If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

1612 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2012 at 10:53 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-09 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 268 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report