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.

(Capital New York)   "What the gun control movement can learn from gay rights." Besides how to avoid being shot in the face   (capitalnewyork.com) divider line 185
    More: Interesting, Brady Campaign, mass shootings, freedom of assembly, mean business, self-incriminations, sovereign states, NRA, gun safety  
•       •       •

5135 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Aug 2012 at 12:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-16 01:00:31 PM
If you think the left wants to take your guns, you're just paranoid!
 
2012-08-16 01:00:44 PM
I thought the gheys LIKED taking a shot in the face
 
2012-08-16 01:01:05 PM
"We're Armed, You're Charmed, Get used to it!"
 
2012-08-16 01:01:20 PM
That just ain't right.
 
2012-08-16 01:02:44 PM
Because the vast majority Americans think gun ownership is a right, no matter what they think about gays, the economy, or women's rights. Gun ownership transcends left v right.
 
2012-08-16 01:03:08 PM
Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Maybe the gay rights movement should take a page out of our book.

Also, armed gays don't get bashed.
 
2012-08-16 01:03:40 PM
You can't shoot a rainbow out of the sky.
 
2012-08-16 01:04:13 PM
why is gun ownership more important than LEGAL MARIJUANA??
 
2012-08-16 01:04:59 PM
I like that we have gotten to a point where "X is not an important side of an issue because there are only $Y lobbying dollars spent on it" can just get tossed into a discussion without anyone blinking an eye. Our democracy is so incredibly healthy.
 
2012-08-16 01:05:14 PM

Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Maybe the gay rights movement should take a page out of our book.

Also, armed gays don't get bashed.


Yep. Anti-gunners are in the minority, even among liberals.
 
2012-08-16 01:05:29 PM

Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Maybe the gay rights movement should take a page out of our book.

Also, armed gays don't get bashed.


This.

/I'd be posting pink pistol propaganda if I wasn't on the road.
/God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal.
 
2012-08-16 01:05:37 PM

R.A.Danny: Because the vast majority Americans think gun ownership is a right, no matter what they think about gays, the economy, or women's rights. Gun ownership transcends left v right.


That, and the much longer conversation about what exactly is reasonable when it comes to gun control and the right to keep and bear arms. To many, the only solution is to ban some types of guns because of looks or whatever, addressing only accessibility and no other aspects of the problem, when a discussion on ways to improve background checks and other methods of weeding out the loonies in general would be far more helpful in the long run, and would reduce more than just gun violence.
 
2012-08-16 01:06:17 PM
FTFA: " No one in power is scared of the gun control movement. "

Duh. It's a losing proposition. The SCOTUS has spoken: RTKBA is a constitutionally guaranteed individual right. Heller is now well-settled law, on the same level as Roe v. Wade. The collectivist argument has been officially and categorically debunked and rejected. They don't have a leg to stand on, and anyone with any sense knows it.

If they want to be taking a cue from any movement, they need to look at the Pro Life movement. Gun prohibitionists and abortion prohibitionists have more in common than either would care to admit. Both are fighting a losing battle, trying to turn back the clock of social progress against an ever-growing tide of public realization that they are on the wrong side of history.
 
2012-08-16 01:07:08 PM

paygun: If you think the left wants to take your guns, you're just paranoid!



Leland Yee (D-umbass, CA) disagrees:

Link
 
2012-08-16 01:07:27 PM
That is the first website in a looong time that popped up a virus warning. Thanks subs
 
2012-08-16 01:08:22 PM
Just as there are lots of gay people in the military, lots of civilian gay people have guns. Perhaps they should stand their ground and shoot the bigots who prefer the gay people enjoy less freedom than straight people currently enjoy.
 
2012-08-16 01:08:40 PM

Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Maybe the gay rights movement should take a page out of our book.

Also, armed gays don't get bashed.


While 49 states do have CCW, some of them don't have practical and actual CCW and make it prohibitively hard to get a permit.

Until states are "shall issue" and it's state level not issued by the local corrupt police / sherrif department it's not as rosey of a situation as one might think.
 
2012-08-16 01:08:49 PM

ChipNASA: [i234.photobucket.com image 92x90]

/oblig


for future reference, gifs with malicious iframes in them are never obligatory.
 
2012-08-16 01:09:31 PM

SumoJeb: That is the first website in a looong time that popped up a virus warning. Thanks subs


I saw the same thing. I thought I was coming unstuck in time or something - haven't seen a virus warning in ages.
 
2012-08-16 01:09:34 PM

paygun: If you think the left wants to take your guns, you're just paranoid indoctrinated!


FTFY
 
2012-08-16 01:09:35 PM
Many opponents of a restricted action predict that allowing the action will result in dire consequences. When the action ultimately is allowed, the predicted consequences fail to manifest. Nonetheless, the organized opponents continue to predict the inevitability of the yet-to-manifest consequences, and continue to oppose allowance of that action in other locales using the same failed predictions.

Have I described opposition to allowing civilians to carry concealed firearms, or have I described opposition to opponents of same-sex marriage?
 
2012-08-16 01:09:53 PM
The gun control movement lost, just like the Anti-LGBT crowd will.
 
2012-08-16 01:09:54 PM

SumoJeb: That is the first website in a looong time that popped up a virus warning. Thanks subs


I got a quarantine message from Microsoft Security Essentials right away. So subby, do a virus scan.
 
2012-08-16 01:10:20 PM
I think the better lesson is that the gay rights movement is about getting legal recognition for a civil right, as opposed to taking rights away.
 
2012-08-16 01:10:22 PM
So they want the gun control movement, a movement about depriving people of rights, to learn from the gay marriage movement, which is a movement about granting people rights.

Does not compute.
 
2012-08-16 01:10:58 PM

JohnBigBootay: Just as there are lots of gay people in the military, lots of civilian gay people have guns. Perhaps they should stand their ground and shoot the bigots who prefer the gay people enjoy less freedom than straight people currently enjoy.


umm gay people have EXACTLY the same freedoms as heterosexual people. and both gays and non gays can marry someone of the opposite sex. i don't see where the problem lies.
 
2012-08-16 01:11:03 PM

JohnBigBootay: Perhaps they should stand their ground and shoot the bigots who prefer the gay people enjoy less freedom than straight people currently enjoy.



If didn't know any better, I would say that you condone what happened yesterday.

Call me crazy, but there's a world of difference between actually defending yourself in a dangerous situation and trying to shoot up a bunch of people in a lobbyist office.
 
2012-08-16 01:12:15 PM
How about starting with renaming it from "gun control" to "gun safety" advocates?

The "gun control" advocates include people who want to disarm the public and make it impossible for most people to own a gun. If we focus on gun safety then we are having a discussion on things like training standards for permits, school safety programs for minors, mandatory design elements, a national concealed carry permit, etc.

When we talk about cars it's automobile safety regulations, not "automobile control".
 
2012-08-16 01:12:17 PM
Apparently, it's that dumb .gif of Baloo and Tom Cruise that's throwing up the virus warnings. Not the website.
 
2012-08-16 01:12:23 PM

jafiwam: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Maybe the gay rights movement should take a page out of our book.

Also, armed gays don't get bashed.

While 49 states do have CCW, some of them don't have practical and actual CCW and make it prohibitively hard to get a permit.

Until states are "shall issue" and it's state level not issued by the local corrupt police / sherrif department it's not as rosey of a situation as one might think.


Being from Wisconsin, I can't help but to think that the situation will improve. It will be chipped away at and things will keep changing. The big cities will be the toughest, along with the states they control, but it will be done.
 
2012-08-16 01:12:47 PM

Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Maybe the gay rights movement should take a page out of our book.

Also, armed gays don't get bashed.


They just try to kill people at the Family Research Council.

It's clear that the climate of hate created by progressive leftists and the LGBT community caused this to happen.
 
2012-08-16 01:13:08 PM

jafiwam: Until states are "shall issue" and it's state level not issued by the local corrupt police / sherrif department it's not as rosey of a situation as one might think.


I support gun rights but I don't think there's anything 'rosey' about feeling the need to have a concealed weapon while I'm out and about. But that's me. I don't even like extraneous shiat in my wallet or more than a couple of keys in my pocket. For me to have a heavy-ass piece of hardware on me I'm gonna have to have a pretty strong feeling someone will be trying to shoot me that day.
 
2012-08-16 01:14:30 PM

SumoJeb: That is the first website in a looong time that popped up a virus warning. Thanks subs


I think it was an ad on Fark. I got this:
http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/Threat/Encyclopedia/Entry.as p x?name=Trojan%3aWin32%2fGiframe.A&threatid=2147626289

After refreshing after posting. I have not looked at the article at all.

Or, something someone posted. Could be that animated gif of Tom Cruise.
 
2012-08-16 01:15:00 PM

clyph: FTFA: " No one in power is scared of the gun control movement. "

Duh. It's a losing proposition. The SCOTUS has spoken: RTKBA is a constitutionally guaranteed individual right. Heller is now well-settled law, on the same level as Roe v. Wade. The collectivist argument has been officially and categorically debunked and rejected. They don't have a leg to stand on, and anyone with any sense knows it.


Unfortunately, the ACLU hasn't caught up. Until they do, they don't get my monetary support.
 
2012-08-16 01:15:09 PM

clyph: Gun prohibitionists and abortion prohibitionists have more in common than either would care to admit. Both are fighting a losing battle, trying to turn back the clock of social progress against an ever-growing tide of public realization that they are on the wrong side of history.


Literally hundreds of anti-abortion bills have been proposed and/or passed in the last couple years. I could probably count on one hand the number of anti-gun bills in that time frame.

The gun nuts are afraid of confiscation for two reasons - 1) they see how effective the anti-abortion zealots have been in getting laws passed and 2) they're paranoid nitwits.
 
2012-08-16 01:15:09 PM
Is this where gun nuts should start shooting up the offices of anti-gun lobbyists?
 
2012-08-16 01:16:28 PM

R.A.Danny: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Maybe the gay rights movement should take a page out of our book.

Also, armed gays don't get bashed.

Yep. Anti-gunners are in the minority, even among liberals.


I think that's because the left understand that they have to work with what is to get to what should be. SCOTUS says the first part of the 2nd Amendment is filler, so people have the unrestricted right to bear arms. OK, let's work from there.
 
2012-08-16 01:16:34 PM

beta_plus: It's clear that the climate of hate created by progressive leftists and the LGBT community caused this to happen.


Oh, STFU.
 
2012-08-16 01:17:22 PM

JohnBigBootay: jafiwam: Until states are "shall issue" and it's state level not issued by the local corrupt police / sherrif department it's not as rosey of a situation as one might think.

I support gun rights but I don't think there's anything 'rosey' about feeling the need to have a concealed weapon while I'm out and about. But that's me. I don't even like extraneous shiat in my wallet or more than a couple of keys in my pocket. For me to have a heavy-ass piece of hardware on me I'm gonna have to have a pretty strong feeling someone will be trying to shoot me that day.


Some people also want to carry because of animals. If you run late at night or early in the morning in a city/suburb where you might run into a bear, mountain lion, or coyote, you might want to carry concealed so that you are armed without alarming other runners.

Do you also only carry a fire extinguisher on days when you have a "pretty strong feeling" that your car might catch on fire?
 
2012-08-16 01:18:17 PM

The_Sponge: If didn't know any better, I would say that you condone what happened yesterday.


Oooh, that's a bad read but I can see how it came off that way. That was a bad thing and I think people should visit violence on one another much much much less than our species does so currently. I would strongly prefer if people never shot other people. So, no. No condoning. Just a shiatty play on words.
 
2012-08-16 01:18:29 PM

TypoFlyspray: R.A.Danny: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Maybe the gay rights movement should take a page out of our book.

Also, armed gays don't get bashed.

Yep. Anti-gunners are in the minority, even among liberals.

I think that's because the left understand that they have to work with what is to get to what should be. SCOTUS says the first part of the 2nd Amendment is filler, so people have the unrestricted right to bear arms. OK, let's work from there.


It's not unrestricted, but reasonably restricted.
 
2012-08-16 01:19:13 PM

JohnBigBootay: jafiwam: Until states are "shall issue" and it's state level not issued by the local corrupt police / sherrif department it's not as rosey of a situation as one might think.

I support gun rights but I don't think there's anything 'rosey' about feeling the need to have a concealed weapon while I'm out and about. But that's me. I don't even like extraneous shiat in my wallet or more than a couple of keys in my pocket. For me to have a heavy-ass piece of hardware on me I'm gonna have to have a pretty strong feeling someone will be trying to shoot me that day.


Personal choice is personal, obviously.

However, one "doesn't need" and "doesn't feel the need" for a gun, until one does. Situations where it would be needed, pop up and happen very very fast.

Go read "Street Robberies and You" (Google it, you'll find it) for some very insightful information on the subject. Also, this blog:
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/
 
2012-08-16 01:19:22 PM
The problem with using the gay marriage example, though, is that by concentrating on gay marriage -- which is something that until recently didn't have majority support -- LGBT advocates ignored the fact that there aren't anti-discrimination laws in the vast majority of states and there isn't one on the Federal level -- despite polls over the years showing substantial support for non-discrimination laws in the entire country. It's distracted from making real, substantive changes in order to focus on an issue that is more visible.

To compare it to the gun control debate, it would be like trying to work to ban semi-automatic pistols while ignoring areas with massive appeal, even among gun owners -- tightening up enforcement of existing laws, preventing individuals who are mentally ill from obtaining weapons, restricting concealed-carry licenses to only people who have passed a safety exam and haven't had a violent conviction or domestic violence arrest, requiring person-to-person transfers to go through a FFL dealer, etc.
 
2012-08-16 01:20:16 PM

Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.


Yep, back towards gun control and not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons. You can thank IL for resisting that insane impulse.
 
2012-08-16 01:20:56 PM
What does giving an oppressed group of people rights have to do with increasing gun laws?

One enhances individual liberty, the other does the other thing.
 
2012-08-16 01:21:19 PM
how about talking normal. it's not really your looks thats making people treat you differently. but how you inject poop and semen into conversations that don't need poop and semen.
 
2012-08-16 01:22:21 PM

LaraAmber: How about starting with renaming it from "gun control" to "gun safety" advocates?

The "gun control" advocates include people who want to disarm the public and make it impossible for most people to own a gun. If we focus on gun safety then we are having a discussion on things like training standards for permits, school safety programs for minors, mandatory design elements, a national concealed carry permit, etc.

When we talk about cars it's automobile safety regulations, not "automobile control".


The problem, though, is that's not what they're after.

farkmedown: clyph: FTFA: " No one in power is scared of the gun control movement. "

Duh. It's a losing proposition. The SCOTUS has spoken: RTKBA is a constitutionally guaranteed individual right. Heller is now well-settled law, on the same level as Roe v. Wade. The collectivist argument has been officially and categorically debunked and rejected. They don't have a leg to stand on, and anyone with any sense knows it.

Unfortunately, the ACLU hasn't caught up. Until they do, they don't get my monetary support.


How does an ACLU lawyer count to ten? 1, 3, 4, 5...
 
2012-08-16 01:22:33 PM
I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-drug decriminalization and pro-gun rights, all from pretty much the same stream of logic.

Self determination. I get cognitive dissonance when I talk to people who call themselves liberals who are liberal on everything topic except the right to defend yourself.

The strange and inconsistent political divisions in America today make voting for me a very very difficult task. It's not picking the best person for the job, it's damage control, trying to vote for the person who you think will be least effective at eroding our rights.
 
2012-08-16 01:22:34 PM
JosephFinn: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Yep, back towards gun control and not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons. You can thank IL for resisting that insane impulse.


As you are an established liar, your claims are not credible.
 
2012-08-16 01:23:01 PM
From the Gay NRA: "They can have my gun when they pry it out of my cold dead ass!"
 
2012-08-16 01:23:02 PM

LaraAmber: Do you also only carry a fire extinguisher on days when you have a "pretty strong feeling" that your car might catch on fire?


wait, there are people who don't have a chemical fire extinguisher in their car? or a come along if they get stuck? or nonperishable foods, crank powered emergency radio/portable battery charger and sleeping bag in case they get really, really stuck?
 
2012-08-16 01:23:28 PM
www.shotgunnews.com
 
2012-08-16 01:23:38 PM

LaraAmber:
Do you also only carry a fire extinguisher on days when you have a "pretty strong feeling" that your car might catch on fire?


No. I pretty much never carry a fire extinguisher on my person. But I do have one in my vw van. Because they catch on fire sometimes. No, really.

Some people also want to carry because of animals.


Fair enough. Some people do.

If you run late at night or early in the morning in a city/suburb where you might run into a bear, mountain lion, or coyote, you might want to carry concealed so that you are armed without alarming other runners.

I'd draw the line there. I run, bike, and hike a shiatload. We even have bears and shiat in the pac nw. A gun is really never part of my exercise gear.
 
2012-08-16 01:23:44 PM

JosephFinn: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Yep, back towards gun control and not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons. You can thank IL for resisting that insane impulse.



I know, right? And Chicago is such a safe city.....especially the South Side...they rarely have shooting.

Good God you're dense.
 
2012-08-16 01:23:58 PM
Come forward with a plan that addresses the actual problems (desire to commit violence) and not symptoms.

Show me that there is no other way to do something before you suggest I give up some of my liberty.

Don't demonize me to make yourself better about ignoring my desires to not be impacted by your cause.

Those would be a good start.
 
2012-08-16 01:24:28 PM

stampylives: malicious iframes


I"ll tell the modmins to pull it....it's on photobucket...they should have scanned it.
 
2012-08-16 01:24:31 PM

JosephFinn: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Yep, back towards gun control and not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons. You can thank IL for resisting that insane impulse.


Your gun laws are working out great, Chicago.
 
2012-08-16 01:24:35 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: clyph: Gun prohibitionists and abortion prohibitionists have more in common than either would care to admit. Both are fighting a losing battle, trying to turn back the clock of social progress against an ever-growing tide of public realization that they are on the wrong side of history.

Literally hundreds of anti-abortion bills have been proposed and/or passed in the last couple years. I could probably count on one hand the number of anti-gun bills in that time frame.

The gun nuts are afraid of confiscation for two reasons - 1) they see how effective the anti-abortion zealots have been in getting laws passed and 2) they're paranoid nitwits.


There's been some changes to abortion laws but the essence of the law is unchanged from Roe/Wade: Early term abortions will always be legal; mid-term abortions will always be legal in the health interests of the mother; post-viability abortions will always be illegal.
 
2012-08-16 01:24:53 PM

JohnBigBootay: jafiwam: Until states are "shall issue" and it's state level not issued by the local corrupt police / sherrif department it's not as rosey of a situation as one might think.

I support gun rights but I don't think there's anything 'rosey' about feeling the need to have a concealed weapon while I'm out and about. But that's me. I don't even like extraneous shiat in my wallet or more than a couple of keys in my pocket. For me to have a heavy-ass piece of hardware on me I'm gonna have to have a pretty strong feeling someone will be trying to shoot me that day.


For me, my CCW isn't about being able to physically carry it all the time, it's more about having it near me when I feel the need. If I'm on a road trip, it's within reaching distance in my vehicle. If I didn't have my permit, most places would consider it illegal unless I had it unloaded in a locked case with the ammo in a separate location. I hardly ever carry it because I find it very uncomfortable as well, but I do keep it in the car or in my camera bag when I'm on trips.

The author of this is a moron, and so are most people who blindly say they are for gun control. Find any Fark thread about gun control and you'll find that every single person who believes "assault weapons" should be banned doesn't have the first clue about anything related to weapons. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the media don't either, and that's why 99% of the anti-gun crowd think that it's perfectly legal to go in to a gun show and buy a machine gun. The only thing remotely similar is that the anti-ghey crowd tends to listen to Hannity and the rest of Fox and Friends when they tell them that gay marriage is going to lead to people openly marrying pets as well.
 
2012-08-16 01:25:11 PM

LaraAmber: JohnBigBootay: jafiwam: Until states are "shall issue" and it's state level not issued by the local corrupt police / sherrif department it's not as rosey of a situation as one might think.

I support gun rights but I don't think there's anything 'rosey' about feeling the need to have a concealed weapon while I'm out and about. But that's me. I don't even like extraneous shiat in my wallet or more than a couple of keys in my pocket. For me to have a heavy-ass piece of hardware on me I'm gonna have to have a pretty strong feeling someone will be trying to shoot me that day.

Some people also want to carry because of animals. If you run late at night or early in the morning in a city/suburb where you might run into a bear, mountain lion, or coyote, you might want to carry concealed so that you are armed without alarming other runners.

Do you also only carry a fire extinguisher on days when you have a "pretty strong feeling" that your car might catch on fire?


There is a fire extinguisher in the trunk of by car all the time. Along with spare bulbs for headlight and tail-light, some fuses, an empty gas jug, a jug for water, a quart of oil, some reflectors and a road flare.

Is that paranoia, or preparedness?
 
2012-08-16 01:26:11 PM
The number one way to minimize "gun violence" is to end drug prohibition and let people buy their meth (though it would probably be coke at that point) at the local pharmacy.

But the gun controllers don't care about minimizing violence, they only care about punishing "rednecks". Just like the anti-choicers don't care about babies, they just want to punish "sluts".

Its pretty much the same for all of recorded history. Group A doesn't like Group B. Group A comes up with contrived reason why the actions most likely taken by Group B are "bad" and should be punished. Group A uses majority status, wealth, or other political power to enact laws which are much more likely to harm Group B.

People need to just leave each other the fark alone. And the government at each level should limit itself to the few functions that deal with very clearly defined non-excludable, non-rivalrous public goods.
 
2012-08-16 01:26:35 PM

JosephFinn: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Yep, back towards gun control and not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons. You can thank IL for resisting that insane impulse.


Interestingly, despite the huge push towards concealed carry over the last decade or so and a horrible economy putting millions out of work, firearm murders have gone down.

It's almost as though most gun control restrictions don't have an effect on the crime rate because the people who follow the law aren't the people who are doing the murdering.
 
2012-08-16 01:26:38 PM
What the gun control movement should learn from the gay rights movement is that owning a gun is as much a right as choosing who you sleep with or marry.
 
2012-08-16 01:30:32 PM

RembrandtQEinstein: But the gun controllers don't care about minimizing violence, they only care about punishing "rednecks". Just like the anti-choicers don't care about babies, they just want to punish "sluts".


Yep.

Rent Party: What the gun control movement should learn from the gay rights movement is that owning a gun is as much a right as choosing who you sleep with or marry.


So you're stating that gun owners in general are conservatives?
 
2012-08-16 01:30:40 PM

jafiwam: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Maybe the gay rights movement should take a page out of our book.

Also, armed gays don't get bashed.

While 49 states do have CCW, some of them don't have practical and actual CCW and make it prohibitively hard to get a permit.

Until states are "shall issue" and it's state level not issued by the local corrupt police / sherrif department it's not as rosey of a situation as one might think.


The gov trusted me with a Yankee White access and a TS clearance and was entrusted with the systems that protected the President.

The state of NY felt I was not to be trusted with a .38 revolver in upstate NY. (Forget crime. Rabid animals are common there. I wanted protection when I was in the woods and it wasn't hunting season)
 
2012-08-16 01:32:52 PM
Besides the 2nd amendment, there are a couple of obvious reasons that the gun ban control movement fails. Ignorance of firearms, how the work and function, and open hostility to gun owners.

If you cannot explain the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon, shut up. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself in the most basic info about a topic, noone should or will take your opinion seriously. Secondly, if you want more firearms regulation, stop being a dick to gun owners, you NEED us, if your going be attempting firearms regulations, in most states and federally, anyway.
 
2012-08-16 01:32:52 PM

The_Sponge: JosephFinn: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Yep, back towards gun control and not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons. You can thank IL for resisting that insane impulse.


I know, right? And Chicago is such a safe city.....especially the South Side...they rarely have shooting.

Good God you're dense.


What's interesting is that DC, Chicago, and New York all have really restrictive laws on carrying a firearm and all have really high crime rates while Detroit and New Orleans have really liberal laws on carrying a firearm and have really high crime rates.
 
2012-08-16 01:33:09 PM
JohnBigBootay: If you run late at night or early in the morning in a city/suburb where you might run into a bear, mountain lion, or coyote, you might want to carry concealed so that you are armed without alarming other runners.

I'd draw the line there. I run, bike, and hike a shiatload. We even have bears and shiat in the pac nw. A gun is really never part of my exercise gear.


I purchased a holster specifically suitable for wearing while cycling, after wearing a shirt-covered belt holster resulted in holes being worn into my shirts. Conveniently, it also features pockets for holding my cell phone, facial tissues, spare batteries for my lights, a multitool and an allen wrench suitable for making brake adjustments.

I am still attempting to locate a suitably small fire extinguisher for the unlikely event of a bicycle fire.
 
2012-08-16 01:33:40 PM

chairborne: I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-drug decriminalization and pro-gun rights, all from pretty much the same stream of logic.

Self determination. I get cognitive dissonance when I talk to people who call themselves liberals who are liberal on everything topic except the right to defend yourself.

The strange and inconsistent political divisions in America today make voting for me a very very difficult task. It's not picking the best person for the job, it's damage control, trying to vote for the person who you think will be least effective at eroding our rights.


Pretty much, spot on.
 
2012-08-16 01:34:18 PM

clyph: Gun prohibitionists and abortion prohibitionists have more in common than either would care to admit.


Both are right wing?
 
2012-08-16 01:34:49 PM
Why stop at guns? I want my own nukes and weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear arms are called arms, too. It is my right!
 
2012-08-16 01:35:04 PM

jafiwam: Personal choice is personal, obviously.

However, one "doesn't need" and "doesn't feel the need" for a gun, until one does. Situations where it would be needed, pop up and happen very very fast.



Yeah. That's true. But needing a whole bunch of other shiat is far more likely - extra water or food or a first aid kit or a defibrilator or a jack or fire extinguisher and a batter charger or pain killers or road flares or a solar blanket and some super glue. maybe a ladder or a tarp. We all have to make choices about what we walk around with and a gun doesn't make my list. I mean seriously, I have not needed a gun for 17,000 consecutive days. I get that people like guns. I like guns. guns are pretty cool. I just find some of the justifications pretty weak. Pretty much all of us are more likely have a heart attack on a given day than be shot to death when we could have gotten the jump on someone but I don't see any many people walking around with portable defibrillators in their backpack. I mean seriously - how many gargantuan fat farks have you seen walking around with a gun on their hip and two more under the seat. Even money they'll have a heart attack the next time they climb stairs kinds of guys. The defib unit would be the thing most likely to save their life.
 
2012-08-16 01:35:49 PM
1. End the war on drugs.
2. Check crime rates
3. Then we can talk.
 
2012-08-16 01:36:33 PM

meanmutton: What's interesting is that DC, Chicago, and New York all have really restrictive laws on carrying a firearm and all have really high crime rates while Detroit and New Orleans have really liberal laws on carrying a firearm and have really high crime rates.


Actually NYC has lowered crime, which points towards cultural issues being straightened out, which hasn't happened in other cities.
The vast majority of violent crime in Chicago is black on black, drug and gang related crime. Chicago is obviously doing some tings very wrong on the cultural front.
 
2012-08-16 01:37:18 PM

kim jong-un: Come forward with a plan that addresses the actual problems (desire to commit violence) and not symptoms.

Show me that there is no other way to do something before you suggest I give up some of my liberty.

Don't demonize me to make yourself better about ignoring my desires to not be impacted by your cause.

Those would be a good start.


It's not a desire problem. It's a "self control" problem, and a "cultural" problem.

Unfortunately, the political solutions for a cultural problem are politically (not to mention ethically) untenable.

One has to settle for making sure rights to defend oneself attrit the cultural problem that exists. There is also large room for improvement in certain types of entitlement mentality. Chew away at these, and you chew away at violence.

Specifically, young black male-on-young black male violence is the number one cause we see the numbers of shootings where we do. Secondly, young black male-on-everybody-else violence is number two. (Though, that often is for profit crime and not as often fatal but does often come with threat of violence with a gun.)

Figuring out and fixing what makes young black males likely to be killers of other young black males would fix most of the problem.

In short, guns and the availability of them is not the problem at all. WI is full of fudds and guns and fudds with guns and you don't see rampant teenage killers among the sons of these fudds. That right there disproves the gun as the problem. Maybe it helps violence be more efficient, but when removing constitutional rights is a side effect of your "solution" then one needs to look hard for alternatives.

Considering the criticism that Bill Crosby received when he made one comment about the community shaping up, they have to want to change from within in a very big way. Right now, they don't seem to view the death high rate of their young men to be a problem until it's their kid that's dead.  Even then, it's 'pay me my money' type crocodile tears type grief.
 
2012-08-16 01:37:41 PM
Gun Ownership is a Right.

Marriage is a Privilege.
 
2012-08-16 01:38:11 PM
Vermont has no required permit to carry concealed. Anybody from anywhere can walk around Vermont with a concealed handgun.

And you would have a hard time finding a more liberal state than Vermont.

Left-right politics is pretty much gone from the gun control debate, for the most part.
 
2012-08-16 01:40:03 PM

Rent Party: What the gun control movement should learn from the gay rights movement is that owning a gun is as much a right as choosing who you sleep with or marry.


Excellent point. But don't confuse people who favor gun control with those who want to abolish the right to own a gun. Because they really aren't the same group of people. The US has always had gun control laws and should always have them. As we are seeing with increased frequency, there are some people who should never be allowed to own a gun (or a set of lungs, for that matter).
 
2012-08-16 01:40:11 PM

R.A.Danny: Actually NYC has lowered crime, which points towards cultural issues being straightened out, which hasn't happened in other cities.


New York city police have also employed a novel approach at reducing crime rates.
 
2012-08-16 01:40:50 PM

JohnBigBootay:

If you run late at night or early in the morning in a city/suburb where you might run into a bear, mountain lion, or coyote, you might want to carry concealed so that you are armed without alarming other runners.

I'd draw the line there. I run, bike, and hike a shiatload. We even have bears and shiat in the pac nw. A gun is really never part of my exercise gear.


I got a lot of flack once posting on a running website, someone's runner friend was raped in a park and they wanted to ask about pepper spray. I told her about Kimber Lifeact which is a gel based spray I always carry running. I also carry a small pocket knife because I always carry a pocket knife. When I run long enough distances to require a camelback I put a small handgun in the pack.

The response to this on that forum was incredibly vitriolic. Otherwise reasonable people were telling me they went for long runs through the city or countryside without even a *cell phone*.

One person right before I answered back said "Where is chairborne going running, Iraq?"

Funny you should mention that, I've gone running in Iraq hundreds of times, most of them while carrying a military issued firearm, even did a Half Marathon on one of the larger bases. But that was besides the point. I don't go out loaded for bear because I think I'm the second coming of John Rambo, but because it's what I do everywhere else and while running I am *much* more likely to need to defend myself than driving around town.

I've used the pepper spray twice on dogs, I used the pocket knife once to help cut someone out of a seat belt when they got in a car accident. I can't imagine not having a telephone going crosscountry on foot. Perhaps those seem reasonable and a firearm doesn't.

The park I do my easy three mile loop in has had a rash of assaults and attempted sexual assault. When I go there I like to take my camelback with a small firearm with me not because I can't defend myself physically, I'm a rather serious looking 200+ pounds guy and people don't tend to fark with me. I carry there because if I ever run across someone else being farked with I can intervene, I carry because I know that the typical overly trusting runner doesn't and a couple of miles down a wooded path far from roads seems like a very poor place to have to wait for the cops to come save you. Call me crazy.
 
2012-08-16 01:41:03 PM

meanmutton: What's interesting is that DC, Chicago, and New York all have really restrictive laws on carrying a firearm and all have really high crime rates while Detroit and New Orleans have really liberal laws on carrying a firearm and have really high crime rates.


True, but it's probably more because of socioeconomic reasons. DC, Chicago and NYC do have a large percentage of higher income people living w/in city limits*.

/*too lazy to look it up, but I'm pretty sure compared to Detroit and New Orleans that holds.
 
2012-08-16 01:41:16 PM

filter: Why stop at guns? I want my own nukes and weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear arms are called arms, too. It is my right!


If you can afford it and can find a seller, knock yourself out.
 
2012-08-16 01:42:19 PM

R.A.Danny: Because the vast majority Americans think gun ownership equal treatment under the law is a right, no matter what they think about gaysguns, the economy, or women's rights. Gun ownershipGay rights should transcends left v right.

but it doesn't in the mind of conservatives.

FTFY
 
2012-08-16 01:42:29 PM

R.A.Danny:
Rent Party: What the gun control movement should learn from the gay rights movement is that owning a gun is as much a right as choosing who you sleep with or marry.

So you're stating that gun owners in general are conservatives?


I am confused how you reach such a conclusion. I make no such statement, implied or otherwise.

I will make the following statement. Most conservatives are dumb enough to believe your statement is true.
 
2012-08-16 01:42:36 PM

kim jong-un: The gov trusted me with a Yankee White access and a TS clearance and was entrusted with the systems that protected the President.


Didn't it feel good every time you went to the airport and had to strip, unpack your carryon and make sure you didn't bring the 4.1 oz deodorant, because it is obvious that the government could never trust you? "I'm sorry, sir, I know you've held actual launch codes in your hand before but that Dasani bottle could be a weapon."

Kit Fister: That, and the much longer conversation about what exactly is reasonable when it comes to gun control and the right to keep and bear arms. To many, the only solution is to ban some types of guns because of looks or whatever, addressing only accessibility and no other aspects of the problem, when a discussion on ways to improve background checks and other methods of weeding out the loonies in general would be far more helpful in the long run, and would reduce more than just gun violence.


Whenever I read a "gun control now" article, I don't see any real ideas. I'm in favor of reasonable restrictions like background checks and robust CCW courses, but the data is readily available on how things like the federal assault weapons ban and metropolitan handgun bans have impacted crime. That is to say: not measurably.

If I'm going to read your 500 words, columnist, at least dedicate some of those to actual, specific ideas.

This article gets a pass, as it was a political strategy article, not one that claimed to have a plan.
 
2012-08-16 01:43:11 PM

Persnickety: R.A.Danny: Because the vast majority Americans think gun ownership equal treatment under the law is a right, no matter what they think about gaysguns, the economy, or women's rights. Gun ownershipGay rights should transcends left v right. but it doesn't in the mind of conservatives.

FTFY


I agree with you 100%.
 
2012-08-16 01:44:38 PM

Rent Party: I am confused how you reach such a conclusion.


Sorry, I quoted the wrong statement. Too many buttons I guess, I'll just shut up for a while.
 
2012-08-16 01:46:01 PM
First women got equal rights
Then Minorities wanted equal rights
Now Gays want the same rights as Guns.

Where will it all end.
 
2012-08-16 01:46:01 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: JohnBigBootay: Just as there are lots of gay people in the military, lots of civilian gay people have guns. Perhaps they should stand their ground and shoot the bigots who prefer the gay people enjoy less freedom than straight people currently enjoy.

umm gay black people have EXACTLY the same freedoms as heterosexual white people. and both gays and non gaysblacks and whites can marry someone of the opposite sexsame race. i don't see where the problem lies.


I think I've heard this argument before.
 
2012-08-16 01:46:12 PM

JackieRabbit: Rent Party: What the gun control movement should learn from the gay rights movement is that owning a gun is as much a right as choosing who you sleep with or marry.

Excellent point. But don't confuse people who favor gun control with those who want to abolish the right to own a gun. Because they really aren't the same group of people. The US has always had gun control laws and should always have them. As we are seeing with increased frequency, there are some people who should never be allowed to own a gun (or a set of lungs, for that matter).


I don't confuse the two. Most people (liberals and conservatives) support the right to own a gun. Most people (ibid) also support reasonable gun control measures and restrictions.

The reason the D's don't talk gun control any more is because it is a losing issue for them, and isn't well supported even within the party.
 
2012-08-16 01:48:33 PM
Here's an analogy that just occurred to me.

You ever hear an ignorant asshole who thought that gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt because in his ignorance he conflated homosexuality with pedophilia, even though most pedophile self identify as heterosexual?

That feeling you get is the same feeling a firearm enthusiast gets when someone who things guns are icky conflates semi automatic militaryesque rifles with fully automatic assault weapons and wants to ban firearms for merely cosmetic features.

Clearly the ignorant individual in both circumstances is conflating the two because of their emotional response and the way that they were raised, clearly that person is the last person you want passing a law concerning either.

/i wore a pink pistol pin on my body armor in Iraq, while carrying a *real* machine gun. lulzy.
 
2012-08-16 01:49:02 PM

JackieRabbit: Excellent point. But don't confuse people who favor gun control with those who want to abolish the right to own a gun. Because they really aren't the same group of people. The US has always had gun control laws and should always have them. As we are seeing with increased frequency, there are some people who should never be allowed to own a gun (or a set of lungs, for that matter).


You know how the Tea Party is associated tightly with crazed cranks, racists, birthers, and "get your government hands off my Medicare" types? Because they have a big tent and the wackos filled in at the very least all around the edges.

The same thing is in place with gun control; the particularly vocal ones, especially if you're talking about people with a plan, want prohibition. They associate all firearms with crime, all firearm owners as potential criminals. That's really hard to read, even as someone that agrees with reasonable regulation.

The solution is to get the "gun safety" folks talking specifics and loudly, while disassociating themselves from those that want to ban guns.
 
2012-08-16 01:49:22 PM

R.A.Danny: Rent Party: I am confused how you reach such a conclusion.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong statement. Too many buttons I guess, I'll just shut up for a while.


Those new buttons have been getting me all day, too.

Carry on!
 
2012-08-16 01:51:18 PM

Rent Party: JackieRabbit: Rent Party: What the gun control movement should learn from the gay rights movement is that owning a gun is as much a right as choosing who you sleep with or marry.

Excellent point. But don't confuse people who favor gun control with those who want to abolish the right to own a gun. Because they really aren't the same group of people. The US has always had gun control laws and should always have them. As we are seeing with increased frequency, there are some people who should never be allowed to own a gun (or a set of lungs, for that matter).

I don't confuse the two. Most people (liberals and conservatives) support the right to own a gun. Most people (ibid) also support reasonable gun control measures and restrictions.

The reason the D's don't talk gun control any more is because it is a losing issue for them, and isn't well supported even within the party.


True. The Democrats seemed to have checked their balls at the door. But I did just read last week that the ATF is cracking down at illegal gun sales at gun shows. So at least they can actually enforce existing laws.
 
2012-08-16 01:52:59 PM

letrole: Gun Ownership is a Right.

Marriage is a Privilege.


Marriage is something the government only got involved in to enforce miscegenation laws.

It should be covered under the freedoms of association and contract with the only government involvement coming when a dispute needs to be sorted out.
 
2012-08-16 01:53:32 PM

filter: Why stop at guns? I want my own nukes and weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear arms are called arms, too. It is my right!


"why stop at marrying dudes? I want to marry a turtle. My love for turtles is just as real, it's my right!"

Small arms and Weapons of Mass destruction are two different things even though they both can kill, just like marrying a turtle isn't like marrying a consenting adult of the same sex despite them both being marriage.

Look at how stupid you are.
 
2012-08-16 01:53:50 PM

chairborne: , I carry because I know that the typical overly trusting runner doesn't and a couple of miles down a wooded path far from roads seems like a very poor place to have to wait for the cops to come save you. Call me crazy.


I don't think you're crazy. You just don't mind carrying a bunch of crap with you all the time and i do. I backpacked all over the southwest and pac nw this spring and summer but I'm a firm believer in lightweight backpacking and a gun doesn't come close to making my list. The extra food and water and a filter and waterproof matches and first aid kit and map and compass make it into the pack. It's all about likelihood I guess. I'm more than halfway done with my life and I haven't needed a gun for self defense yet. I hope I never do. Guns are heavy.
 
2012-08-16 01:54:16 PM

The_Sponge: JosephFinn: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Yep, back towards gun control and not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons. You can thank IL for resisting that insane impulse.


I know, right? And Chicago is such a safe city.....especially the South Side...they rarely have shooting.

Good God you're dense.


It does amuse me, darkly, that Chicago gets blamed for other areas lax laws that let anyone buy a murder weapon and ship it to civilized areas.
 
2012-08-16 01:54:56 PM

RembrandtQEinstein: The number one way to minimize "gun violence" is to end drug prohibition and let people buy their meth (though it would probably be coke at that point) at the local pharmacy.

But the gun controllers don't care about minimizing violence, they only care about punishing "rednecks". Just like the anti-choicers don't care about babies, they just want to punish "sluts".


I was with you until this last statement. You are a prime example of why the pro-choice/pro-life debates are so awful. Saying that a pro-lifer just wants to punish sluts is just as stupid as saying a pro-choicer wants to murder babies. The heart of the issue is not women's rights, and it's not children's rights. The heart of the issues is actually whether the unborn child/fetus is a human being or not, and when does it become one. But people rarely debate that. It's easier to start the argument based on assuming your side of it ("Of course it's murder!" Or, "Of course it's taking away a woman's control of her own body!").
 
2012-08-16 01:55:33 PM

Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state


Hardly. While many states are "may issue" on paper, they are de-facto non-issue. New York, New Jersey, and Maryland stand out in this category. California varies greatly by county, depending on the political bias of the county sheriff. Many rural counties are effectively shall-issue, others are effectively non-issue. IE: For many years [hypocritical gun-grabbing] Senator Diane Feinstein held the ONLY CCW permit in San Fransisco. 

We need a national standard, similar to driver's licensing standards, for concealed carry. And like driver's licenses there needs to be automatic, mandatory reciprocity (which is IMHO explicitly guaranteed by the full faith and credit clause, although AFIK no court has ruled on that one way or the other).
 
2012-08-16 01:55:58 PM

filter: Why stop at guns? I want my own nukes and weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear arms are called arms, too. It is my right!


Pretty sure that there is a legitimate disctinion to be made between descriminant and indescriminant weapons.
 
2012-08-16 01:58:01 PM

JosephFinn: The_Sponge: JosephFinn: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Yep, back towards gun control and not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons. You can thank IL for resisting that insane impulse.


I know, right? And Chicago is such a safe city.....especially the South Side...they rarely have shooting.

Good God you're dense.

It does amuse me, darkly, that Chicago gets blamed for other areas lax laws that let anyone buy a murder weapon and ship it to civilized areas.


So, how does the inevitable permanent defeat taste? I imagine its something like stale natty ice.
 
2012-08-16 01:58:01 PM

farkmedown: Unfortunately, the ACLU hasn't caught up. Until they do, they don't get my monetary support.


They won't. They stand aside on the 2nd amendment. Probably because they found something they disagree with despite being basically libertarian(they hold the collective view of gun control rights).

TofuTheAlmighty: Literally hundreds of anti-abortion bills have been proposed and/or passed in the last couple years. I could probably count on one hand the number of anti-gun bills in that time frame.


Wat?

Here's California right now in this legislative session.

Senate Bill 249, the "Bullet Button ban", is in state Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Senate Bill 1315, a "look-alike" airgun/bb gun/toy gun control measure, passed in the Assembly yesterday by a vote of 47 to 28 and will now go to the Governor.

On the Senate floor:
Assembly Bill 1527 - Open Carry Ban (of unloaded long gun)
Assembly Bill 2333 - Liability for negligent storage of BB, airsoft and other toy guns
Assembly Bill 2460 - Ban of Law Enforcement Transfer of Firearms
Assembly Joint Resolution 45 - Reinstatement of Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Assembly Bill 2512 - large capacity ammunition magazine ban (in committee)

On the Assembly floor:
Senate Bill 1366 - Lost and Stolen Reporting of Firearms

There are dozens of these a year in California alone.
 
2012-08-16 01:58:29 PM
JosephFinn: The_Sponge: JosephFinn: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Yep, back towards gun control and not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons. You can thank IL for resisting that insane impulse.


I know, right? And Chicago is such a safe city.....especially the South Side...they rarely have shooting.

Good God you're dense.

It does amuse me, darkly, that Chicago gets blamed for other areas lax laws that let anyone buy a murder weapon and ship it to civilized areas.


"Murder weapons", when identified as such, are typically held by law enforcement agencies as evidence. As evidence tampering is a crime, unauthorized shipment of a "murder weapon" to any location is not legal.

As you are an established liar, claims issued by you are not credible.
 
2012-08-16 01:59:12 PM

JesseL: Marriage is something the government only got involved in to enforce miscegenation laws.


Not so, it's always been involved. Matters of economics, the courts, power of attorney, healthcare, and inheritance are tied into marriage. The only entity that could enforce such a contract is a government, and that's been the case for thousands of years.
 
2012-08-16 01:59:12 PM

JosephFinn: It does amuse me, darkly, that Chicago gets blamed for other areas lax laws that let anyone buy a murder weapon and ship it to civilized areas.



Ah yes, "civilized areas" that take people's rights away.

Maybe this proves that Chicago's and Illinois' laws are worthless, yes, yes?
 
2012-08-16 02:01:03 PM

bhcompy: Senate Bill 249, the "Bullet Button ban", is in state Assembly Appropriations Committee.


This bill was pulled from the Appropriations Committee's calendar, effectively killing the bill.

Senator Yee is upset, but vows to continue his crusade to enact an unnecessary prohibition that would result in confiscation of thousands of firearms without any compensation to their currently lawful owners.
 
2012-08-16 02:01:52 PM

Itstoearly: RembrandtQEinstein: The number one way to minimize "gun violence" is to end drug prohibition and let people buy their meth (though it would probably be coke at that point) at the local pharmacy.

But the gun controllers don't care about minimizing violence, they only care about punishing "rednecks". Just like the anti-choicers don't care about babies, they just want to punish "sluts".

I was with you until this last statement. You are a prime example of why the pro-choice/pro-life debates are so awful. Saying that a pro-lifer just wants to punish sluts is just as stupid as saying a pro-choicer wants to murder babies. The heart of the issue is not women's rights, and it's not children's rights. The heart of the issues is actually whether the unborn child/fetus is a human being or not, and when does it become one. But people rarely debate that. It's easier to start the argument based on assuming your side of it ("Of course it's murder!" Or, "Of course it's taking away a woman's control of her own body!").


The pro life movement really is largly about punishing slyluts though. Its what finally drove me away from the movement itself and conservatism in general.
 
2012-08-16 02:02:14 PM

JackieRabbit:
True. The Democrats seemed to have checked their balls at the door. But I did just read last week that the ATF is cracking down at illegal gun sales at gun shows. So at least they can actually enforce existing laws.


That right there is the most reasonable effort that most people on either side of the issue actually do support.
 
2012-08-16 02:02:35 PM

paygun: If you think the left wants to take your guns, you're just paranoid paying attention!


FTFY.

It's not true of EVERYONE on the left, but there are enough of them who are on the record advocating exactly that that the entire gun control faction is tainted.

Like abortion prohibitionists, gun prohibitionists are not interested in compromise, or Constitutional law, or anything other than their moral absolutist position. The fact that they are forced to adopt less-extreme positions is because history has taught them that their totalitarian schemes get shot down at the polls or thrown out by the courts, so they'll do anything to get their foot in the door.
 
2012-08-16 02:03:00 PM

Allen. The end.: beta_plus: It's clear that the climate of hate created by progressive leftists and the LGBT community caused this to happen.

Oh, STFU.


Oh, so free speech for thee but not for me. Typical liberal.

/by going after Chick-Fli-A, you just lost all of your free speech moderates
 
2012-08-16 02:03:23 PM
From the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:

Murders committed in the US with knives or cutting instruments: 1,866 (2004), 1,920 (2005), 1,830 (2006), 1,817 (2007), 1,888 (2008), 1,836 (2009), 1,704 (2010).

Murders committed in the US with blunt objects: 667 (2004), 608 (2005), 618 (2006), 647 (2007), 603 (2008), 623 (2009), 540 (2010)

Murders committed in the US with personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 943 (2004), 905 (2005), 841 (2006), 869 (2007), 875 (2008), 817 (2009), 745 (2010)

Murders committed in the US with rifles, including all "assault weapons": 403 (2004), 445 (2005), 438 (2006), 453 (2007), 380 (2008), 351 (2009), 358 (2010)

So, let's cut the bullshiat about "deadly assault weapons", okay?
 
2012-08-16 02:04:24 PM

jafiwam: However, one "doesn't need" and "doesn't feel the need" for a gun, until one does. Situations where it would be needed, pop up and happen very very fast.


This is true.

If you're going into a situation where you "feel", or perhaps even "think", you'll need a gun, and you aren't going hunting or target shooting, you don't need a pistol. You need a rifle. You need all your friends with rifles, and a couple friends with shotguns to stand guard over the stacks of pre-loaded magazines and your best friends in the whole world feeding the mortar.

Pistols are for when you don't think you'll need a gun. In that sense they're inherently defensive.

Naturally, that doesn't apply to anyone that is intending to go out and deliberately offer violence to their fellow man. For a person like that, not even a spoon is safe in their possession. Violence begets violence, and I sincerely hope that those that begin violence beget enough violence in return that they can regret their lifestyle choices for the rest of their life, however short that might be.
 
2012-08-16 02:04:36 PM

bhcompy: Here's California right now in this legislative session.


Which is why I've turned down multiple jobs in California. I refuse to move there for any amount of money.
 
2012-08-16 02:04:58 PM
So, follow the money then? Astounding.
 
2012-08-16 02:05:23 PM

Verzio: So, let's cut the bullshiat about "deadly assault weapons", okay?


How dare you bring facts into an emotional argument!
 
2012-08-16 02:05:30 PM

clyph: We need a national standard, similar to driver's licensing standards, for concealed carry. And like driver's licenses there needs to be automatic, mandatory reciprocity (which is IMHO explicitly guaranteed by the full faith and credit clause, although AFIK no court has ruled on that one way or the other).


I'm pretty sure drivers license reciprocity is handled by a network of interstate agreements - there doesn't seem to be any automatic mandatory reciprocity for drivers licenses.
 
2012-08-16 02:05:37 PM

bhcompy:
Senate Bill 1315, a "look-alike" airgun/bb gun/toy gun control measure, passed in the Assembly yesterday by a vote of 47 to 28 and will now go to the Governor.


I'm all in favor of banning those farking things. There is no such thing as a "toy" gun. The only function they serve is to confuse cops and get dumbshiat kids shot by law enforcement.

If it doesn't look like it was designed by Nerf, it shouldn't be in your house or in your hands.
 
2012-08-16 02:07:30 PM
I'm not sure anyone should take a page from the gay rights movement. I was very supportive of the legalization of gay marriage in my state. I thought it was a big step forward when it finally happened. But you know what? I was wrong. It started off innocently enough - that woman down the street - you know, the one that wears those flannel shirts with the sleeves cut off? - well, she started talking to my kids. MY KIDS! They were just riding their bikes down the road, she was out working in the yard, and she said "Good morning, great day for a bike ride, huh?". Right in front of me! She was practically trying to recruit them into a gay marriage! Well, I managed to get my kids out of there, fast.

I don't want to get too far into the worst of the details here, but I've written about it in my blog.

Don't fall for it people, it's not just about civil rights.
 
2012-08-16 02:07:40 PM

JohnBigBootay: Just as there are lots of gay people in the military, lots of civilian gay people have guns. Perhaps they should stand their ground and shoot the bigots who prefer the gay people enjoy less freedom than straight people currently enjoy.


I'm actually not sure on this issue. A pollster came to my house and we had a lengthy discussion on the topic.

See, this is really a gambit pile.

First, gays whine that they're having someone else's morality forced on them by not being allowed to "marry." They get civil unions and all--they should definitely have civil unions that convey all the personal and legal rights (hospital visitations, insurance coverage for your "spouse", etc.)--but if it's not called "marriage" they're being oppressed. The way I see it, "Marriage" is a puritan function by which a bunch of people created a country where they publicly claimed they couldn't force religion and morals on its citizens and then forced their moral views of how sex and relationships should be handled onto its citizens. Marriage is important because having sex outside of wedlock is WRONG. Also gambling and drinking are against God, hence why liquor stores aren't allowed to be open on Sundays (it's illegal in many areas, because you should be in church and not out boozing).

Second, the tax breaks? Married filing jointly is one hell of an advantage. I think it's unfair and incorrect to give that advantage to gays. The entire reasoning behind tax advantaging marriage is simple: it encourages people to get married and have children. The tax advantage specifically exists to render financial aid to a man and a woman who will reproduce and create more citizens. It gives them a larger standard deduction, allowing them to save up more money in preparation for raising a child (when these laws were created, fewer people owned houses--FDR created the 30 year mortgage--and women didn't have jobs). Once you've saved enough money, you have a child and the government gives you an additional deduction to further ease the burden.

So marriage exists to force the religious, moral views of powerful people onto everyone else; and the financial advantages of marriage exist to encourage and support the child-bearing function of man-woman-family unions and thus gays who take advantage of this are parasitic in the same way as Goldman (commonly known by the name "Those Motherfarkers") and AIG taking big government hand-outs (these two specifically because Goldman was protected from the housing market failure already--they sold and insured their loans--and because AIG was an insurer and their collapse was due to owing Goldman money--they handed their bail-out straight to Goldman, who apparently rolled doubles this time! The bail-outs were intended to help banks that were going to collapse and cause an economic disaster, not insurance companies and greedy blights that profited from it already).

The social issues stand out to me: the rights of close association are important and I don't believe we should exclude people from things like hospital visitations or filing as a legal unit pair for insurance and care purposes. When it comes down to taxpayer-funded economic stimulus, however, the purposes of these tax breaks isn't being met by gay couples and thus it is wholly abusive to extend such tax advantages to them.
 
2012-08-16 02:07:55 PM

jafiwam:

Until states are "shall issue" and it's state level not issued by the local corrupt police / sherrif department it's not as rosey of a situation as one might think.


Many (perhaps most?) pro-gun people think even "shall issue" is unconstitutional. They consider the whole licensing process itself to be an infringement.
 
2012-08-16 02:12:06 PM

plausdeny: If you're going into a situation where you "feel", or perhaps even "think", you'll need a gun, and you aren't going hunting or target shooting, you don't need a pistol. You need a rifle.




However.....

Last year I had to stop by an ATM at 3AM, and I would have looked damn goofy holding a rifle, instead of have the concealed revolver I had on my person.
 
2012-08-16 02:14:43 PM

The_Sponge: plausdeny: If you're going into a situation where you "feel", or perhaps even "think", you'll need a gun, and you aren't going hunting or target shooting, you don't need a pistol. You need a rifle.



However.....

Last year I had to stop by an ATM at 3AM, and I would have looked damn goofy holding a rifle, instead of have the concealed revolver I had on my person.


i1003.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-16 02:15:00 PM

plausdeny: jafiwam: However, one "doesn't need" and "doesn't feel the need" for a gun, until one does. Situations where it would be needed, pop up and happen very very fast.

This is true.

If you're going into a situation where you "feel", or perhaps even "think", you'll need a gun, and you aren't going hunting or target shooting, you don't need a pistol. You need a rifle.


If there is a situation where I "feel", or perhaps even "think", I'll need a gun, and I'm not going hunting or target shooting, I avoid those situations. This is what the anti-gun crowd doesn't seem to understand. I don't carry because I'm expecting trouble. I carry because I can't plan on when and where trouble is going to happen.

"But why do you need a gun at a church / movie theater / playground / etc.?" Because bad guys can (and do) go to those places and they don't give a crap about "gun free zone" signs. Before I started carrying, I was mugged in broad daylight in the parking lot of a "safe" mall and stabbed several times, even though I did everything the anti-gunners say you should do (comply with their demands, beg for mercy, etc.). This was a mall with "Gun Free Zone" signs, I might add. I will never allow it to happen to me again. I will never be unprepared again.
 
2012-08-16 02:16:30 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: jafiwam:

Until states are "shall issue" and it's state level not issued by the local corrupt police / sherrif department it's not as rosey of a situation as one might think.

Many (perhaps most?) pro-gun people think even "shall issue" is unconstitutional. They consider the whole licensing process itself to be an infringement.


The authoritarian left lost this one but they aren't beat *that* bad. Permits arent ever going away. Just getting easier to get.
 
2012-08-16 02:17:35 PM

The_Sponge: Last year I had to stop by an ATM at 3AM, and I would have looked damn goofy holding a rifle, instead of have the concealed revolver I had on my person.


Nothing would really surprise me in Lynnwood at 3am. Rifle away, good sir.

/at least that's where I thought you said you lived.
 
2012-08-16 02:17:55 PM
If the gun control crowd want gun control legislation passed, they will have to get some guns and kill rich people with them. Nothing changes until rich people suffer.
 
2012-08-16 02:19:25 PM

Antimatter: JesseL: Marriage is something the government only got involved in to enforce miscegenation laws.

Not so, it's always been involved. Matters of economics, the courts, power of attorney, healthcare, and inheritance are tied into marriage. The only entity that could enforce such a contract is a government, and that's been the case for thousands of years.


You might want to check your history and review your logic a bit.

Nobody needs a license to give each other power of attorney, share joint ownership of property, etc.
 
2012-08-16 02:19:46 PM

JosephFinn: Yep, back towards gun control and not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons


Never been to the South Side, have you?

For a gun-free state, IL has a whole lot of shootings. It's almost as if CRIMINALS IGNORE THE LAW.
 
2012-08-16 02:21:55 PM

Rent Party: If it doesn't look like it was designed by Nerf, it shouldn't be in your house or in your hands.


Go fark yourself. Or give me $35,000 to replace my Airsoft MP-5 with a real one.
 
2012-08-16 02:22:21 PM

JosephFinn:
not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons.


You mean cars? Cars kill more people per capita than guns. Actually, LOTS of things kill more than guns.
 
2012-08-16 02:24:03 PM

Verzio: So, let's cut the bullshiat about "deadly assault weapons", okay?


I don't want to take your guns away so relax but you sort of omitted handgun crimes from your list which seems at the least a little intellectually dishonest.
 
2012-08-16 02:25:05 PM

FilmBELOH20:
For me, my CCW isn't about being able to physically carry it all the time, it's more about having it near me when I feel the need. If I'm on a road trip, it's within reaching distance in my vehicle. If I didn't have my permit, most places would consider it illegal unless I had it unloaded in a locked case with the ammo in a separate location. I hardly ever carry it because I find it very uncomfortable as well, but I do keep it in the car or in my camera bag when I'm on trips.


Can you explain exactly wtf is going to happen that a gun in your camera bag is going to save your life? You'll know it's time to take it out when you're already grabbed, or have a gun in your face. In the latter situation, how are you going to reach your gun? In the former, do you have hand-to-hand combat training to subdue your attacker without a gun (in which case why do you need the gun? You should be just as effective or more with a knife)?

Once you see a firearm, you have two real choices:

A) Be a hero. Somebody else is about to get shot, you must now intervene.
B) Shut up. You see someone pulling a gun from his belt; he's already halfway there, you cannot pull your gun out faster, he's going to see you going for yours and just shoot you in the face. Never mind if he steps out with it in hand and backs you to the wall.

Anything else is death.

(A) is why I believe people should be allowed to carry any god damn weapon they chose so long as they're not an established criminal. Maybe if people at the Aurora started shooting back, a few less than 15 folks would have been dead and injured that day, and we could have saved the taxpayers the expense of a trial and execution. And don't tell me 50 armed patrons would have hurt themselves or other bystanders; you had one moron come in a fire exit, there weren't other bystanders around or behind him! Shoot that motherfarker! It should be illegal to own a gun without proper training to use it anyway.
 
2012-08-16 02:29:01 PM

clyph: Rent Party: If it doesn't look like it was designed by Nerf, it shouldn't be in your house or in your hands.

Go fark yourself. Or give me $35,000 to replace my Airsoft MP-5 with a real one.


If you think it will cost you $35K for an HK or derivative, you shouldn't own guns at all.

But I'll tell you what. When your kid gets your "toy" and ends up dead out behind the 7-11 because the cops aren't going to sit around and decide whether or not it's real, I'll offer up my deepest sympathies, and pay for whatever it takes to remove your remaining children from your care.
 
2012-08-16 02:29:52 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: JosephFinn:
not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons.

You mean cars? Cars kill more people per capita than guns. Actually, LOTS of things kill more than guns.


I killed someone *with* a willy-nilly once. Disturbing, and I don't think I'll ever forget the rubbery sounds of it striking wet flesh...

Willy Nilly Control is only willying what you nilly at...
 
2012-08-16 02:29:53 PM

bluefoxicy: Second, the tax breaks? Married filing jointly is one hell of an advantage. I think it's unfair and incorrect to give that advantage to gays. The entire reasoning behind tax advantaging marriage is simple: it encourages people to get married and have children.


Oh jesus christ. For one, we need more kids like we need a hole in the head. Second, I can't swing a dead cat around here without seeing a gay couple with kids. And since those kids are almost by definition kids that someone else did not want to raise I'm just gonna have to ask you why you hate children? Not to mention your tax argument is horseshiat on its face - the tax advantage for having a dependent child exists whether or not one is married. And if the point is to encourage people to have children then... what the hell are you talking about?
 
2012-08-16 02:30:00 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: why is gun ownership more important than LEGAL MARIJUANA??


Because, I've heard, marijuana never killed anyone.
 
2012-08-16 02:32:04 PM

bluefoxicy: It should be illegal to own a gun without proper training to use it anyway.


Should it be illegal to own a megaphone without proper training? Freedom of Speech is a Constitutionally-protected individual right.

Should it be illegal to own a printing press without proper training? Freedom of the Press is a Constitutionally-protected individual right.

Should it be illegal to start a church without proper training? Freedom of Religion is a is a Constitutionally-protected individual right.

I'll wager your answer to all of the above is "No". None of the above would pass Constitutional muster. So why do you think a similar requirement for another Constitutionally-protected individual right would?
 
2012-08-16 02:32:59 PM

plausdeny: If you're going into a situation where you "feel", or perhaps even "think", you'll need a gun, and you aren't going hunting or target shooting, you don't need a pistol. You need a rifle. You need all your friends with rifles, and a couple friends with shotguns to stand guard over the stacks of pre-loaded magazines and your best friends in the whole world feeding the mortar.


If I "felt the need" because of some outside influence, I wouldn't go / do that thing.

Mr Miyagi quipped so eloquently: "no be there"

On the other hand, there have been a few points in the past where "A weapon would be really useful right about now." have happened to me. Now that I can, and do, carry a gun, it's "Gee, glad I have a gun, time to leave."

Fools that take gunplay lightly end up dead. Leaving the fools that think everybody with a gun takes it gunplay lightly as the remaining fools.
 
2012-08-16 02:41:39 PM

chairborne: filter: Why stop at guns? I want my own nukes and weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear arms are called arms, too. It is my right!

"why stop at marrying dudes? I want to marry a turtle. My love for turtles is just as real, it's my right!"
.


My first statistics teacher spent less time teaching math and more time being an asshole. He went on a half hour rant about gay marriage once, asking if we could maybe marry a dog, or a desk, or a piece of sexy loose leaf paper he was stroking lovingly.

We got him fired. From high school. Then we got a sexy asian math teacher.
 
2012-08-16 02:43:32 PM

clyph: I'll wager your answer to all of the above is "No". None of the above would pass Constitutional muster. So why do you think a similar requirement for another Constitutionally-protected individual right would?


Because you can't shoot me in the face with a church or a printing press? relax - I support the right of individuals to own guns. wouldn't dream of voting against it. But they are dangerous and I live in the real world. hypothetically i see nothing wrong with some basic education to avail yourself of that right.
 
2012-08-16 02:44:21 PM

chairborne: JohnBigBootay:

If you run late at night or early in the morning in a city/suburb where you might run into a bear, mountain lion, or coyote, you might want to carry concealed so that you are armed without alarming other runners.

I'd draw the line there. I run, bike, and hike a shiatload. We even have bears and shiat in the pac nw. A gun is really never part of my exercise gear.

I got a lot of flack once posting on a running website, someone's runner friend was raped in a park and they wanted to ask about pepper spray. I told her about Kimber Lifeact which is a gel based spray I always carry running. I also carry a small pocket knife because I always carry a pocket knife. When I run long enough distances to require a camelback I put a small handgun in the pack.

The response to this on that forum was incredibly vitriolic. Otherwise reasonable people were telling me they went for long runs through the city or countryside without even a *cell phone*.

One person right before I answered back said "Where is chairborne going running, Iraq?"

Funny you should mention that, I've gone running in Iraq hundreds of times, most of them while carrying a military issued firearm, even did a Half Marathon on one of the larger bases. But that was besides the point. I don't go out loaded for bear because I think I'm the second coming of John Rambo, but because it's what I do everywhere else and while running I am *much* more likely to need to defend myself than driving around town.

I've used the pepper spray twice on dogs, I used the pocket knife once to help cut someone out of a seat belt when they got in a car accident. I can't imagine not having a telephone going crosscountry on foot. Perhaps those seem reasonable and a firearm doesn't.

The park I do my easy three mile loop in has had a rash of assaults and attempted sexual assault. When I go there I like to take my camelback with a small firearm with me not because I can't defend myself physically, I'm a rather serious looki ...


What I end up telling people like the type on your runner's forum is this:

"A handgun is not there to strap on when you think it might be needed. If you think you'll need a gun, you bring a rifle and friends with rifles. Either that or you just don't go. A handgun is carried for every moment you don't think you'll need a gun."
 
2012-08-16 02:45:09 PM

bluefoxicy: chairborne: filter: Why stop at guns? I want my own nukes and weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear arms are called arms, too. It is my right!

"why stop at marrying dudes? I want to marry a turtle. My love for turtles is just as real, it's my right!"
.

My first statistics teacher spent less time teaching math and more time being an asshole. He went on a half hour rant about gay marriage once, asking if we could maybe marry a dog, or a desk, or a piece of sexy loose leaf paper he was stroking lovingly.

We got him fired. From high school. Then we got a sexy asian math teacher.


What motivated you to violate the free speech right of your instructor?
 
2012-08-16 02:46:07 PM

kim jong-un: 1. End the war on drugs.


Look at how retarded you are.
 
2012-08-16 02:46:25 PM

Rent Party: If you think it will cost you $35K for an HK or derivative, you shouldn't own guns at all.


Know how I know you haven't ever priced class III firearms?

HK did briefly make a semi-auto MP-5 variant, the SP89. They're almost impossible to find now because virtually all of them have been bought up and converted to class III weapons; and once converted they cannot be "downgraded". Take an SP89, add a registered sear and a short barrel, and you've added $10-20k to the value of the weapon for maybe $1000 in gunsmithing, taxes, and paperwork.
 
2012-08-16 02:47:03 PM

JohnBigBootay: Because you can't shoot me in the face with a church or a printing press?


Religion has killed more people than firearms. By several orders of magnitude.
 
2012-08-16 02:49:00 PM

clyph: Religion has killed more people than firearms. By several orders of magnitude.


Couldn't agree more. It would be a much better planet without it I'd wager. And there would be way fewer people who decided to shoot someone else over some imaginary bullshiat too.
 
2012-08-16 02:52:07 PM

clyph:
We need a national standard, similar to driver's licensing standards, for concealed carry. And like driver's licenses there needs to be automatic, mandatory reciprocity (which is IMHO explicitly guaranteed by the full faith and credit clause, although AFIK no court has ruled on that one way or the other).


Actually since the Constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms at a national level, the federal government has no right to restrict but theoretically should have the right to enforce minimal access: they have the power to dictate that the states shall not deny permits under specific conditions, and shall provide specific required training which shall be necessary to obtain a permit, and shall provide training and permits in a reasonable time frame.
 
2012-08-16 02:53:19 PM

clyph: Rent Party: If you think it will cost you $35K for an HK or derivative, you shouldn't own guns at all.

Know how I know you haven't ever priced class III firearms?


You aren't going to get a class III firearm, anyway. You can pick up an 94A3 for about $5K, which would look just as biatchin' as your air soft, but actually be a real gun.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. In the mean time, they should still ban your fake one.
 
2012-08-16 02:54:32 PM
JosephFinn SmartestFunniest 2012-08-16 01:20:16 PM

Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Yep, back towards gun control and not letting people wander around willy-nilly with murder weapons. You can thank IL for resisting that insane impulse.


ANd you got rewarded with an 18% increase of murders with guns over the last year. Way to go?
 
2012-08-16 02:55:58 PM

chairborne: I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-drug decriminalization and pro-gun rights, all from pretty much the same stream of logic.

Self determination. I get cognitive dissonance when I talk to people who call themselves liberals who are liberal on everything topic except the right to defend yourself.


I have yet to meet a liberal who does not believe in the right to defend yourself. I'm all for gun rights but this is a strawman argument. Reasonable people can disagree as to what means of defense should be permissible as well as what constitutes actual defense vs. vigilantism. Except for a few whackos, most of conversation centers on those key points, not the right to self defense.
 
2012-08-16 03:03:55 PM

clyph: bluefoxicy: It should be illegal to own a gun without proper training to use it anyway.

Should it be illegal to own a megaphone without proper training? Freedom of Speech is a Constitutionally-protected individual right.

Should it be illegal to own a printing press without proper training? Freedom of the Press is a Constitutionally-protected individual right.

Should it be illegal to start a church without proper training? Freedom of Religion is a is a Constitutionally-protected individual right.

I'll wager your answer to all of the above is "No". None of the above would pass Constitutional muster. So why do you think a similar requirement for another Constitutionally-protected individual right would?


Because holding a megaphone, printing press, or church sideways while using it improperly doesn't result in a significant threat to the lives of others.

You want a gun, you can have a gun. You get training first. You learn how to handle it safely (check it, clear it, carry it, transport it) and how to fire it effectively (hit your target instead of random people, not get your weapon taken away). If you misuse it, we take the damn thing away from you and you don't get another one. Twirling a loaded gun around on your finger is misuse.
 
2012-08-16 03:04:52 PM

Killer Cars: The_Sponge: Last year I had to stop by an ATM at 3AM, and I would have looked damn goofy holding a rifle, instead of have the concealed revolver I had on my person.

Nothing would really surprise me in Lynnwood at 3am. Rifle away, good sir.

/at least that's where I thought you said you lived.



Ha!

And you're right....I do live in Lynnwood.
 
2012-08-16 03:05:49 PM

Molavian: The_Sponge: plausdeny: If you're going into a situation where you "feel", or perhaps even "think", you'll need a gun, and you aren't going hunting or target shooting, you don't need a pistol. You need a rifle.



However.....

Last year I had to stop by an ATM at 3AM, and I would have looked damn goofy holding a rifle, instead of have the concealed revolver I had on my person.

[i1003.photobucket.com image 599x399]



BWAHAHAHA! Awesome.
 
2012-08-16 03:09:38 PM

Persnickety: I have yet to meet a liberal who does not believe in the right to defend yourself.


Until the Keller decision, some group of people in DC thought it a good idea to ban handguns even for home defense. Since the Keller decision, some group of people in DC have made it as odious as possible to obtain a handgun even for home defense. I've read through the process; it is "theater of the absurd" red tape.

Now I've not met any of those councilmen/lawmakers, and probably neither have you, but can we agree that there are in fact people that push for even self-defense gun prohibition?
 
2012-08-16 03:09:57 PM
bluefoxicy SmartestFunniest 2012-08-16 03:03:55 PM


clyph: bluefoxicy: It should be illegal to own a gun without proper training to use it anyway.

Should it be illegal to own a megaphone without proper training? Freedom of Speech is a Constitutionally-protected individual right.

Should it be illegal to own a printing press without proper training? Freedom of the Press is a Constitutionally-protected individual right.

Should it be illegal to start a church without proper training? Freedom of Religion is a is a Constitutionally-protected individual right.

I'll wager your answer to all of the above is "No". None of the above would pass Constitutional muster. So why do you think a similar requirement for another Constitutionally-protected individual right would?

Because holding a megaphone, printing press, or church sideways while using it improperly doesn't result in a significant threat to the lives of others.

You want a gun, you can have a gun. You get training first. You learn how to handle it safely (check it, clear it, carry it, transport it) and how to fire it effectively (hit your target instead of random people, not get your weapon taken away). If you misuse it, we take the damn thing away from you and you don't get another one. Twirling a loaded gun around on your finger is misuse.


I think gay right parades are a misuse of their constitutional right to speech and assembly, we should take away their right to sppech and assembly. See where I'm going?
 
2012-08-16 03:10:15 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: jafiwam:

Until states are "shall issue" and it's state level not issued by the local corrupt police / sherrif department it's not as rosey of a situation as one might think.

Many (perhaps most?) pro-gun people think even "shall issue" is unconstitutional. They consider the whole licensing process itself to be an infringement.


While "constitutional carry" advocacy is increasing, I have observed no evidence suggesting that proponents who believe licensing systems of any design are Unconstitutional are in a majority amongst firearm ownership rights advocates.
 
2012-08-16 03:11:03 PM

Dimensio: bluefoxicy: chairborne: filter: Why stop at guns? I want my own nukes and weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear arms are called arms, too. It is my right!

"why stop at marrying dudes? I want to marry a turtle. My love for turtles is just as real, it's my right!"
.

My first statistics teacher spent less time teaching math and more time being an asshole. He went on a half hour rant about gay marriage once, asking if we could maybe marry a dog, or a desk, or a piece of sexy loose leaf paper he was stroking lovingly.

We got him fired. From high school. Then we got a sexy asian math teacher.

What motivated you to violate the free speech right of your instructor?


We were all failing, he was giving invalid grades and spending more time spouting political bs than teaching. A statistics test we took gave us stats on wine consumption versus heart disease, and we drew conclusions about wine consumption and heart disease; he took points off because we concluded that wine reduced heart disease, but he wanted us to conclude that alcohol reduced heart disease. Problem: No measurements were given for the consumption of anything containing alcohol except wine. Maybe it was something in wine that isn't in beer or whiskey? (Maybe it was something else entirely; we compared different countries, not samples within those countries.)

From the data we were given, the proper, mathematical result would be a correlation between wine consumption and heart disease. Correlation between level of alcohol would not be correct because wine contains things other than alcohol (and contains varying amounts of alcohol between 11% and 19% ABV--that's almost a 100% variation, and it depends on the specific TYPE of wine, and the data was by region--various wines will be popular in different regions, meaning our data may not correlate very well with actual alcohol levels). Essentially he was pushing his political view that alcohol is good for you?

In any case, 45 minutes of math class should not contain 35 minutes of ranting about gays or talking about Republicans.
 
2012-08-16 03:11:22 PM

Rent Party: You aren't going to get a class III firearm, anyway


What, are you my wife?

Actually my wife is totally in favor of getting a class III. Unless Congress makes post-1986 weapons transferrable, they're one of the smartest and safest investments you can make.
 
2012-08-16 03:22:38 PM

bluefoxicy: FilmBELOH20:
For me, my CCW isn't about being able to physically carry it all the time, it's more about having it near me when I feel the need. If I'm on a road trip, it's within reaching distance in my vehicle. If I didn't have my permit, most places would consider it illegal unless I had it unloaded in a locked case with the ammo in a separate location. I hardly ever carry it because I find it very uncomfortable as well, but I do keep it in the car or in my camera bag when I'm on trips.


Can you explain exactly wtf is going to happen that a gun in your camera bag is going to save your life? You'll know it's time to take it out when you're already grabbed, or have a gun in your face. In the latter situation, how are you going to reach your gun? In the former, do you have hand-to-hand combat training to subdue your attacker without a gun (in which case why do you need the gun? You should be just as effective or more with a knife)?

Once you see a firearm, you have two real choices:

A) Be a hero. Somebody else is about to get shot, you must now intervene.
B) Shut up. You see someone pulling a gun from his belt; he's already halfway there, you cannot pull your gun out faster, he's going to see you going for yours and just shoot you in the face. Never mind if he steps out with it in hand and backs you to the wall.

Anything else is death.

(A) is why I believe people should be allowed to carry any god damn weapon they chose so long as they're not an established criminal. Maybe if people at the Aurora started shooting back, a few less than 15 folks would have been dead and injured that day, and we could have saved the taxpayers the expense of a trial and execution. And don't tell me 50 armed patrons would have hurt themselves or other bystanders; you had one moron come in a fire exit, there weren't other bystanders around or behind him! Shoot that motherfarker! It should be illegal to own a gun without proper training to use it anyway.


I have a Tamrac Velocity series camera bag that's slings around my shoulder. I don't need to take it off to pull my camera out, and the gun is kept right beside my camera. I can get to it plenty fast enough if/when I need to. You might also notice that I wrote I "hardly ever carry." I have a holster for it, and I'm quite well rehearsed at getting to it fast if I need to.

Now, let me ask you for some ITG advice since you seem to be the brigade commander.... If someone has you backed against a wall and you go for yours in a holster, do you think the outcome is going to be any different? At least with mine in a camera bag I could act scared or something, pretend like I'm reaching in the bag to give him my camera and shoot through it. If I'm in a position where I can see someone pulling a weapon, my first thought isn't going to be going for my weapon, it's going to be be finding cover, then going for my weapon. Most criminals can't aim for crap anyway, so if nothing else, dodging and weaving is going to be better than trying to pull a gun from a dead stop.

My personal preference is to simply try to avoid putting myself in to situations where I would ever need to use it in the first place. I wear a seatbelt all the time, but that doesn't mean I drive like an idiot, and don't watch out for all the other idiots on the road as well.
 
2012-08-16 03:26:37 PM

Rent Party: clyph: Rent Party: If you think it will cost you $35K for an HK or derivative, you shouldn't own guns at all.

Know how I know you haven't ever priced class III firearms?


You aren't going to get a class III firearm, anyway. You can pick up an 94A3 for about $5K, which would look just as biatchin' as your air soft, but actually be a real gun.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. In the mean time, they should still ban your fake one.


How about "no": they "should" do no such thing and your proposal is unreasonable.
 
2012-08-16 03:29:21 PM

Persnickety: I have yet to meet a liberal who does not believe in the right to defend yourself.


At least one self-described "liberal" poster on Fark has explicitly claimed that deadly force used to prevent rape, sexual assault or a violent attack is "murder".
 
2012-08-16 03:31:36 PM

FilmBELOH20:
Now, let me ask you for some ITG advice since you seem to be the brigade commander.... If someone has you backed against a wall and you go for yours in a holster, do you think the outcome is going to be any different?



Oh hell no. I'm not reaching for my gun if he's already started to draw; I'm going to go grabbing for HIS gun. I can't draw fast enough to deal with a gun someone's got his hand on already. I DEFINITELY can't draw fast enough to deal with a gun somebody's got pointed in my face already (grabbing for it is a bad idea by that point; you missed your shot).

That moment when you see the gun, but it's not in any effective position yet, that's when you want to attack--and pulling your gun is too slow. If you're not ready, willing, and able to go grappling with a life firearm between you in an attempt to keep the business end from being directed at you, then do NOTHING.

Gdalescrboz:
I think gay right parades are a misuse of their constitutional right to speech and assembly, we should take away their right to sppech and assembly. See where I'm going?


No, I don't really. Where are gay parades posing an immediate threat to the life and safety of others in a similar manner to twirling around a loaded firearm that could experience an accidental discharge from such mishandling and send high-velocity high-density metal particles off on approach vectors that could intersect with other human beings and fatally wound them?
 
2012-08-16 03:37:10 PM

Dimensio: At least one self-described "liberal" poster on Fark has explicitly claimed that deadly force used to prevent rape, sexual assault or a violent attack is "murder".


So you've met this alt in real life?

Come on! The only thing less "real" than a Fark troll is a woman on the internet.
 
2012-08-16 03:42:47 PM
Both like to shoot men in the face?
 
2012-08-16 03:43:51 PM

Persnickety: Jon iz teh kewl: JohnBigBootay: Just as there are lots of gay people in the military, lots of civilian gay people have guns. Perhaps they should stand their ground and shoot the bigots who prefer the gay people enjoy less freedom than straight people currently enjoy.

umm gay black people have EXACTLY the same freedoms as heterosexual white people. and both gays and non gaysblacks and whites can marry someone of the opposite sexsame race. i don't see where the problem lies.

I think I've heard this argument before.


ok u win. now legalize drugs!
 
2012-08-16 03:48:55 PM

JohnBigBootay: Verzio: So, let's cut the bullshiat about "deadly assault weapons", okay?

I don't want to take your guns away so relax but you sort of omitted handgun crimes from your list which seems at the least a little intellectually dishonest.


Not dishonest at all. If people want to talk about banning handguns as a matter of murder control, they're at least in the ballpark of reality. I think they're evaluating the likely consequences incorrectly, but informed individuals can legitimately disagree about what they think a handgun ban would actually do. Since I doubt I'll convince them, I don't try to.

On the other hand, if, like the author of the linked article, they're talking about passing "assault weapons" bans, well, they are spewing bullshiat. Even if it were 100% effective at preventing murders that would have been committed with "assault weapons", the lives saved would be too few to be noticed in the murder stats. The only logical reason to ban "assault weapons" is a deliberate effort to create a slippery slope to a total gun ban, and supporters of "assault weapon" bans should be called out so they have to be honest about that agenda. (Scare quotes used deliberately; an "assault weapon" isn't any different from your average semi-automatic hunting rifle, except for cosmetic features like places to mount bayonets.)
 
2012-08-16 04:10:01 PM

meat0918: The gun control movement lost, just like the Anti-LGBT crowd will.


The anti-gay crowd has already lost. They just don't know it yet. Death throes is what we're seeing now.

But the gun control movement is not totally dead. If the Supreme Court as a whole had the same opinion on the 2nd amendment as the latest two additions to the court, the second amendment would be open once again to deliberate misinterpretation. No educated person has any true doubt as to what the founding fathers intended the 2nd amendment to mean, just as no educated person could possibly conclude the founding fathers thought the job of the supreme court was to misunderstand the Bill of Rights as they pleased and effectively alter the constitution without amendment, but that's where we're at.
 
2012-08-16 04:10:57 PM

factoryconnection: Dimensio: At least one self-described "liberal" poster on Fark has explicitly claimed that deadly force used to prevent rape, sexual assault or a violent attack is "murder".

So you've met this alt in real life?

Come on! The only thing less "real" than a Fark troll is a woman on the internet.


lol

Poor Gat. His own people are turning on him and calling him a troll now. That's what he gets for not being a true Scotsman.
 
2012-08-16 04:13:45 PM
FTFA: "Americans support an assault weapons ban by 57-42"

I wish we could get statistics showing how many of that purported 57% actually know and understand what an "assault rifle" is.

I'd eat my shorts if it were anything over 5%.
 
2012-08-16 04:23:06 PM

jafiwam: On the other hand, there have been a few points in the past where "A weapon would be really useful right about now." have happened to me. Now that I can, and do, carry a gun, it's "Gee, glad I have a gun, time to leave."


Absolutely. The best way to win the gun fight is to not be there.
 
2012-08-16 04:31:32 PM

factoryconnection: Persnickety: I have yet to meet a liberal who does not believe in the right to defend yourself.

Until the Keller decision, some group of people in DC thought it a good idea to ban handguns even for home defense. Since the Keller decision, some group of people in DC have made it as odious as possible to obtain a handgun even for home defense. I've read through the process; it is "theater of the absurd" red tape.

Now I've not met any of those councilmen/lawmakers, and probably neither have you, but can we agree that there are in fact people that push for even self-defense gun prohibition?


I already mentioned that there are whackos out there and with our abysmally low voter turnout rates, especially for local elections, every now and then they gain a small measure of power and foist their insanity on us. The system generally corrects itself as the courts weigh in and the people wake up and vote out the loonies next time. Note that this applies for all sorts of loonies: Bible thumpers, cults, racists, xenophobes, "all taxation is theft" types - you name it. Gun ownership in the US is higher than any other developed nation. There's just too much grass roots support for gun rights for there ever to be any serious erosion in the US. Yes, there are isolated places where it's hard to get a handgun, but not so many that you can't find a place to live that keeps from having some sort of firearm in your home.
 
2012-08-16 04:38:15 PM

Persnickety: There's just too much grass roots support for gun rights for there ever to be any serious erosion in the US. Yes, there are isolated places where it's hard to get a handgun, but not so many that you can't find a place to live that keeps from having some sort of firearm in your home.


All true, but my point was in refutation of the perceived rarity of people that think guns should be banned even for self-defense in one's home. DC, NYC, Chicago... that's millions of people and no way could they keep that up without the support of at least a sizeable chunk of the electorate onboard. Now each of those cities is different, but all I'm saying is that yeah, those types really do exist and in significant numbers.

And I don't think they are conservatives.
 
2012-08-16 04:52:35 PM

factoryconnection: Persnickety: There's just too much grass roots support for gun rights for there ever to be any serious erosion in the US. Yes, there are isolated places where it's hard to get a handgun, but not so many that you can't find a place to live that keeps from having some sort of firearm in your home.

All true, but my point was in refutation of the perceived rarity of people that think guns should be banned even for self-defense in one's home. DC, NYC, Chicago... that's millions of people and no way could they keep that up without the support of at least a sizeable chunk of the electorate onboard. Now each of those cities is different, but all I'm saying is that yeah, those types really do exist and in significant numbers.

And I don't think they are conservatives.


People agree to give up rights when they think that those legally purchased and obtained guns are the ones causing all the violence in their cities. We saw the same behind the passing of the Patriot Act
 
2012-08-16 07:09:38 PM

Kit Fister: R.A.Danny: Because the vast majority Americans think gun ownership is a right, no matter what they think about gays, the economy, or women's rights. Gun ownership transcends left v right.

That, and the much longer conversation about what exactly is reasonable when it comes to gun control and the right to keep and bear arms. To many, the only solution is to ban some types of guns because of looks or whatever, addressing only accessibility and no other aspects of the problem, when a discussion on ways to improve background checks and other methods of weeding out the loonies in general would be far more helpful in the long run, and would reduce more than just gun violence.


I thought it was just because it's less 'gun control' and more 'hey, shouldn't we try and pay attention to who buys guns when?'
 
2012-08-16 07:21:02 PM
bluefoxicy
Gdalescrboz:
I think gay right parades are a misuse of their constitutional right to speech and assembly, we should take away their right to sppech and assembly. See where I'm going?

No, I don't really. Where are gay parades posing an immediate threat to the life and safety of others in a similar manner to twirling around a loaded firearm that could experience an accidental discharge from such mishandling and send high-velocity high-density metal particles off on approach vectors that could intersect with other human beings and fatally wound them?


Well, thats the problem isnt it? It's up to self-interpretation. I think gay pride parades are immediate threat not jus tto life, but to the human species. If gays can spread their message we could all become gay one day, then the human species ends. Actually seems a little more dangerous than 1 person spinning 1 gun on his finger that could 1 person
 
2012-08-16 08:27:17 PM
No one in power is scared of the gun control movement.

They should get some guns then.
 
2012-08-16 09:34:23 PM

OwnTheRide: FTFA: "Americans support an assault weapons ban by 57-42"

I wish we could get statistics showing how many of that purported 57% actually know and understand what an "assault rifle" is.

I'd eat my shorts if it were anything over 5%.


The last time people claimed overwhelming popularity for an assault weapons ban it cost the Democrats dearly in the following elections. To be fair the AWB was one of many factors, but still an expensive one that didn't pay out in the long run.

Enough people know the terminology to inform the rest. So I don't think that alone is the issue.
The problem is the lag time between the feel good law hitting and people understanding why it sucks means that politicians are all on record for attacking a right that most folks agree is important to American culture.
The men behind these things tend to fall on their swords for it.

I think the claim of popularity for a law is Shaky because pollsters don't look very deep into their own results.
Is everyone against violence? Yes.
Is everyone ready to be shafted out of their rights to prevent a problem that rarely affects them? After a bit of thought, not so much. 

So the poll in favor of action is always promising. But not when the people find out the chosen action will be some lame brain scheme that hurts them and ignores criminals.
 
2012-08-17 01:16:57 AM
Sorry...I'm still reeling from the hilarious headline. GJ subster.
 
2012-08-17 01:19:02 AM
So where the f()(|
/did I ask that in my "out loud" voice?
 
2012-08-17 01:20:42 AM
Oops text clip. Joke ruined, but I asked wtf is the gay gun porn?
 
2012-08-17 08:56:02 AM

Itstoearly: RembrandtQEinstein: The number one way to minimize "gun violence" is to end drug prohibition and let people buy their meth (though it would probably be coke at that point) at the local pharmacy.

But the gun controllers don't care about minimizing violence, they only care about punishing "rednecks". Just like the anti-choicers don't care about babies, they just want to punish "sluts".

I was with you until this last statement. You are a prime example of why the pro-choice/pro-life debates are so awful. Saying that a pro-lifer just wants to punish sluts is just as stupid as saying a pro-choicer wants to murder babies. The heart of the issue is not women's rights, and it's not children's rights. The heart of the issues is actually whether the unborn child/fetus is a human being or not, and when does it become one. But people rarely debate that. It's easier to start the argument based on assuming your side of it ("Of course it's murder!" Or, "Of course it's taking away a woman's control of her own body!").


Very VERY well put. Assigning ridiculous motives to those you disagree with makes it easy to dismiss them without considering what they are actually saying. Which is standard operating procedure here on Fark.

/Newsletter and all that
 
2012-08-17 12:06:31 PM

meat0918: TypoFlyspray: R.A.Danny: Molavian: Concealed carry is now legal in all but one state, and that will tip in the next few years.

Maybe the gay rights movement should take a page out of our book.

Also, armed gays don't get bashed.

Yep. Anti-gunners are in the minority, even among liberals.

I think that's because the left understand that they have to work with what is to get to what should be. SCOTUS says the first part of the 2nd Amendment is filler, so people have the unrestricted right to bear arms. OK, let's work from there.

It's not unrestricted, but reasonably restricted.


Good Point. In fact, it's neither. If it were reasonably restricted, there wouldn't be quite so many loopholes, and the restrictions would be enforced.
 
2012-08-18 07:27:28 AM

Basily Gourt: Vermont has no required permit to carry concealed. Anybody from anywhere can walk around Vermont with a concealed handgun.

And you would have a hard time finding a more liberal state than Vermont.

Left-right politics is pretty much gone from the gun control debate, for the most part.



No... Left-Right politics is pretty much gone from the pro 2nd amendment position, while Gun Control is almost entirely coming from organizations staffed with left leaning peoples...
 
2012-08-18 10:05:23 AM

Maul555: Basily Gourt: Vermont has no required permit to carry concealed. Anybody from anywhere can walk around Vermont with a concealed handgun.

And you would have a hard time finding a more liberal state than Vermont.

Left-right politics is pretty much gone from the gun control debate, for the most part.


No... Left-Right politics is pretty much gone from the pro 2nd amendment position, while Gun Control is almost entirely coming from organizations staffed with left leaning peoples...


Can't argue with that.
 
Displayed 185 of 185 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report