be a bunch of slimy lawyer douchebags.
 
2012-08-09 12:53:54 AM

redmid17: HMS_Blinkin: redmid17: 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."

Did someone recently use a sports car to kill a lot of people at their place of worship? No? Then shut up.

No but have plenty of cars cause accidents that cause as many deaths as what happened in that place of worship? Yes? Then shut up


An accident is not the same thing as an intentional act though. The better comparison would be vehicular homicide versus gun homicide.
 
2012-08-09 12:55:40 AM

Ned Stark: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.


This is exactly what I'm talking about, some people want to consider these things as almost completely separate sentences. They are not. It is one complete thought. Yes, people have the right to bear arms AND the state has the right to regulate those arms.
 
2012-08-09 12:56:46 AM
The problem isn't the guns, it's the lack of a readily available and effective public mental resources that can be accessed without embarrassment.

Unfortunately the people most likely to support gun access are most likely to oppose anything other than Jesus therapy.
 
2012-08-09 12:56:50 AM
Someone explain why the gun-nuts and/or NRA oppose severely restrictive gun control? Anyone who's terrified about Fartbama, communism/fascism, brown people, Reptilians, and gun control laws probably already owns dozens (if not hundreds) of guns by now, don't they?

Don't they see the inherent advantage of being able to kill whatever people they decide need to be killed, and not have to worry about return fire?

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.
 
2012-08-09 12:57:10 AM

Antimatter: redmid17: HMS_Blinkin: redmid17: 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."

Did someone recently use a sports car to kill a lot of people at their place of worship? No? Then shut up.

No but have plenty of cars cause accidents that cause as many deaths as what happened in that place of worship? Yes? Then shut up

An accident is not the same thing as an intentional act though. The better comparison would be vehicular homicide versus gun homicide.


Tell you what. We will call it automobile deaths that are either intentional OR due to negligence, and we'll do the same for guns.
 
2012-08-09 12:59:13 AM

wildcardjack: The problem isn't the guns, it's the lack of a readily available and effective public mental resources that can be accessed without embarrassment.

Unfortunately the people most likely to support gun access are most likely to oppose anything other than Jesus therapy.


Getting close, but I'd suggest it's not even that. The problem is we can't talk to each other anymore. Cordiality is dead. Our society literally hates each other. Of course some psychosis will be a side effect.
 
2012-08-09 01:00:23 AM
I didn't submit the same article with a better headline, but if I had submitted the same article my headline would have been much better.
 
2012-08-09 01:07:34 AM

Kolonel Matt: Ya know, if we are taling about limiting the second ammendment to only the technology that the founders had, I must be compelled to suggest limiting the first ammendment to printing presses and oral speach. Seems only fair right? The founding fathers could have never thought up of a series of tubes to send messages accross the country, or broadcasting speach over the air.


I know you think you're particularly clever for posting that. I'll let you bask in it for a moment.
 
2012-08-09 01:08:38 AM

GAT_00: Lionel Mandrake: What article is subby reading?

The actual results are buried, so Subby probably read half the article.


And they're not much clearer farther on. 4 in 10, 3 in 10, nine of ten dentists....I'm not even sure after two readings what the whole point of the article was.
 
2012-08-09 01:11:11 AM

Summoner101: With consideration to the recent shootings, now is not the time to talk about gun control.


the first rule of gun control is that you don't talk about gun control
 
2012-08-09 01:12:45 AM

Pincy: Ned Stark: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, some people want to consider these things as almost completely separate sentences. They are not. It is one complete thought. Yes, people have the right to bear arms AND the state has the right to regulate those arms.


see, if "militia" and "people" were synonyms, maybe you would be right. but they arent.
 
2012-08-09 01:14:08 AM

Ned Stark: Pincy: Ned Stark: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, some people want to consider these things as almost completely separate sentences. They are not. It is one complete thought. Yes, people have the right to bear arms AND the state has the right to regulate those arms.

see, if "militia" and "people" were synonyms, maybe you would be right. but they arent.


So they were training an army of monkeys to defend the state?
 
2012-08-09 01:18:24 AM
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.
 
2012-08-09 01:24:31 AM
COMALite J:

I have a question about Butterfly knives.

Butterfly knives, why aren't they made legal, nationally, under the 2nd amendment? I want one.
 
2012-08-09 01:34:41 AM

Pincy: Ned Stark: Pincy: Ned Stark: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, some people want to consider these things as almost completely separate sentences. They are not. It is one complete thought. Yes, people have the right to bear arms AND the state has the right to regulate those arms.

see, if "militia" and "people" were synonyms, maybe you would be right. but they arent.

So they were training an army of monkeys to defend the state?


In the constitution 'the people' is a separate entity from the state. The most clear demonstration of this is the tenth amendment. powers that aren't given to the 'federal government' go to 'the states', powers denied to the states go to 'the people.' It is generally understood that the federal government doesn't become all powerful because it is ultimately a collection of people to whom all power eventually devolves.

'The militia', being well regulated by the state, and acting to maintain the security of 'the state' is a subset of the state. we can therefore surmise that, as elsewhere in the document, it is being reckoned as wholly separate from 'the people' to whom the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly granted.
 
2012-08-09 01:37:38 AM

Heliodorus: 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 image 500x685]

Or maybe you can stop conflating and generalizing one severely disturbed person with the a the rest of society.


That is a gorgeous shep.
 
2012-08-09 01:40:55 AM

magusdevil: redmid17: magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.

Nuclear weapons don't fall under the historical precedent for individual ownership that firearms do.

So a .50 cal fully automatic belt fed vehicle mounted machine gun then?


As already stated, that weapon would not fall under the definition of "personal arms".
 
2012-08-09 01:43:54 AM

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.

redmid17: And yet the NRA opposes requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns... that's weird.

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


So you're admitting that gun registration, and tracking where the guns that enter the illegal market come from might be a good thing?
 
2012-08-09 01:44:04 AM

Funbags: Someone explain why the gun-nuts and/or NRA oppose severely restrictive gun control? Anyone who's terrified about Fartbama, communism/fascism, brown people, Reptilians, and gun control laws probably already owns dozens (if not hundreds) of guns by now, don't they?

Don't they see the inherent advantage of being able to kill whatever people they decide need to be killed, and not have to worry about return fire?

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.



You're either very ignorant or a troll.
 
2012-08-09 01:44:08 AM

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.
 
2012-08-09 01:45:02 AM

Antimatter: redmid17: HMS_Blinkin: redmid17: 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."

Did someone recently use a sports car to kill a lot of people at their place of worship? No? Then shut up.

No but have plenty of cars cause accidents that cause as many deaths as what happened in that place of worship? Yes? Then shut up

An accident is not the same thing as an intentional act though. The better comparison would be vehicular homicide versus gun homicide.


When people start throwing around the death count for guns, they always include accidents and suicides, so we damn well will count them when discussing car deaths.
 
2012-08-09 01:46:51 AM

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.
 
2012-08-09 01:49:56 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.


If you want to be as pendantic as everyone else on fark:

The 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be reasonable. It's the goddamn Constitution. There could be an Amendment that ensures we all have the right to walk on our hands and talk in bleeps and bloops.

Being reasonable and being legal are two different things.

MRmakesHappy could be right. Maybe. Maybe it is not reasonable to own a gun that shoots 100 rounds, in full auto, uninterrupted. But that doesn't matter a whit. The 2nd allows it.
 
2012-08-09 01:50:55 AM

OgreMagi: Antimatter: redmid17: HMS_Blinkin: redmid17: 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."

Did someone recently use a sports car to kill a lot of people at their place of worship? No? Then shut up.

No but have plenty of cars cause accidents that cause as many deaths as what happened in that place of worship? Yes? Then shut up

An accident is not the same thing as an intentional act though. The better comparison would be vehicular homicide versus gun homicide.

When people start throwing around the death count for guns, they always include accidents and suicides, so we damn well will count them when discussing car deaths.


Cars, when used as designed, get you from point A to point B. Guns, when used as designed, kill things. Cars, when control is lost, can kill things. Guns, when control is lost, kill things you don't intend to kill.

Or are you going to pretend the purpose of a gun is to look very scary and not be fired? Because that one's always worth a laugh.

In terms of guns, Personal Defense= Shooting at people with the intent to very seriously harm them, preferably kill. Don't pretend otherwise.
 
2012-08-09 01:51:47 AM
 
2012-08-09 01:52:56 AM

cptjeff: The 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be reasonable. It's the goddamn Constitution. There could be an Amendment that ensures we all have the right to walk on our hands and talk in bleeps and bloops.

Being reasonable and being legal are two different things.

MRmakesHappy could be right. Maybe. Maybe it is not reasonable to own a gun that shoots 100 rounds, in full auto, uninterrupted. But that doesn't matter a whit. The 2nd allows it./i>

A WELL REGULATED militia....

The Constitution says we can regulate them.


Why the fark is that blue and a link? Sorry 'bout that.
 
2012-08-09 01:54:29 AM

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?
 
2012-08-09 01:58:06 AM

cptjeff: The 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be reasonable. It's the goddamn Constitution. There could be an Amendment that ensures we all have the right to walk on our hands and talk in bleeps and bloops.

Being reasonable and being legal are two different things.

MRmakesHappy could be right. Maybe. Maybe it is not reasonable to own a gun that shoots 100 rounds, in full auto, uninterrupted. But that doesn't matter a whit. The 2nd allows it./i>

A WELL REGULATED militia....

The Constitution says we can regulate them.


Apparently the word regulate doesn't mean that:

COMALite J:
"#1, That's a dependent clause (actually, not a clause at all since it has no actual verb ["being" is a participle here, used as an adverb modifying "necessary"]), and so is merely descriptive. The operative part is the independent clause, the part that can stand alone as a grammatically complete and correct sentence in its own right. That's basic English grammar, then and now. In this case, the dependent clause specifies a reason for the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, not a limitation upon it."


So you see, according the powers of GRAMMAR you're wrong.
 
2012-08-09 02:03:06 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?


see, my snark is too slow!

I'm glad every conversation about modern gun laws devolves into a two century ago grammar and definition symposium.

Personally I think it is apparent that no one wants to debate what an ideal situation a country would have regarding guns. All anyone wants to do is debate the minutiae of the legal documents. That's OK! Legal documents are important. I just find it hilarious.

I also find this new differentiation between arms and ordinance interesting. I never heard of that until this year on Fark. Are flamethrowers ordinance? Because I want one.
 
2012-08-09 02:06:36 AM
Ah, that stupid trope again. You do realize that Scalia in DC v. Heller explicitly said regulation is perfectly permissible under the second amendment, right? This is one of the most conservative Jurists since the 30's, though the court in about the same era held that the 2nd was a collective, not individual right.

Anyway, time to bust this out. Quote from another farker that expressed it fairly well, and I'm too lazy to type out something better:

I disagree. Remember, most of the Framers were lawyers. The 9th and 10th Amendments were added in part because the Federalists, whose spokesperson was Hamilton, feared the Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing excludes all others) principle when applied to the Bill of Rights would effectively limit the rights of the people.

Why is this pertinent to the 2nd Amendment? For one thing, it is the only Amendment with a prefatory clause. Moreover, that prefatory clause states the purpose to which the enumerated right is pursuant, the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Thanks to our friend the exclusio principle, which the Framers held to a high degree of respect, this can be construed to mean the only justification for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to serve in a well-regulated militia.

If the Framers had intended the Second Amendment to be an individuated, universal, and unrestricted right, Madison would have written the amendment with no prefatory clause, just like all the others. They didn't.

A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of the United States. We have an active and inactive armed force and civil defense framework. We have federal intelligence, investigation, and enforcement agencies. We have state and local police and emergency response personnel. True, the militia is still technically on the books, but it is not regulated or maintained in any way. Without that enumerated justification, there can be no extant right.

Personally, I believe this was the situation the Framers were trying to avoid by writing the Second Amendment the way they did: to leave the responsibility of common defense in the hands of the people, and to not build or rely upon state- or federally-funded and -ran police and military.

-that bosnian sniper


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.
 
2012-08-09 02:06:46 AM

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.
 
2012-08-09 02:08:43 AM

violentsalvation: except people who favor gun control


I should say, MORE gun control. It's late.
 
2012-08-09 02:08:48 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.


I think the question is why is that limit acceptable but others aren't.
 
2012-08-09 02:10:15 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.



Let me guess.....you have to meet a few people on "the Hill" in 26 minutes?
 
2012-08-09 02:13:02 AM

Esc7: 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?

see, my snark is too slow!

I'm glad every conversation about modern gun laws devolves into a two century ago grammar and definition symposium.

Personally I think it is apparent that no one wants to debate what an ideal situation a country would have regarding guns. All anyone wants to do is debate the minutiae of the legal documents. That's OK! Legal documents are important. I just find it hilarious.

I also find this new differentiation between arms and ordinance interesting. I never heard of that until this year on Fark. Are flamethrowers ordinance? Because I want one.


Flame throwers are legal and considered an agriculture tool so have at it.
 
2012-08-09 02:13:40 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.


Neat.
 
2012-08-09 02:16:02 AM
Media and its ownership must know that IF the American People ever do wake up and get it, they're going up against the wall, and rightfully so.

After all, who let "globalization" slip by almost without a peep, where our leaders sold us out? Who convinced 80% of the American public that Iraq needed to be invaded because of 9/11? They are corporate whore-beasts, right down to the cleaning lady for NBC Nightly News. The wall is all they deserve.
 
2012-08-09 02:17:13 AM

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.


I hate to state the obvious retort but... it's 2am, what else am I gonna do?

We frequently arm people in our society (military, police and most worryingly private contractors) the same type of weaponry. So if one were to consider the possibility that those we arm in such a manner could turn those weapons on our populace for treasonous and tyrannical ends... well, there is your reason.

I'm not saying it's likely.
I'm not even saying it's possible (I think most our police and military would drop rank before they followed those orders)
regardless, it IS a reason. Which was what you seemed to be looking for.

I think we should dive deeper into this.

Unless one is willing to suggest that the entire basis for our Western society is a farce, one cannot ignore the fact that it was formed by men that not only faced true tyranny, but faced it in a manner that many today would consider terrorism (a terrorist and a freedom fighter are simply two shades of the same color) and while there does remain a solid difference in the philosophies and actions of each (that being yesterdays freedom fighters and todays terrorists)... the culmination of the formers revolution ended with them facing the very weaponry and command held only by the foremost military force on the planet.

They charge us with this very knowledge in the declaration that formed our nation:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

It is completely asinine to not suggest that any populace that is charged with the responsibility to throw off their governments when they encroach upon their freedoms should not hold the rights to arm themselves with the very tools that would permit them the ability to do so.

The practical and realistic side of me (place in those words what you will) says; yes, there is no reason to own an automatic weapon.

The historian in me, the scientist in me must however recognize that indeed what has happened before will (likely) eventually happen again. And while I hope to never see the terrible reality my conclusions elude to come to life, it would be folly for us to disarm the future for a battle it may very well face.

Today, automatic weapons only serve at best as gun porn for those either compensating for other weaknesses or seeking a quick thrill with a powerful tool... and at worst as tools for the most damaged and morally bankrupt of society to inflict senseless hurt and death upon others.

Tomorrow, however, cannot speak to today. And it could easily be the case that while an armed society can seem to be the bane of our reality today, they could be the savior of our reality tomorrow.

There are no easy answers. No one knows what may come.
What I do know is that once upon a time a man rose through the ranks of what would one day be our enemy, and turned the very knowledge and weaponry that empire used to control (what would be) our nation back onto itself. And despite all odds, in the face of overwhelming opposition, they took our freedom by force. And their second order of business in defining our nation was to detail that we should be able to arm ourselves and form local militias to protect those very freedoms.

We live in a very beautiful world. We live in a "first world" (in this nation).
But as important as it is to not take for granted what we have, we shouldn't take for granted what got us here.

I'm sure I come off as a gun nut, but I'm really not. I'm all for gun restrictions. If you have ever displayed reason that you can't handle the responsibility of gun ownership then too bad, no gun for you (they'll still get them if they want, but hey, we tried)

But to take the leap from there to "you have no need for powerful firearms"... that could prove to be as folly as letting everyone (felons included) to get hold of whatever weaponry they can scrounge together.

There are so many overused cliches the pro-gun club like to use. But the reason they continue to use so many of them are because they are accurate. They may not apply to society at its best (as we know it), but this is not to say they don't have a place.

/When I was a boy scout, I learned to tie a slip knot
//To this day I've never needed that ability
///That does not preclude a reality where the case may be the contrary
 
2012-08-09 02:19:39 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.



And without reading anything else cptjeff has written in this thread, I would bet my life that he is bleating some 2nd Amendment Forever crap.
 
2012-08-09 02:24:51 AM

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.


Sure there is... They are fun as hell to shoot. And since the mid 1930s, only two legally owned, fully automatic weapons have been used in the course of a crime. Why would you want to stop people from engaging in a pass time that by comparison to many, many things commonly accepted by society, is incredibly safe and doesn't hurt anyone? Just because you're scared of them, you don't get the right to tell me I can't use them.
 
2012-08-09 02:25:24 AM

MurphyMurphy: We frequently arm people in our society (military, police and most worryingly private contractors) the same type of weaponry. So if one were to consider the possibility that those we arm in such a manner could turn those weapons on our populace for treasonous and tyrannical ends... well, there is your reason.

I'm not saying it's likely.
I'm not even saying it's possible (I think most our police and military would drop rank before they followed those orders)



Seems there is no shortage of angry pigs to pepper spray, rubber bullet and baton peaceful demonstrators these days. The military might be a different story, but as far as cops go, they salivate over the idea of getting to mow down a crowd of "liberals".
 
2012-08-09 02:25:53 AM
radicalruss.com
 
2012-08-09 02:26:07 AM

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 dumped full-auto for a 3-round burst mode
 
2012-08-09 02:26:45 AM

Captain_Ballbeard: 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.


And without reading anything else cptjeff has written in this thread, I would bet my life that he is bleating some 2nd Amendment Forever crap.


I'm not sure I'd go that far,

but I can confidently say he comes off as a toolbox. And toolboxes get favorited the first time, and ignore listed the second. Total fark subscription list or not.

/this is my way of telling you my opinion is blahblabhlabhlabhlabhlabhabhlabh
//he should have just articulated fart noises for his whole post. has the same effect
 
2012-08-09 02:26:54 AM

FilmBELOH20: And since the mid 1930s, only two legally owned, fully automatic weapons have been used in the course of a crime.


My Grandmother used to say, "When somebody uses an obscure fact in a common sense argument, they are telling on themselves."
 
2012-08-09 02:28:50 AM

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

You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.


You can't hug them with under arms either.
 
2012-08-09 02:33:37 AM

Captain_Ballbeard: FilmBELOH20: And since the mid 1930s, only two legally owned, fully automatic weapons have been used in the course of a crime.

My Grandmother used to say, "When somebody uses an obscure fact in a common sense argument, they are telling on themselves."


I'm not saying your grandma was wrong

I'm just saying your grandma was weird

My grandma said shiat like "don't argue over UNO" and "pick out the bay leaves in the spaghetti before you choke on them"
 
2012-08-09 02:35:13 AM

Captain_Ballbeard: FilmBELOH20: And since the mid 1930s, only two legally owned, fully automatic weapons have been used in the course of a crime.

My Grandmother used to say, "When somebody uses an obscure fact in a common sense argument, they are telling on themselves."


Does your grandmother know that you go around calling her stupid on the internet? Because in my family we'd consider that rude.

Dinjiin: Leave it for the military.


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.
 
2012-08-09 02:53:08 AM
Subby, did you even read the headline?

And mods... I'm not THAT old school, but I seem to remember a time when you couldn't get a green if you were an obvious, unfunny troll.
 
2012-08-09 02:54:43 AM

Jim_Callahan: Captain_Ballbeard: FilmBELOH20: And since the mid 1930s, only two legally owned, fully automatic weapons have been used in the course of a crime.

My Grandmother used to say, "When somebody uses an obscure fact in a common sense argument, they are telling on themselves."

Does your grandmother know that you go around calling her stupid on the internet? Because in my family we'd consider that rude.

Dinjiin: Leave it for the military.

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.


Thats why our military answers to our elected representatives
 
2012-08-09 02:56:19 AM

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?
 
2012-08-09 03:05:32 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 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.
 
2012-08-09 03:07:07 AM

Jim_Callahan: Does your grandmother know that you go around calling her stupid on the internet? Because in my family we'd consider that rude.


My Grandmother was the smartest person I have ever known, used to do the NYT crossword and finish before I left for school. Ended up owning half the town and was obsessed with liars and how to spot them. "they always tell on themselves", was her favorite.

Thanks for telling on yourself.
 
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!
 
2012-08-09 08:27:33 AM

Without Fail: 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.


Never. I don't have a pistol yet. I do however carry a switchblade with me, also a deadly weapon in close ranges though it can be used to disable without killing someone. I agree a first aid kit would be useful, if it were the size of a pistol and could be carried as easily. The hammer is debatable as a situation arising which it would be useful would be about as likely as a self defense situation, in which case the hammer might suffice.

Your extensive history of travel without the need (or ability) to use a firearm in a self defense situation is anecdotal. Good for you for still being alive (not enough information to infer that you were entirely unharmed through all incidents). Bringing up that a firearm's sole purpose is to kill is fallacious because you are attributing intent to an inanimate object. Rather than arguing the logic of carrying a weapon, it should be argued as to whether it is practical. Physically it is, depending on the size of the weapon. From a cost perspective it can be argued as being just as practical as a form of insurance. X amount paid up front, continuing payments in the form of ammunition.

Honestly, if phasers on a stun setting could be implanted in a person's fingertips for the same price as a pistol, there would likely be a dramatic drop in the number of people who carry pistols, and firearms would then be largely used for recreation by the general public. However, that's just a nice fantasy, so we'll have to stick with pistols for now.

Is it logical to carry a watch at all times? How often do you need to know exactly what time it is down to the minute, while not being within close proximity to a clock, someone who has a watch, or your cell phone which has a clock function? Logical, no. Practical, yes.
 
2012-08-09 08:27:41 AM

Without Fail: 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.


You can now find defibrillators on airlines and in many public buildings.
Many people do carry first aid kits. I drive around with one in the car and keep another one in my bug out bag. Never needed it, but it's a bad idea to ride without one.
A hammer can be substituted (for non construction purposes) with many other hard things. I've often used the butt of a K-bar knife.

A lot of people carry weapons simply because the threat of physical violence isnt something that will wait while you run to your car or desk.
Just because you don't understand that doesn't mean it's not sensible to others. Not everyone has the same concerns or experiences.
 
2012-08-09 08:29:49 AM

spif: Dear morons. The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the people from the government.


Why is it that the people who try to make this point always come off as the last people you want having guns
 
2012-08-09 08:29:56 AM

Smeggy Smurf: 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


www.jiveturkeyjives.com
 
2012-08-09 08:30:06 AM

Without Fail: 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.




Myself, once. My grandmother, twice that I know of. The last was when she was 72, walking on a cane, and drove out three boys who were burglarizing her home.

Do you think my grandmother could have defended her self from three burglars with a hammer? Or, as one person once suggested to me in a similar thread, with judo?

If carrying a firearm saves even *one* life, isn't it worth it? (see what I did there)
 
2012-08-09 08:30:14 AM

rohar: Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.


Funny part, neither of you know what the term "regulate" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution it makes no difference.

Go edit Wikipedia and get off my bar stool.
 
2012-08-09 08:30:24 AM

rohar: 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.


Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"
 
2012-08-09 08:37:44 AM

CPennypacker: spif: Dear morons. The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the people from the government.

Why is it that the people who try to make this point always come off as the last people you want having guns


And why is it that the people who think we need those guns to protect themselves from the government are always the ones who think it's OK that we spend $711 billion dollars annually on the military?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-09 08:44:01 AM
Jesus. Any person with a background in either English or History can see from readily available papers that codified in US law is a right of the people to own weapons.

This means simply that if you wish to NOT have that right, the fight is rather uphill, because you have to amend the Constitution in order to do it. If it is the right thing to do, we can at least be intellectually honest with what has to be done.

Fully automatic firearm ownership is unnecessary and shouldn't be too difficult to outlaw; in fact, normal ownership of such weapons is already so curtailed by regulations and licensure requirements as to render such a ban probably moot.

Most of the psychos who want to deliberately kill strangers in large numbers tend to also build bombs but not detonate them (Columbine, Aurora), instead becoming distracted from their rampage by the desire to murder people individually. Ironically, this actually slows down their rate of killing, and we should all be very glad that they did not simply detonate a bomb in a crowded place and get away with it. Since they instead killed with firearms, they lingered at the scene of the crime and were stopped or confronted by police.

So, the question is: IF these crazies, who are clearly highly motivated to kill utter strangers had instead opted to detonate bombs or incendiaries, where would we be? I'm not saying that we should hand them a machine gun, but a semiauto is not a machine gun.
If a particular firearm is useless for personal defense in every situation (like a browning machine gun is), then I'm fine with a ban on it.
As far as a general gun ban, as I am not a musclebound freak capable of defending myself against every member of society with my bare hands, I'll resist any outright arms ban until such point as people stop murdering one another and stealing their things.
 
2012-08-09 08:44:04 AM

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 see this a lot on fark. I don't know that I've ever been referred to the decision that clarified this. You've always seemed like a sane-ish individual, do you happen to know something about the decision, like it's name or date, that might help me find it?
 
2012-08-09 08:46:07 AM

magusdevil: rohar: 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.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"


In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.
 
2012-08-09 08:49:16 AM

Without Fail: 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.


Defib: No, they're way too expensive. Bigger than my gun. Most areas like malls have them already
First aid kit: Again, generally one somewhere in the building, but I have one in my car & home
Hammer: Carry a multitool, generally speaking. More useful than a hammer and won't get cops quite as upset as carrying a hammer randomly can be seen as carrying a weapon anyways.

Also carry a gun, because they're a bit harder to come by than the other things you listed.

But you choose to carry the one thing whose sole purpose is killing humans.

Throwing bits of metal quickly and accurately, actually. It's also good against feral dogs, as a warning/emergency signal, etc...
 
2012-08-09 08:50:34 AM

Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: 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.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.


If regulated meant in working order what was the point of the word "well" in front of it?
 
2012-08-09 08:51:01 AM

Loaded Six String: 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.


So, any weapon can be tightly regulated as long as we change the classification?
 
2012-08-09 08:51:36 AM

Firethorn: Without Fail: 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.

Defib: No, they're way too expensive. Bigger than my gun. Most areas like malls have them already
First aid kit: Again, generally one somewhere in the building, but I have one in my car & home
Hammer: Carry a multitool, generally speaking. More useful than a hammer and won't get cops quite as upset as carrying a hammer randomly can be seen as carrying a weapon anyways.

Also carry a gun, because they're a bit harder to come by than the other things you listed.

But you choose to carry the one thing whose sole purpose is killing humans.

Throwing bits of metal quickly and accurately, actually. It's also good against feral dogs, as a warning/emergency signal, etc...


t2.gstatic.com

Also you can use it to open beer cans and turn off light switches
 
2012-08-09 08:52:35 AM

BeesNuts: 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 see this a lot on fark. I don't know that I've ever been referred to the decision that clarified this. You've always seemed like a sane-ish individual, do you happen to know something about the decision, like it's name or date, that might help me find it?


According to Scalia the jury is still out on nukes as long as you can "hand-carry" them: Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.
 
2012-08-09 08:53:33 AM

Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: 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.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.


Yeah, the Constitution was documenting an expectation of quality, not defining any kind of regulatory scope.
 
2012-08-09 09:02:31 AM

magusdevil: Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: 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.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

If regulated meant in working order what was the point of the word "well" in front of it?


The firearms they (the people) had to be in working order. There was an obligation to keep them functional and have the knowledge to use them, not a mandate.
 
2012-08-09 09:03:28 AM

Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: 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.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.


Uh, no.

The term "regulate" is used in a number of fairly important phrases in the Constitution. Off the top of my head, article I section 8 comes to mind as well. It did not mean to limit or throttle as is modern interpretation. It did not mean anything of "working order", that's just completely wrong.

The earliest American dictionary was published just before 1800. It's not absolutely authoritative as it was published 30 years after the Constitution was written, but it's the closest published definition we have. It asserts that to regulate is to make normal, to create parity. Clocks were called regulators as they were synchronized or put in parity with each other. To regulate interstate commerce would mean to create a system whereby no one state had monopoly to the detriment of other states creating an inequity.

If you change the definition of regulate from the current understanding back to the definition of the time, you see quite clearly how the supreme court came to their recent decision. There was an inequity among the people, it was made as equal as possible under the law.
 
2012-08-09 09:04:21 AM

GameSprocket: Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: 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.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

Yeah, the Constitution was documenting an expectation of quality, not defining any kind of regulatory scope.


The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

According to at least one founding father you should be trained (for over a month) and indeed retrained at regular intervals in order to be considered a member of a well-regulated militia.
 
2012-08-09 09:08:54 AM

GameSprocket: Loaded Six String: 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.

So, any weapon can be tightly regulated as long as we change the classification?


An attempt to do so was already tried with the AWB of the 90's. The classifacation of an assault weapon was determined by what features the weapon had ( pistol grip, bayonet mount, folding stock, nothing about automatic fire). To paraphrase a representative of a weapons manufacturer "you legislated based on cosmetic features, so you got cosmetic changes." The AWB did nothing appreciable to reduce violent crime, and would not pass the strict scrutiny needed today due to legal precedent. So no, it doesn't quite work that way.

Changing the classification of AR-15s or semi-automatic pistols or revolvers to death machines in an attempt to highly regulate them would not change the fact that they are in common useage for lawful purposes, and as such would fail scrutiny.
 
2012-08-09 09:08:59 AM

magusdevil: GameSprocket: Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: 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.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

Yeah, the Constitution was documenting an expectation of quality, not defining any kind of regulatory scope.

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

According to at least one founding father you should be trained (for over a month) and indeed retrained at regular intervals in order to be considered a member of a well-regulated militia.


So everyone in the reserves and JROTC and such can have a gun. Could be worse.
 
2012-08-09 09:11:29 AM

magusdevil: BeesNuts: 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 see this a lot on fark. I don't know that I've ever been referred to the decision that clarified this. You've always seemed like a sane-ish individual, do you happen to know something about the decision, like it's name or date, that might help me find it?

According to Scalia the jury is still out on nukes as long as you can "hand-carry" them: Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.


Most likely, Davy Crocketts, RPGs, and Stinger missiles would be officially designated as "destructive devices" which are for the most part not lawful to own without strict government scrutiny and having to get a tax stamp ($$$).
 
2012-08-09 09:14:00 AM

LasersHurt: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

According to at least one founding father you should be trained (for over a month) and indeed retrained at regular intervals in order to be considered a member of a well-regulated militia.

So everyone in the reserves and JROTC and such can have a gun. Could be worse.


I'm personally willing to expand that. Anyone who is willing to go to basic training, pass an annual physical, qualify annually on a physical training test, and qualify with their personal weapons on a range (all at their own expense) should be allowed to own non-hunting weapons. I think that's reasonable gun control.
 
2012-08-09 09:16:40 AM

magusdevil: LasersHurt: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

According to at least one founding father you should be trained (for over a month) and indeed retrained at regular intervals in order to be considered a member of a well-regulated militia.

So everyone in the reserves and JROTC and such can have a gun. Could be worse.

I'm personally willing to expand that. Anyone who is willing to go to basic training, pass an annual physical, qualify annually on a physical training test, and qualify with their personal weapons on a range (all at their own expense) should be allowed to own non-hunting weapons. I think that's reasonable gun control.


So no marines or sailors?
 
2012-08-09 09:17:02 AM

rohar: Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: 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.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

Uh, no.

The term "regulate" is used in a number of fairly important phrases in the Constitution. Off the top of my head, article I section 8 comes to mind as well. It did not mean to limit or throttle as is modern interpretation. It did not mean anything of "working order", that's just completely wrong.

The earliest American dictionary was published just before 1800. It's not absolutely authoritative as it was published 30 years after the Constitution was written, but it's the closest published definition we have. It asserts that to regulate is to make normal, to create parity. Clocks were called regulators as they were synchronized or put in parity with each other. To regulate interstate commerce would mean to create a system whereby no one state had monopoly to the detriment of other states creating an inequity.

If you change the definition of regulate from the current understanding back to the definition of the time, you see quite clearly how the supreme court came to their recent decision. There was an inequity among the people, it was made as equal as possible under the law.


Then given that definition, a regulated militia would be a militia with the same type of weaponry as a neighboring state's militia, yes? Which would require that the same arms be available to all the people of the United States, making bans or restrictions necessarily a federal matter which would apply to all states individually. Doesn't make much of a difference from my definition with the exception that state and local governments are restricted from enacting their own rules on the availability of certain firearms or firearms in general. I apologize if I misinterpreted that.
 
2012-08-09 09:27:49 AM

magusdevil: LasersHurt: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

According to at least one founding father you should be trained (for over a month) and indeed retrained at regular intervals in order to be considered a member of a well-regulated militia.

So everyone in the reserves and JROTC and such can have a gun. Could be worse.

I'm personally willing to expand that. Anyone who is willing to go to basic training, pass an annual physical, qualify annually on a physical training test, and qualify with their personal weapons on a range (all at their own expense) should be allowed to own non-hunting weapons. I think that's reasonable gun control.


The problem with that is that it would remove the ability of the elderly or the infirm to own weapons for personal defense, carried or in the home. Granted, that's only in regards to a well regulated militia. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed comes back into play. Unless the elderly or the infirm were not included in "the people" that doesn't work either. Training and qualifying is a good idea, but to mandate it then creates a class of people who would be without this right who previously had no reason to be denied.

As a side note, there needs to be more strict qualifying requirements for police. Yes it is anecdotal, but I've heard too many tales of officers who only qualify with their sidearm once a year because that's all that is required of them. As police, it is more important for them to shoot accurately and it is very telling when someone compares the number of shots fired to shots which hit the intended target in police shooting vs. self defense shooting. The police come up woefully short compared to the average concealed carrier, and I'm sure that's at least partly due to the amount of legal immunity afforded to our police.
 
2012-08-09 09:28:27 AM

magusdevil: LasersHurt: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

According to at least one founding father you should be trained (for over a month) and indeed retrained at regular intervals in order to be considered a member of a well-regulated militia.

So everyone in the reserves and JROTC and such can have a gun. Could be worse.

I'm personally willing to expand that. Anyone who is willing to go to basic training, pass an annual physical, qualify annually on a physical training test, and qualify with their personal weapons on a range (all at their own expense) should be allowed to own non-hunting weapons. I think that's reasonable gun control.


Define non-hunting weapons? I can use the same M1a rifle for target shooting as I do for hunting, if needed. Ditto for an AR-15, AKM, etc. It's really a matter of what all you use it for.

You also leave out valid self defense weapons with that definition, such as revolvers, handguns, pistol-carbines, etc.

It's a lot like the 'assault weapons ban' which just banned scary looking rifles. Completely pointless.
 
2012-08-09 09:31:23 AM

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?


Because your mother won't raise your allowance or let you keep them in the basement.
 
2012-08-09 09:35:52 AM

The_Sponge: Funbags: Someone explain why the gun-nuts and/or NRA oppose severely restrictive gun control? Anyone who's terrified about Fartbama, communism/fascism, brown people, Reptilians, and gun control laws probably already owns dozens (if not hundreds) of guns by now, don't they?

Don't they see the inherent advantage of being able to kill whatever people they decide need to be killed, and not have to worry about return fire?

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.


You're either very ignorant or a troll.


Isn't the basis for the 2nd amendment that if necessarily, a violent overthrow of the government can be accomplished? In such a scenario, who are you gun owners going to be shooting at? Cops. National guardsmen. Armored vehicles. Hardened structures.
 
2012-08-09 09:37:44 AM

dickfreckle: 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.

I'm beginning to believe you have either a serious drinking/drug habit, or suffer from some other condition characterized by making perfect sense in one post, and then completely throwing a derp rod in the next.

I'd ask you to elaborate, with evidence, why you find the NYT to be a "bastion of liberalism," but someone already did about 60 posts ago, and you're nowhere to be found. Either you went to bed, or you know this is the cheapest, most demonstrably false canard in the conservative's playbook. That, and I have never - ever - once heard anyone successfully defend the "liberal media" claim that wasn't simply them yelling "liberal media!" louder than the first time. You're better off trying to demonstrate that water isn't wet.

With some luck you're just taking a break to look at porn, and will back to defend your comment. But again, it will be the first time I've ever seen that done regarding this particularly tired falsehood. It's just a crutch people use whenever the particular media outlet doesn't specifically fellate their own opinion. Remember, I could just as easily call the NYT a "bastion of conservatism" because they have the gall not to print a front page headline of "Democratic Socialism: Great Idea, or Best Idea, EVAH!!?"

That's how your claims sound. Waaaah! Some newspaper doesn't galvanize my existing opinions! Unfair!


1. I went to bed.
2. Are you an alt of eraser8? Because he was the one who gave me that question.
3. Christmas is on December 25th. The sky is blue. These are given facts. New York Times being Liberal and given examples has been beaten to death over and over again.
 
2012-08-09 09:38:07 AM

magusdevil: Loaded Six String: magusdevil: rohar: 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.

Yes, as every NRA member in good standing KNOWS the word "regulated" used to mean "unregulated" and the word "well" used to mean "completely"

In context "regulated" meant in working order. A militia cannot function without weaponry. Also, the most accurate clocks of the time were called regulators due to just that context.

If regulated meant in working order what was the point of the word "well" in front of it?


The purpose clause of the second amendment reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

This clause exists not for the purpose of codification, but as a statement of rationale for the following meat of the amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.

So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:
img805.imageshack.us

You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"
 
2012-08-09 09:38:22 AM

Loaded Six String: If you change the definition of regulate from the current understanding back to the definition of the time, you see quite clearly how the supreme court came to their recent decision. There was an inequity among the people, it was made as equal as possible under the law.

Then given that definition, a regulated militia would be a militia with the same type of weaponry as a neighboring state's militia, yes? Which would require that the same arms be available to all the people of the United States, making bans or restrictions necessarily a federal matter which would apply to all states individually. Doesn't make much of a difference from my definition with the exception that state and local governments are restricted from enacting their own rules on the availability of certain firearms or firearms in general. I apologize if I misinterpreted that.


Sorry, my intention wasn't to take a pro or anti gun control law stance. Rather, to provide some understanding of the amendment. If the definition of regulate is taken in context, we're no longer talking about regulation in many of these cases, but necessary and unnecessary federal restriction.

I know it seems semantic (we're talking the definitions of words so I guess it's gonna be), but then we have to look elsewhere in the Constitution to find the federal government's power to restrict necessary or not.
 
2012-08-09 09:42:58 AM

Funbags: The_Sponge: Funbags: Someone explain why the gun-nuts and/or NRA oppose severely restrictive gun control? Anyone who's terrified about Fartbama, communism/fascism, brown people, Reptilians, and gun control laws probably already owns dozens (if not hundreds) of guns by now, don't they?

Don't they see the inherent advantage of being able to kill whatever people they decide need to be killed, and not have to worry about return fire?

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.


You're either very ignorant or a troll.

Isn't the basis for the 2nd amendment that if necessarily, a violent overthrow of the government can be accomplished? In such a scenario, who are you gun owners going to be shooting at? Cops. National guardsmen. Armored vehicles. Hardened structures.


Infantry with body armor which can be pierced by hunting rifle rounds. Armored vehicles which can be disable through constructed explosives, rather than destructive devices purchased and registered in a database. The hardened structures aren't as much of a target in an armed rebellion/ insurgency. The priorities would be utilities, supply depots/routes, and drawing a stalemate on the capitol. A serious rebellion wouldn't be quelled without the complete destabilization of the functions of government. So no, 2nd amendment doesn't apply to armor piercing ammunition (full metal jacket hunting rounds would suffice), grenades are unnecessary or replaceable, same with RPGs.
 
2012-08-09 09:44:32 AM

BeesNuts: So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:
[img805.imageshack.us image 496x231]

You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"


So the only possible interpretation isn't the obvious one, but the convoluted one that relies on what they really meant, like, man.
 
2012-08-09 09:48:04 AM

Summoner101: With consideration to the recent shootings, now is not the time to talk about gun control.


With a presidential election is coming up now is exactly the time to talk about "Gun Control". It worked really well for Democrats the last time. Come on, talk, loud and often. It will really get out the vote.
 
2012-08-09 09:51:39 AM

LasersHurt: BeesNuts: So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:
[img805.imageshack.us image 496x231]

You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"

So the only possible interpretation isn't the obvious one, but the convoluted one that relies on what they really meant, like, man.


Convoluted in what way? Had the prefatory clause read "In order to ensure that much ass may be kicked, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the amendment would not change in any meaningful way. The right of the people shall not be infringed, regardless of the reason given for that right to be protected constitutionally.
 
2012-08-09 09:56:31 AM

magusdevil: redmid17: magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.

Nuclear weapons don't fall under the historical precedent for individual ownership that firearms do.

So a .50 cal fully automatic belt fed vehicle mounted machine gun then?


Fine by me. But tell me, where you live do you have to lock it up in a safe when you are not actually sitting in it? And I'm really curious about what kind of trigger lock works on it, could you post a picture?
 
2012-08-09 09:56:42 AM

Loaded Six String: LasersHurt: BeesNuts: So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:
[img805.imageshack.us image 496x231]

You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"

So the only possible interpretation isn't the obvious one, but the convoluted one that relies on what they really meant, like, man.

Convoluted in what way? Had the prefatory clause read "In order to ensure that much ass may be kicked, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the amendment would not change in any meaningful way. The right of the people shall not be infringed, regardless of the reason given for that right to be protected constitutionally.


This is honestly a silly argument over nothing. The bigger question is: Does the bill of rights grant the federal government any powers?

I'd suggest it does not, every decision the supreme court has ever made on the bill of rights proves as much. To that end, the argument over regulation, in the 2nd amendment, is silly.
 
2012-08-09 10:02:39 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.


First of all its completely legal to call a cop an asshole. If you get arrested for that, enjoy the money from your lawsuit.

As to your other point, guns ate still mote regulated. You cany fire a gun in a crowded theatre. You usually cannot even bring one inside either, but you can talk in a theatre.

You can't give guns to kids except under controlled circumstances. Porn is pretty much the only speech that's restricted in that fashion.

You can't protest the GOP convention? I can't even use my guns in the Chicago city limits because of municipal ordinances and illegal stonewalling. You didn't have to register to use your free speech either.

I can come up with a few hundred more if you need me too.
 
2012-08-09 10:03:50 AM

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?


The Constitution was also written when there was no such thing as the internet (pre-Gore), so with this person's "logic" that mean freedom of speech shouldn't apply to the internet
 
2012-08-09 10:04:24 AM

magusdevil: redmid17: Pincy: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

So? Maybe they need to be even more regulated?

Is it legal guns that are used in the overwhelming % of crime or are they illegally acquired weapons?

magusdevil: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

Its also the only right that kills people every day.

I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment has actually killed anyone. Legally owned firearms do indeed kill people, but the vast, vast majority of gun homicides are illegally obtained and being illegally used (even prior to the homicide).

And yet the NRA opposes requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns... that's weird.


The NRA doesn't oppose anyone reporting a lost or stolen gun, we oppose putting someone in prison because they were out of town for a month and didn't know their home had been broken into and their guns stolen. Try actually reading some of the laws the Brady Bunch promotes and imagine them being enforced by Bloomberg.
 
2012-08-09 10:14:28 AM
Let us imagine that somehow Holmes couldn't spend the thousands of dollars he did on guns and ammo and tactical gear. Some gun-law thwarted his "shoot fantasy"


Would that have somehow made him LESS sociopathic? Less violent?


Instead of leaving the exit propped open....he BLOCKS the exit somehow. Instead of returning through the front dressed and armed all "terminator" style he shows up with gallon cans of gasoline and makeshift fuses.....


....instead of 12 dead and 58 injured,


we now have a HUNDRED dead and HUNDREDS injured.


Same with Cho at Virginia Tech. The most diabolical thing Cho did on his rampage was NOT his selecting a Glock 9mm...it was how he chained shut the corridor doors as he passed from hall to hall. Again,imagine Cho with NO gun but containers of gas or kerosene...etc. Multiple fires in all the building wings and sealed exits. He would have quadrupled his body count easily.

Every victim who died at Virginia tech had at least THREE gunshot wounds. Many survived with 3-4 bullet wounds. He wasted his time with a gun. Period.


Just ask Timothy McVeigh.
 
2012-08-09 10:23:10 AM

craigdamage: Let us imagine that somehow Holmes couldn't spend the thousands of dollars he did on guns and ammo and tactical gear. Some gun-law thwarted his "shoot fantasy"


Would that have somehow made him LESS sociopathic? Less violent?


Instead of leaving the exit propped open....he BLOCKS the exit somehow. Instead of returning through the front dressed and armed all "terminator" style he shows up with gallon cans of gasoline and makeshift fuses.....


....instead of 12 dead and 58 injured,


we now have a HUNDRED dead and HUNDREDS injured.


Same with Cho at Virginia Tech. The most diabolical thing Cho did on his rampage was NOT his selecting a Glock 9mm...it was how he chained shut the corridor doors as he passed from hall to hall. Again,imagine Cho with NO gun but containers of gas or kerosene...etc. Multiple fires in all the building wings and sealed exits. He would have quadrupled his body count easily.

Every victim who died at Virginia tech had at least THREE gunshot wounds. Many survived with 3-4 bullet wounds. He wasted his time with a gun. Period.


Just ask Timothy McVeigh.


Wait, so your point is it could have been more deadly if he didn't have access to semi-automatic firepower with 100 drum magazines? Do you wear a helmet all the time by chance?
 
2012-08-09 10:23:22 AM

GAT_00: The NYT promotes their own agenda, nothing else.


Couple days ago when most every news site had Curiosity and the Olympic wins as top stories, NYTimes had them as 5th-6th place, based on position and font size. No photo either.

If someone threw a rock somewhere in the West Bank, it would have been the top story.
 
2012-08-09 10:26:30 AM

rohar: Loaded Six String: LasersHurt: BeesNuts: So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:
[img805.imageshack.us image 496x231]

You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"

So the only possible interpretation isn't the obvious one, but the convoluted one that relies on what they really meant, like, man.

Convoluted in what way? Had the prefatory clause read "In order to ensure that much ass may be kicked, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the amendment would not change in any meaningful way. The right of the people shall not be infringed, regardless of the reason given for that right to be protected constitutionally.

This is honestly a silly argument over nothing. The bigger question is: Does the bill of rights grant the federal government any powers?

I'd suggest it does not, every decision the supreme court has ever made on the bill of rights proves as much. To that end, the argument over regulation, in the 2nd amendment, is silly.


I tend to agree. The Bill of Rights does not grant the federal government powers. It is a list of rights which no governing body in the nation can restrict or absolve without going through the necessary amendment process.
 
2012-08-09 10:34:32 AM
I never understood "gun porn" or "food porn" or "car porn." I just want to see "porn porn."
 
2012-08-09 10:44:03 AM
Am I the only one who notices that the pro and anti gun forces can gin up statistics that completely contradict each other, starting from the same statistical database? That should tell you something about statistics .
 
2012-08-09 10:48:43 AM
Attention dumbasses: there are too many guns everywhere by now, it doesn't matter what laws you care to enact.
 
2012-08-09 10:50:45 AM
jso2897 Am I the only one who notices believes that the pro and anti gun forces can gin up statistics that completely contradict each other, starting from the same statistical database? That should tell you something about statistics .


Yes. Yes you are.
 
2012-08-09 10:57:14 AM

Sargun: HeadLever: Ned Stark: you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.

Correct. The Heller decision held that the prefatory clause of the 2nd does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.

Easy way to fix the obesity crisis: mandate that everyone who owns a gun (ie, the south, ie, the fat-ass rednecks) must be physically fit enough and active in a militia that trains once a week.


Methinks you missed the point. The prefatory clause (about the militia) does not limit anyone in the right detailed in the operative clause (right to bear arms).

So, no.
 
2012-08-09 11:14:31 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-09 11:53:03 AM

spif: Dear morons. The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the people from the government.


that's not obvious. it's also been argued that the it was designed to create a fighting force to help the gov't through militias, not fight it.
 
2012-08-09 12:01:13 PM

Loaded Six String: 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.


thx, a solid response. don't fully buy it but it would make a fantastic book or movie

someone get on that
 
2012-08-09 12:11:47 PM

Loaded Six String: 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


im also impressed. im actually fairly neutral about the gun debate, am open to both sides, and want to purchase and learn a firearm myself

it's just irritating to see a reasonable open discussion about gun control is practically verboten in this country. espcially after massacres. and clearly we have a gun violence problem.
 
2012-08-09 12:24:47 PM

Bacontastesgood: GAT_00: The NYT promotes their own agenda, nothing else.

Couple days ago when most every news site had Curiosity and the Olympic wins as top stories, NYTimes had them as 5th-6th place, based on position and font size. No photo either.

If someone threw a rock somewhere in the West Bank, it would have been the top story.


it's these kinds of comments that make it difficult for reasonable people to take the right wing seriously
 
2012-08-09 12:35:06 PM

wookiee cookie: Loaded Six String: 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

im also impressed. im actually fairly neutral about the gun debate, am open to both sides, and want to purchase and learn a firearm myself

it's just irritating to see a reasonable open discussion about gun control is practically verboten in this country. espcially after massacres. and clearly we have a gun violence problem.


The gun violence problem has its causes tho.
If you want to really not-talk about fixes, let's talk about ending the drug war and expanding access to mental health care. Let's talk about sex education, jobs, social security, infrastructure, and equal housing opportunities.

Because if you want to put a stop on gun violence, you do more by fixing the economy. This is something all the statisticals will tell you.
If you want to see people from both the NRA and Brady dodge an issue, lock up, or clear the room then stop talking gun bills and start talking about real issues.

Gun control is just a wedge issue that goes nowhere. That's why everyone is happy to debate it in circles.
 
2012-08-09 12:37:51 PM
I love how the folks who claim "gun free zones" should be outlawed tend to also be the folks who think allowing smoking in a business should be the property owners' right.

Rather than stricter gun control (though better tracking of legally purchased weapons would not be a bad thing as it'd protect owners to some extent if their weapons were stolen.) Some sort of system similar to license plates would be a good idea; guns come with ownership documentation and transfers of ownership need to be reported to the state. Though given the quantity of guns in the U.S. I'm not sure if it's feasible to set up such a system.
 
2012-08-09 01:00:35 PM

mokinokaro: I love how the folks who claim "gun free zones" should be outlawed tend to also be the folks who think allowing smoking in a business should be the property owners' right.

Rather than stricter gun control (though better tracking of legally purchased weapons would not be a bad thing as it'd protect owners to some extent if their weapons were stolen.) Some sort of system similar to license plates would be a good idea; guns come with ownership documentation and transfers of ownership need to be reported to the state. Though given the quantity of guns in the U.S. I'm not sure if it's feasible to set up such a system.


What you just said was "Rather than using system A, we should use something exactly like System A."
 
2012-08-09 03:50:49 PM

LasersHurt: BeesNuts: So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:
[img805.imageshack.us image 496x231]

You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"

So the only possible interpretation isn't the obvious one, but the convoluted one that relies on what they really meant, like, man.


... no. I mean... do you think that it makes sense to say that regulating arms is necessary in keeping a free state, or do you think it makes sense to say that keeping an able-bodied militia with all the requisite equipment to defend themselves is necessary?

Which do you think makes more sense?

Alternatively, for the grammar-inclined:
The second amendment begins with what is traditionally known as an absolutive clausal adjunct - a gerund-participial clause functioning as an adjunct in clause structure. It is understood as if it began with since or because or in view of the fact that (notice that Our situation being hopeless, we surrendered means "Since our situation was hopeless, we surrendered). In this context, "Since a well regulated militia is necessary in keeping a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." Now, frankly, it wouldn't matter if the sentence read:

"Colorful tattoos and grandfather clocks being totally kick ass, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged"

And the function of the amendment would be unchanged. When coming to SC decisions, the purpose clause is our only legal view into the minds of the framers. Otherwise we have to go to secondary sources and try and suss out some kind of agreement on the topic (there was none).

It doesn't rightly matter what they "really meant, man" when they describe the militia as well regulated. But the explanation of the terminology provided above is accurate, accepted, well documented, and supported by over a century and a half of case law in this country.

So I guess believe what you, like, want, man.
 
2012-08-09 03:55:18 PM

Loaded Six String: rohar: Loaded Six String: LasersHurt: BeesNuts: So the intricacies and anachronistic language of the purpose clause doesn't really have an impact on the main clause anyway, but since you ask, calling a militia Well Regulated, in that historical context, just meant well equipped. Like. Not this:
[img805.imageshack.us image 496x231]

You don't want to call up your militia and have a bunch of 12 year olds carrying wooden swords with pots on their heads show up at your door. The purpose clause basically just says

"In order to make sure that we have guns around in case we need em,"

So the only possible interpretation isn't the obvious one, but the convoluted one that relies on what they really meant, like, man.

Convoluted in what way? Had the prefatory clause read "In order to ensure that much ass may be kicked, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the amendment would not change in any meaningful way. The right of the people shall not be infringed, regardless of the reason given for that right to be protected constitutionally.

This is honestly a silly argument over nothing. The bigger question is: Does the bill of rights grant the federal government any powers?

I'd suggest it does not, every decision the supreme court has ever made on the bill of rights proves as much. To that end, the argument over regulation, in the 2nd amendment, is silly.

I tend to agree. The Bill of Rights does not grant the federal government powers. It is a list of rights which no governing body in the nation can restrict or absolve without going through the necessary amendment process.


Also this. By and large the bill of rights is a list of things that are "Not To Be Farked With". It's our magna carta. Our sacrosanct principles. Our line in the sand.

It's not that it gives us rights. It's protects those rights from the tyranny of politics. At least, ostensibly that's what it does. In reality it's really only the first two amendments, cause remembering ten things is hard, so we just do speech and guns. And those two are not so much used as protection as they are used as political footballs to get ambitious people elected.

que sera, sera.
 
2012-08-09 03:57:02 PM

redmid17: First of all its completely legal to call a cop an asshole. If you get arrested for that, enjoy the money from your lawsuit.


Never gotten a DC, have we?

Or if the cop is in the middle of "business" you might just get an obstruction charge thrown down and then all bets are off.
 
2012-08-09 04:07:21 PM

BeesNuts: redmid17: First of all its completely legal to call a cop an asshole. If you get arrested for that, enjoy the money from your lawsuit.

Never gotten a DC, have we?

Or if the cop is in the middle of "business" you might just get an obstruction charge thrown down and then all bets are off.


You don't read much do you:

Link

Link

Link

If you can tell a call to go fark himself or flip him off, I feel pretty safe calling a cop an asshole. Hell I've even done it before without getting arrested, though it helped that the senior patrol dude basically told the junior officer he was wasting their time. Like I said, feel free to collect your settlement when all is said and done.

"A famous 1971 Supreme Court case upheld the right of a young man to enter the Los Angeles County Court House wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words 'F___ the Draft.' "
 
2012-08-09 05:06:42 PM

redmid17: BeesNuts: redmid17: First of all its completely legal to call a cop an asshole. If you get arrested for that, enjoy the money from your lawsuit.

Never gotten a DC, have we?

Or if the cop is in the middle of "business" you might just get an obstruction charge thrown down and then all bets are off.

You don't read much do you:

Link

Link

Link

If you can tell a call to go fark himself or flip him off, I feel pretty safe calling a cop an asshole. Hell I've even done it before without getting arrested, though it helped that the senior patrol dude basically told the junior officer he was wasting their time. Like I said, feel free to collect your settlement when all is said and done.

"A famous 1971 Supreme Court case upheld the right of a young man to enter the Los Angeles County Court House wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words 'F___ the Draft.' "


That's what manufactured charges are for. The Disorderly Conduct charge has been a catch all for Contempt of Cop for a while now.

Should we be able to tell a cop to fark off without concern? Absolutely. In reality, make sure you have witnesses or footage of the whole thing, or else how would one prove that one didn't make physical contact with the officer, or that one didn't threaten him with violence?

"its completely legal to call a cop an asshole." True.
"If you get arrested for that, enjoy the money from your lawsuit." Also true.

But you won't get arrested for that. You'd get arrested (or ticketed) for something else entirely.

/I'm kind of just saying "don't press your luck when it comes to the police."
//Really? Of course I read. Plenty. I'm on fark, aren't I?
///Just finished Wealth of Nations and The Prince and I'm moving on to Don Quixote, thankyouverymuch
 
2012-08-09 08:28:41 PM

James F. Campbell: a certain gun nut who frequents this site got a vacation (I think/hope) after threatening me.


A certain set of muslims blew up the WTC. What's your point?
 
2012-08-09 08:46:41 PM
CPennypacker Wait, so your point is it could have been more deadly if he didn't have access to semi-automatic firepower with 100 drum magazines?


yes. (you mean the 100 rd drum that jammed after 20 rounds?)

....like I said,ask Timothy Veigh.


Guns are NOT the best choice for mass killing. Not even close.
All the top mass killings in US history were caused by:
Planes/box-cutters (9/11 Terrorists) 3000 dead
Gasoline (hotel arson) 100 dead
Gasoline (nightclub arson) 87 dead
TNT (Bath Michigan School bombing) 55 dead
Fertilizer/rental truck (Oklahoma federal building) 170 dead

It is a GOOD thing that these psychos have these idiotic "terminator" murder fantasies. Their own sociopathic delusion ACTUALLY saves lives.

I say keep the myth alive.
Fewer will die.
 
2012-08-10 12:59:08 AM

craigdamage: Let us imagine that somehow Holmes couldn't spend the thousands of dollars he did on guns and ammo and tactical gear. Some gun-law thwarted his "shoot fantasy"


Would that have somehow made him LESS sociopathic? Less violent?


Instead of leaving the exit propped open....he BLOCKS the exit somehow. Instead of returning through the front dressed and armed all "terminator" style he shows up with gallon cans of gasoline and makeshift fuses.....


....instead of 12 dead and 58 injured,


we now have a HUNDRED dead and HUNDREDS injured.


Same with Cho at Virginia Tech. The most diabolical thing Cho did on his rampage was NOT his selecting a Glock 9mm...it was how he chained shut the corridor doors as he passed from hall to hall. Again,imagine Cho with NO gun but containers of gas or kerosene...etc. Multiple fires in all the building wings and sealed exits. He would have quadrupled his body count easily.

Every victim who died at Virginia tech had at least THREE gunshot wounds. Many survived with 3-4 bullet wounds. He wasted his time with a gun. Period.


Just ask Timothy McVeigh.


This is my line of thinking. If Hollywood and the Liberal MSM Mainsteam Media™ didn't plant in the heads of these nuts that billion round assault murderdeathkill rifles are the ultimate killing weapons, the carnage would be much, much worse. You should all be thanking Bruce Willis and 20/20 for their public service.

Like the real Joker said, dynamite and gunpowder and gasoline, are cheap.
 
2012-08-10 07:39:44 AM

magusdevil: LasersHurt: So everyone in the reserves and JROTC and such can have a gun. Could be worse.

I'm personally willing to expand that. Anyone who is willing to go to basic training, pass an annual physical, qualify annually on a physical training test, and qualify with their personal weapons on a range (all at their own expense) should be allowed to own non-hunting weapons. I think that's reasonable gun control.


You're both missing the 'people' part of the 2nd.

Personally, I'd institute mandatory gun safety and usage training in schools and expand the CMP(Civilian Marksmanship Program). After that, actually build a functional reform system in prisons, have schools that actually educate, and a functional mental health system.
 
Displayed 268 of 268 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report