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 17
    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»



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


Archived thread
2012-08-09 12:40:31 AM  
3 votes:

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.
2012-08-08 11:20:57 PM  
3 votes:

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?
2012-08-09 01:46:51 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-08-08 11:20:02 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-08-09 06:30:11 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:53:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:41:24 AM  
1 votes:

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."
2012-08-08 11:50:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:39:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:14:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:12:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:02:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:57:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:46:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:42:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:14:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:10:01 PM  
1 votes:
Going by that headline, I read a different article than subby.
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report