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.

(Yahoo)   The GOP is now calling for broader gun rights, including unlimited capacity for bullets within guns, because obviously when I look at the aftermath of this summer what I think is "we need guns with more bullets"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 458
    More: Asinine, GOP, David Keene, mass shooting, semiautomatic firearms, Sounds Good, assault weapons, NRA, Gabrielle Giffords  
•       •       •

1519 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2012 at 3:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-30 10:53:28 AM  
Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)
 
2012-08-30 10:54:49 AM  

make me some tea: Why do you need these things?


Why not?
 
2012-08-30 11:06:03 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?



Because mass killings?

I support gun rights, but unlimited clip sizes? If you can't do the job with 25 bullets, what in hell are you doing?
 
2012-08-30 11:07:38 AM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?


Why should my right to own something be predicated on my need to own that thing?
 
2012-08-30 11:08:53 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?


Well, there we go. The next campus or theater shooter will thank you for such an honest reply.
 
2012-08-30 11:09:22 AM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


Well, Obama has done nothing but expand gun rights in the last four years, so they need to get a good soundbite of him saying something anti-gun, like "I don't think we should allow unmedicated schizophrenic people to own their own bazookas without a preliminary background check."
 
2012-08-30 11:10:43 AM  

make me some tea: (disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


The military wouldn't be particularly interested in most of the weapons people are seeking to ban.
 
2012-08-30 11:12:19 AM  
If this thread had a gun, this thread never would've happened.
 
2012-08-30 11:15:12 AM  
Well, I'm sure this thread will be chock full of rational, well reasoned arguments

/not to mention civility
 
2012-08-30 11:16:07 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I'm sure this thread will be chock full of rational, well reasoned arguments

/not to mention civility


academic.missouriwestern.edu

"Say that to my face, f*cker"
 
2012-08-30 11:17:11 AM  

Blues_X: Because mass killings?


Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.
 
2012-08-30 11:18:30 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.


Since we can't possibly keep these people from obtaining firearms, the only reasonable thing to do is relax legislation even further.
 
2012-08-30 11:21:58 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.



I keep hearing that argument, but the recent mass killings involved guns that were purchased legally. Would they have pursued illegal means to gain more advanced guns? Who knows.

And just because some people will break the law to do it doesn't mean that it shouldn't still be regulated.
 
2012-08-30 11:22:41 AM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


Military-grade firearms are to what we civilians currently have access to as military vehicles are to the H2. Maybe they share some characteristics, but only someone ignorant of how vehicles are built and used would believe the civilian version of the hummer is capable of performing military missions.
 
2012-08-30 11:23:23 AM  
You know what would stop a lot of gun violence?

More accessible mental health services.
 
2012-08-30 11:24:47 AM  

what_now: You know what would stop a lot of gun violence?

More accessible mental health services.


Oh bless your heart, sweetie.

We both know the answer is more guns. It's like math. They cancel each other out.
 
2012-08-30 11:26:35 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?


Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?
 
2012-08-30 11:32:42 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?

Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?


"Allow"? You mean legalize, yes? Because there is nothing preventing anyone from making fertilizer bombs right now. We'd have to ban urea and diesel fuel to do that.
 
2012-08-30 11:32:43 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?

Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?



We already have OFH.
 
2012-08-30 11:35:06 AM  

what_now: You know what would stop a lot of gun violence?

More accessible mental health services.


That's just crazy talk!
 
2012-08-30 11:37:03 AM  

Rev.K: Since we can't possibly keep these people from obtaining firearms, the only reasonable thing to do is relax legislation even further disarm the law abiding.


Good thinking!

Blues_X: I keep hearing that argument, but the recent mass killings involved guns that were purchased legally.


And used illegally while the law abiding sat idly by...

Hobodeluxe: Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?


You know...I can own fertilizer AND diesel fuel. Just like I can own a firearm. My use of those items in a given fashion might be illegal but my ownership is not.
 
2012-08-30 11:43:38 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson:
And used illegally while the law abiding sat idly by...


That's true. I sat here in my office and did nothing.

I must be part of the problem.
 
2012-08-30 11:46:53 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Rev.K: Since we can't possibly keep these people from obtaining firearms, the only reasonable thing to do is relax legislation even further disarm the law abiding.

Good thinking!

Blues_X: I keep hearing that argument, but the recent mass killings involved guns that were purchased legally.

And used illegally while the law abiding sat idly by...

Hobodeluxe: Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?

You know...I can own fertilizer AND diesel fuel. Just like I can own a firearm. My use of those items in a given fashion might be illegal but my ownership is not.


go try to buy that fertilizer in bulk :)
 
2012-08-30 11:47:44 AM  

Blues_X: I support gun rights, but unlimited clip sizes? If you can't do the job with 25 bullets, what in hell are you doing?


I don't know. Maybe working for the NYPD?
 
2012-08-30 12:02:26 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I must be part of the problem.


Could be eh?


Hobodeluxe: go try to buy that fertilizer in bulk :)


I live in a rural community. It's done quite often...as is bulk diesel purchases.
 
2012-08-30 12:03:01 PM  

Karac: Blues_X: I support gun rights, but unlimited clip sizes? If you can't do the job with 25 bullets, what in hell are you doing?

I don't know. Maybe working for the NYPD?


ZING.


Dancin_In_Anson: And used illegally while the law abiding sat idly by...


I think they were running more than sitting.
 
2012-08-30 12:03:39 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Rev.K: Since we can't possibly keep these people from obtaining firearms, the only reasonable thing to do is relax legislation even further disarm the law abiding.

Good thinking!

Blues_X: I keep hearing that argument, but the recent mass killings involved guns that were purchased legally.

And used illegally while the law abiding sat idly by...

Hobodeluxe: Why not allow people to have fertilizer bombs too then?

You know...I can own fertilizer AND diesel fuel. Just like I can own a firearm. My use of those items in a given fashion might be illegal but my ownership is not.


and also the capacity for mass casualties should also be limited. that's why you can't just go and buy that fertilizer in mass quantities w/o a license and/or being flagged by DHS/ATF
that's why you can't legally buy fully automatics,frag grenades ,C-4,landmines and such.

there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.
 
2012-08-30 12:06:28 PM  
I mean, even though I don't need a 12-pounder Napoleon gun, I really, really want one.

I could see why it's not that great of an idea to just sell them at Wal Mart.
 
2012-08-30 12:08:21 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Marcus Aurelius: I must be part of the problem.

Could be eh?


Hobodeluxe: go try to buy that fertilizer in bulk :)

I live in a rural community. It's done quite often...as is bulk diesel purchases.


but you have to have to be registered don't you? I thought the DHS tracked that stuff?
 
2012-08-30 12:11:43 PM  

Blues_X: I think they were running more than sitting.


As opposed to returning fire.

Hobodeluxe: and also the capacity for mass casualties should also be limited


My high capacity magazines have never caused mass casualties.

Hobodeluxe: there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.


Some may disagree with you.
 
2012-08-30 12:13:08 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: I think they were running more than sitting.

As opposed to returning fire.

Hobodeluxe: and also the capacity for mass casualties should also be limited

My high capacity magazines have never caused mass casualties.

Hobodeluxe: there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.

Some may disagree with you.


yeah some people think aliens are about to invade the Earth too
 
2012-08-30 12:17:05 PM  

Hobodeluxe: but you have to have to be registered don't you?


I can make about 5 stops in less than an hour and have #1000 of fertilizer without anyone taking notice.
 
2012-08-30 12:18:53 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: I think they were running more than sitting.

As opposed to returning fire


You mean when they were in one dark theater that a smoke bomb had been released in, and in the theater next door, where they couldn't even see the killer? Yeah opening fire in that situation sounds really logically sound.
 
2012-08-30 12:25:14 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Hobodeluxe: but you have to have to be registered don't you?

I can make about 5 stops in less than an hour and have #1000 of fertilizer without anyone taking notice.


So change the subject of the argument from fertilizer bombs to hand grenades or fully automatic weapons.

Using your line of logic, I should really be allowed to own any weapon regardless of it's potential for harm, right?
 
2012-08-30 12:30:17 PM  

Hobodeluxe: there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.


How much harder is it to use 3 or 4 30round magazines than 1 100 round magazine?
 
2012-08-30 12:30:35 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


Well first as someone said "why not"

The main reason is that it is just another restriction upon our Constitutional rights that in truth does nothing to make us safer.

I shoot competitively both cowboy and "action." Action shooting involves multiple targets with multiple rounds- I have shot 40 round stages- fired so as a competitor the bigger the magazine the less I have to reload, For self defense unlike the Police I do not have a radio in which I can request the world to back me up and have them do so on average in under 2.5 minutes, you and I have 911 where the average response times ranges from 4.9 minutes to over 15 minutes. Now if I am in a situation to where I am forced to use lethal force, I may not have access to spare magazines it only makes sense to have the highest capacity magazine my gun will take and fire reliably since it will be a long time (relatively speaking) before I am assisted, and with today's crime trends it is most likely I will have multiple bad guys trying to do me harm making those few extra rounds in a magazine something very nice to have- you know the same reason the cops switched from revolvers even though the .357 is the proven king of handguns in stopping a threat.


The magazine debate is is another attempt to place a restriction upon the law abiding, one that the criminal element will ignore. Magazine bans and assault gun bans are as effective as limiting the size of gas tanks and banning spoilers to stop street racing. It all boils down to those wanting to break the law will do so.

Another thing to consider is if this does happen all it will do is create another business opportunity for the cartels who will then start smuggling actual military hardware in with the drugs. I know that the Cops I am friends with would rather face some homie with a semi-auto AK type rifle rather than the select fire military version.

Currently I live in California where we have the laws the antis want Nationally and I can tell you from experience and the crime stats verify that all these laws do is deter the law abiding from owning a firearm, the criminal element is having no problems getting what they want on the illegal market.
 
2012-08-30 12:32:09 PM  

itsdan: Hobodeluxe: there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.

How much harder is it to use 3 or 4 30round magazines than 1 100 round magazine?


hey I'm all for taking them down to 6-8 shots.
 
2012-08-30 12:35:40 PM  

PolloDiablo: potential for harm


Gun owners: "I've never shot the place up. Why are you so afraid of me?"
You: "We are afraid of the gun - not the man"
Gun owners: "But the gun is just a tool with no will of its own. If you fear the gun you really fear me but don't have the guts to say so".
You: ...
Gun owners: "And WE are the ones accused of being illogical, fear driven, and dishonest?"
 
2012-08-30 12:47:28 PM  

Azlefty: Well first as someone said "why not"

The main reason is that it is just another restriction upon our Constitutional rights that in truth does nothing to make us safer.

I shoot competitively both cowboy and "action." Action shooting involves multiple targets with multiple rounds- I have shot 40 round stages- fired so as a competitor the bigger the magazine the less I have to reload, For self defense unlike the Police I do not have a radio in which I can request the world to back me up and have them do so on average in under 2.5 minutes, you and I have 911 where the average response times ranges from 4.9 minutes to over 15 minutes. Now if I am in a situation to where I am forced to use lethal force, I may not have access to spare magazines it only makes sense to have the highest capacity magazine my gun will take and fire reliably since it will be a long time (relatively speaking) before I am assisted, and with today's crime trends it is most likely I will have multiple bad guys trying to do me harm making those few extra rounds in a magazine something very nice to have- you know the same reason the cops switched from revolvers even though the .357 is the proven king of handguns in stopping a threat.


The magazine debate is is another attempt to place a restriction upon the law abiding, one that the criminal element will ignore. Magazine bans and assault gun bans are as effective as limiting the size of gas tanks and banning spoilers to stop street racing. It all boils down to those wanting to break the law will do so.

Another thing to consider is if this does happen all it will do is create another business opportunity for the cartels who will then start smuggling actual military hardware in with the drugs. I know that the Cops I am friends with would rather face some homie with a semi-auto AK type rifle rather than the select fire military version.

Currently I live in California where we have the laws the antis want Nationally and I can tell you from experience ...


Thank you, good points.
 
2012-08-30 12:52:52 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.


Did they utilize legal or illegal weaponry to execute those mass shootings?

Let's be honest - an assault rifle is pretty efective. A missile is more effective. If the goal is the biggest casualty possible and they selected a deadly legal weapon and not a deadlier illegal weapon . . . Then it certainly is an effective deterrent.
 
2012-08-30 12:55:32 PM  
Normally, I'd say the Republicans were calling for decreased gun regulation because it's an election year.

Now, I'm pretty sure they're preparing for a violent revolution.
 
2012-08-30 01:00:37 PM  
Hey look, it's yet another gun thread full of DIA misdirection and refusal to actually answer questions.
 
2012-08-30 01:01:14 PM  

Bontesla: Normally, I'd say the Republicans were calling for decreased gun regulation because it's an election year.

Now, I'm pretty sure they're preparing for a violent revolution.


Well, more than a few elected Republicans have said exact that, so...
 
2012-08-30 01:01:41 PM  

itsdan: How much harder is it to use 3 or 4 30round magazines than 1 100 round magazine?


Not much, so then the question becomes why ban the 100 rounder other than as your comments indicate to makes you feel safe. It is like saying cars can only have 4 cylinder engines to reduce fatalities caused by speeding; it sounds neat but in practice does not do squat!


Instead of focusing on the tool focus on the doer, Both Uncle Fester in Tucson and Side Show Bob in Aurora had displayed the signs of mental illness that had been seen by many yet due to our current mental health system they were able to run around without getting the treatment they needed,
 
2012-08-30 01:11:55 PM  

mahuika: You mean when they were in one dark theater that a smoke bomb had been released in, and in the theater next door, where they couldn't even see the killer? Yeah opening fire in that situation sounds really logically sound.


It was light enough for this eyewitness account:

"At first, I didn't think it was anything serious, I thought it was a joke or part of the show... he came in, he was five feet away from me, he came in on my right side, I was in the second row in the very front. He came in and he threw in the gas can," Jennifer Seeger, another theatergoer, told NBC News. "And then I knew it was real. And then he shot the ceiling, and right after he shot the ceiling, he pointed the gun right at me,"

PolloDiablo: Using your line of logic, I should really be allowed to own any weapon regardless of it's potential for harm, right?


I know quite a few people who own automatic weapons. I cannot name a single one of them whom I would consider to be a threat to society.

Bontesla: Did they utilize legal or illegal weaponry to execute those mass shootings?


Legal. What's your point? If they were illegally obtained the result would have been different?
 
2012-08-30 01:12:30 PM  

GAT_00: Hey look, it's yet another gun thread full of DIA misdirection and refusal to actually answer questions.


Ask away. Please.
 
2012-08-30 01:13:01 PM  
Let me ask this: what is the situation where a normal magazine isn't enough to save you in the gunfight that never occurs on a day to day basis, but you would be saved if you had a double magazine?

What is the scenario where you need an extended magazine and how are you not free unless you have one?

It seems like the only time you'd really need something like that is in a shootout with the police. Or Obama Death Panel Enforcers, for you gun-nuts.
 
2012-08-30 01:14:12 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: Hey look, it's yet another gun thread full of DIA misdirection and refusal to actually answer questions.

Ask away. Please.


You have no need to waste time because I know you won't answer them. Just lie, misdirect and threadjack. You have no interest in honest debate.

Go away, nobody would miss you.
 
2012-08-30 01:15:07 PM  

Bontesla: Let's be honest - an assault rifle is pretty effective. A missile is more effective. If the goal is the biggest casualty possible and they selected a deadly legal weapon and not a deadlier illegal weapon . . . Then it certainly is an effective deterrent.


Exactly. And just because someone could get a certain weapon or magazine on the black market, it doesn't mean that they will. And it will certainly be more expensive.
 
2012-08-30 01:16:37 PM  

Pfactor: PolloDiablo: potential for harm

Gun owners: "I've never shot the place up. Why are you so afraid of me?"
You: "We are afraid of the gun - not the man"
Gun owners: "But the gun is just a tool with no will of its own. If you fear the gun you really fear me but don't have the guts to say so".
You: ...
Gun owners: "And WE are the ones accused of being illogical, fear driven, and dishonest?"


Dancin_In_Anson: I know quite a few people who own automatic weapons. I cannot name a single one of them whom I would consider to be a threat to society.


Neither of you actually addressed the question. Employing the line of logic that you are, shouldn't I be allowed to own any weapon, including things like landmines and RPGs? If not, why?
 
2012-08-30 01:18:42 PM  

GAT_00: Let me ask this: what is the situation where a normal magazine isn't enough to save you in the gunfight that never occurs on a day to day basis, but you would be saved if you had a double magazine?


There is no situation.

GAT_00: It seems like the only time you'd really need something like that is in a shootout with the police. Or Obama Death Panel Enforcers, for you gun-nuts.


Actually I use them quite often and...here's a shocker for you...never in a shootout with police. Or Obama Death Panel Enforcers. Ain't that a kick in the head?
 
2012-08-30 01:19:20 PM  

PolloDiablo: shouldn't I be allowed to own any weapon


Sure. Why not?
 
2012-08-30 01:20:56 PM  

GAT_00: What is the scenario where you need an extended magazine and how are you not free unless you have one?

It seems like the only time you'd really need something like that is in a shootout with the police. Or Obama Death Panel Enforcers, for you gun-nuts.


Read my reply to make me some tea!

You were told to ask questions yet you are stating your opinions as if they were questions. So in that spirit I will ask you

Why do you want to ban this item unless you are wanting to destroy the Constitution? Or is it because having them will thwart your ability to install a Socialist Government?

It seems you are afraid of these Magazines because it will allow parents to defend their children when you try to rape and kill them or to!
 
2012-08-30 01:21:42 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Sure. Why not?


So you really wouldn't mind if I put together a warhead with plutonium I stole with an RC car and salad bowls. I'm just making sure.
 
2012-08-30 01:21:45 PM  

GAT_00: You have no need to waste time because I know you won't answer them. Just lie, misdirect and threadjack. You have no interest in honest debate.

Go away, nobody would miss you.


Looking in the Mirror I see
 
2012-08-30 01:22:21 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: So you really wouldn't mind if I put together a warhead with plutonium I stole with an RC car and salad bowls.


Knock yourself out.
 
2012-08-30 01:23:06 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: PolloDiablo: shouldn't I be allowed to own any weapon

Sure. Why not?


Right. So in a constitutionally just world (or country, i guess) I should be able to walk into my local gun shop and buy hand grenades, RPGs, landmines, and fully automatic weapons?

Are you just be ideologically obtuse, or do you really think such a thing would really be in any way viable or reasonable in the society we live in?
 
2012-08-30 01:23:33 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Knock yourself out.


Knock myself out? I'mma knock all of Dallas out!
 
2012-08-30 01:25:25 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Exactly. And just because someone could get a certain weapon or magazine on the black market, it doesn't mean that they will. And it will certainly be more expensive.


Come to California, Or go to D.C. to see the failure of your statement!

Better yet go to Mexico since they severely restrict gun ownership, and it seems to be working well with no weapons being smuggled in from their Northern or Southern borders.
 
2012-08-30 01:26:39 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: hillbillypharmacist: So you really wouldn't mind if I put together a warhead with plutonium I stole with an RC car and salad bowls.

Knock yourself out.


You're obviously either a complete fool or are just willing to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to support your initial argument.

There's really no point in having a debate with somebody who won't recognize even the most basic level of logic in their pursuit of being right, it's like trying to debate science with a young-earth creationist.
 
2012-08-30 01:31:08 PM  

Bontesla: Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.

Did they utilize legal or illegal weaponry to execute those mass shootings?

Let's be honest - an assault rifle is pretty efective. A missile is more effective. If the goal is the biggest casualty possible and they selected a deadly legal weapon and not a deadlier illegal weapon . . . Then it certainly is an effective deterrent.


An assault rifle is a short-barreled rifle that has the ability to shoot more than one round for each trigger press that has been ruggedized to withstand the rigors of combat. If you own one of those without having been vetted by BATF (a process that almost,but not quite literally, involves body cavity searches and the outlay of thousands of dollars) then you're already a felon and the rules obviously don't matter to you. Your average civilian simply cannot get a real assault rifle.

Thanks to the Clinton "assault weapons" ban that was allowed to expire a few years ago, the phrase is now generally used in ignorance when referring to weapons that, if issued to our combat troops, would cause many of them to lose their lives due to unreliability, the lack of full-auto or burst fire capability, and the fact that civilian rifles are too long to maneuver easily in close quarters (like clearing houses in Kandahar).

I won't insult your intelligence and say the civilian versions can't be deadly in the hands of an irresponsible person. But I did want to make it clear that there is a big difference in relative effectiveness between what you (and others, so you're not alone) call and assault rifle and an actual assault rifle. It's kind of like calling a pocket knife a sword. Both will cut you up but the sword is several orders of magnitude more effective.

On the other hand, a missile is just a missile :)
 
2012-08-30 01:33:22 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: Let me ask this: what is the situation where a normal magazine isn't enough to save you in the gunfight that never occurs on a day to day basis, but you would be saved if you had a double magazine?

There is no situation.

GAT_00: It seems like the only time you'd really need something like that is in a shootout with the police. Or Obama Death Panel Enforcers, for you gun-nuts.

Actually I use them quite often and...here's a shocker for you...never in a shootout with police. Or Obama Death Panel Enforcers. Ain't that a kick in the head?


Thanks for confirming that you won't address a question. You offer nothing to the discussion.

Would anyone else like to actually answer the question: Why is this needed?
 
2012-08-30 01:39:46 PM  

PolloDiablo: Pfactor: PolloDiablo: potential for harm

Gun owners: "I've never shot the place up. Why are you so afraid of me?"
You: "We are afraid of the gun - not the man"
Gun owners: "But the gun is just a tool with no will of its own. If you fear the gun you really fear me but don't have the guts to say so".
You: ...
Gun owners: "And WE are the ones accused of being illogical, fear driven, and dishonest?"

Dancin_In_Anson: I know quite a few people who own automatic weapons. I cannot name a single one of them whom I would consider to be a threat to society.

Neither of you actually addressed the question. Employing the line of logic that you are, shouldn't I be allowed to own any weapon, including things like landmines and RPGs? If not, why?


To answer your question directly, as long as you don't prove you are irresponsible with dangerous things like cars, guns, land mines, ninja stars, nuclear waste, etc. I have no issue with you owning them. I don't fear people who are responsible actors. If an irresponsible one comes up they end up dead or in jail and in either case have forfeited their right to bear arms (though I also know that such bans don't actually stop everyone from doing it anyway).

To answer your question indirectly, your line of logic follows the pattern of the reducto ad absurdem fallacy, whereby you extend a given position to an illogical conclusion and ask if that is an acceptable position. It's bad manners and it's intellectually dishonest because the illogically extended position is not logically equivalent to the original position.
 
2012-08-30 01:41:00 PM  
GOP 2012: THE GUN IS GOOD! THE VAGINA IS EVIL!

/Zardoz is pleased
 
2012-08-30 01:44:06 PM  

Pfactor: cars, guns, land mines, ninja stars, nuclear waste, etc.


I find some of these things to not be the same as others.

A car has a purpose that is in no way a weapon, and is it's primary purpose.

A gun can have a primary purpose of defense, but standard gun arguments is that concealed carry makes a better defense because the robber won't know if they can safely rob you. Handguns can only meet this standard for self-defense, and in general do. You don't commonly defend yourself with a rifle. Extended magazine will not help you because you could not as easily carry it in a concealed or easy manner. Extended magazines wouldn't help you.

Land mines can only be a weapon, and nuclear waste has no common need or use to the average citizen.
 
2012-08-30 01:44:48 PM  
An armed society is a polite society.

www.warisboring.com

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-08-30 01:48:41 PM  

GAT_00: Would anyone else like to actually answer the question: Why is this needed?


GAT, I love ya, but that's probably not the best philosophical direction to go with this. Virtually everything that we do on a daily basis we don't "need" the right to do. I don't "need" a bed, air conditioning, and a refrigerator. And yes, I know, "but but but you don't kill people with those". We also don't "need" McDonalds Chicken McNuggets, Coca Cola, and super-size fries. And they kill a HELL of a lot more people than do 50-round magazines. We don't need motor vehicles, at least at the level that we currently have them. And they as well are far greater killers than civilians who possess .223 rifles with the pistol grip (one of the scary "assault rifles" that the former ban covered).

There's a metric shiat ton of stuff that kills people in this country that we don't "need". We don't just up and ban them. Not really the way our country works. Perhaps it's the way you think it should be. Hell, maybe it IS the way it should be. Most would disagree with you. And THAT occasionally gets banned too, when governments start getting banny.

Almost 100% of those people who own a "scary gun" do not, and will never, use it in an illegal or assaultative manner. That fact alone should be enough to refute calls for a ban on them.

Now, all that being said (and if you read this far without jumping in my face, good on ya), as an owner of nearly a dozen guns, I wouldn't cry a tear if 50-round magazines disappeared. But no pebble ever feels responsible for the avalanche, and banning things, rather than focusing on providing services to people, is a pretty goddamn big pebble in my opinion.
 
2012-08-30 01:50:25 PM  

.
.

*sits back, munches popcorn, happy he doesn't live in a psychotic violent gun-worshipping society*

.
 
2012-08-30 01:55:51 PM  
Part of the problem, is that when we talk about gun control, we are pretty much talking about a distraction.

Any tool can be used as a weapon, if you hold it right. Britain and Japan tightly control weapons, yet still have violent crimes, albeit Japan skews her figures a bit by classifying a lot of those crimes as "missing persons" reports because police tend to lose face when they can't solve a crime, and the Yakuza and other gangs like to simply dispose of bodies out of the way which is part of the reason that so many are invested in construction and export/import businesses.

The distraction portion of the show comes in, because what we are really talking about is violent crime. How to reduce it. How to keep people safe. And gun control is a great red herring to wave in front of folks, and get them hett up about. It keeps the discussion on the tools used in the commission of violent crime, and the tools to defend oneself, but not about the root causes of folks turning to crime in the first place.

That is a discussion that folks don't like. Because it's a harder conversation. It doesn't have concrete representation. It cuts into issues of education, of a social safety net, in the relative sanity/insanity of our criminal justice system and the War on Drugs, and those are far harder conversations to have.

When we talk gun control, what we are really alluding to is crime control. And the best way to reduce violent crime is through education, a better mental health care system, a better social safety net, and wider opportunity, as well as taking a hard look our own drug control policies.

Yes, there are folks who like to equate guns with freedom. There are folks who consider books as an equal vaccination against tyranny as well, and folks who want to see some books banned are making similar arguments against the dissemination of information as being "too dangerous."

A gun is a tool. How it's used, that's up for grabs. Responsible gun owners exist. Some folks just like to pop off rounds and hunt. Some folks take guns as a symbol, and that gets a bit more hinkey, because they feel that their guns are the ONLY thing protecting their property and freedom.

We want to cut down crime, especially violent crime, we have to address the social problems that cause folks to turn to crime in the first place. Some folks ARE just born bastiches, and will only get bigger. Others are trained by environment and circumstance to turn to violence, by dint of early training--not quite the same training that our troops get to break down the inhibition from seriously harming other humans, but the result of early social conditioning can break that down. And as a society, we are getting really good at breaking down that inhibition in a good number of populations. That is something we need to address.

Weapon availability does make things easier, but Great Britain has proven that strict gun laws don't keep violent crime from happening, or weapons out of folks' hands. Breaking down the reasons folks turn to crime has to be where we start, if we want to make real progress though. There are nations where near every adult has access to military grade arms that don't have our crime rates, and certainly not our violent crime rates, because they have a social safety net that reduces the stress, and a culture that doesn't romanticize the weapon as a symbol of freedom. That romanticization isn't a cause, but it lends our population to being armed perhaps more than we really need to be. Properly trained, and responsible people can carry every day of their lives, and never have to clear leather once in anger, so that isn't really a cause, but we give folks reasons to turn to violence, and respond, and fear their neighbors enough to inject themselves into things with an armed response. That IS an issue. That we continue to dangle myths of self reliance and success by the sweat of the brow, while yanking opportunity and keeping folks disadvantaged, or at least from feeling that way with economic and education policies IS an issue.

You want safer streets? Then we need to turn the conversation from the tools used, and instead to root of the problem. The real problem, not the myth, not the romance, but the real, nitty gritty of the issue, and that is that a lot of folks feel that the crime is a valid alternative to drudging out a pittance of an existence, and that even the risk of jail or death is preferable to that. Economic freedom, decent health care, decent education, real opportunity to advance and get ahead, and very real physical safety issues, those are what we need to talk about, as opposed to the tools that folks use.

But folks would rather talk about guns, because it's easier to look at symptoms than treat the disease...
 
2012-08-30 01:57:38 PM  

Pfactor: To answer your question directly, as long as you don't prove you are irresponsible with dangerous things like cars, guns, land mines, ninja stars, nuclear waste, etc. I have no issue with you owning them. I don't fear people who are responsible actors. If an irresponsible one comes up they end up dead or in jail and in either case have forfeited their right to bear arms (though I also know that such bans don't actually stop everyone from doing it anyway).

To answer your question indirectly, your line of logic follows the pattern of the reducto ad absurdem fallacy, whereby you extend a given position to an illogical conclusion and ask if that is an acceptable position. It's bad manners and it's intellectually dishonest because the illogically extended position is not logically equivalent to the original position.


I'm a gun owner, and the point I'm trying to make is that even the majority of gun enthusiasts I know (those who aren't invested in being right on the internet) would agree that there is some reasonable point when it comes to gun or weapon ownership where you draw a line and say "Ok, I'm all for personal liberty, but I don't think your average person needs to have access to that kind of firepower.

The only difference in that sense between myself and, clearly not you, but other more reasonable gun enthusiasts is where that line should be drawn. I would say that if an item has the potential to cause great harm but shows absolutely no reasonable home defense or sport use, then it makes sense to remove that item from public sale. In my mind, high capacity magazines fall easily within those guidelines. Anybody who knows their way around a gun should be able to more than adequately defend themselves with a standard magazine, if you need 30-100 shots to ward off your attacker, then you really have no business owning a firearm in the first place. Yes, your average experienced shooter can still do quite a bit of damage with a pocket full of magazines, but why outright provide people with the means by which to do so more easily? In the name of some arbitrary idea of personal freedom?

To live in a democratic society such as ours, with the quality of life and relative safety that is expected from such, you have to accept that concessions of "personal freedom" are made to ensure the society continues to function that way. In my mind, this means making sure that every guy with a chemical imbalance can't walk into their local sporting goods store and buy every item they need to go on a murderous rampage in the most efficient and deadly way possible. Yes, that can be a slippery slope, but it's reality. We don't live in a world of black and white where you can just make blanket statements like "Guns are good" or "Guns are bad" and act like there's absolutely no grey area in between, that's simply short-sighted and unrealistic.
 
2012-08-30 01:57:47 PM  

Hobodeluxe: there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.


A big part of our right to own guns is to be able to defeat our government if they become tyrannical. So yeah, if I were tasked to take on a part of our military that backed a tyrannical dictator, I'd like as many bullets as possible, since I don't have the same training that the people I'd be going up against.
 
2012-08-30 01:58:35 PM  

dahmers love zombie: GAT_00: Would anyone else like to actually answer the question: Why is this needed?

GAT, I love ya, but that's probably not the best philosophical direction to go with this. Virtually everything that we do on a daily basis we don't "need" the right to do. I don't "need" a bed, air conditioning, and a refrigerator. And yes, I know, "but but but you don't kill people with those". We also don't "need" McDonalds Chicken McNuggets, Coca Cola, and super-size fries. And they kill a HELL of a lot more people than do 50-round magazines. We don't need motor vehicles, at least at the level that we currently have them. And they as well are far greater killers than civilians who possess .223 rifles with the pistol grip (one of the scary "assault rifles" that the former ban covered).

There's a metric shiat ton of stuff that kills people in this country that we don't "need". We don't just up and ban them. Not really the way our country works. Perhaps it's the way you think it should be. Hell, maybe it IS the way it should be. Most would disagree with you. And THAT occasionally gets banned too, when governments start getting banny.

Almost 100% of those people who own a "scary gun" do not, and will never, use it in an illegal or assaultative manner. That fact alone should be enough to refute calls for a ban on them.

Now, all that being said (and if you read this far without jumping in my face, good on ya), as an owner of nearly a dozen guns, I wouldn't cry a tear if 50-round magazines disappeared. But no pebble ever feels responsible for the avalanche, and banning things, rather than focusing on providing services to people, is a pretty goddamn big pebble in my opinion.


I really do like having honest discussions with people on this, just nobody ever seems to care for anything but NRA talking points.

The reason I'd argue against the position of 'we don't need a reason to make something legal,' which I agree is a good argument for 99% of things, is that weapons are a different class altogether. While many things can be a weapon, a gun is designed to kill. That's it. When it comes to things like that, public security must play a role. It's simply unnecessary. And honestly, the people I see actually using extended mags to an advantage are fighting police or government troops. That's when you'd need 100 rounds in a clip instead of 30 or whatever. There are absolutely no everyday situations where you could need extended mags. I can't think of any. So they are clearly a safety issue, which is why I think illegal first instead of legal first.
 
2012-08-30 01:58:55 PM  

GAT_00: Pfactor: cars, guns, land mines, ninja stars, nuclear waste, etc.

I find some of these things to not be the same as others.

A car has a purpose that is in no way a weapon, and is it's primary purpose.

A gun can have a primary purpose of defense, but standard gun arguments is that concealed carry makes a better defense because the robber won't know if they can safely rob you. Handguns can only meet this standard for self-defense, and in general do. You don't commonly defend yourself with a rifle. Extended magazine will not help you because you could not as easily carry it in a concealed or easy manner. Extended magazines wouldn't help you.

Land mines can only be a weapon, and nuclear waste has no common need or use to the average citizen.


I answered that person's question about my opinion by sharing my opinion. You responded by attempting to pick apart something you cannot pick apart: MY OPINION. Your input on what my opinion should or shouldn't be is not needed or wanted.

At least you don't have to wonder anymore why nobody answers your questions: it's crap like this.
 
2012-08-30 01:59:05 PM  

Azlefty: Come to California, Or go to D.C. to see the failure of your statement!


Were any of James Holmes guns or magazines illegal? Why didn't he buy illegal weapons? Was he afraid of going to jail?
 
2012-08-30 01:59:50 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Hobodeluxe: there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.

A big part of our right to own guns is to be able to defeat our government if they become tyrannical. So yeah, if I were tasked to take on a part of our military that backed a tyrannical dictator, I'd like as many bullets as possible, since I don't have the same training that the people I'd be going up against.


LOL OK
 
2012-08-30 02:02:19 PM  

Pfactor: GAT_00: Pfactor: cars, guns, land mines, ninja stars, nuclear waste, etc.

I find some of these things to not be the same as others.

A car has a purpose that is in no way a weapon, and is it's primary purpose.

A gun can have a primary purpose of defense, but standard gun arguments is that concealed carry makes a better defense because the robber won't know if they can safely rob you. Handguns can only meet this standard for self-defense, and in general do. You don't commonly defend yourself with a rifle. Extended magazine will not help you because you could not as easily carry it in a concealed or easy manner. Extended magazines wouldn't help you.

Land mines can only be a weapon, and nuclear waste has no common need or use to the average citizen.

I answered that person's question about my opinion by sharing my opinion. You responded by attempting to pick apart something you cannot pick apart: MY OPINION. Your input on what my opinion should or shouldn't be is not needed or wanted.

At least you don't have to wonder anymore why nobody answers your questions: it's crap like this.


My bad, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to criticize your opinion on an open forum that you freely gave when I believed your opinion was based on false pretenses. I apologize for giving my own opinion that was contrary to your own and exposed you to a viewpoint you apparently would rather pretend didn't exist.
 
2012-08-30 02:02:58 PM  
Can you imagine if 'driving' were listed in the BOR? Nitrous, 12" velocity stacks, and rocket fuel for all the vehicles on all the roads! O_O WOOGA WOO WOO YEEHAW

/gun owner
//there is no constitutionally-protected right to inflict chaos on society
///okay so the velocity stacks would be pretty cool...
 
2012-08-30 02:06:08 PM  

PolloDiablo: Right. So in a constitutionally just world (or country, i guess) I should be able to walk into my local gun shop and buy hand grenades, RPGs, landmines, and fully automatic weapons?


Sure. Why not?

GAT_00: Thanks for confirming that you won't address a question


Which question?" The one about the conditions in a situation that didn't exist in the first place? I answered you you farking idiot. Now go whine to the mods that the bad man called you a name.


Pfactor: I have no issue with you owning them. I don't fear people who are responsible actors.


Exactly. More people died in a one vehicle accident in south Texas than did in a theater in Colorado but you don't hear screams for banning the wheel.
 
2012-08-30 02:07:31 PM  
As opposed to returning fire

Go fark yourself, you farking maniac
 
2012-08-30 02:08:39 PM  

gameshowhost: Can you imagine if 'driving' were listed in the BOR? Nitrous, 12" velocity stacks, and rocket fuel for all the vehicles on all the roads! O_O WOOGA WOO WOO YEEHAW


Which is precisely why it's so farking stupid when gun enthusiasts say shiat like "Well I can kill somebody with a car, why aren't cars illegal?"

That's precisely why we have regulations on how vehicles have to be built and how they perform, and have laws strictly governing how they're operated.

I can't go buy a formula-1 race car and go for a cruise down the interstate, nor can I drive a monster truck or bulldozer on public roads. I mean, it would be fun as shiat to do so, but it would cause an unreasonable risk to the safety of the drivers around me. This is, quite literally, the exact same logic that goes into reasonable gun regulations.
 
2012-08-30 02:09:25 PM  

GAT_00: And honestly, the people I see actually using extended mags to an advantage are fighting police or government troops. That's when you'd need 100 rounds in a clip instead of 30 or whatever.


Just FYI, those giant magazines are sold as novelty items, and are borderline useless for the purposes you're describing.  I'm not aware of anything that large that is sold "for serious".
 
2012-08-30 02:09:37 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: PolloDiablo: Right. So in a constitutionally just world (or country, i guess) I should be able to walk into my local gun shop and buy hand grenades, RPGs, landmines, and fully automatic weapons?

Sure. Why not?


Right, I addressed this in my earlier reply, you're either a complete moron or are being knowingly obtuse in support of your position.

You let me know if you want to have a real discussion.
 
2012-08-30 02:11:40 PM  

EatHam: GAT_00: And honestly, the people I see actually using extended mags to an advantage are fighting police or government troops. That's when you'd need 100 rounds in a clip instead of 30 or whatever.

Just FYI, those giant magazines are sold as novelty items, and are borderline useless for the purposes you're describing.  I'm not aware of anything that large that is sold "for serious".


Then why do they need to be legalized?
 
2012-08-30 02:11:41 PM  

PolloDiablo: nor can I drive a monster truck or bulldozer on public roads


img69.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-30 02:13:01 PM  

GAT_00: Then why do they need to be legalized?


I think you and I approach this sort of thing from completely opposite directions, and are thus unlikely to agree.  I don't think that "need" is relevant to whether or not something should be legal.
 
2012-08-30 02:13:41 PM  
I SHOULD BE ABLE TO YELL "FIRE" IN A CROWDED THEATER
 
2012-08-30 02:15:30 PM  

PolloDiablo: Right, I addressed this in my earlier reply, you're either a complete moron or are being knowingly obtuse in support of your position.


Why would you limit their ownership?
 
2012-08-30 02:17:08 PM  

PolloDiablo: I can't go buy a formula-1 race car and go for a cruise down the interstate, nor can I drive a monster truck or bulldozer on public roads. I mean, it would be fun as shiat to do so, but it would cause an unreasonable risk to the safety of the drivers around me. This is, quite literally, the exact same logic that goes into reasonable gun regulations.


You are, however, allowed to purchase and own any of those things and use them properly. Much like guns at the range.
 
2012-08-30 02:17:20 PM  
This isn't to broaden gun rights ("unlimited clips" are already legal in most jurisdictions), this is an attempt to elicit a suicidal gun control response from the Obama campaign, and to get the pro gun control mouth breathers all frothed up so they alienate firearm enthusiasts within their ranks.
 
2012-08-30 02:22:07 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: PolloDiablo: Right, I addressed this in my earlier reply, you're either a complete moron or are being knowingly obtuse in support of your position.

Why would you limit their ownership?


Because their usefulness for home defense or sport is far far far outweighed by the potential for harm and destruction posed by their private ownership. There is absolutely no realistic scenario where an RPG is going to be appropriate tool to protect myself with, yet there are countless scenarios, both intentional and accidental, where owning an RPG could cause harm to numerous people around me.

I like to think that living in a country like America I can have at least a somewhat reasonible expectation of general safety. Yes, I could be run down by a car at any moment and die, shiat happens, but I like to think that I don't also have to worry about if the redneck next door is tinkering around in his backyard with high explosives.
 
2012-08-30 02:24:37 PM  
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


alanschuyler.files.wordpress.com

3.bp.blogspot.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

These guys can't even regulate their cheeseburger fries and milkshake combo intake.
 
2012-08-30 02:26:00 PM  

EatHam: GAT_00: Then why do they need to be legalized?

I think you and I approach this sort of thing from completely opposite directions, and are thus unlikely to agree.  I don't think that "need" is relevant to whether or not something should be legal.


I think when it comes to public safety with no actual gain, it should.
 
2012-08-30 02:26:07 PM  

GAT_00: The reason I'd argue against the position of 'we don't need a reason to make something legal,' which I agree is a good argument for 99% of things, is that weapons are a different class altogether. While many things can be a weapon, a gun is designed to kill. That's it. When it comes to things like that, public security must play a role. It's simply unnecessary. And honestly, the people I see actually using extended mags to an advantage are fighting police or government troops. That's when you'd need 100 rounds in a clip instead of 30 or whatever. There are absolutely no everyday situations where you could need extended mags. I can't think of any. So they are clearly a safety issue, which is why I think illegal first instead of legal first.


Well, again, on the order of 99% of everyone who owns an extended magazine has not, and will not, use it in the commission of any crime. That's based on a guess as to how many hi-cap mags are out there (millions in all likelihood, considering how many I see at gun shows and the fact that everyone I know who has an AR or similar gun has at least one) and how many people commit crimes with weapons outfitted with them (a few dozen, but let's err on the side of caution and say a hundred). So we're talking about banning all of them, based on the fact that almost none of them are abused. That seems a bit misguided.

I'm not a complete Kool-aid gulping pro-gunner, either. I think that there should probably be a significantly enhanced background check for purchases of such items (yes, I just said a background check for a hi-cap magazine -- eat it, NRA), or a licensing of the same type that I had to do for my concealed permit. I don't think violent felons should be allowed to own guns. I don't think anyone under a restraining order should be allowed to own guns. I like the "lock and key" rules that states have passed requiring guns to be kept out of the hands of children unless an adult is supervising them (my kids learned to shoot at 4 and 7, at a range, with a bunch of cops and ex-military helping me teach them. You've never seen funny until you watch a 7-year-old shoot a .50 cal. Desert Eagle. He didn't even drop it...).

And I'm all for the GOP making this a part of their platform, because even if I believe that hi-cap mags should be legal, I think the optics of the GOP's position on it should make them look like idiots this election season, and anything that weakens them is fine with me.
 
2012-08-30 02:28:31 PM  
Great, you assholes will be able to carry around M82s and I won't even be able to legally keep a Boy Scout pocketknife in my back pocket.
 
2012-08-30 02:29:54 PM  

dahmers love zombie: I'm not a complete Kool-aid gulping pro-gunner, either. I think that there should probably be a significantly enhanced background check for purchases of such items (yes, I just said a background check for a hi-cap magazine -- eat it, NRA), or a licensing of the same type that I had to do for my concealed permit. I don't think violent felons should be allowed to own guns. I don't think anyone under a restraining order should be allowed to own guns. I like the "lock and key" rules that states have passed requiring guns to be kept out of the hands of children unless an adult is supervising them (my kids learned to shoot at 4 and 7, at a range, with a bunch of cops and ex-military helping me teach them. You've never seen funny until you watch a 7-year-old shoot a .50 cal. Desert Eagle. He didn't even drop it...).

And I'm all for the GOP making this a part of their platform, because even if I believe that hi-cap mags should be legal, I think the optics of the GOP's position on it should make them look like idiots this election season, and anything that weakens them is fine with me.


HEY, GET OUT HER WITH ALL THAT LOGICAL AND WELL REASONED BULLshiat! 

Though I do sort of disagree on a few points.
 
2012-08-30 02:32:35 PM  

GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: Then why do they need to be legalized?

I think you and I approach this sort of thing from completely opposite directions, and are thus unlikely to agree.  I don't think that "need" is relevant to whether or not something should be legal.

I think when it comes to public safety with no actual gain, it should.


I know - thus, we have a fundamental difference here.  I am very unlikely to convince you that personal liberty is important, and you are very unlikely to convince me that it isn't.
 
2012-08-30 02:34:19 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


I'm tired of liberals wanting to ban certain magazines. Haven't you heard of freedom of the press?
 
2012-08-30 02:44:28 PM  

violentsalvation: This isn't to broaden gun rights ("unlimited clips" are already legal in most jurisdictions), this is an attempt to elicit a suicidal gun control response from the Obama campaign, and to get the pro gun control mouth breathers all frothed up so they alienate firearm enthusiasts within their ranks.


It's not even that. It's just an attempt to get the gun supporters riled up to go vote for Romney.

But it's the Obama campaign that's desperate. Yessirree.
 
2012-08-30 02:50:33 PM  
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
 
2012-08-30 03:08:41 PM  

PolloDiablo: Because their usefulness for home defense or sport is far far far outweighed by the potential for harm and destruction posed by their private ownership.


If you wish to base whether or not to ban something because of the "potential for harm and destruction" I bet we could come up with a whole slew of things to ban.
 
2012-08-30 03:12:41 PM  

Azlefty: make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)

Well first as someone said "why not"

The main reason is that it is just another restriction upon our Constitutional rights that in truth does nothing to make us safer.

I shoot competitively both cowboy and "action." Action shooting involves multiple targets with multiple rounds- I have shot 40 round stages- fired so as a competitor the bigger the magazine the less I have to reload, For self defense unlike the Police I do not have a radio in which I can request the world to back me up and have them do so on average in under 2.5 minutes, you and I have 911 where the average response times ranges from 4.9 minutes to over 15 minutes. Now if I am in a situation to where I am forced to use lethal force, I may not have access to spare magazines it only makes sense to have the highest capacity magazine my gun will take and fire reliably since it will be a long time (relatively speaking) before I am assisted, and with today's crime trends it is most likely I will have multiple bad guys trying to do me harm making those few extra rounds in a magazine something very nice to have- you know the same reason the cops switched from revolvers even though the .357 is the proven king of handguns in stopping a threat.


The magazine debate is is another attempt to place a restriction upon the law abiding, one that the criminal element will ignore. Magazine bans and assault gun bans are as effective as limiting the size of gas tanks and banning spoilers to stop street racing. It all boils down to those wanting to break the law will do so.

Another thing to consider is if this does happen all it will do is create another business opportunity for the cartels who will then start smuggling actual military hardware in with the ...


Azlefty: itsdan: How much harder is it to use 3 or 4 30round magazines than 1 100 round magazine?

Not much, so then the question becomes why ban the 100 rounder other than as your comments indicate to makes you feel safe. It is like saying cars can only have 4 cylinder engines to reduce fatalities caused by speeding; it sounds neat but in practice does not do squat!


Instead of focusing on the tool focus on the doer, Both Uncle Fester in Tucson and Side Show Bob in Aurora had displayed the signs of mental illness that had been seen by many yet due to our current mental health system they were able to run around without getting the treatment they needed,


Pfactor: PolloDiablo: Pfactor: PolloDiablo: potential for harm

Gun owners: "I've never shot the place up. Why are you so afraid of me?"
You: "We are afraid of the gun - not the man"
Gun owners: "But the gun is just a tool with no will of its own. If you fear the gun you really fear me but don't have the guts to say so".
You: ...
Gun owners: "And WE are the ones accused of being illogical, fear driven, and dishonest?"

Dancin_In_Anson: I know quite a few people who own automatic weapons. I cannot name a single one of them whom I would consider to be a threat to society.

Neither of you actually addressed the question. Employing the line of logic that you are, shouldn't I be allowed to own any weapon, including things like landmines and RPGs? If not, why?

To answer your question directly, as long as you don't prove you are irresponsible with dangerous things like cars, guns, land mines, ninja stars, nuclear waste, etc. I have no issue with you owning them. I don't fear people who are responsible actors. If an irresponsible one comes up they end up dead or in jail and in either case have forfeited their right to bear arms (though I also know that such bans don't actually stop everyone from doing it anyway).

To answer your question indirectly, your line of logic follows the pattern of the reducto ad absurdem fallacy, whereby you extend a given position to an illogical conclusion and ask if that is an acceptable position. It's bad manners and it's intellectually dishonest because the illogically extended position is not logically equivalent to the original position.


dahmers love zombie: GAT_00: Would anyone else like to actually answer the question: Why is this needed?

GAT, I love ya, but that's probably not the best philosophical direction to go with this. Virtually everything that we do on a daily basis we don't "need" the right to do. I don't "need" a bed, air conditioning, and a refrigerator. And yes, I know, "but but but you don't kill people with those". We also don't "need" McDonalds Chicken McNuggets, Coca Cola, and super-size fries. And they kill a HELL of a lot more people than do 50-round magazines. We don't need motor vehicles, at least at the level that we currently have them. And they as well are far greater killers than civilians who possess .223 rifles with the pistol grip (one of the scary "assault rifles" that the former ban covered).

There's a metric shiat ton of stuff that kills people in this country that we don't "need". We don't just up and ban them. Not really the way our country works. Perhaps it's the way you think it should be. Hell, maybe it IS the way it should be. Most would disagree with you. And THAT occasionally gets banned too, when governments start getting banny.

Almost 100% of those people who own a "scary gun" do not, and will never, use it in an illegal or assaultative manner. That fact alone should be enough to refute calls for a ban on them.

Now, all that being said (and if you read this far without jumping in my face, good on ya), as an owner of nearly a dozen guns, I wouldn't cry a tear if 50-round magazines disappeared. But no pebble ever feels responsible for the avalanche, and banning things, rather than focusing on providing services to people, is a pretty goddamn big pebble in my opinion.


hubiestubert: When we talk gun control, what we are really alluding to is crime control. And the best way to reduce violent crime is through education, a better mental health care system, a better social safety net, and wider opportunity, as well as taking a hard look our own drug control policies.


I generally agree with this sentiment, but a few of your examples are way off. The gun crime rate in the US isn't even close to Japan or the UK, or any other first world nation with a reasonable standard of crime prevention infrastructure. That more guns equals more gun violence isn't a debatable statistic.

That's not to say that there isn't a valid argument for guns- I'm not American, so if you want to shoot each other up, go nuts. You already have so many guns in the wild, It's not a genie that can easily go back in the bottle easily.
 
2012-08-30 03:13:39 PM  
I don't think banning guns or ammo or clips is the answer, but maybe stronger background checks are.
 
2012-08-30 03:44:45 PM  

vernonFL: These guys can't even regulate their cheeseburger fries and milkshake combo intake.


You aren't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

PolloDiablo: Because their usefulness for home defense or sport is far far far outweighed by the potential for harm and destruction posed by their private ownership. There is absolutely no realistic scenario where an RPG is going to be appropriate tool to protect myself with, yet there are countless scenarios, both intentional and accidental, where owning an RPG could cause harm to numerous people around me.

I like to think that living in a country like America I can have at least a somewhat reasonible expectation of general safety. Yes, I could be run down by a car at any moment and die, shiat happens, but I like to think that I don't also have to worry about if the redneck next door is tinkering around in his backyard with high explosives


You aren't either, are you? Nobody is talking about private citizens owning RPGs. And you can take your racial slur and cram it right up your ass, you bigot.
 
2012-08-30 03:44:51 PM  

Blues_X: Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?


Because mass killings?

I support gun rights, but unlimited clip sizes? If you can't do the job with 25 bullets, what in hell are you doing?


Apparently working the beat.
 
2012-08-30 03:45:10 PM  
the Overton Window at work

/no, not the book by Glenn Beck
 
2012-08-30 03:45:51 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


Because my Beretta was designed to hold 15 rounds. To artificially limit it to 10 rounds is just stupid. That's why.
 
2012-08-30 03:46:25 PM  
Crazy nutjob slaughters innocents in a school/church/theater/etc....

Media Reaction: Run Non-Stop Coverage about individual giving them the infamy they wanted.
Left Wing Reaction: Ban Guns
Right Wing Reaction: Cut Funding to Mental Health Services
NRA Reaction: Obey the GOP.....
 
2012-08-30 03:47:34 PM  
Actually I look at this summer and say "We need more protection for conceal carry rights"

There's a reason these shooting incidents keep happening in places where the shooter is relatively certain nobody is going to shoot back. The Aurora talking point of "he had body armor!" is ignorant by the way so you can save it since I'm tired of seeing that talking point get ripped apart in five seconds.
 
2012-08-30 03:47:41 PM  
All I care about is the day I can legally own a tank, to hell with rush hour traffic forever.
 
2012-08-30 03:48:11 PM  

palladiate: Great, you assholes will be able to carry around M82s and I won't even be able to legally keep a Boy Scout pocketknife in my back pocket.


Dude, get the ULTRAScoutCampMaster5000, it has an M82 attached to the screwdriver

/dont carry mine anymore after I lost the tweezers and toothpick :(
 
2012-08-30 03:48:17 PM  
Oh, and...

i286.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-30 03:48:46 PM  
Jesus, they're doubling down on the batsh*t, it seems. This is the sort of crazy you hold onto until AFTER you win.
 
2012-08-30 03:50:07 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: what_now: You know what would stop a lot of gun violence?

More accessible mental health services.

That's just crazy talk!


pretty much this.

Gun bans wont stop shootings unless they are more absolute, like in Great Britain.
 
2012-08-30 03:50:13 PM  
www.andyerupts.com

But big guys with dreadlocks might be outside. Or uh, aliens. Yeah, aliens.


/gun freaks have a small window here, and they know it. Their need to defend James Holmes' (legal, responsible owner) gun rights isn't palatable to sane Americans
 
2012-08-30 03:51:26 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: And just because someone could get a certain weapon or magazine on the black market, it doesn't mean that they will. And it will certainly be more expensive.


i.imgur.com 

I want a gun with a knife barrel so I can stab while I shoot too.
 
2012-08-30 03:52:04 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.


So legalize murder, then?
 
2012-08-30 03:52:06 PM  

randomjsa: Actually I look at this summer and say "We need more protection for conceal carry rights"


That's because you're the next James Holmes.
 
2012-08-30 03:53:09 PM  

Hobodeluxe: there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.


So? Let me point out something that should be obvious. The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the citizens of this country are well equiped to deal with both foreign invadors and domestic tyrants. That means we SHOULD have the right to possess military grade arms.

Note, there is a huge difference between arms (hand guns, rifles, etc) and armaments (cannons, artillary, bombs, etc).
 
2012-08-30 03:53:17 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: Nobody is talking about private citizens owning RPGs.


So you admit that it's OK for the government to ban private ownership of RPGs, but the government has no right to ban guns? Explain. Because in my mind, to be consistent, you are either for private citizens having access to ALL weapons, OR you are misinterpreting the Amendment completely and it really is all under the umbrella of the "regulated militia". Otherwise, you're hemming and hawing.
 
2012-08-30 03:53:23 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: I can make about 5 stops in less than an hour and have #1000 of fertilizer without anyone taking notice.


After following you on FARK I thought you already had.
 
2012-08-30 03:53:47 PM  

Rev.K: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, I'm sure this thread will be chock full of rational, well reasoned arguments

/not to mention civility

[academic.missouriwestern.edu image 376x428]

"Say that to my face, f*cker"


Why do old bearded Russian dudes always get belligerent around souvenir stands? I bet it's those damn stacking dolls and miniature balalaikas.
 
2012-08-30 03:54:33 PM  

what_now: You know what would stop a lot of gun violence?

More accessible mental health services.


hahaha this is America, land of fark you, got mine.
 
2012-08-30 03:54:38 PM  
When 'Dancin_In_Anson' is the voice of sanity in a discussion, it's time for the rest of you to seek professional help.
 
2012-08-30 03:55:35 PM  

randomjsa: Actually I look at this summer and say "We need more protection for conceal carry rights"


I don't think temples and synagogues and churches and mosques should be coerced by the State into accepting any weapons on their properties. That is not an answer to the problem of mass shootings at religious places of worship.
 
2012-08-30 03:55:43 PM  
encrypted-tbn1.google.com

How about a gun with unlimited capacity for guns?
 
2012-08-30 03:56:03 PM  
The Aurora guy could have like doubled his high score with those rules.
 
2012-08-30 03:56:24 PM  

ssa5: All I care about is the day I can legally own a tank, to hell with rush hour traffic forever.


You can, so long as it's been disarmed. they are quite expensive though.
 
2012-08-30 03:58:09 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Hobodeluxe: but you have to have to be registered don't you?

I can make about 5 stops in less than an hour and have #1000 of fertilizer without anyone taking notice.


Good luck getting the detonators and boosters needed to initiate the shot.
 
2012-08-30 03:59:34 PM  
It calls for federal laws "that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents."

THIS I have no problem with. CCWs should be standardized. It's ridiculous to have to sort through which permits as honored where. It should be simple, either a state allows Concealed Carry or it doesn't. End of argument.

Also, the GOP people have a point that has been repeated many times, no matter what laws you pass, people will still kill with guns, and they'll get the magazines they need, restricting them won't really change anything.

At the same time, the existing rules are fine, they don't need to be expanded.
 
2012-08-30 03:59:43 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Pokey.Clyde: Nobody is talking about private citizens owning RPGs.

So you admit that it's OK for the government to ban private ownership of RPGs, but the government has no right to ban guns? Explain. Because in my mind, to be consistent, you are either for private citizens having access to ALL weapons, OR you are misinterpreting the Amendment completely and it really is all under the umbrella of the "regulated militia". Otherwise, you're hemming and hawing.


You could draw a technical distinction between "arms" and "ordnance".
 
2012-08-30 04:00:02 PM  

randomjsa: There's a reason these shooting incidents keep happening in places where the shooter is relatively certain nobody is going to shoot back.


The reason these shooting incidents keep happening is because the shooters are crazy and it's easy to get guns.

The Aurora talking point of "he had body armor!" is ignorant by the way so you can save it since I'm tired of seeing that talking point get ripped apart in five seconds.

Can you name a time that a civilian with a concealed carry permit stopped one of these sprees?
 
2012-08-30 04:00:19 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.


By that logic, we shouldn't be locking our car doors because thieves can smash a window instead.
 
2012-08-30 04:00:43 PM  

Pfactor: PolloDiablo: potential for harm

Gun owners: "I've never shot the place up. Why are you so afraid of me?"
You: "We are afraid of the gun - not the man"
Gun owners: "But the gun is just a tool with no will of its own. If you fear the gun you really fear me but don't have the guts to say so".
You: ...
Gun owners: "And WE are the ones accused of being illogical, fear driven, and dishonest?"


Considering you just built a strawman to argue with...
 
2012-08-30 04:00:44 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: So you admit that it's OK for the government to ban private ownership of RPGs, but the government has no right to ban guns? Explain. Because in my mind, to be consistent, you are either for private citizens having access to ALL weapons, OR you are misinterpreting the Amendment completely and it really is all under the umbrella of the "regulated militia". Otherwise, you're hemming and hawing.


No, I am not. And you are being purposely obtuse.

The 2nd Amendment, like many other parts of the Constitution contains an operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") and a prefatory clause ("well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State").

The operative clause gives a limitation on the power of the Federal Government. (Note that no where in Heller, or any other prior case, has the 2nd Amendment been held as enforceable against the States under the 14th Amendment. Whether or not Heller limits the power of States to ban or regulate handguns is still an open question currently working its way through the courts.) The prefatory clause serves as one explanation of why that limitation exists, but in general explanatory phrases in the Constitution are not interpreted to be exclusive, especially where only one example is provided. (The interpretory maxim "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" generally applies only to lists of multiple examples.)

So as to what the phrase "well regulated" means, the answer is "not much". The 2nd Amendment does not only protect the rights of people in a well regulated Militia to own firearms. It protects the right of the People to own and bear firearms so that in times of need they could, on their own without the permission of the government, form a "well regulated militia".

This makes sense given the way that militias operated at the time the Constitution was adopted. People didn't go out and buy firearms so they could join a militia (or vice-versa). When a militia was needed, the citizens formed and mobilized the militia using the personal arms that they already owned. To require that people first be part of a "well regulated militia" in order to be able to own a firearm wouldn't make much sense. Militias by their nature are generally not permanent or even long lasting organizations. If you had to be in a militia in order to own a firearm, then when the time came that we actually needed an armed militia, most people wouldn't have their own arms to use.
 
2012-08-30 04:01:38 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Dancin_In_Anson: Hobodeluxe: but you have to have to be registered don't you?

I can make about 5 stops in less than an hour and have #1000 of fertilizer without anyone taking notice.

Good luck getting the detonators and boosters needed to initiate the shot.


Yeah, don't end up like the Times Square "bomber" and just try to light poop on fire.
 
2012-08-30 04:01:38 PM  

Blues_X: Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?


Because mass killings?

I support gun rights, but unlimited clip sizes? If you can't do the job with 25 bullets, what in hell are you doing?


I'll show you... hold my beer.
 
2012-08-30 04:02:33 PM  
If you think letting a mentally ill person have the right to own an assault rifle with a banana clip is okay, but are against letting cancer patients use marijuana to ease their suffering...you might be a Republican!
 
2012-08-30 04:03:15 PM  

Blues_X: Because mass killings?


Those are committed only by Liberals. It's a fact, look it up.
 
2012-08-30 04:03:46 PM  
Remember, kids: unfettered access to firearms is good but drugs are bad.
 
2012-08-30 04:04:29 PM  
I think what we need are more bullets inside of bullets. Those hollowpoints are pretty popular nowadays. Why not put another smaller bullet inside the hollow area? And then a smaller bullet inside that one too. You could fire three bullets at once. 

i.imgur.com

Combine this with the Moe Syzslak special and you could even shoot like 15 bullets at once. Make shotgun slugs hollow too and you could even go up to 20.
 
2012-08-30 04:04:32 PM  
This is one issue where I'm still 100% of the side of the left. Guns cause far more problems than they solve.
 
2012-08-30 04:04:47 PM  
Gun nuts are retarded. Especially ones from Texas that usually have plump man boobs.
 
2012-08-30 04:05:05 PM  
Maybe a repeal of the 13th Amendment too so that they can buy a little negro child that can stand beside you, helping feed the belt of ammo to your .50 cal

"You're not refeeding me very good, boah!"

"Ize sorry massuh."

"Sorry's ain't no good enuf. Gonnuh be some hide-tannin' for you if you don't pick up the pace! Now go gets another box'uh ammo outta the truck."
 
2012-08-30 04:06:16 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


You don't need unlimited magazines, but the rules under the assault weapons ban were ridiculous. I couldn't carry more than 5 rounds when target shooting? Why? It meant that A: I would have had to modify my rifle to comply(Holds 10 rounds), and B: You spend half your time reloading the stupid farking thing, rather than shooting. It served no purpose(As most of the ban), but made people feel all warm and fuzzy.

For target shooting, 30 rounds is nice, you actually get to concentrate on what you're doing, rather than take your eye off the target every 30 seconds, but as I said, there's no need for "unlimited". You don't really need a 100 round drum magazine for anything.
 
2012-08-30 04:06:39 PM  
My guess would be the wiseguys at the RNC said 'Hey..Obama hasn't done anything at all to push gun control, but it sure would be a great idea to bring it up during the election cycle to gin up all those NRA guys and make sure they vote our way'.

Welfare..bogus issue...

Medicare..bogus issue..

Romney plan to fix the economy...nonexistent..(Well, except for more tax breaks for himself, Koch Bros, Adelson and the gang)

Women's issues...Big loser for GOP

It's all about Romney needing a ridiculous percentage of white voters to even HAVE A CHANCE.

/Poultry raping is legit and you just can't shut that stuff down.....

//Romney/Ryan 2012
 
2012-08-30 04:06:59 PM  
The only states that hve restrictions on mag sizes are RMoney's Mass., Christies JJ, and Arnie's CA. Dole was the one who cast the winning vote for the Clinton era mag size limit.

Are these idiots for real?
 
2012-08-30 04:07:47 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


Because they are pants-shiattingly afraid of everything.
 
2012-08-30 04:08:18 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: Nobody is talking about private citizens owning RPGs.


To make a point of order, that's exactly what a few folks in here are arguing, in good faith. And I know more than a few gun enthusiasts that think the same way.
 
2012-08-30 04:08:20 PM  
There is no reason to have this discussion anymore. There shall be no laws passed limiting gun rights in this country. The occasional mass shooting is simply the price we all must pay. Apparently perpetually.
 
2012-08-30 04:08:22 PM  
As an angry white-male with a grudge against society, I support lax gun laws. The more banana clips I can get my hands on, the better.

Blood for the blood god! Skulls for the skull throne!
 
2012-08-30 04:08:50 PM  

GAT_00: dahmers love zombie: GAT_00: Would anyone else like to actually answer the question: Why is this needed?

GAT, I love ya, but that's probably not the best philosophical direction to go with this. Virtually everything that we do on a daily basis we don't "need" the right to do. I don't "need" a bed, air conditioning, and a refrigerator. And yes, I know, "but but but you don't kill people with those". We also don't "need" McDonalds Chicken McNuggets, Coca Cola, and super-size fries. And they kill a HELL of a lot more people than do 50-round magazines. We don't need motor vehicles, at least at the level that we currently have them. And they as well are far greater killers than civilians who possess .223 rifles with the pistol grip (one of the scary "assault rifles" that the former ban covered).

There's a metric shiat ton of stuff that kills people in this country that we don't "need". We don't just up and ban them. Not really the way our country works. Perhaps it's the way you think it should be. Hell, maybe it IS the way it should be. Most would disagree with you. And THAT occasionally gets banned too, when governments start getting banny.

Almost 100% of those people who own a "scary gun" do not, and will never, use it in an illegal or assaultative manner. That fact alone should be enough to refute calls for a ban on them.

Now, all that being said (and if you read this far without jumping in my face, good on ya), as an owner of nearly a dozen guns, I wouldn't cry a tear if 50-round magazines disappeared. But no pebble ever feels responsible for the avalanche, and banning things, rather than focusing on providing services to people, is a pretty goddamn big pebble in my opinion.

I really do like having honest discussions with people on this, just nobody ever seems to care for anything but NRA talking points.

The reason I'd argue against the position of 'we don't need a reason to make something legal,' which I agree is a good argument for 99% of thing ...


I might not always agree with you, ya skew a little far left on some things for my taste, but you're right on with this one. The point isn't that a gun "CAN" be used to kill JUST LIKE a knife, piano wire, or rock, it's that that is the SOLE PURPOSE of a gun. The SOLE purpose is to maim or kill OR to practice at being more effective at maiming or killing. This is why I can go into a hardware store and buy a hammer, but I can't go into a Pier 1 and buy a combat knife. Or a hunting knife, for that matter. This notion of "anything can be a weapon" is completely obfuscatory because sure, anything CAN be a weapon, but a gun can ONLY be a weapon.

And Dahmer up above: no one ever walked into a McDonald's and started forcing people to eat McNuggets or drink soda until they died. If someone wants to make the bad health choice to eat a bunch of garbage food, who am I to prevent them? But that's not the same as someone forcing the decision with a weapon. And as for fighting off the gummint in case they get "uppity" or whatever? Check out the book DMZ for a frank, and realistic look at how that'd likely go in the BEST case scenario. Or any other time a group of well-armed individuals try a violent overthrow. No matter how "well-armed," it goes tits up when the REAL military shows up.
 
2012-08-30 04:09:06 PM  
FFS, the shallow end of the gene pool is full today.
 
2012-08-30 04:09:31 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: This is one issue where I'm still 100% of the side of the left. Guns cause far more problems than they solve.


I disagree. This is one issue where I'm 100% on the side of the right. Guns solve more problems than they cause.

Every time there's a guy with a gun shooting people what stops the shooting? More shooting. If anything we need more guns so that we reach a critical mass of guns where everyone is ready to go at a moments notice.

There will still be problems caused by guns, but those problems will be solved much faster with more guns than they would be in a society with less guns.

Plus, I really would like to see more gunplay in my day-to-day. Ever since the city became gentrified there's not nearly enough danger anymore. I'm bored.
 
2012-08-30 04:10:58 PM  
These are the same Republicans who BAN GUNS IN AND AROUND THEIR CONVENTION!
 
2012-08-30 04:10:58 PM  

Somacandra: I think what we need are more bullets inside of bullets. Those hollowpoints are pretty popular nowadays. Why not put another smaller bullet inside the hollow area? And then a smaller bullet inside that one too. You could fire three bullets at once. 

[i.imgur.com image 460x785]

Combine this with the Moe Syzslak special and you could even shoot like 15 bullets at once. Make shotgun slugs hollow too and you could even go up to 20.


media.giantbomb.com

How about a robot with guns for arms shooting at a plane made of guns that shoots guns?
 
2012-08-30 04:11:31 PM  
 
2012-08-30 04:13:48 PM  

CynicalLA: Gun nuts are retarded. Especially ones from Texas that usually have plump man boobs.


You looked at DIAs profile, didn't you?
 
2012-08-30 04:14:15 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?


I'm hardly pro-gun (don't own and don't ever intend to own), but the way I look at it, this question makes a weird fundamental assumption: it puts the burden of justification on the citizenry, something that's wholly unacceptable in any other case. Why do you need to print cheap zines? Why do you need to post on the internet under a screen name? Why do you need saturated fats? These aren't questions that are sensible because 'need' is very limited - the vast majority of things we encounter are either themselves luxuries or are in a luxury form. That's why the arguments on voter ID (but you NEED an ID to survive in this country!) are silly.

When it comes to guns, there's the obvious danger factor of idiots going on sprees, but that's not the purpose of the guns. They're used responsibly for target shooting, for hunting, for just blowing off steam, whatever, constantly. A huge portion of our populace legally owns guns and 99% of them will never use their firearm on a human being regardless of form. If you have young children, it's safer for your child if you have a gun in the house than it is if you have a pool.

So I don't see an active threat from guns. They kill fewer people than much more important problems (like heart disease or bad driving). Sure, the form of the deaths from guns being available is much more gruesome than the form of deaths from 'allowing automobiles', but I don't let the commonly used fearmongering about some inherent murderous nature of guns doesn't somehow impose its own purpose onto them. We should, to prevent shiat like murders, be focusing efforts on things that would be much more productive towards cutting down gun deaths than gun control - mental health reform and drug law reform.
 
2012-08-30 04:14:33 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?


For the same reason you can't go into the hardware store and buy a bundle of dynamite any more. While it certainly has legitimate uses both in agriculture, construction and recreational activities, we've decided that the harm caused by its potential misuse is great enough that we , as a society ought to place certain restrictions on its access and use.
 
2012-08-30 04:14:39 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Every time there's a guy with a gun shooting people what stops the shooting? More shooting. If anything we need more guns so that we reach a critical mass of guns where everyone is ready to go at a moments notice.


Good point. If MAD works for nations, why not on the street?

Though this is why I want legalization of miniature nukes. A suicide vest and a dead man's switch will guarantee the safety of me and my family.
 
2012-08-30 04:15:19 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: And you can take your racial slur and cram it right up your ass, you bigot.


As somebody who grew up on a farm riding 4-wheelers and shooting guns, let me give that a hearty LOL.
 
2012-08-30 04:18:39 PM  
Having no restrictions on magazines fits well into the American general views. "Why learn how to properly shoot a gun? I just need a bigger magazine, I figure eventually I'll hit what I intended to."
 
2012-08-30 04:19:31 PM  

Blues_X: Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?


Because mass killings?

I support gun rights, but unlimited clip sizes? If you can't do the job with 25 bullets, what in hell are you doing?


Explain this "unlimited ammo" thing to me...

www.shellgunning.com
 
2012-08-30 04:20:51 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: FFS, the shallow end of the gene pool is full today.


so arm them with their hearts desires!
 
2012-08-30 04:21:44 PM  
HELLO, CIVIL WAR, HERE WE COME.
 
2012-08-30 04:21:47 PM  

Without Fail: Can you name a time that a civilian with a concealed carry permit stopped one of these sprees?


Some dude in the crowd when Loughner shot up Gabby Giffords had a gun on him.

Except he realized that it was too chaotic to know who was even doing the shooting, and had he shot who he thought was the aggressor, he would've shot someone who was trying to wrestle Loughner to the ground.

I can only imagine the chaos would've been tenfold in the dark theater with a smoke bomb.
 
2012-08-30 04:22:00 PM  

tricycleracer: What concealed carriers think will happen.

What will actually happen. (2:19)


Pretty much this.

I still remember Louie Gohmert (R-etard) suggesting that the Aurora shooter would have been taken out if there were concealed carriers in the theater. Because apparently, shooting at muzzle flashes in a dark, crowded theater is Protecting America and Freedom.

Republicans lose their credibility on gun rights when they refuse to denounce statements like that.
 
2012-08-30 04:22:03 PM  
i have learned this summer that guns solve every problem
 
2012-08-30 04:22:32 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Rapmaster2000: Every time there's a guy with a gun shooting people what stops the shooting? More shooting. If anything we need more guns so that we reach a critical mass of guns where everyone is ready to go at a moments notice.

Good point. If MAD works for nations, why not on the street?

Though this is why I want legalization of miniature nukes. A suicide vest and a dead man's switch will guarantee the safety of me and my family.


What America needs is a Federal Weapons giveaway program. It's like one of those government programs. Just come and farkin' get anything you want. We're gonna give away all the farkin' automatic weapons. All the side-loaders, clip-loaders, shoot-em-backs... Saturday night specials... Colt. 45s, shotguns. Anything you want, chains, knives, straight razors... bottles, brick bats, baseball bats... and big kind of slanted jagged kind of things. I wanna see a goddamn big motherfarkin'... shoot 'em up, kill 'em, bang, stab 'em, crush... slice, kill, motherfarkin' boilin' oil. Catapults throwin' rocks and shiat and blowin' up. Undercover shiat, yeah. So I wanna see people putting secret things in farkin' cars... and farkin' explodin' and see the people explodin'. I wanna see knife cuttin', slice cuttin' choppin' and blowin' up. Hah-aaah yeah. That's right. A free farkin' weapons give away program. I see it. Gonna solve all these goddamn problems.
 
2012-08-30 04:22:45 PM  

PolloDiablo: being knowingly obtuse in support of your position.


I bet this is the first time someone ever made that statement in the history of Fark.
 
2012-08-30 04:22:54 PM  

EatHam: make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

Why should my right to own something be predicated on my need to own that thing?


It wouldn't be. It's still a valid question on it's own. If it is an inherently dangerous thing with little or no benefit to society, then no, not yours.

The only reason to have a huge clip is to kill multiple things/people very quickly - other than giving a gun nut a hardon.

Ban assault rifles, high capacity mags, and automatic weapons
Close the gun show loophole and enforce laws restricting gun ownership
Limit the number of guns that can be purchased and owned.

I'm sorry, but anyone who fights against these things is a shill for the weapons industry or just brainwashed. The 2nd amendment was never intended for this. Even if you go for the "we must defend ourselves from a tyrannical gubment" bullshiat, that ship has sailed. No militia will ever be able to stand up to the US military or even local law enforcement unless you think citizens should be able to arm themselves with an arsenal of tanks, rpgs and bombs. If you think along those lines, I have a nice padded white room to show you. 

Otherwise, keep your handguns, rifles, and shotguns and be happy with that. To be honest, handguns should be illegal too, but the ship has sailed on that one as well. It works both ways.
 
2012-08-30 04:23:07 PM  
I'm glad I don't have to have a substitute for actual genitalia.
 
2012-08-30 04:23:19 PM  
The ability to fatally shoot someone who gives you the side-eye in any place you have a legal right to be?

This sounds like a great idea. What could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-08-30 04:23:22 PM  

KellyX: Blues_X: Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?


Because mass killings?

I support gun rights, but unlimited clip sizes? If you can't do the job with 25 bullets, what in hell are you doing?

Explain this "unlimited ammo" thing to me...

[www.shellgunning.com image 600x374]


IDKFA. Duh.
 
2012-08-30 04:23:22 PM  
You know... If people ever understood the difference between wanting "unlimited bullet clips" and the actuality of what it means to carry ammunition around, they'd probably realize there's no talking point to be had here.

Most states don't have any such restriction and its been a problem all of, what, two or three times in the last half century?

/Gun control has been a losing proposition for democrats.
/Amazingly, the GOP plans to exploit this...
/Give up nothing, get democrats derping up their record on guns.
 
2012-08-30 04:24:02 PM  

sprawl15: So I don't see an active threat from guns. They kill fewer people than much more important problems (like heart disease or bad driving). Sure, the form of the deaths from guns being available is much more gruesome than the form of deaths from 'allowing automobiles', but I don't let the commonly used fearmongering about some inherent murderous nature of guns doesn't somehow impose its own purpose onto them. We should, to prevent shiat like murders, be focusing efforts on things that would be much more productive towards cutting down gun deaths than gun control - mental health reform and drug law reform.


It's like air travel. Air travel is very safe, but when it goes wrong, it gets really messy, and people get scared. Because of that, we have lots of laws about not only how people can fly airplanes, but also about the passengers, what you can take on board, all that stuff. Truth is that it's all just for show, makes some whiners happy that they think they are doing something, but it's just smoke and mirrors.

Same would apply here. Ban high capacity magazines and you might make the soccer mom down the street feel safe when she goes to the movies, but you haven't in any way really stopped the next crazy who wants to shoot things up.

That's not to say that there shouldn't be gun laws. There are laws for flying, for driving, etc. We have them because quite honestly no matter how responsible you are, someone else might not be, and that's too much of a risk. It's a balance, between what we make illegal because it's for the best for everyone and what we allow because we're a nation based on the idea of freedom. Extremes either way are bad.
 
2012-08-30 04:24:16 PM  
what the 100-round clip used by the Aurora shoter (which thankfully jammed because the design is crap) may look like:
betaco.com


and gun-enthusiasts? Just a note: you have a lot harder time arguing your guns aren't some sort of Phallic-substitute when you use magazines like that in them
 
2012-08-30 04:24:25 PM  
I find it humorous that the stance during mass murder threads is "the guns were purchased legally, there is not a gun problem" and the stance during these threads is "those people murdering a dozen people are breaking the law...why would more gun regulations change that?"
 
2012-08-30 04:24:29 PM  
This is the only way I will leave the house

img25.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-30 04:25:11 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?


Why, to defend ourselves from all the gun nuts of course!

I don't really have many feelings either way on most gun laws. I'd love to see more hoops for ppl to jump through to keep them out of obviously crazy hands but I don't think much else will impact the problem significantly. But what the hell, it can't hurt to try for a while.

/Some of my 'gun nut' friends think I'm crazy to be open to restrictive gun legislature.

//That's usually when I light a joint and try to explain I have a practical outlook on legislating personal behavior.

///don't think ppl need machine guns, if I could wave a wand and make them disappear I would in a second. But I also don't think passing a law will make one dick of difference to the problem. Not sure how many times we have to "ban" a thing for people to realize that doesn't do much but fuel a black market for the thing and removes all control on the thing you may have had
 
2012-08-30 04:25:34 PM  

Magorn: what the 100-round clip used by the Aurora shoter (which thankfully jammed because the design is crap) may look like:
[betaco.com image 452x402]


and gun-enthusiasts? Just a note: you have a lot harder time arguing your guns aren't some sort of Phallic-substitute when you use magazines like that in them


Wait, seriously? They haven't gotten a patent on that yet?
 
2012-08-30 04:25:55 PM  
how about we issue voter I.D. guns.
 
2012-08-30 04:26:50 PM  
I thought we already had unlimited supplies of guns and ammo.

The whole thing seems like the agonal respiration of a dying culture. No abortion, hate the gays, boo the nice 'Rican lady, get rid of them Messcans, Muslins, Terists, guns, more war money, less taxes, moar Jebus.

They're whittling their base down to a half dozen Cletuses and a handful of people who like to spite liberals by buying large gas hog cars.
 
2012-08-30 04:27:02 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


If you were concerned about mass-killings you'd want to take the guns from the military rather the people. They've been doing a whole lot more killing.
 
2012-08-30 04:27:22 PM  
s14.postimage.org

My friend has this thing.
 
2012-08-30 04:27:45 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


Because we can. Having 6 bullets is fine unless you have 7 people trying to break into your house
 
2012-08-30 04:27:47 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.


because they could what? make thier own? I think it is reaonable to assume that if you baaned the manufacture or domestic sale of a highly-machined device that has to be produced to exacting tolerances, then Yes they would be harder to obtain. The average murderer or mass-killer doesn;t have connections to the IRA or a drug cartel or the Mob, they get thier stuff from legal gun shops instead
 
2012-08-30 04:27:48 PM  

BSABSVR: This is the only way I will leave the house

[img25.imageshack.us image 640x448]


So you fight zombies too?

I thought I was the only one.
 
2012-08-30 04:28:50 PM  

vernonFL: [s14.postimage.org image 850x637]

My friend has this thing.


That thing cost like $25 to fire? I guess if you wanted to do a mass shooting with that you'd have to go to a place with lots of single-file lines.
 
2012-08-30 04:28:55 PM  
I think we're doing gun nuts a grave disservice by writing them off as simply crazy or stupid, for they are neither: they're just evil.

Real libertarians don't care if their neighbors get murdered in a mass shooting, if their country goes bankrupt when rich corporations suck all the wealth away, if humanity dies a slow, agonizing death due to pollution and overpopulation. What matters is that they are free to experience all those horrible things.

They mistakenly believe they'll be the ones who come out on top. What they don't realize is that they'll be on top, all right -- standing on the bow of a sinking ship.
 
2012-08-30 04:29:09 PM  

vernonFL: [s14.postimage.org image 850x637]

My friend has this thing.


For "duck hunting".
 
2012-08-30 04:29:31 PM  

Magorn: doesn;t have connections to the IRA or a drug cartel or the Mob, they get thier stuff from legal gun shops instead


If you criminalize guns, then only criminals will have guns. Even the ones that spend half a paycheck on a handgun and then go in to their office and shoot at 5 people....but, once we regulate it, those people will contact international criminals and use socialist bullets.
 
2012-08-30 04:29:31 PM  

Warlordtrooper: make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)

Because we can. Having 6 bullets is fine unless you have 7 people trying to break into your house


If 7 people are breaking into your house, you probably shouldn't have stiffed the Mexican cartel on that last cocaine shipment.
 
2012-08-30 04:30:03 PM  
Serious question here -- why do so many of you feel that you need to carry a gun daily? Obviously I'm not talking if you're a cop or a soldier, but a civilian.
 
2012-08-30 04:30:04 PM  
The love affair a certain segment of this country has with guns and the knock-kneed fear politicians have of reigning in the growing madness is scary.

I think most gun owners are paranoid weenies. Hunters excepted, of course, because they just love killing animals.
 
2012-08-30 04:30:08 PM  
hubiestubert


That just might be one of the more intelligent things I've ever read on Fark. Thanks. Now GTFO!!.....;)
 
2012-08-30 04:30:24 PM  

Magorn: we've decided that the harm caused by its potential misuse


As I said earlier, if we are going to ban things due to their potential misuse for "the good of the state"...oops, I mean "society" we could work up quite a list beginning with the wheel.
 
2012-08-30 04:30:39 PM  
never mind I guess, I was beaten to that question.
 
2012-08-30 04:30:41 PM  

tricycleracer: That thing cost like $25 to fire? I guess if you wanted to do a mass shooting with that you'd have to go to a place with lots of single-file lines.


i.ytimg.com

BULLET CONTROL!
 
2012-08-30 04:31:36 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: As I said earlier, if we are going to ban things due to their potential misuse for "the good of the state"...oops, I mean "society" we could work up quite a list beginning with the wheel.


kbkw.com

Regulating dangerous things for "the good of the state"
 
2012-08-30 04:32:00 PM  

BSABSVR: This is the only way I will leave the house

[img25.imageshack.us image 640x448]


Holy god, I hope, if that's real, that the ghost of John Moses Browning rises from the grave and biatchslaps you for owning it. That is such an abortion of both form and fuction, that it should make any true gun afficiando weep in despair
 
2012-08-30 04:33:05 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


You do realize that access to "these things" was precisely the intent of the Framers, right?

Put another way, why do you need a freedom of the press, religion or association.
 
2012-08-30 04:34:49 PM  

Lando Lincoln: violentsalvation: This isn't to broaden gun rights ("unlimited clips" are already legal in most jurisdictions), this is an attempt to elicit a suicidal gun control response from the Obama campaign, and to get the pro gun control mouth breathers all frothed up so they alienate firearm enthusiasts within their ranks.

It's not even that. It's just an attempt to get the gun supporters riled up to go vote for Romney.

But it's the Obama campaign that's desperate. Yessirree.


Funny thing. Romney actually signed gun control legislation into law in MA when he was Governor. If Obama does respond, he should bring that up.
 
2012-08-30 04:35:31 PM  
t3.gstatic.com

Which one of these guys signed a permanent assault weapon ban?



Signed a permanent assault-weapons ban as governor of the Bay State. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said at the July 1, 2004, signing ceremony. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
 
2012-08-30 04:35:35 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Magorn: we've decided that the harm caused by its potential misuse

As I said earlier, if we are going to ban things due to their potential misuse for "the good of the state"...oops, I mean "society" we could work up quite a list beginning with the wheel.


I will happily argue with you the Cost-benefit Analysis of the Wheel or the aurtomobile v.s a gun in general or a handgun in specific, but I don;t think that argument will turn out the way you want it to, expecially not when I point out that the tuna could fashion some sort of rudimentary scuba gear from seaweed
 
2012-08-30 04:35:40 PM  

Magorn: because they could what? make thier own? I think it is reaonable to assume that if you baaned the manufacture or domestic sale of a highly-machined device that has to be produced to exacting tolerances, then Yes they would be harder to obtain. The average murderer or mass-killer doesn;t have connections to the IRA or a drug cartel or the Mob, they get thier stuff from legal gun shops instead


You would have made a good cheerleader for the Volstead Amendment.
 
2012-08-30 04:35:42 PM  
vernonFL:
An armed society is a polite society.

[www.warisboring.com image 640x399]

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x340]


I'd be pretty damn polite to those guys if I met them. That's all the gun enthusiasts want, they want people to be polite to them.
 
2012-08-30 04:35:46 PM  
Just last week we had law enforcement wound numerous bystanders in a shoot out. Can you imagine what would happen if everyday people pull out their weapons and join in the gunplay?
 
2012-08-30 04:36:27 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


The state of Wisconsin has over 600,000 registered deer hunters. That equates to the 8th largest military in the world. http://www.waukeshanow.com/blogs/communityblogs/112548274.html

The United States will never be invaded by an occupying force from another country.

Also, the Constitution writers put the 2nd Amendment in place because they wanted the citizens to be able to protect themselves from any future tyrannical government. If you think civilian weapons couldn't stand up to the might of our military you need only look as far as Iraq. A country approximately the size of the state of California, and we had a hard time occupying it because the citizens were armed with weapons left in warehouses after WWII.

Little known fact about hand guns, 6 out of 7 people shot with hand guns survive. The people who are shot tend to simply run away after being shot with a hand gun. The person shot also doesn't fly back like in the movies.. the amount of force applied is similar to about a 10lb weight dropped from 1 inch.. so... not even enough to knock down a small child. Hand guns are relatively safe weapons.
 
2012-08-30 04:36:52 PM  

Magorn: what the 100-round clip used by the Aurora shoter (which thankfully jammed because the design is crap) may look like:
[betaco.com image 452x402]


and gun-enthusiasts? Just a note: you have a lot harder time arguing your guns aren't some sort of Phallic-substitute when you use magazines like that in them


First off, that's a magazine. Secondly, it's for a Glock chambered in 9mm, not an AR chambered in 5.56.

/you antis really need to educate yourselves, every time you post it's "a series of tubes..." all over again.
 
2012-08-30 04:37:06 PM  

Corvus: [t3.gstatic.com image 259x194]

Which one of these guys signed a permanent assault weapon ban?

Signed a permanent assault-weapons ban as governor of the Bay State. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said at the July 1, 2004, signing ceremony. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."


The n****r. The answer is always the n****r.  Chemtrails.
 
2012-08-30 04:37:58 PM  

Bermuda59: Just last week we had law enforcement wound numerous bystanders in a shoot out. Can you imagine what would happen if everyday people pull out their weapons and join in the gunplay?


It happens in gang cities all the time. And if we had "Stand you ground" basically cops couldn't do anything it would make gang shootings pretty much legal.
 
2012-08-30 04:38:21 PM  

tricycleracer: vernonFL: [s14.postimage.org image 850x637]

My friend has this thing.

That thing cost like $25 to fire? I guess if you wanted to do a mass shooting with that you'd have to go to a place with lots of single-file lines.


Like a movie theater?

/yea, I went there
 
2012-08-30 04:38:44 PM  

pacified: i have learned this summer that guns solve every problem


Just think, if Trayvon Martin had a gun then he could have protected himself from aggression. He would have stopped George Zimmerman with deadly force and then be convicted of murder and sent to prison. JUSTICE would finally be served!
 
2012-08-30 04:39:26 PM  
I don't use anything in Borderlands with a magazine under 20, why should life be any different?
 
2012-08-30 04:40:07 PM  

Dr. Whoof: That's not to say that there shouldn't be gun laws. There are laws for flying, for driving, etc. We have them because quite honestly no matter how responsible you are, someone else might not be, and that's too much of a risk. It's a balance, between what we make illegal because it's for the best for everyone and what we allow because we're a nation based on the idea of freedom. Extremes either way are bad.


Exactly.

Empty Matchbook: The SOLE purpose is to maim or kill OR to practice at being more effective at maiming or killing.


lol
 
2012-08-30 04:40:12 PM  

Magorn: what the 100-round clip used by the Aurora shoter (which thankfully jammed because the design is crap) may look like:
betaco.com


and gun-enthusiasts? Just a note: you have a lot harder time arguing your guns aren't some sort of Phallic-substitute when you use magazines like that in them


First, that is a magazine, not a clip.

Second, penis jokes in gun threads are so clever.
 
2012-08-30 04:41:11 PM  

Pfactor:
Military-grade firearms are to what we civilians currently have access to as military vehicles are to the H2. Maybe they share some characteristics, but only someone ignorant of how vehicles are built and used would believe the civilian version of the hummer is capable of performing military missions.


HMMWV = "humvee".

A hummer is not a military vehicle. Ask your mom: She knows the difference.
 
2012-08-30 04:41:52 PM  

Magorn: BSABSVR: This is the only way I will leave the house

[img25.imageshack.us image 640x448]

Holy god, I hope, if that's real, that the ghost of John Moses Browning rises from the grave and biatchslaps you for owning it. That is such an abortion of both form and fuction, that it should make any true gun afficiando weep in despair


Actually I just found the picture on a GIS for "big ammo clip" and wanted to make a ha-ha about it.
 
2012-08-30 04:42:06 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.



Which is why we see RPG attacks and atomic bombings literally every day here in the united states. Literally. Because since they're illegal to possess, the criminals obviously have no issues obtaining them whatsoever, therefore we should legalize them because hey, I might need my own personal defense RPG one day.
 
2012-08-30 04:42:25 PM  

tangentman: Funny thing. Romney actually signed gun control legislation into law in MA when he was Governor. If Obama does respond, he should bring that up.


He should spend the debates doing just that.

Moderator: President Obama, your healthcare bill has received a large amount of scrutiny. Do you feel it was a success and is there anything about it that you would change?
Obama: Well, that's a good question. First, I'd like to say that Mitt Romney's signature legislation while he was Governor of Mass was a great start. Mitt Romney suggested it as a model for the nation some years ago and I took that to heart. His brave and honorable stand to fight for the uninsured is a great symbol for America. Without Mitt Romney, Obamacare would never have been considered for the nation.

Moderator: President Obama, during your first term, you expanded certain gun rights to the surprise of many. With the recent mass shootings in our nation, do you feel that was in error? What gun control issues do you see in a possible second term?
Obama: Well, that's another good question. You know, gun control legislation is something I truly believe in. And, like Mitt Romney, I support an assault weapons ban and the Brady bill. I am no hero for the NRA, just like Mitt Romney.

Repeat for abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, the economy...
 
2012-08-30 04:42:53 PM  

tricycleracer: If 7 people are breaking into your house, you probably shouldn't have stiffed the Mexican cartel on that last cocaine shipment.


While I think there's a hefty amount of snark in your comment and the OP it's not uncommon for thieves to work in teams of 3-4. And a single round is not typically going to stop an aggressor.
 
2012-08-30 04:44:10 PM  
Okay, seriously, why would any civilian need super high-capacity magazines?

Hunting? Nope. You kill that many wild animals at once you'll have trouble trying to process that many carcasses. Plus you just might end up devastating the sustainable local population of said animal if you do it too often.

Defense? Nope. A home invasion or assault or mugging is going to be resolved one way or another after at most a half dozen shots. if you honestly need more than 25 rounds in one clip to defend yourself from a 'typical' criminals in your neighborhood, for god's sake move, you're in a war zone.

Repelling an oppressive militant government? Nope. You think they don't already know who has all the heavy firepower in your neighborhood, or that they won't figure it out the moment you start shooting? You're going to be the people they target first, and no matter how many high-cap magazines you have, that's a fight you just won't win.

Zombie Apocalypse? Alien invasion? Okay, maybe, but how likely are they really?

Mass murder shooting? Yep, high capacity magazines are very valuable for those.

Armed insurrection or rebellion against the government because they're letting teh gheys marry or something else you don't like? Yep. High capacity weapons are always useful for active violent treason.
 
2012-08-30 04:45:24 PM  

tangentman: Lando Lincoln: violentsalvation: This isn't to broaden gun rights ("unlimited clips" are already legal in most jurisdictions), this is an attempt to elicit a suicidal gun control response from the Obama campaign, and to get the pro gun control mouth breathers all frothed up so they alienate firearm enthusiasts within their ranks.

It's not even that. It's just an attempt to get the gun supporters riled up to go vote for Romney.

But it's the Obama campaign that's desperate. Yessirree.

Funny thing. Romney actually signed gun control legislation into law in MA when he was Governor. If Obama does respond, he should bring that up.


That would mean talking about gun rights, which he tends to avoid as much as talk about legalizing Marijuana.

The GOP wants him to talk because they are fairly certain they know what he'll say and how to spin the exchange.
I think its a safe bet that Obama doesn't respond.

/He could easily turn the tables by speaking openly in support of gun rights.
/But I don't think he does, and someone else will have to mumble the words for him.
 
2012-08-30 04:45:46 PM  

bulldg4life: Regulating dangerous things for "the good of the state"


If we were that concerned about saving lives, we'd ban cars altogether.

Magorn: I will happily argue with you the Cost-benefit Analysis of the Wheel or the aurtomobile v.s a gun in general or a handgun in specific, but I don;t think that argument will turn out the way you want it to


Let's see your work. You can start with the single vehicle accident I mentioned earlier.
 
2012-08-30 04:45:54 PM  

clevershark: Serious question here -- why do so many of you feel that you need to carry a gun daily? Obviously I'm not talking if you're a cop or a soldier, but a civilian.


I'm a veteran and can't figure it out either. Guns are heavy, expensive and are useless in ordinary situations.
Maybe they feel insecure of just scared. It really seems to be something psychosexual.
 
2012-08-30 04:46:27 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: If we were that concerned about saving lives, we'd ban cars altogether.


No shiat. Of course, most reasonable people long ago mastered the idea of compromise.
 
2012-08-30 04:46:33 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Literally. Because since they're illegal to possess, the criminals obviously have no issues obtaining them whatsoever, therefore we should legalize them because hey, I might need my own personal defense RPG one day.


I bet you think that no private citizens own any of these items.
 
2012-08-30 04:46:43 PM  
I feel like the only reason I need a gun is for self-defense - from other people with guns.
 
2012-08-30 04:47:16 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity murder ban.


So we should legalize murder, obviously. It's a failed law.
 
2012-08-30 04:47:38 PM  
Rednecks should be able to buy all the bullets they can afford, personally I think each bullet should cost $5000 with proceeds going into the educational system...
 
2012-08-30 04:47:45 PM  

bulldg4life: No shiat. Of course, most reasonable people long ago mastered the idea of compromise.


Ok...we can ban high capacity magazines when we ban cars that can go faster that say 30 mph.
 
2012-08-30 04:47:49 PM  

EatHam: make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

Why should my right to own something be predicated on my need to own that thing?


That doesn't answer the question and shows zero insight into the workings of your thoughts regarding such things. If you and I were in a discussion, and you were wanting to convince me to see your side of things, I'd love to hear what you would say besides some glib comment that tells me nothing except that you're being defensive.
 
2012-08-30 04:47:54 PM  
The greatest mass killing on American soil did not involve even one gun. Same for the Oklahoma city bombing. Crazy people are crazy. If the recent Colorado shooter did not have guns he might have bombed or burned down the theater anyway. Who knows?
 
2012-08-30 04:48:21 PM  

Dhusk: Okay, seriously, why would any civilian need super high-capacity magazines?


'Need' is irrelevant.

Corvus: Which one of these guys signed a permanent assault weapon ban?


Ugh, the assault weapons bans are ridiculously stupid. It's like believing in creationism - it may not have any direct bearing on your capacity to lead, but you deserve a boot to the head anyway.
 
2012-08-30 04:48:22 PM  

bigbadideasinaction: So we should legalize murder, obviously.


Obviously.

*eye roll*
 
2012-08-30 04:48:40 PM  

andersoncouncil42: The only reason to have a huge clip is to kill multiple things/people very quickly - other than giving a gun nut a hardon.

Ban assault rifles, high capacity mags, and automatic weapons
Close the gun show loophole and enforce laws restricting gun ownership
Limit the number of guns that can be purchased and owned.

I'm sorry, but anyone who fights against these things is a shill for the weapons industry or just brainwashed.


The only reason to have a huge magazine is novelty.  They are not useful to kill multiple things/people quickly as they jam all to fark.  
 
Assault rifles aren't really a thing - as defined, you could substitute "scary looking" and be about as accurate.
Automatic weapons are pretty much de facto banned already - I mean, you can get one, but you basically have to get an entire hand up your ass by the ATF and pay thousands and thousands of dollars to not really be able to fire it anywhere.
No problem on rational regulation, including gun shows, hell, mandatory training.
 
You can generally tell people who don't know what they are talking about by whether they mention giant magazines or assault rifles that aren't issued by the military.
 
2012-08-30 04:48:45 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: MithrandirBooga: Literally. Because since they're illegal to possess, the criminals obviously have no issues obtaining them whatsoever, therefore we should legalize them because hey, I might need my own personal defense RPG one day.

I bet you think that no private citizens own any of these items.


Christ you are denser than lead. The point is that since they are illegal to possess, there are far fewer of them in existence and therefore are an extreme rarity. Given the regulations on obtaining these items it is far easier for law enforcement to catch the type of morons who would plot an attack before it even happens. You god damn idiot.

Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.
 
2012-08-30 04:48:53 PM  

Dhusk: Okay, seriously, why would any civilian need super high-capacity magazines?


The reason you hear about "super high-capacity magazines" in shootings is because it's super-rare. The things are incredibly impractical to carry around anywhere but to the range. I'd be surprised if you could find more than a hand full per year out of the thousands of gun related deaths in this country. So... banning them would have a nearly statistically insignificant affect on gun related deaths. Did I already mention that 6 out of 7 people shot with hand guns live?
 
2012-08-30 04:49:43 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: [redacted discussion]

[Heller] makes sense given the way that militias operated at the time the Constitution was adopted. People didn't go out and buy firearms so they could join a militia (or vice-versa). When a militia was needed, the citizens formed and mobilized the militia using the personal arms that they already owned. To require that people first be part of a "well regulated militia" in order to be able to own a firearm wouldn't make much sense. Militias by their nature are generally not permanent or even long lasting organizations. If you had to be in a militia in order to own a firearm, then when the time came that we actually needed an armed militia, most people wouldn't have their own arms to use.


You had me right up to that point.

You really should look at the Second Militia Act of 1792 before you repeat that nonsense. In part, it declares that all citizens (i.e. free males) between 18 and 45, unless otherwise excepted, were to be enrolled in the militia. It further commands:

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder [etc.].

In other words, there was a structure, and men were required to own basic personal arms and equipment. You had to have a musket and bayonet, or a rifle, with ammunition and relevant accessories. There was a structure, and in practice, militia organizations could be long-lasting, although the individual membership might change dramatically from one year to the next. It largely depended on how transient the population was, how the state chose to apply the organizational scheme (per-county was a favored method), and how urgent the need for mutual defense.
 
2012-08-30 04:50:02 PM  

Zik-Zak: I feel like the only reason I need a gun is for self-defense - from other people with guns.


It sure would suck to be the only person without one.

just be sure to wait until the election is over & the prices come down a bit.
 
2012-08-30 04:50:12 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: bulldg4life: No shiat. Of course, most reasonable people long ago mastered the idea of compromise.

Ok...we can ban high capacity magazines when we ban cars that can go faster that say 30 mph.


False equivalency. Cars provide a necessary function in society. High capacity mags do not. Cars are designed for transportation. Guns are designed for killing.

You seriously have to have some mental issues to not be able to see that difference.
 
2012-08-30 04:50:37 PM  

EatHam: Assault rifles aren't really a thing - as defined, you could substitute "scary looking" and be about as accurate.


Assault rifles is a specific term. You're thinking of assault weapons.
 
2012-08-30 04:50:49 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Ok...we can ban high capacity magazines when we ban cars that can go faster that say 30 mph.


What if we imprisoned people or gave them heavy fines and removed their driving privileges if they exceeded posted speed limits to a point considered reckless? That'd be a terrible infringement of freedom, though.
 
2012-08-30 04:50:50 PM  

SurfaceTension: EatHam: make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

Why should my right to own something be predicated on my need to own that thing?

That doesn't answer the question and shows zero insight into the workings of your thoughts regarding such things. If you and I were in a discussion, and you were wanting to convince me to see your side of things, I'd love to hear what you would say besides some glib comment that tells me nothing except that you're being defensive.


Alright - my right to own something has absolutely zero to do with my need for it.  I don't need to own lots of things, maybe I just want to.  Maybe I like to collect them, maybe I think they look neat, maybe I have more money than sense, maybe I like to pop off rounds in the backyard, maybe I am building a replica of the Iron Throne but with dumbass weapons.  Who cares?  
 
2012-08-30 04:51:43 PM  
Banning individual weapons and that type of bullshiat horsetrading that went on with gun control legislation in the 90s always has been and always will be stupid and ineffective. But, the one thing that really should be on the table is the extended clips, like the ones used in the Aurora shooting.

I know Obama will never touch gun control, so it's a moot issue, but banning extended clips would be a practical way for everyone to keep their guns, while trying to keep the bodycounts in massacres to a minimum.
 
2012-08-30 04:51:46 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Dancin_In_Anson: bulldg4life: No shiat. Of course, most reasonable people long ago mastered the idea of compromise.

Ok...we can ban high capacity magazines when we ban cars that can go faster that say 30 mph.

False equivalency. Cars provide a necessary function in society. High capacity mags do not. Cars are designed for transportation. Guns are designed for killing.


You're not addressing his assertion.
 
2012-08-30 04:52:50 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: bigbadideasinaction: So we should legalize murder, obviously.

Obviously.

*eye roll*


Why not? Murder laws don't stop people from murdering people. People say gun laws don't stop people from killing if they are crazy, neither does murder laws. so lets get rid of them too.
 
2012-08-30 04:53:41 PM  

bulldg4life: Dancin_In_Anson: Ok...we can ban high capacity magazines when we ban cars that can go faster that say 30 mph.

What if we imprisoned people or gave them heavy fines and removed their driving privileges if they exceeded posted speed limits to a point considered reckless? That'd be a terrible infringement of freedom, though.


People still speed with speed limits! Therefore we should get rid of all speed limits!!

/this is fun!
 
2012-08-30 04:54:00 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.


Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.
 
2012-08-30 04:55:28 PM  

sprawl15: MithrandirBooga: Dancin_In_Anson: bulldg4life: No shiat. Of course, most reasonable people long ago mastered the idea of compromise.

Ok...we can ban high capacity magazines when we ban cars that can go faster that say 30 mph.

False equivalency. Cars provide a necessary function in society. High capacity mags do not. Cars are designed for transportation. Guns are designed for killing.

You're not addressing his assertion.


That he pulled out of his ass? I'm a cyclist and cars going under 30 can kill just as easily as over 30. There's literally no sense in anything he says.
 
2012-08-30 04:56:35 PM  

the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.


Well guns in general are the biggest cause of homicide so by your logic you are making we should crack down on ALL guns then.
 
2012-08-30 04:56:50 PM  

imontheinternet: But, the one thing that really should be on the table is the extended clips, like the ones used in the Aurora shooting.


the large capacity magazine jammed.  He switched to using multiple weapons.  
 
2012-08-30 04:57:10 PM  

sprawl15: You're not addressing his assertion.


That's because the assertion is bullshiat and irrelevant.
 
2012-08-30 04:58:33 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?


Because "Wolverines!"?
 
2012-08-30 04:58:49 PM  

sprawl15: Assault rifles is a specific term. You're thinking of assault weapons.


What exactly is the specific term "assault rife?" Do you mean AR, as in AR-15? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, as in the Armalite model 15, the first of its kind. Generally speaking people use the term "assault rife" to mean any of a number of military styled weapons modeled after M16s and Kalashnikovs (AK47s) but it doesn't really have a specific meaning as such. I dunno if that's what you actually meant, just clarifying for any other readers.
 
2012-08-30 04:58:57 PM  

the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.


www.exposemittromney.com

These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
 
2012-08-30 04:59:01 PM  

the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.


Well obviously since there's no deaths from atomic bombings and RPG's, those should be legalized too. I mean even if they are legal, sure there may be only one preventable attack every few weeks, but that's far less than the sum total of deaths, so therefore let's go nuts!



Or, in sane world where I live in, we outlaw devices whose only purpose to exist is to kill, maim, and destroy things and were used to perform those actions on a regular basis when they were legal. But I guess that makes far too much sense for some people.
 
2012-08-30 04:59:30 PM  

MithrandirBooga: That he pulled out of his ass?


Sure. If you're going to attempt to address it, why not be honest instead of pulling things out of your own ass?

You aren't going to win a shiatfest by being the smelliest.

Corvus: Well guns in general are the biggest cause of homicide so by your logic you are making we should crack down on ALL guns then.


Were we to go after the types of guns used in crime based on the frequency of use, we'd go after revolvers before assault rifles.
 
2012-08-30 05:00:19 PM  

LibertyHiller: You really should look at the Second Militia Act of 1792 before you repeat that nonsense. In part, it declares that all citizens (i.e. free males) between 18 and 45, unless otherwise excepted, were to be enrolled in the militia.


And 220 years later we have a standing military that we spend $700,000,000,000 a year on...

What's your f***ing point? We all need muskets?
 
2012-08-30 05:00:25 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.


Which is why we see RPG attacks and atomic bombings literally every day here in the united states. Literally. Because since they're illegal to possess, the criminals obviously have no issues obtaining them whatsoever, therefore we should legalize them because hey, I might need my own personal defense RPG one day.


You can buy a M203 grenade launcher and high explosive 40mm grenades cheaper than a round trip ticket to Australia. i can't remember the last time I heard abotu a civilian using one of them for murder though.
 
2012-08-30 05:00:30 PM  

sprawl15: Were we to go after the types of guns used in crime based on the frequency of use, we'd go after revolvers before assault rifles.


Ok so you are for that then? or is this one of those BS arguments that only work when it helps one side?
 
2012-08-30 05:01:24 PM  

Corvus: the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.

Well guns in general are the biggest cause of homicide so by your logic you are making we should crack down on ALL guns then.


How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?
 
2012-08-30 05:03:00 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


I would ask the same for people that have cars that can go faster than 70 MPH. I have to say that both are owned for the same reason. People that like them, and want them, enjoy them.

The number of bullets a gun can hold is irrelevant. Period. Even if they are taken back to the level of the assault gun ban, it wouldn't make a difference in the shootings. Go to youtube and watch people that do competitive shooting and how fast they can reload. Keep the crazies from getting the guns and there are less shootings. If you figure a way to do that, tell the world and solve the problem of the mass shootings. You may even make a buck or two
 
2012-08-30 05:03:55 PM  

the_geek: sprawl15: Assault rifles is a specific term. You're thinking of assault weapons.

What exactly is the specific term "assault rife?" Do you mean AR, as in AR-15? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, as in the Armalite model 15, the first of its kind. Generally speaking people use the term "assault rife" to mean any of a number of military styled weapons modeled after M16s and Kalashnikovs (AK47s) but it doesn't really have a specific meaning as such. I dunno if that's what you actually meant, just clarifying for any other readers.


STG-44, you mean.

Strictly speaking, assault rifles have a mid-power round, selective fire, a stock, and are fed via magazine. They're by definition included in the ban on automatic weapons that EatHam mentioned (due to selective fire).

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It's an assault weapon under the AWB, but that's a totally different definition and mutually exclusive from assault rifles since assault weapons, by definition, are semi-automatic. Assault weapons also fit in to the "scary looking" ban that he was talking about.
 
2012-08-30 05:04:16 PM  

Corvus:
Well guns in general are the biggest cause of homicide so by your logic you are making we should crack down on ALL guns then.


We have already cracked down on guns quite a bit. In the entire country you're required to pass a background check before purchasing any firearm from a dealer. In most states there's also a waiting period. While weapons that are styled similarly to military weapons are easy to get, actual fully automatic weapons are virtually unheard of amongst most gun owners and are prohibitively expensive for most people.

I was specifically responding to the argument that it would somehow be helpful to ban high capacity magazines or military styled weapons.

I feel it's important to note here that most hunting rifles are FAR more powerful than your typical AR-15 which shoots a tiny little round and is outlawed for hunting deer in most states because it's deemed cruel.. the weapon is not powerful enough to kill a deer in a single shot in most cases.

I would further again note that hand guns are not as dangerous as most people would think, 6 out of 7 people shot with hand guns live.
 
2012-08-30 05:05:09 PM  

violentsalvation: Corvus: the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.

Well guns in general are the biggest cause of homicide so by your logic you are making we should crack down on ALL guns then.

How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?


Here you go:

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6] In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[7]
 
2012-08-30 05:05:51 PM  

the_geek: sprawl15: Assault rifles is a specific term. You're thinking of assault weapons.

What exactly is the specific term "assault rife?" Do you mean AR, as in AR-15? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, as in the Armalite model 15, the first of its kind. Generally speaking people use the term "assault rife" to mean any of a number of military styled weapons modeled after M16s and Kalashnikovs (AK47s) but it doesn't really have a specific meaning as such. I dunno if that's what you actually meant, just clarifying for any other readers.


I always thought assault rifle was one issued by the military that had a selector for fully auto or burst. And that assault weapon meant a civilian version that was only semi-auto or bolt.
 
2012-08-30 05:06:14 PM  

the_geek: I feel it's important to note here that most hunting rifles are FAR more powerful than your typical AR-15 which shoots a tiny little round and is outlawed for hunting deer in most states because it's deemed cruel.. the weapon is not powerful enough to kill a deer in a single shot in most cases.


Power and rounds are two different things. People are concerned more about the mass killing ability.
 
2012-08-30 05:07:07 PM  

violentsalvation: Corvus: the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.

Well guns in general are the biggest cause of homicide so by your logic you are making we should crack down on ALL guns then.

How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?


Sorry highlighted the wrong part:



There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6] In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[7]

There you go!
 
2012-08-30 05:07:34 PM  

Corvus: 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[7]


www.sinepil.org

"The only question is: How do we arm the other 40%? "
 
2012-08-30 05:08:03 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Dancin_In_Anson: bulldg4life: No shiat. Of course, most reasonable people long ago mastered the idea of compromise.

Ok...we can ban high capacity magazines when we ban cars that can go faster that say 30 mph.

False equivalency. Cars provide a necessary function in society. High capacity mags do not. Cars are designed for transportation. Guns are designed for killing.

You seriously have to have some mental issues to not be able to see that difference.


Sports cars are not designed for transportation, they are designed for speed. More people are killed every year by cars than guns, by far. Most vehicle accidents involve excessive speed or reckless driving.

If you can't see that's its a very valid analogy, then you're either ignorant or just plain disingenuous.

Or perhaps he should have asked "Should sports cars that do more than the legal speed limit in the state with the highest speed limit be banned"?
 
2012-08-30 05:08:10 PM  

Corvus: Ok so you are for that then? or is this one of those BS arguments that only work when it helps one side?


It's a silly argument to go after certain types of guns "because they're more dangerous" because when you're trying to allocate money to mitigate dangers to society, that danger needs to be measured in terms of danger per-capita. And when you start doing that, guns drop off the list of biggest concerns.
 
2012-08-30 05:08:16 PM  

violentsalvation: How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?


Do you think that drugs can cause overdoses?

/'cause' means _____
 
2012-08-30 05:09:53 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Ok so you are for that then? or is this one of those BS arguments that only work when it helps one side?

It's a silly argument to go after certain types of guns "because they're more dangerous" because when you're trying to allocate money to mitigate dangers to society, that danger needs to be measured in terms of danger per-capita. And when you start doing that, guns drop off the list of biggest concerns.


You didn't answer my question. The top cause of homicide and suicides is a low concern?
 
2012-08-30 05:10:20 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Well obviously since there's no deaths from atomic bombings and RPG's, those should be legalized too. I mean even if they are legal, sure there may be only one preventable attack every few weeks, but that's far less than the sum total of deaths, so therefore let's go nuts!

Or, in sane world where I live in, we outlaw devices whose only purpose to exist is to kill, maim, and destroy things and were used to perform those actions on a regular basis when they were legal. But I guess that makes far too much sense for some people.


All forms of explosives are highly regulated. I'm okay with that. Gun powder is not an explosive. If you ever had a pile of gun powder and set it on fire you'd be quite disappointed. Things are legal and there's millions of legal users in this country. If we're going to ban something that millions of people safely and legally use in this country it's important to see what the affects of its use are (legal and illegal) and what we hope to accomplish by potentially increasing regulations on it. I think it's plainly obvious from the statistics involved that high capacity magazines are mostly harmless. Since people here are suggesting that high capacity magazines *should* be outlawed, I don't think it's unfair that I ask them to back up their claims of danger with real world statistics.
 
2012-08-30 05:11:09 PM  

bulldg4life: tangentman: Funny thing. Romney actually signed gun control legislation into law in MA when he was Governor. If Obama does respond, he should bring that up.

He should spend the debates doing just that.

Moderator: President Obama, your healthcare bill has received a large amount of scrutiny. Do you feel it was a success and is there anything about it that you would change?
Obama: Well, that's a good question. First, I'd like to say that Mitt Romney's signature legislation while he was Governor of Mass was a great start. Mitt Romney suggested it as a model for the nation some years ago and I took that to heart. His brave and honorable stand to fight for the uninsured is a great symbol for America. Without Mitt Romney, Obamacare would never have been considered for the nation.

Moderator: President Obama, during your first term, you expanded certain gun rights to the surprise of many. With the recent mass shootings in our nation, do you feel that was in error? What gun control issues do you see in a possible second term?
Obama: Well, that's another good question. You know, gun control legislation is something I truly believe in. And, like Mitt Romney, I support an assault weapons ban and the Brady bill. I am no hero for the NRA, just like Mitt Romney.

Repeat for abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, the economy...


I generally don't have enough patience/attention span/booze to stand national politics, but I might watch the debates just for the possibility of THIS. It could be epic.
 
2012-08-30 05:12:03 PM  

Azlefty: .357 is the proven king of handguns in stopping a threat.


Actually,that isn't true. There are countless studies done by the FBI showing that the differences between most modern protection rounds are negligible. The biggest difference comes in how many you can carry. 380 and 9 mm are pretty popular for that reason. You can carry a bit more of the smaller rounds (380 and 9mm) than you can the larger (40 caliber and above)
 
2012-08-30 05:12:41 PM  

Corvus: You didn't answer my question. The top cause of homicide and suicides is a low concern?


Compared to what? You're making a list of things to be concerned about, what qualifications would an issue need to have to make it on that list?

Alright, homicide's on there. So's suicide. Cool. Is malaria? Is drowning? Is war? Is drug overdosing?

Define what you want to include in the discussion.
 
2012-08-30 05:12:50 PM  

Corvus: There you go!


The argument, which you clearly missed, is that the guns are not the cause of the murders. The people pulling the triggers are the cause of the murders.
 
2012-08-30 05:13:31 PM  

The Bruce Dickinson: LibertyHiller: You really should look at the Second Militia Act of 1792 before you repeat that nonsense. In part, it declares that all citizens (i.e. free males) between 18 and 45, unless otherwise excepted, were to be enrolled in the militia.

And 220 years later we have a standing military that we spend $700,000,000,000 a year on...

What's your f***ing point? We all need muskets?


Nope, just that Pokey.Clyde was working with misinformation about the nature of the militia.

On top of that, muskets in the 21st century would be pointless. A well-made M4, on the other hand, would be perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the Act.

Is it your point that, since we have a standing military, the Second Amendment is redundant?
 
2012-08-30 05:14:44 PM  

randomjsa: Actually I look at this summer and say "We need more protection for conceal carry rights"

There's a reason these shooting incidents keep happening in places where the shooter is relatively certain nobody is going to shoot back. The Aurora talking point of "he had body armor!" is ignorant by the way so you can save it since I'm tired of seeing that talking point get ripped apart in five seconds.


This logic employs the same fallacy to a rock that keeps tigers away. Correlation does not equal causation.

To think that because conceal carry is not allowed, more gun sprees occur or are not being prevented is not based in any facts in reality, only in the mind of fantastical crazy person like most small penis gun nuts.
 
2012-08-30 05:15:08 PM  
Is this another "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." threads?

*glances through thread*

And crazy people with guns kill lots of people at a time.

Maybe we should interpret the "well-regulated" language of the Second Amendment to include keeping weapons out of the hands of the insane.

/*sigh* I know. That's crazy talk.
 
2012-08-30 05:16:15 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: violentsalvation: How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?

Do you think that drugs can cause overdoses?

/'cause' means _____


A person overdoses on the drugs they chose use. Well, they usually have a choice in the matter.
 
2012-08-30 05:17:16 PM  
Sorry, farkdom. There used to be a "one of those" right after another and before the open quote.
 
2012-08-30 05:20:58 PM  
Are we back to guns not killing people again? Eric Holder will be glad to hear.
 
2012-08-30 05:22:51 PM  

LibertyHiller: The Bruce Dickinson: LibertyHiller: You really should look at the Second Militia Act of 1792 before you repeat that nonsense. In part, it declares that all citizens (i.e. free males) between 18 and 45, unless otherwise excepted, were to be enrolled in the militia.

And 220 years later we have a standing military that we spend $700,000,000,000 a year on...

What's your f***ing point? We all need muskets?

Nope, just that Pokey.Clyde was working with misinformation about the nature of the militia.

On top of that, muskets in the 21st century would be pointless. A well-made M4, on the other hand, would be perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the Act.

Is it your point that, since we have a standing military, the Second Amendment is redundant?


My point is that we no longer have a need for a standing militia...or muskets, except they look cool.

Anybody who needs a gun to defend himself is a PUSSY.

Anyone who needs a gun to hunt is also a PUSSY.

Your hands, a nice dagger and some skill is all you need...

PUSSIES!
 
2012-08-30 05:23:52 PM  

ssa5: All I care about is the day I can legally own a tank, to hell with rush hour traffic forever.


Surely you can? You can in the UK anyway, Chris Eubanks (a ex-boxer) had one for a while, and there are numerous others in private hands. You can't have one with a functioning main gun of course (or any other weaponry), and presumably the insurance costs are pretty extortionate (particularly the third party damage part), and they can be road legal as well - so I would be surprised if you can't own one in the US.
 
2012-08-30 05:24:05 PM  
Meh - nobody but a few fanatics think gun control is an issue right now. I guess the GOP is trying to breathe life into an issue they think can work for them. Too bad nobody outside the gun-fapper circle jerk cares.
 
2012-08-30 05:25:47 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Are we back to guns not killing people again? Eric Holder will be glad to hear.


Took longer than I expected for "b-b-but Fast and Furious!"
 
2012-08-30 05:26:31 PM  

The Bruce Dickinson: LibertyHiller: The Bruce Dickinson: LibertyHiller: You really should look at the Second Militia Act of 1792 before you repeat that nonsense. In part, it declares that all citizens (i.e. free males) between 18 and 45, unless otherwise excepted, were to be enrolled in the militia.

And 220 years later we have a standing military that we spend $700,000,000,000 a year on...

What's your f***ing point? We all need muskets?

Nope, just that Pokey.Clyde was working with misinformation about the nature of the militia.

On top of that, muskets in the 21st century would be pointless. A well-made M4, on the other hand, would be perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the Act.

Is it your point that, since we have a standing military, the Second Amendment is redundant?

My point is that we no longer have a need for a standing militia...or muskets, except they look cool.

Anybody who needs a gun to defend himself is a PUSSY.



Yea, a 100 lbs women should totally be able to fight off a 200 lbs male attacker. Same with those losers who work at convenience stores who might be robbed by 2 or 3 people.
 
2012-08-30 05:29:44 PM  
Guuuunnnnn threeeeaaaadddddd!!

*slobbers all over mobile device*

*checks thread's content*

Dammit, the same old sh*t.

/it was expected, so I can't be too disappointed
 
2012-08-30 05:30:23 PM  

MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG?


And yet there are a hell of a lot more people with these in their possession than you could ever imagine.


Carth: You can buy a M203 grenade launcher and high explosive 40mm grenades cheaper than a round trip ticket to Australia. i can't remember the last time I heard abotu a civilian using one of them for murder though.


Go figure.

bulldg4life: What if we imprisoned people or gave them heavy fines and removed their driving privileges if they exceeded posted speed limits to a point considered reckless?


Kind of like imprisoning people for using high firearms with high capacity magazines for murder. Hell of concept.
 
2012-08-30 05:31:34 PM  

immrlizard: Azlefty: .357 is the proven king of handguns in stopping a threat.

Actually,that isn't true. There are countless studies done by the FBI showing that the differences between most modern protection rounds are negligible. The biggest difference comes in how many you can carry. 380 and 9 mm are pretty popular for that reason. You can carry a bit more of the smaller rounds (380 and 9mm) than you can the larger (40 caliber and above)


I think there is plenty of room for the argument that being able to put more rounds downrange can be better than size in many cases.

I can't believe the FBi would actually say the differences in caliber are negligible though. That's just silly, unless they were talking about a select few like .40/9mm/.38.

The the Weeners, as an owner of a .357 I'm not sure I'd call it the king. When my particular S&W model 28 was made it was the king... however a much more powerful weapon known as the 44mag was made just a couple years later (late 50's).

And now, 60 years later there are even more options. I wouldn't stick my nose up at either, but everything from the 500 to The Judge could easily claim "king" depending on the specific application.
 
2012-08-30 05:31:53 PM  

Pfactor: PolloDiablo: potential for harm

Gun owners: "I've never shot the place up. Why are you so afraid of me?"
You: "We are afraid of the gun - not the man"
Gun owners: "But the gun is just a tool with no will of its own. If you fear the gun you really fear me but don't have the guts to say so".
You: ...
Gun owners: "And WE are the ones accused of being illogical, fear driven, and dishonest?"


Nope, I'm afraid of morons and psychopaths with guns. Better mental health services combined with much better background checks.

If you're mentally stable and intend to waste money shooting a machine gun for the hell of it, fine. Not stable? I don't want you carrying even a single shot handgun.
 
2012-08-30 05:32:06 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Kind of like imprisoning people for using high firearms with high capacity magazines for murder. Hell of concept.


I didn't say the people in the cars had killed anyone. They had simply exceeded posted limits.
 
2012-08-30 05:32:30 PM  

The Bruce Dickinson: LibertyHiller: The Bruce Dickinson: LibertyHiller: You really should look at the Second Militia Act of 1792 before you repeat that nonsense. In part, it declares that all citizens (i.e. free males) between 18 and 45, unless otherwise excepted, were to be enrolled in the militia.

And 220 years later we have a standing military that we spend $700,000,000,000 a year on...

What's your f***ing point? We all need muskets?

Nope, just that Pokey.Clyde was working with misinformation about the nature of the militia.

On top of that, muskets in the 21st century would be pointless. A well-made M4, on the other hand, would be perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the Act.

Is it your point that, since we have a standing military, the Second Amendment is redundant?

My point is that we no longer have a need for a standing militia...or muskets, except they look cool.


The militia, or the muskets?

Anybody who needs a gun to defend himself is a PUSSY.

Anyone who needs a gun to hunt is also a PUSSY.

Your hands, a nice dagger and some skill is all you need...

PUSSIES!


Oh. Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
 
2012-08-30 05:33:48 PM  

qorkfiend: Took longer than I expected for "b-b-but Fast and Furious!"


But nothing. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, also Eric Holder is personally responsible for killing an ATF agent because the ATF let someone get a gun.
 
2012-08-30 05:34:47 PM  
One of the very few Republican platform pieces I am fine with.
 
2012-08-30 05:35:11 PM  

violentsalvation: Vlad_the_Inaner: violentsalvation: How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?

Do you think that drugs can cause overdoses?

/'cause' means _____

A person overdoses on the drugs they chose use. Well, they usually have a choice in the matter.


So is "There would be no overdoses without drugs" a lemma or not?
 
2012-08-30 05:36:41 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: qorkfiend: Took longer than I expected for "b-b-but Fast and Furious!"

But nothing. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, also Eric Holder is personally responsible for killing an ATF agent because the ATF let someone get a gun.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-30 05:37:35 PM  

bulldg4life: Dancin_In_Anson: Kind of like imprisoning people for using high firearms with high capacity magazines for murder. Hell of concept.

I didn't say the people in the cars had killed anyone. They had simply exceeded posted limits.


Its okay, he's building your argument for you so he can knock it down.

/guns don't kill people, dumbass gun politics do
 
2012-08-30 05:37:49 PM  
Or wait, border patrol agent.
 
2012-08-30 05:38:55 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


That's funny, because every single farkin' sporting firearm, with *VERY* few exceptions, is based upon a military design.
 
2012-08-30 05:39:20 PM  

EatHam: make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

Why should my right to own something be predicated on my need to own that thing?


So can I have 10 pounds of heroin and an nuclear weapon please? I don't need it, but it sure would be fun.
 
2012-08-30 05:39:46 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: violentsalvation: Vlad_the_Inaner: violentsalvation: How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?

Do you think that drugs can cause overdoses?

/'cause' means _____

A person overdoses on the drugs they chose use. Well, they usually have a choice in the matter.

So is "There would be no overdoses without drugs" a lemma or not?


Do you consider people overdosing on huffing things like butane or gasoline drug related? We'd have to ban of ton of things to stop people from overdosing.
 
2012-08-30 05:41:13 PM  

Cyclonic Cooking Action: So can I have 10 pounds of heroin and an nuclear weapon please? I don't need it, but it sure would be fun.


I'd have no problem with you having the heroin. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, would violate our non-proliferation treaties.
 
2012-08-30 05:43:21 PM  

Bontesla: Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.

Did they utilize legal or illegal weaponry to execute those mass shootings?

Let's be honest - an assault rifle is pretty efective. A missile is more effective. If the goal is the biggest casualty possible and they selected a deadly legal weapon and not a deadlier illegal weapon . . . Then it certainly is an effective deterrent.


Please define an "assault rifle". Difficulty: Don't describe cosmetic aspects of the gun. Extra difficulty: Remove all guns that have a "non-assault rifle" type considered a "hunting rifle", unless the difference is something other than looks.
 
2012-08-30 05:45:10 PM  

bk3k: One of the very few Republican platform pieces I am fine with.


Me too, but I can't really support them even on this because they're vehemently opposed to other things that would truly help. Like-

1- ending the drug war
2- making public education -especially in poor urban areas- a top priority
3- working to take the stigma away from mental illness
 
2012-08-30 05:45:45 PM  

bulldg4life: I didn't say the people in the cars had killed anyone. They had simply exceeded posted limits


In other words they broke a law by using their vehicle in a certain way.

Go on.
 
2012-08-30 05:46:44 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.


So the better thing is to allow belt-fed ammo for all handguns?
 
2012-08-30 05:48:48 PM  

Mikey1969: Please define an "assault rifle". Difficulty: Don't describe cosmetic aspects of the gun. Extra difficulty: Remove all guns that have a "non-assault rifle" type considered a "hunting rifle", unless the difference is something other than looks.


There's no such thing as a hunting rifle.
 
2012-08-30 05:49:55 PM  

Carth: Vlad_the_Inaner: violentsalvation: Vlad_the_Inaner: violentsalvation: How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?

Do you think that drugs can cause overdoses?

/'cause' means _____

A person overdoses on the drugs they chose use. Well, they usually have a choice in the matter.

So is "There would be no overdoses without drugs" a lemma or not?

Do you consider people overdosing on huffing things like butane or gasoline drug related? We'd have to ban of ton of things to stop people from overdosing.


Actually I'm just leading up to saying the people talking about guns causing homicides are trying to convey that gun related homicides are impossible without guns. Because implying that guns can aim and shoot themselves is just a premise for a bad Stephen King movie, so you should have looked for another interpretation of what they said.

/They also avoid being told "you said 'gun' twice"
 
2012-08-30 05:50:25 PM  

sprawl15: Cyclonic Cooking Action: So can I have 10 pounds of heroin and an nuclear weapon please? I don't need it, but it sure would be fun.

I'd have no problem with you having the heroin. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, would violate our non-proliferation treaties.


Yeah, but if they outlaw nuclear weapons only outlaws will have nuclear weapons. What about a big fuel air bomb?
 
2012-08-30 05:50:44 PM  

clancifer: Dancin_In_Anson: make me some tea: Why do you need these things?

Why not?

Well, there we go. The next campus or theater shooter will thank you for such an honest reply.


While he phrased it perhaps excessively tersely, he's basically correct.

There's no evidence that magazine capacity limits do anything to curb gun crime, and you can't make things illegal because you imagine that banning them would help or that they're harmful. That's not how the US is supposed to work.

Even really stupid ideas like prohibition have some sort of causative link established between what they're trying to ban and some harmful effect, whereas there's no evidence that this form of gun control (limiting magazine sizes) does anything whatsoever to crime rates. The AWB, which instituted the "no guns that look scary to dumb senators" rule, did nothing perceptible to the crime rate (it was in the same slow decline it's been in for a long time before and after), so I'm talking ineffective empirically, not theoretically. People need to leave off the gun issue for the same reason they need to lay off the idea of re-banning abortion: we've tried it the other way and it empirically does not help.

//Whereas bans on things like explosives have, in fact, demonstrably reduced the destructive power of, say, domestic terrorists. So restricting nukes and bazookas to specially permitted people is fine.
 
2012-08-30 05:51:17 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.

So the better thing is to allow belt-fed ammo for all handguns?


I didn't know there was "belt-fed ammo" for handguns. I'm intrigued. Can you show me these belt-fed handguns?
 
2012-08-30 05:51:19 PM  
Advice to Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party:

Don't fight the Republicans on this one. Ignore it. If you fight them on it, you'll lose. Support for gun control is at the lowest point in almost 50 years. The number of guns and ammunition being sold is increasing every year (It's practically the only growth industry in the US in the last few years). After decades of decline, the number of hunting licenses has increased in the last few years. Then too, we have the Heller and McDonald decisions, which sharply limit the things you can do.

If you let the Republicans make an issue out of this, and you fight them, you will lose rural and suburban Democrats, and you won't *GAIN* anything for it. The number of people who consistently care about gun rights far outweigh (and out-spend, and out-vote) the number of people who consistently care about gun control.

In essence, this is a trap. If you want to win the election, don't fall for it.

/Pro-gun.
//Not a Rethuglican or a Demonrat.
 
2012-08-30 05:53:59 PM  

dittybopper: Advice to Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party:

Don't fight the Republicans on this one. Ignore it. If you fight them on it, you'll lose. Support for gun control is at the lowest point in almost 50 years. The number of guns and ammunition being sold is increasing every year (It's practically the only growth industry in the US in the last few years). After decades of decline, the number of hunting licenses has increased in the last few years. Then too, we have the Heller and McDonald decisions, which sharply limit the things you can do.

If you let the Republicans make an issue out of this, and you fight them, you will lose rural and suburban Democrats, and you won't *GAIN* anything for it. The number of people who consistently care about gun rights far outweigh (and out-spend, and out-vote) the number of people who consistently care about gun control.

In essence, this is a trap. If you want to win the election, don't fall for it.

/Pro-gun.
//Not a Rethuglican or a Demonrat.


This isn't the Democratic Party from the 90s, they're the ones setting the traps for the Republicans now, it's not the other way around.
 
2012-08-30 05:55:43 PM  

clevershark: Serious question here -- why do so many of you feel that you need to carry a gun daily? Obviously I'm not talking if you're a cop or a soldier, but a civilian.


Fear and paranoia.
 
2012-08-30 05:55:51 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


What's a 'military-grade firearm?' Like a howitzer or stinger missile?

The 100 rnd large capacity magazine in Aurora saved a lot of lives by being unreliable and failing (whence why the military doesn't use them). If he had used California Approved magazines, a lot more people would be dead today.
 
2012-08-30 05:57:47 PM  

itsdan: make me some tea: (disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)

The military wouldn't be particularly interested in most of the weapons people are seeking to ban.


The 82nd Airborne Division tested the 90-round "C-Mags" for their M4s and M16s, to basically try to turn an M4 into a super light-weight M249 SAW for mountain fighting in Afghanistan. They jammed so often that they abandoned the idea. That's what happened to the Aurora shooter. It jammed after only a fewer shots.

That piece of shiat giganto mag ironically saved lives.
 
2012-08-30 05:58:14 PM  

dittybopper: Don't fight the Republicans on this one. Ignore it. If you fight them on it, you'll lose


They probably won't, if just to keep a possible debate statement "There is only one person on this stage who signed a firearms restricting bill into law, and it's not me"

also everyone knows its over

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-30 05:59:32 PM  

the biggest redneck here: bk3k: One of the very few Republican platform pieces I am fine with.

Me too, but I can't really support them even on this because they're vehemently opposed to other things that would truly help. Like-

1- ending the drug war
2- making public education -especially in poor urban areas- a top priority
3- working to take the stigma away from mental illness


You forgot "would send us into a depression".

/we nearly got that from the 'six year reign of epic retardation' during 2001-2007
//and the gop's current platform doesn't exactly differ from said brilliant plans
 
2012-08-30 05:59:55 PM  
But what if Obama's Muslim New Black Panther army tries to come on my property to rape and kill my family? How will I stand my ground?

Guns don't kill people. Minorities do.
 
2012-08-30 06:00:34 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-08-30 06:00:40 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Mikey1969: Please define an "assault rifle". Difficulty: Don't describe cosmetic aspects of the gun. Extra difficulty: Remove all guns that have a "non-assault rifle" type considered a "hunting rifle", unless the difference is something other than looks.

There's no such thing as a hunting rifle.


Assuming you're serious, what do you calls made for and used exclusively for hunting?
 
2012-08-30 06:01:33 PM  
/call rifles
 
2012-08-30 06:01:43 PM  

Gyrfalcon: So the better thing is to allow belt-fed ammo for all handguns?


Is there such a thing? Hell, I'd love to try one out!

Fark It: I didn't know there was "belt-fed ammo" for handguns. I'm intrigued. Can you show me these belt-fed handguns?


I know, right?!
 
2012-08-30 06:02:14 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: violentsalvation: Vlad_the_Inaner: violentsalvation: How are guns the cause of homicide? Are they malfunctioning?

Do you think that drugs can cause overdoses?

/'cause' means _____

A person overdoses on the drugs they chose use. Well, they usually have a choice in the matter.

So is "There would be no overdoses without drugs" a lemma or not?


Damn, maybe we should prohibit drug use.
 
2012-08-30 06:02:20 PM  

the biggest redneck here: Assuming you're serious, what do you calls made for and used exclusively for hunting?


The same thing I calls made for and used exclusively for assaulting: Ginger.
 
2012-08-30 06:02:55 PM  
Also, bad assumption.
 
2012-08-30 06:06:43 PM  

Fark It: Gyrfalcon: Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

Well I guess you're right. The people that broke the laws regarding murder would be inclined to follow a high capacity ban.

So the better thing is to allow belt-fed ammo for all handguns?

I didn't know there was "belt-fed ammo" for handguns. I'm intrigued. Can you show me these belt-fed handguns?


I doubt there are--yet--but it's the only way I could imagine "unlimited capacity" for any type of small arms.
 
2012-08-30 06:06:50 PM  

andersoncouncil42: EatHam: make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

Why should my right to own something be predicated on my need to own that thing?

It wouldn't be. It's still a valid question on it's own. If it is an inherently dangerous thing with little or no benefit to society, then no, not yours.

The only reason to have a huge clip is to kill multiple things/people very quickly - other than giving a gun nut a hardon.

Ban assault rifles, high capacity mags, and automatic weapons
Close the gun show loophole and enforce laws restricting gun ownership
Limit the number of guns that can be purchased and owned.

I'm sorry, but anyone who fights against these things is a shill for the weapons industry or just brainwashed. The 2nd amendment was never intended for this. Even if you go for the "we must defend ourselves from a tyrannical gubment" bullshiat, that ship has sailed. No militia will ever be able to stand up to the US military or even local law enforcement unless you think citizens should be able to arm themselves with an arsenal of tanks, rpgs and bombs. If you think along those lines, I have a nice padded white room to show you. 

Otherwise, keep your handguns, rifles, and shotguns and be happy with that. To be honest, handguns should be illegal too, but the ship has sailed on that one as well. It works both ways.


What would you say is a reasonable limit on number of firearms per person?, per household?

I will use a legit firearm activity - hunting.

I have personally hunted duck, deer, elk, mountain goat, black bear, coyote & a few others. The ideal firearm for each of those varies. In a sense a weapon is a tool for killing. Just like any other tool, they have specific uses.

Expand this. As a responsible firearm owner/user, I would be negligent if my children were not at the vaery least aware of what a firearm does and how to safely handle one. It would be far better if they were proficient in there use. A .22rifle is ideal for this. Low kick, easy to handle. When shoukd you start teaching your kids is up to each parent.

So right now I am at around 6 firearms, give or take a couple. That is just for me. I would stil want the .22 for target shooting since the rounds are cheap, but still allow for practice of the basics.

Is that too many?

/on mobile, appologizes for typos
 
2012-08-30 06:06:57 PM  
I'm going to speak in hypothetical terms:

Hypothetically, I live in New Jersey, a state not very friendly to gun ownership. How much profit can I make if I hypothetically go to an out-of-state gun show and buy an AR-15, then drive to Newark and sell it to a crack dealer?

Just thinking about supplemental income.
 
2012-08-30 06:06:59 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


Oh, I don't know. Maybe because of shiat like this. Link
 
2012-08-30 06:09:56 PM  
"Okay guys, people are starting to figure out that our economic plan is basically 'Gut the middle class and cut taxes for the wealthy'. We need a distraction. What's been in the news lately that we can exploit? Mass shootings? Great! Let's propose looser gun restrictions and then watch the liberals lose their shiat!! Then the Republicans will react by circulating fresh rumors that the scary black man in the White House will outlaw all weapons if he gets a second term, which will probably make Hotmail's server farm explode from all of the FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD: emails.That should buy us another week or so. I can't believe these f*cking idiots keep falling for this shiat. It's like shooting fish in a barrel! It's almost not even fun anymore."
 
2012-08-30 06:13:53 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: vernonFL: These guys can't even regulate their cheeseburger fries and milkshake combo intake.

You aren't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

PolloDiablo: Because their usefulness for home defense or sport is far far far outweighed by the potential for harm and destruction posed by their private ownership. There is absolutely no realistic scenario where an RPG is going to be appropriate tool to protect myself with, yet there are countless scenarios, both intentional and accidental, where owning an RPG could cause harm to numerous people around me.

I like to think that living in a country like America I can have at least a somewhat reasonible expectation of general safety. Yes, I could be run down by a car at any moment and die, shiat happens, but I like to think that I don't also have to worry about if the redneck next door is tinkering around in his backyard with high explosives

You aren't either, are you? Nobody is talking about private citizens owning RPGs. And you can take your racial slur and cram it right up your ass, you bigot.


So I'm clear, do you usually just wander into conversations and throw around insults without any real substance? You're not helping.
 
2012-08-30 06:15:58 PM  

PiffMan420: I'm going to speak in hypothetical terms:

Hypothetically, I live in New Jersey, a state not very friendly to gun ownership. How much profit can I make if I hypothetically go to an out-of-state gun show and buy an AR-15, then drive to Newark and sell it to a crack dealer?

Just thinking about supplemental income.


I'm not sure exactly, but I'm willing to bet you'd get a free place to live, and free meals as well, for quite a while.
 
2012-08-30 06:23:43 PM  

Fark It: Magorn: what the 100-round clip used by the Aurora shoter (which thankfully jammed because the design is crap) may look like:
[betaco.com image 452x402]


and gun-enthusiasts? Just a note: you have a lot harder time arguing your guns aren't some sort of Phallic-substitute when you use magazines like that in them

First off, that's a magazine. Secondly, it's for a Glock chambered in 9mm, not an AR chambered in 5.56.

/you antis really need to educate yourselves, every time you post it's "a series of tubes..." all over again.


So, the magazine didn't look like a dick?
 
2012-08-30 06:28:04 PM  
This just doesn't resonate with me. I am a gun owner, and I don't want more restrictive gun laws - but then, I don't see anyone of note trying to pass any. I don't have any urgent desire to make gun laws more lenient, either. I'm fine the way things are, in that regard, pretty much.
Do the Republicans have anything that matters to talk about?
 
2012-08-30 06:31:19 PM  

sprawl15: Dr. Whoof: That's not to say that there shouldn't be gun laws. There are laws for flying, for driving, etc. We have them because quite honestly no matter how responsible you are, someone else might not be, and that's too much of a risk. It's a balance, between what we make illegal because it's for the best for everyone and what we allow because we're a nation based on the idea of freedom. Extremes either way are bad.

Exactly.

Empty Matchbook: The SOLE purpose is to maim or kill OR to practice at being more effective at maiming or killing.

lol


Eh, the point still stands as you could say they're the same thing.
 
2012-08-30 06:31:21 PM  
Unlimited magazine sizes, lol. Most "huge capacity" magazines are utter junk.
 
2012-08-30 06:32:55 PM  

Empty Matchbook: Eh, the point still stands as you could say they're the same thing.


Paper targets are people, my friend.
 
2012-08-30 06:33:54 PM  

trotsky: Unlimited magazine sizes, lol. Most "huge capacity" magazines are utter junk.


Gang bangers and spree killers seem to like them a lot.
 
2012-08-30 06:52:54 PM  

The Bruce Dickinson: My point is that we no longer have a need for a standing militia...or muskets, except they look cool.

Anybody who needs a gun to defend himself is a PUSSY.

Anyone who needs a gun to hunt is also a PUSSY.

Your hands, a nice dagger and some skill is all you need...

PUSSIES!


0/10. You're not even trying, are you?
 
2012-08-30 06:54:51 PM  

PiffMan420: trotsky: Unlimited magazine sizes, lol. Most "huge capacity" magazines are utter junk.

Gang bangers and spree killers seem to like them a lot.


to say nothing of trigger-happy cops who, say wound nine people trying to take out one gunman. even cops don;t need 15 if they only had six they MIGHT start caring about an arcane art called "aiming" again
 
2012-08-30 06:57:00 PM  
While some crazies like to take civilian 'assault rifles' and mod them to the hilt, please keep in mind that many of the incidents of people going postal included simple semi-auto pistols.

/For instance a mini-14 is probably just as dangerous as a semi-auto ak or an ar15, but they don't have the bling. I still am not convinced they are any more dangerous. Just more sexy for those that want to be glamorous and postal.
 
2012-08-30 06:57:20 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: There's no such thing as a hunting rifle.


Yes, there is.
 
2012-08-30 06:59:01 PM  

Eshman: So I'm clear, do you usually just wander into conversations and throw around insults without any real substance? You're not helping.


You know what? I refuse to get into a battle of wits with someone who is obviously unarmed.
 
2012-08-30 07:00:16 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: Yes, there is.


No there isn't.
 
2012-08-30 07:01:04 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: tallguywithglasseson: There's no such thing as a hunting rifle.

Yes, there is.


I agree with the tallguy. A rifle is a rifle.
 
2012-08-30 07:02:27 PM  
Magorn
PiffMan420: trotsky: Unlimited magazine sizes, lol. Most "huge capacity" magazines are utter junk.
Gang bangers and spree killers seem to like them a lot.
to say nothing of trigger-happy cops who, say wound nine people trying to take out one gunman. even cops don;t need 15 if they only had six they MIGHT start caring about an arcane art called "aiming" again


That is a problem with two things. First just the US approach to law enforment training, and also dumbing down the weapon instead of training people right.
 
2012-08-30 07:02:52 PM  
i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-30 07:05:22 PM  

Fark It: Magorn: what the 100-round clip used by the Aurora shoter (which thankfully jammed because the design is crap) may look like:
[betaco.com image 452x402]


and gun-enthusiasts? Just a note: you have a lot harder time arguing your guns aren't some sort of Phallic-substitute when you use magazines like that in them

First off, that's a magazine. Secondly, it's for a Glock chambered in 9mm, not an AR chambered in 5.56.

/you antis really need to educate yourselves, every time you post it's "a series of tubes..." all over again.


So I'm an "anti" now? Well this Anti has probably fired more rounds out of mare varieties of weapons than you have, and can likely take your favorite gun and out-shoot you with it. I have a "knack" for guns, and I greatly enjoy shooting them. However I also enjoy driving sports cars, but I don;t think a 240 MPH custom sports car should be street-legal either. Their potential for harm outweighs any marginal utilitarian value they may have. Same way with most guns. Long, guns and shotguns are useful tools with purposes other than killing other humans, 90%of handguns do not. Now that does not mean that handguns are therefore illegitimate and should be totally banned, but it DOES mean in my mind that they should be the most heavily regulated class of guns. As a grown-up and I've put my adolescent Dirty Harry and James Bond fantasies behind me and I know that as I have neither military nor police training my chances of A) actually being in a situation where I'd need a gun and B) being of any goddamn use to anyone in that situation are infintesmial .

The real world is a lot more like "the Wire" than Hollywood, when a bad guy wants to shoot you, he just walks up and pulls the trigger, he doesn't announce this fact, he doesn't give you warning or time to react, you just get got. Your best defense is situational awareness and staying the hell out of those situations, not a gun
 
2012-08-30 07:06:33 PM  

mpirooz: Pokey.Clyde: tallguywithglasseson: There's no such thing as a hunting rifle.

Yes, there is.

I agree with the tallguy. A rifle is a rifle.


Thats like saying theres no such thing as a sledgehammer, a hammer is a hammer.

When you're using one to tap in penny nails, not so much.
 
2012-08-30 07:06:44 PM  

Hobodeluxe:
that's why you can't legally buy fully automatics,frag grenades ,C-4,landmines and such.

there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.


Federal law says differently. Here's one of my belt-fed machineguns, that's actually a real, fully operational and entirely legal machinegun:

i135.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-30 07:07:19 PM  

Magorn: The real world is a lot more like "the Wire" than Hollywood, when a bad guy wants to shoot you, he just walks up and pulls the trigger, he doesn't announce this fact, he doesn't give you warning or time to react, you just get got. Your best defense is situational awareness and staying the hell out of those situations, not a gun


I didn't read anything else you wrote, but this is indeed very wise.
 
2012-08-30 07:07:32 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: No there isn't.


I'm not going to argue with you. If you are too dim to acknowledge that there is such a thing as a hunting rifle, you lack the level of intelligence to carry on a conversation with anyone.
 
2012-08-30 07:07:33 PM  

mpirooz: I agree with the tallguy. A rifle is a rifle.


I tend to agree with this. While I use a Remington 700 (considered a "hunting rifle")in the deer blind I will use a Stag AR15 (considered to be an evil "assault rifle") on feral hogs.
 
2012-08-30 07:10:26 PM  

Enemabag Jones: While some crazies like to take civilian 'assault rifles' and mod them to the hilt, please keep in mind that many of the incidents of people going postal included simple semi-auto pistols.

/For instance a mini-14 is probably just as dangerous as a semi-auto ak or an ar15, but they don't have the bling. I still am not convinced they are any more dangerous. Just more sexy for those that want to be glamorous and postal.


This is by far the deadliest weapon I've ever fired short of a Barrett:
www.toptenz.net

and nobody's ever dreamed of banning it because it doesn't look scary enough but it will drive nails at 300 yards with iron sights and if you manage to get your hands on the Pre-Korean War ammo for it you are firing a round that could and did sometimes take out 3-4 people wearing flak vests with a single shot. On this point I do agree with most anti-gun control folks: banning a weapon because of the way it looks rather than what it can do is stupid
 
2012-08-30 07:10:33 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Here's one of my belt-fed machineguns, that's actually a real, fully operational and entirely legal machinegun


Heeeeeyyyyyy...

This weekend is our annual Opening weekend dove hunt and shootout in beautiful Funston, Texas. You are cordially invited.
 
2012-08-30 07:10:54 PM  

way south: mpirooz: Pokey.Clyde: tallguywithglasseson: There's no such thing as a hunting rifle.

Yes, there is.

I agree with the tallguy. A rifle is a rifle.

Thats like saying theres no such thing as a sledgehammer, a hammer is a hammer.

When you're using one to tap in penny nails, not so much.


That's all just semantics. I'm a programmer so I look at it from an OOP perspective... and in the end a hunting rifle is just a rifle and it performs the same basic functions as any other rifle.

In the end, you're right. There is such a thing as a hunting rifle, but in the context of arguing for relative safety of guns, a rifle is a rifle. It's the base object that's being disputed, and a hunting rifle is simply abstracted.

/Too technical?
 
2012-08-30 07:11:37 PM  

Magorn: This is by far the deadliest weapon I've ever fired short of a Barrett:


We will have at least one here this weekend. A beautiful rifle.
 
2012-08-30 07:14:33 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson:

This weekend is our annual Opening weekend dove hunt and shootout in beautiful Funston, Texas. You are cordially invited.


Sounds like fun, but it's too far away, I'd never get an approved 5320.20 back in time, and while I don't have a problem with hunting (and I do love eating venison) I personally choose not to hunt.

Y'all have fun, and be safe! :D
 
2012-08-30 07:23:21 PM  

Enemabag Jones: While some crazies like to take civilian 'assault rifles' and mod them to the hilt, please keep in mind that many of the incidents of people going postal included simple semi-auto pistols.

/For instance a mini-14 is probably just as dangerous as a semi-auto ak or an ar15, but they don't have the bling. I still am not convinced they are any more dangerous. Just more sexy for those that want to be glamorous and postal.


Anders Behring Breivik used a Ruger Mini-14 carbine and is still the current high score holder. Also it's my personal favorite gun to use in Max Payne 3's multiplayer.
 
2012-08-30 07:24:56 PM  
So the GOP are trolling Obama and the Dems here and trying to goad them into taking the bait in an obvious effort to fire up their base with one of their traditional red meat issues.

Trying to turn their "Obama's coming to get yer guns" derp into a self fulfilling prophecy.

I really don't think Obama and the Dems are dumb enough to take the bait.
 
2012-08-30 07:30:21 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: Eshman: So I'm clear, do you usually just wander into conversations and throw around insults without any real substance? You're not helping.

You know what? I refuse to get into a battle of wits with someone who is obviously unarmed.


So you're an arrogant asshole. Got it.

Time for you to sit down. Adults are talking.
 
2012-08-30 07:32:03 PM  

what_now: You know what would stop a lot of gun violence?

More accessible mental health services.


Ha, no. That would mean having some billionaire be forced to pay $5 more in taxes just because you get the sniffles. Or you broke your leg. Or you get a sudden case of the "I'M GONNA KILL EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM AND YOU CANT STOP ME!!1"-sies.
 
2012-08-30 07:35:42 PM  

the_geek: MithrandirBooga: Tell me, when's the last time someone took out a theatre of movie patrons using an RPG? I bet you think it happens all the time.

Count the number of deaths from guns with high capacity magazines and automatic weapons in the united states against pretty much any other death statistic. Seriously, I understand that there was something recently in the news so people are having an emotional response about it.. but let's get some actual data here to see what's going on.


All deaths, or just humans?

/I'll gladly throw in all of cats, skunks, dogs, armadillos, and deer that cars hit if you'll throw in all of the hunting kills for guns...
 
2012-08-30 07:39:18 PM  
Cave Johnson approves.
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-30 07:42:27 PM  

Enemabag Jones: Magorn
PiffMan420: trotsky: Unlimited magazine sizes, lol. Most "huge capacity" magazines are utter junk.
Gang bangers and spree killers seem to like them a lot.
to say nothing of trigger-happy cops who, say wound nine people trying to take out one gunman. even cops don;t need 15 if they only had six they MIGHT start caring about an arcane art called "aiming" again

That is a problem with two things. First just the US approach to law enforment training, and also dumbing down the weapon instead of training people right.


I said that all over the first thread (a few days ago) but did anyone pay any attention to me? No no, of course not, "Cassandra is a frantic maid"...
 
2012-08-30 07:46:46 PM  

Sgt Otter: itsdan: make me some tea: (disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)

The military wouldn't be particularly interested in most of the weapons people are seeking to ban.

The 82nd Airborne Division tested the 90-round "C-Mags" for their M4s and M16s, to basically try to turn an M4 into a super light-weight M249 SAW for mountain fighting in Afghanistan. They jammed so often that they abandoned the idea. That's what happened to the Aurora shooter. It jammed after only a fewer shots.

That piece of shiat giganto mag ironically saved lives.


Imagine how many lives would have been saved if the nutjob had had no access to firearms and ammo.

/Smidge.
//You gonna let this slide or whistle on the way down?
 
2012-08-30 07:47:13 PM  

mpirooz: way south: mpirooz: Pokey.Clyde: tallguywithglasseson: There's no such thing as a hunting rifle.

Yes, there is.

I agree with the tallguy. A rifle is a rifle.

Thats like saying theres no such thing as a sledgehammer, a hammer is a hammer.

When you're using one to tap in penny nails, not so much.

That's all just semantics. I'm a programmer so I look at it from an OOP perspective... and in the end a hunting rifle is just a rifle and it performs the same basic functions as any other rifle.

In the end, you're right. There is such a thing as a hunting rifle, but in the context of arguing for relative safety of guns, a rifle is a rifle. It's the base object that's being disputed, and a hunting rifle is simply abstracted.

/Too technical?


No, I can agree with you there.
Legislatively, the differences are difficult to establish and not very meaningful.

On the flip side, The terminology does help to trip up bureaucrats.
Half the reason gun control is failing today has been its insistence on using the term "assault weapon". Now that people understand it, it's become a symbol of anti-gun ignorance rather than for scary guns.
Keeping the nomenclature is important because it allows you to put a hunting rifle alongside an assault rifle so the audience can realize they are the same thing.

Left to their own devices, the anti-gun ignoramus would show something like an m-249 and claim it represents all guns in circulation, when the vast majority look more like hi-points and Remington 700's.
 
2012-08-30 07:48:25 PM  
Guns is the only thing the right has left. They are losing on the War on Women, the War on Gay People, the War on Drugs, etc.

Fine go ahead, stock up on ammo and clips and whatnot.

The rest of us will be busy cleaning up your messes.
 
2012-08-30 07:50:57 PM  

clevershark: Serious question here -- why do so many of you feel that you need to carry a gun daily? Obviously I'm not talking if you're a cop or a soldier, but a civilian.


As a gun owner, I can't think of anything other than being afraid that drives people to carry. When I was in college I lived in one of the worst areas of a major city, and I never even considered carrying then. I don't carry, ever, because the one thing I find over and over again with people that do carry is they have irrational fears about bad shiat happening to or around them. They also seem to have a disconnect with reality as to how clearly they'll be able to think and react, and terrible overestimation of their shooting and situation assessment skills, leaving them with a completely unrealistic belief that the gun they carry can will help them stop a massacre some day. They also seem to not understand the legal implications of firing a weapon in public, and all the bad things that can happen as a result. Then throw in the fact that you pretty much can't do anything with the gun on you, as most private businesses and all government buildings have "no firearm" signs posted. You've basically got someone who's giving up their right to do what they want and go where they want because they are scared.
 
2012-08-30 07:53:35 PM  
So who exactly does this appeal to again? Apart from the gun nuts who will vote solidly Republican anyway, how does this attract swing voters?
 
2012-08-30 07:55:39 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Sounds like fun, but it's too far away, I'd never get an approved 5320.20 back in time, and while I don't have a problem with hunting (and I do love eating venison) I personally choose not to hunt.

Y'all have fun, and be safe! :D



A small sample of what has been brought before:

dancininanson.net 

We'll have some SKS and an AR or two this year. You never know what will be brought. And for those that don't want to hunt (I usually man the grill as I can hunt for two months) there willl be lots of bullshiat dished. It's a great weekend!
 
2012-08-30 07:59:48 PM  

make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

(disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun, but I believe there should be limits on access to military-grade firearms for civilians)


Good question.

It has to do with two things, your thumbs and your time. Loading a magazine hurts your thumbs. You gotta kinda wiggle the bullet round this metal retaining part, and your thumb hits it, and it hurts because you have to press with a lot of force to get past that spring. There's no way around this. So, to load 30 rounds into a clip (take that semantics-nazis) takes a good minute, maybe 70 or 80 seconds. And that's if you hurry and hurt your thumbs.

The second is time. You don't get that much time at the range. Most places don't let you shoot a gun in your backyard (nazis!) so you have to go out to a range. Ranges cost a lot of money, and they usually have wait times. Where I'm at, the wait averages two hours.

At a range, you have "hot" times and "cold" times. During the hot times you can shoot, during the cold times you unload your gun, open your action, and you can reload and get your targets. But you're required to do a lot of other things during this time (step away from your gun, have the officer certify the actions open, sweeping your brass). In other words, you're going to be reloading during your hot times. And that means that you're missing out on what you paid and waited two hours for. Unless you have a high capacity magazine.

BTW: Just for some perspective, an average person can unload a 30 round clip in 60 seconds - and that is by shooting incredibly slow. (Ranges do not let you rapid fire).

High capacity magazines are just freaking nice for law abiding gun owners who do the responsible thing and shoot at ranges.
 
2012-08-30 08:03:45 PM  
But surely, guys who rob dollar stores are an epidemic who need to be shot dead in their tracks.
 
2012-08-30 08:06:53 PM  

clevershark: Serious question here -- why do so many of you feel that you need to carry a gun daily? Obviously I'm not talking if you're a cop or a soldier, but a civilian.


They have REALLY TINY dicks!
 
2012-08-30 08:18:17 PM  
Seriously? this is just pointless pandering to the gun nut vote, who general vote Repub anyway.
 
2012-08-30 08:20:01 PM  
Short not-so-css, followed by my opinion on gun ownership, fwiw:

I was. . . I don't want to say a victim, it's not the right word, but guys with guns came into my house and took my stuff. Label it as you will.

My (now ex-)husband and I didn't own a gun, had discussed it, but we both agreed that until we were properly trained not only in usage but ownership (proper maintenance, whole nine yards), we really had no right to keep one in our house or on our person. Every time I think about what happened and add a gun in our hands, I'm all but certain someone (and likely more than one, since there were three guys involved) would have ended up dead. The problem is, and why I'm convinced our decision was the right one, that I couldn't be certain whether it would have been the bad guys who would have died. As it was, everyone walked away. We might have been temporarily a bit poorer, and the psychological scars run real deep, but at least we're alive.

Yes, we have a "right" to gun ownership, but we also have the duty as citizens to exercise that right *responsibly*. Until that happens, you really shouldn't own a gun. And until the entire U.S. population is mature enough to look at themselves and go "You know, it's probably not the best idea for me to own this," then we need something to stand between the public and stupid people. Laws seem the best way to go.
 
2012-08-30 08:33:41 PM  

Cinaed: But surely, guys who rob dollar stores point guns at store clerks are an epidemic who need to be shot dead in their tracks.


Some people would think so.
I take it you are in favor of protecting armed robbers?
 
2012-08-30 08:34:40 PM  

grimlock1972: Seriously? this is just pointless pandering to the gun nut vote, who general vote Repub anyway.


They're Akin to get away from the topic of 'legitimate rape'.
 
2012-08-30 08:35:27 PM  
I'm actually very curious who the NRA will endorse - Obama actually has a record of not pushing any new gun laws and Romney has a record (while he was governor of MA) of signing into law new gun restrictions.

Essentially, if they endorse Romney they are outing themselves without a doubt as a political organization and not a gun ownership organization.
 
2012-08-30 08:37:42 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: I'm not going to argue with you. If you are too dim to acknowledge that there is such a thing as a hunting rifle, you lack the level of intelligence to carry on a conversation with anyone.


I'm being sarcastic, but I guess you're too dim to recognize it.
There are, however, 2 or 3 people who agreed with it. And they appear to be carrying on conversations with people despite their apparent lack of intelligence.
 
2012-08-30 08:42:16 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: I think they were running more than sitting.

As opposed to returning fire.

Hobodeluxe: and also the capacity for mass casualties should also be limited

My high capacity magazines have never caused mass casualties.

Hobodeluxe: there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.

Some may disagree with you.


Can you ever be a farking a man and go further than one sentence in explaining your posts?

you have to be the biggest phony on this site. Yeah, your life turned out ok, and you took care of your sons and now fark everyone else

You are farking disgusting
 
2012-08-30 08:46:11 PM  

Eshman: Time for you to sit down. Adults are talking.


Yes, we are. Too bad you can't join us.
 
2012-08-30 08:47:41 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: There are, however, 2 or 3 people who agreed with it. And they appear to be carrying on conversations with people despite their apparent lack of intelligence.


Just because someone agrees with you, doesn't make you right.
 
2012-08-30 08:50:42 PM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Hobodeluxe:
that's why you can't legally buy fully automatics,frag grenades ,C-4,landmines and such.

there's no real self defense need to have a hundred round mag for a rifle.

Federal law says differently. Here's one of my belt-fed machineguns, that's actually a real, fully operational and entirely legal machinegun:

[i135.photobucket.com image 600x800]


MG 34, nice. That must have cost a pretty penny.

Magorn: Fark It: Magorn: what the 100-round clip used by the Aurora shoter (which thankfully jammed because the design is crap) may look like:
[betaco.com image 452x402]


and gun-enthusiasts? Just a note: you have a lot harder time arguing your guns aren't some sort of Phallic-substitute when you use magazines like that in them

First off, that's a magazine. Secondly, it's for a Glock chambered in 9mm, not an AR chambered in 5.56.

/you antis really need to educate yourselves, every time you post it's "a series of tubes..." all over again.

So I'm an "anti" now? Well this Anti has probably fired more rounds out of mare varieties of weapons than you have, and can likely take your favorite gun and out-shoot you with it. I have a "knack" for guns, and I greatly enjoy shooting them. However I also enjoy driving sports cars, but I don;t think a 240 MPH custom sports car should be street-legal either. Their potential for harm outweighs any marginal utilitarian value they may have. Same way with most guns. Long, guns and shotguns are useful tools with purposes other than killing other humans, 90%of handguns do not. Now that does not mean that handguns are therefore illegitimate and should be totally banned, but it DOES mean in my mind that they should be the most heavily regulated class of guns. As a grown-up and I've put my adolescent Dirty Harry and James Bond fantasies behind me and I know that as I have neither military nor police training my chances of A) actually being in a situation where I'd need a gun and B) being of any goddamn use to anyone in that situation are infintesmial .

The real world is a lot more like "the Wire" than Hollywood, when a bad guy wants to shoot you, he just walks up and pulls the trigger, he doesn't announce this fact, he doesn't give you warning or time to react, you just get got. Your best defense is situational awareness and staying the hell out of those situations, not a gun


I don't want or need to carry a pistol outside. Nor do I have fantasies/fears about reenacting dirty harry. What is an issue is the guy off his meds that decides he wants a glass of orange juice and it's easier to break into the nearby occupied house instead of going to the store (real case btw, guy killed two people).
 
2012-08-30 08:57:14 PM  

zarberg: I'm actually very curious who the NRA will endorse - Obama actually has a record of not pushing any new gun laws and Romney has a record (while he was governor of MA) of signing into law new gun restrictions.

Essentially, if they endorse Romney they are outing themselves without a doubt as a political organization and not a gun ownership organization.


The president is unlikely to pass a gun law or repeal any existing laws as things stand.
So the real question is if Obama (or Romney) will appoint liberal (or conservative) Judges to the supreme court.

...Because if the Judges that go up are unfavorable to the NRA's goals, the damage is going to last alot longer than the next presidency.
 
2012-08-30 09:00:08 PM  
fark it, fine.

I'm pretty damned liberal and we honestly have bigger problems in this country than the bi-annual mass murder. Let the gun nuts have their belt fed surrogate penes.
 
2012-08-30 09:18:30 PM  
The ultimate argument of "why".

www.humanrights.com
 
2012-08-30 09:18:43 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: fark it, fine.

I'm pretty damned liberal and we honestly have bigger problems in this country than the bi-annual mass murder. Let the gun nuts have their belt fed surrogate penes.


You seem to be awfully fixated on the penis.
 
2012-08-30 09:19:39 PM  

OgreMagi: The ultimate argument of "why".

[www.humanrights.com image 850x715]


What the hell is a Congrefs?
 
2012-08-30 09:33:22 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: Just because someone agrees with you, doesn't make you right.


You said that by saying "there's no such thing as a hunting rifle", one was shown to be too unintelligent to carry on a conversation. It just follows that you attribute the same to Dancin_In_Anson and mpirooz, who expressed a similar sentiment. I don't think that of either of them... but then, I don't have a defective personality.

And, as stated, I was being sarcastic. So, I'm not actually agreeing with them... but thanks for the truism, I guess.
 
2012-08-30 09:35:39 PM  

zarberg: I'm actually very curious who the NRA will endorse - Obama actually has a record of not pushing any new gun laws and Romney has a record (while he was governor of MA) of signing into law new gun restrictions.

Essentially, if they endorse Romney they are outing themselves without a doubt as a political organization and not a gun ownership organization.


Nah.

First, they endorse pro-gun Democrats (especially pro-gun *INCUMBENT* Democrats) over Republicans all the time. Happens *EVERY*FARKING*ELECTION*CYCLE*, and yet I have to point it out time and time again.

Secondly, the NRA knows that this election isn't about gun control legislation. They know that Romney won't sign anything significant. They can lean on him, because the reality is that they do have more pull with the Republicans.

What they are worried about is the Supreme Court. They are looking at the slim 5 to 4 majorities for the Heller and McDonald decisions, and they know that all it would take is a conservative on the court to die or retire, and an Obama administration to appoint a more liberal justice to effectively neuter those decisions. They wouldn't be outright overturned, of course, because of stare decisis, but the right could be interpreted much more narrowly.

Third, Romney was *VERY* smart in picking Paul Ryan: He's A rated by the NRA, effectively countering your argument.
 
2012-08-30 09:58:43 PM  

sprawl15: MithrandirBooga: Dancin_In_Anson: bulldg4life: No shiat. Of course, most reasonable people long ago mastered the idea of compromise.

Ok...we can ban high capacity magazines when we ban cars that can go faster that say 30 mph.

False equivalency. Cars provide a necessary function in society. High capacity mags do not. Cars are designed for transportation. Guns are designed for killing.

You're not addressing his assertion.


Probably because it's just as stupid as the opposite argument. Extremes are bad. Ban all weapons is stupid. Let every weapon be legal - just as stupid. Reductio ad absurdum.


It's not an all or nothing world, folks.
 
2012-08-30 10:12:03 PM  

DirkValentine: Can you ever be a farking a man and go further than one sentence in explaining your posts?

you have to be the biggest phony on this site. Yeah, your life turned out ok, and you took care of your sons and now fark everyone else

You are farking disgusting



Sounds like someone needs to change their farkin' tampon and have another drink.
 
2012-08-30 10:19:21 PM  
YOU GONNA GET MASS-KILLED!!!! OOGA BOOGA!
 
2012-08-30 10:32:03 PM  

Cyclonic Cooking Action: So can I have 10 pounds of heroin and an nuclear weapon please? I don't need it, but it sure would be fun.

 
I absolutely agree with your right to have 10 pounds of heroin.  Go nuts.  
 
2012-08-30 10:41:40 PM  

Somacandra: I don't think temples and synagogues and churches and mosques should be coerced by the State into accepting any weapons on their properties. That is not an answer to the problem of mass shootings at religious places of worship.


You presented the only logically consistent and clear objection.

Whether its armed church members or hired security doesn't particularly matter but the "No guns at all!" policies keep biting people in the rear over and over again. As stated, you never see mass shootings anywhere that the assailant(s) would expect people to be able to fight back. In the case of churches, you probably cannot coerce them in to accepting people carrying guns, but if they had any sense they would have private meetings with the conceal carry holders to ask them to rise to the defense of the church members. Encouragement of that idea by the various governmental powers would produce good results.

Without Fail: The reason these shooting incidents keep happening is because the shooters are crazy and it's easy to get guns.


Why it happens is only tangentially connected to why the aforementioned crazies pick the targets they do. Do you or do you not acknowledge that spree shooters almost without exception select targets that have lots of unarmed people? These people are crazy but not so crazy that they go anywhere somebody can shoot back.

Without Fail: Can you name a time that a civilian with a concealed carry permit stopped one of these sprees?


Guns are regularly used for self defense. If one were used to stop a spree killer how would you tell he was a spree killer? As stated, spree killers pick large groups of unarmed people for a reason so you're basically asking "Hey, why don't see see cases of spree killers being stopped by somebody with a gun in a place where nobody else has guns?"

justtray: This logic employs the same fallacy to a rock that keeps tigers away. Correlation does not equal causation.


Right and people who rob banks and convenience stores don't select their targets based on the likelihood of getting cold hard cash. There's no correlation at all there just as there's no correlation between "large numbers of unarmed people" and "targets of spree killers". No correlation at all. Really.

To think that because conceal carry is not allowed, more gun sprees occur or are not being prevented is not based in any facts in reality, only in the mind of fantastical crazy person like most small penis gun nuts.

An armed population is a safe population. As normal crime is prevented on a regular basis using personal fire arms and self defense is conducted on a regular basis using person fire arms only in the mind of somebody as simple as you could you look at these two facts and say "No way would a spree killer be stopped by one person with a gun... Like other criminals are."

By the way I'll also translate what you actually said "I am so insure about myself and my argument that I'll finish it with what I think is a witty insult". I'll give you a hint, if you want to be a wise arse, you must first... Be wise.
 
2012-08-30 11:30:58 PM  
The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.
 
2012-08-30 11:37:29 PM  

CokeBear: What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?


"not infringed"
 
2012-08-31 12:00:32 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: CokeBear: What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

"not infringed"


More than that. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
2012-08-31 12:12:23 AM  

CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.


Absolutely. Anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right that shall not be infringed is a loon.
 
2012-08-31 12:13:46 AM  
Well, took me a while to finish reading through this thread, and disappointingly it is probably now dead. I feel I must make a few points though. Firstly, why did only 1 person respond to hubiestubert's post in any way? Is it because he was the only person that didn't make a stupid analogy, reductio ad absurd absurdum strawman, sweeping generalization, or penis-based insult? Honestly, go read it Link

Guns are not causes of death. Violent crime is what ultimately leads to a gun related death. Assault with a deadly weapon/ murder. Stop attributing malice and intent to an object. I've yet to see someone bring up reducing or removing current regulation on explosives except when they're trying to make a point for increasing gun regulation. Honestly, stop it. Firearms, especially the firearms currently purchased and in circulation are discriminant weapons. Explosives are not, thus increasing the chance for collateral damage to unintended targets.

Back to the violent crime issue, why are so many people focusing on the method of violent crime rather than the cause? Guns don't cause violent crime, shiatty circumstances do. Poverty, drug law, insufficient mental health care, insufficient education, things which lead people to believe crime is an effective alternative to not being a complete dick to other people are to blame. You can argue all you want that guns make people more efficient at indescriminent violence, but that's just not true. Large capacity magazines jam frequently, rifles are difficult to conceal, and gunshots are not 1 hit kills. Arson and explosives have potentially higher body counts with greater probabilities of success. Only through the fetishizing of guns are they as popular for mass murder as they are. Does that mean that fetishizing guns is good? No, not really.

Yes, rights are not predicated upon need. The benefits of removing "high capacity" magazines and "assault weapons" have already been proven to be statistically nil. Try coming up with something that addresses why guns are being used, not the guns themselves.

/ I would thank you kindly to leave out "why are you so afraid"
// And "you must have a small peen
/// And any insults really, they don't support honest debate, which sadly enough is why I stopped lurking
 
2012-08-31 12:34:44 AM  

Fark It: CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.

Absolutely. Anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right that shall not be infringed is a loon.


From what I've read of the Constitutional Conventions, I agree. Mostly they seemed worried over whether it meant that conscientious objectors, like Quakers, would be forced to participate. This leads me to believe that they were more thinking of having to go out and march up and down the square a weekend a month, practicing formations and manual of arms as opposed to joe bob collecting a bunch of muskets in his spare room.

But regardless, in District of Columbia v. Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd gave individuals some rights to possess weapons. Not carte blanche, mind you, but rights.

So, loons or not, 5 v 4, the current case law holds there is an individual right.
 
2012-08-31 12:39:12 AM  
Given who's going to be first against the wall when the revolution comes, you'd think the Publicans would favor banning guns outright.
 
2012-08-31 12:42:40 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Fark It: CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.

Absolutely. Anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right that shall not be infringed is a loon.

From what I've read of the Constitutional Conventions, I agree. Mostly they seemed worried over whether it meant that conscientious objectors, like Quakers, would be forced to participate. This leads me to believe that they were more thinking of having to go out and march up and down the square a weekend a month, practicing formations and manual of arms as opposed to joe bob collecting a bunch of muskets in his spare room.

But regardless, in District of Columbia v. Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd gave individuals some rights to possess weapons. Not carte blanche, mind you, but rights.

So, loons or not, 5 v 4, the current case law holds there is an individual right.


This is not how the Constitution works. It is a limiting document, not a granting one.
 
2012-08-31 12:47:19 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Given who's going to be first against the wall when the revolution comes, you'd think the Publicans would favor banning guns outright.


Why's that? There are plenty of Democrats rich enough to stand right next to them.

/Lobbying and "campaign donations" are out of control all throughout the federal government
 
2012-08-31 01:41:11 AM  

lewismarktwo: YOU GONNA GET MASS-KILLED!!!! OOGA BOOGA!


Can I get killed by Shepard? He can mass-kill me any day of the week.
 
2012-08-31 01:43:45 AM  

CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.


At the time of ratification, "regulated" meant equipped i.e. an army regular.

I give you Federalist 28:

That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
 
2012-08-31 01:50:16 AM  

Loaded Six String: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Given who's going to be first against the wall when the revolution comes, you'd think the Publicans would favor banning guns outright.

Why's that? There are plenty of Democrats rich enough to stand right next to them.


They'll be second against the wall.

/BSABSVR
 
2012-08-31 01:54:58 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: PolloDiablo: Right. So in a constitutionally just world (or country, i guess) I should be able to walk into my local gun shop and buy hand grenades, RPGs, landmines, and fully automatic weapons?

Sure. Why not?

GAT_00: Thanks for confirming that you won't address a question

Which question?" The one about the conditions in a situation that didn't exist in the first place? I answered you you farking idiot. Now go whine to the mods that the bad man called you a name.


Pfactor: I have no issue with you owning them. I don't fear people who are responsible actors.

Exactly. More people died in a one vehicle accident in south Texas than did in a theater in Colorado but you don't hear screams for banning the wheel.


Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible. Maybe when more people start using cars and trucks as actual weapons to commit murder this line of "reasoning" will have a bit more weight.
 
2012-08-31 01:59:16 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible.


Is your goal to save lives, or just save lives that are ended intentionally?
 
2012-08-31 02:14:08 AM  

Fark It: Vlad_the_Inaner: Fark It: CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.

Absolutely. Anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right that shall not be infringed is a loon.

From what I've read of the Constitutional Conventions, I agree. Mostly they seemed worried over whether it meant that conscientious objectors, like Quakers, would be forced to participate. This leads me to believe that they were more thinking of having to go out and march up and down the square a weekend a month, practicing formations and manual of arms as opposed to joe bob collecting a bunch of muskets in his spare room.

But regardless, in District of Columbia v. Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd gave individuals some rights to possess weapons. Not carte blanche, mind you, but rights.

So, loons or not, 5 v 4, the current case law holds there is an individual right.

This is not how the Constitution works. It is a limiting document, not a granting one.


It generally limits the actions of the government, So what verb does one use to describe the resulting effects to the individual. Not all rights are unalienable. Some require government action to create. example an accused in a criminal trial has a right "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, " What limit effectuates that?
 
2012-08-31 02:14:13 AM  

sprawl15: Keizer_Ghidorah: Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible.

Is your goal to save lives, or just save lives that are ended intentionally?


Is there a middle ground where we can meet and discuss something? Better mental health care and some way to track guns to see if they end up in the hands of undesireables like criminals, gang members, etc?

Yes, it's a right, but too much of anything is never a good thing.
 
2012-08-31 02:24:54 AM  

hubiestubert: Part of the problem, is that when we talk about gun control, we are pretty much talking about a distraction...


I've only just begun reading the thread, so I apologize if this has already been covered: You are an intelligent and articulate person and I value the comments you have made. I appreciate your even handed approach to some very difficult and often emotional issues. Thank you.
 
2012-08-31 02:28:38 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Is there a middle ground where we can meet and discuss something?


Sure. You could determine if saving 14 people from dying in a car crash is a more or less important goal than saving 12 people from a shooting.

You've drawn a distinction in importance, I'm simply asking you to define it.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Better mental health care and some way to track guns to see if they end up in the hands of undesireables like criminals, gang members, etc?


That has nothing to do with what I'm asking you about.
 
2012-08-31 02:32:29 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Loaded Six String: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Given who's going to be first against the wall when the revolution comes, you'd think the Publicans would favor banning guns outright.

Why's that? There are plenty of Democrats rich enough to stand right next to them.

They'll be second against the wall.

/BSABSVR

Both Sides Are Bad So Petition Government To Reduce Or Remove The Influence Of Money On The Legislative Process

BSABSPGTRORTIOMOTLP
/FTFY
// I'd also like to see the terms of Representatives extended to 4 years so they are not under as much pressure to raise funds and campaign when they should be doing their job, as well as reduce the term limit for senators to 3 terms (senators shouldn't be senators for life, and politics was never meant to be a career), as well as have State Representatives elect Senators to represent their state, not a popular vote (essentially repealing or restructuring the 17th amendment). Senators are supposed to represent their state's interest, not things which effect the nation as a whole.
 
2012-08-31 02:50:02 AM  

sprawl15: Keizer_Ghidorah: Is there a middle ground where we can meet and discuss something?

Sure. You could determine if saving 14 people from dying in a car crash is a more or less important goal than saving 12 people from a shooting.

You've drawn a distinction in importance, I'm simply asking you to define it.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Better mental health care and some way to track guns to see if they end up in the hands of undesireables like criminals, gang members, etc?

That has nothing to do with what I'm asking you about.


I'm sorry, why do I have to choose between saving two groups of people from different things? Is this like Spider-man having to choose between the trolley and his girlfriend? What the hell does it have to do with what I pointed out?

Using an accident as a comparison to a deliberate act is nonsensical.
 
2012-08-31 02:52:39 AM  

Loaded Six String: Senators are supposed to represent their state's interest, not things which effect the nation as a whole.


Right. We need antebellum-style sedition and regionalism, as opposed to a national legislature that addresses the needs of our entire nation.

/You lost "Reb", and we are all better off for it.
//Don't think for an instant that we don't know that it's far cheaper to buy off a state legislature than it is to convince the entire electorate of a state.
 
2012-08-31 02:59:54 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm sorry, why do I have to choose between saving two groups of people from different things?


I don't know. You chose to value 14 lives as less than 12 lives, and I'm trying to figure out why:

Keizer_Ghidorah: Dancin_In_Anson: Exactly. More people died in a one vehicle accident in south Texas than did in a theater in Colorado but you don't hear screams for banning the wheel.

Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible. Maybe when more people start using cars and trucks as actual weapons to commit murder this line of "reasoning" will have a bit more weight.

You can try just explaining from scratch why you think that the deliberate killing of 12 people has more weight than the accidental death of 14 people if you'd like.
 
2012-08-31 03:04:47 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: Senators are supposed to represent their state's interest, not things which effect the nation as a whole.

Right. We need antebellum-style sedition and regionalism, as opposed to a national legislature that addresses the needs of our entire nation.

/You lost "Reb", and we are all better off for it.
//Don't think for an instant that we don't know that it's far cheaper to buy off a state legislature than it is to convince the entire electorate of a state.


You'll pardon me if I ask for a more detailed response. Representatives are elected to represent districts within states by popular vote, why shouldn't they elect the people who are in essence representing them (the state as a whole)? I think it would cut down on the popularity contest style senatorial elections we have now (Gram and Gramps voting for Senator Cryptkeeper for 60 years). Also, if a Senator is voting on a bill which has nationwide implications and their vote is based on party lines rather than their state's interest, how is that not dereliction of duty? As far as buying of a state legislature, money in politics is something I'd like to see reformed as well.
 
2012-08-31 03:05:40 AM  

o5iiawah: CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.

At the time of ratification, "regulated" meant equipped i.e. an army regular.


That is absolute and utter nonsense.
I give you Federalist Paper 29:
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Well regulated: Equipped and trained to national standards, disciplined, proficient, and under civilian-led military command.
The Founders had in mind a militia system much like that of the modern-day Swiss.
 
2012-08-31 03:22:17 AM  

Loaded Six String: demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: Senators are supposed to represent their state's interest, not things which effect the nation as a whole.

Right. We need antebellum-style sedition and regionalism, as opposed to a national legislature that addresses the needs of our entire nation.

/You lost "Reb", and we are all better off for it.
//Don't think for an instant that we don't know that it's far cheaper to buy off a state legislature than it is to convince the entire electorate of a state.

You'll pardon me if I ask for a more detailed response. Representatives are elected to represent districts within states by popular vote, why shouldn't they elect the people who are in essence representing them (the state as a whole)? I think it would cut down on the popularity contest style senatorial elections we have now (Gram and Gramps voting for Senator Cryptkeeper for 60 years). Also, if a Senator is voting on a bill which has nationwide implications and their vote is based on party lines rather than their state's interest, how is that not dereliction of duty? As far as buying of a state legislature, money in politics is something I'd like to see reformed as well.


What do you have against democracy?
Look at the history of the Seventeenth Amendment and convince me that the process should be turned over to corrupt and idiotic state legislatures again. (Difficulty: I live in Arizona.)
 
2012-08-31 03:28:45 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: o5iiawah: CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.

At the time of ratification, "regulated" meant equipped i.e. an army regular.

That is absolute and utter nonsense.
I give you Federalist Paper 29:
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Well regulated: Equipped and trained to national standards, disciplined, proficient, and under civilian-led military command.
The Founders had in mind a militia system much like that of the modern-day Swiss.


... I'm not quite sure about that. In the quote given, it seems that he is expressing the belief that making an obligation of keeping weaponry and going through military exercises "would be a real grievance to the people." So forcing the citizenry to be part of the well-regulated militia is frowned upon. It does nicely define well-regulated militia though.

Plugging that into the Second Amendment we get... "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A properly equipped and trained militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What I'm getting out of that is, compulsory militia service is bad; in order to be called a militia, exercises must be carried out to achieve military performance; the militia may be equipped by the government; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of voluntary militia service and with no exercise requirements except within the militia.
 
2012-08-31 03:38:04 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: Senators are supposed to represent their state's interest, not things which effect the nation as a whole.

Right. We need antebellum-style sedition and regionalism, as opposed to a national legislature that addresses the needs of our entire nation.

/You lost "Reb", and we are all better off for it.
//Don't think for an instant that we don't know that it's far cheaper to buy off a state legislature than it is to convince the entire electorate of a state.

You'll pardon me if I ask for a more detailed response. Representatives are elected to represent districts within states by popular vote, why shouldn't they elect the people who are in essence representing them (the state as a whole)? I think it would cut down on the popularity contest style senatorial elections we have now (Gram and Gramps voting for Senator Cryptkeeper for 60 years). Also, if a Senator is voting on a bill which has nationwide implications and their vote is based on party lines rather than their state's interest, how is that not dereliction of duty? As far as buying of a state legislature, money in politics is something I'd like to see reformed as well.

What do you have against democracy?
Look at the history of the Seventeenth Amendment and convince me that the process should be turned over to corrupt and idiotic state legislatures again. (Difficulty: I live in Arizona.)


I have nothing against democracy. You failed to address that my proposal would involve State Senators being elected by State Representatives, which if I'm correct, are part of the federal government, not state government, thus not state legislatures. I also mentioned that reduction or removal monetary corruption was also a goal, hence hand in hand sort of thing. Really, the removal of monetary incentives needs to come first.
 
2012-08-31 03:44:44 AM  
On a somewhat side note, I also really frown upon riders being attached to bills that have no demonstrable relevence to the bill for example: the following from 2009's credit CARD Act-

"Gun rights advocates in the Senate, led by Tom Coburn (R-Okla) added an unrelated rider to the bill to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from enforcing any regulation that would prohibit an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System.[4][5] The Senate passed the amendment 67-29.[6][7]

This amendment overturns a Reagan-era policy prohibiting firearms from being carried in national parks. The George W. Bush administration had attempted to implement a similar policy through the rulemaking process just before leaving office; however the change was struck down by a federal judge. This provision has been heavily criticized by environmentalists, anti-gun groups, and park supporters including the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, but applauded by gun rights groups.[7][8]"

I find this practice highly distasteful, regardless of whether I approve of the outcome.
 
2012-08-31 04:03:29 AM  

sprawl15: Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm sorry, why do I have to choose between saving two groups of people from different things?

I don't know. You chose to value 14 lives as less than 12 lives, and I'm trying to figure out why:Keizer_Ghidorah: Dancin_In_Anson: Exactly. More people died in a one vehicle accident in south Texas than did in a theater in Colorado but you don't hear screams for banning the wheel.

Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible. Maybe when more people start using cars and trucks as actual weapons to commit murder this line of "reasoning" will have a bit more weight.You can try just explaining from scratch why you think that the deliberate killing of 12 people has more weight than the accidental death of 14 people if you'd like.


Because one is an accident and one is an intentional act. Assuming the vehicle driver truly was not at fault, or at least only negligent in his actions, he simply cannot be held to the same standard as someone who deliberately and with malice killed people.

If the driver intentionally and maliciously drove his car into another vehicle and thus deliberately killed 14 people, then the actions are equivalent. However, you indicated that the killing of the 14 was accidental (or at worst negligent), and therefore the actions are NOT the same, even though the results (a lot of dead people) are. A deliberate action can be prevented and/or punished, whereas an accidental action simply cannot. Even an act of simple negligence is not in the same category as willful and malicious act.

So given a single option of saving 14 people in an accident vs. 12 people in a deliberate act, obviously saving the 12 people must take precedence. Now ideally, the goal would be to save all of them; but that's not the option you're allowing in this hypothetical.
 
2012-08-31 04:04:42 AM  

Loaded Six String: What I'm getting out of that is, compulsory militia service is bad; in order to be called a militia, exercises must be carried out to achieve military performance; the militia may be equipped by the government; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of voluntary militia service and with no exercise requirements except within the militia.


"Well-regulated" never meant "equipped like the regular Army".
Hamilton envisioned states having small, professionalized, well-regulated militias and less-well trained and armed citizens available to supplement those militias in emergencies.
There is no constitutional limitation preventing states from requiring mandatory militia service.
Nor does the Constitution forbid reasonable regulation of access to firearms. The insane, for example, should not have anywhere near as ready access to weapons and ammunition as they now have.

/And concealed carry is still farking stupid.
 
2012-08-31 04:17:03 AM  

jso2897: This just doesn't resonate with me. I am a gun owner, and I don't want more restrictive gun laws - but then, I don't see anyone of note trying to pass any. I don't have any urgent desire to make gun laws more lenient, either. I'm fine the way things are, in that regard, pretty much.
Do the Republicans have anything that matters to talk about?


I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.
 
2012-08-31 04:26:44 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: What I'm getting out of that is, compulsory militia service is bad; in order to be called a militia, exercises must be carried out to achieve military performance; the militia may be equipped by the government; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of voluntary militia service and with no exercise requirements except within the militia.

"Well-regulated" never meant "equipped like the regular Army".
Hamilton envisioned states having small, professionalized, well-regulated militias and less-well trained and armed citizens available to supplement those militias in emergencies.
There is no constitutional limitation preventing states from requiring mandatory militia service.
Nor does the Constitution forbid reasonable regulation of access to firearms. The insane, for example, should not have anywhere near as ready access to weapons and ammunition as they now have.

/And concealed carry is still farking stupid.


So a reasonable compromise would be allowing military comparable firearms to only be owned by those who are in the militia? Yes, there is no Constitutional prevention to mandatory militia service, it seemed that Hamilton found compulsory service to be distasteful in the quote you provided (for conscientious objections?)

As for the insane having readily available access to firearms, wouldn't it be better to focus on reducing the insane's accessibility to the public? Like instituting better health care in the nation?

/ If concealed carry isn't legal, then open carry must be, as "to bear arms" does not just mean to use them, but to have them on your person, and that right shall not be infringed, per the amendment. Whether or not required licensing is an infringement is debateable, but my personal feeling on it is that as long as the cost and process involved does not prevent those in the lower economic class from being issued the permit, it's not an infringement. Similar to how Voter ID's are a bad idea when they disenfrachise the poor, but are okay when they are given freely. Shall issue is preferred to may issue.
 
2012-08-31 04:34:05 AM  

Fail in Human Form: jso2897: This just doesn't resonate with me. I am a gun owner, and I don't want more restrictive gun laws - but then, I don't see anyone of note trying to pass any. I don't have any urgent desire to make gun laws more lenient, either. I'm fine the way things are, in that regard, pretty much.
Do the Republicans have anything that matters to talk about?

I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.


Normalization of carry permits would definitely be nice to see. It is rediculous to have a law which can be broken by crossing state lines and no other action. Driver's licenses are accepted from state to state, though I'm pretty sure the standards with which they are issued vary.
 
2012-08-31 09:07:35 AM  

Gyrfalcon: So given a single option of saving 14 people in an accident vs. 12 people in a deliberate act, obviously saving the 12 people must take precedence.


Alright, this we can work with.

If a million people die on accident but 12 people die from shootings, I'd like to think the million people is a greater tragedy and should be prevented given a magical choice. But if it's just 14, then 12 people dying from shootings is apparently a greater tragedy.

Alright, we can use those as two initial boundaries. Where's the breakpoint? How much does an the death being accidental depreciate the value of the lives lost? Using 14 as the breakpoint, if you die on accident then your death was only worth 86% of an intentional death.
 
2012-08-31 09:58:14 AM  

sprawl15: given a magical choice


There's your prime mistake right there.

If a genie grants you a wish, you need to wish for more wishes.
 
2012-08-31 12:46:05 PM  

sprawl15: Gyrfalcon: So given a single option of saving 14 people in an accident vs. 12 people in a deliberate act, obviously saving the 12 people must take precedence.

Alright, this we can work with.

If a million people die on accident but 12 people die from shootings, I'd like to think the million people is a greater tragedy and should be prevented given a magical choice. But if it's just 14, then 12 people dying from shootings is apparently a greater tragedy.

Alright, we can use those as two initial boundaries. Where's the breakpoint? How much does an the death being accidental depreciate the value of the lives lost? Using 14 as the breakpoint, if you die on accident then your death was only worth 86% of an intentional death.


Probably too late, but...

You're trying to put a value on the number of deaths in an act. The issue that needs to be addressed is the quality of the act and the intent of the actor. It's not that there is somehow a magical break-even point at which X number of accidental deaths equals Y number of deliberate deaths. ANY death is a tragedy; and if you try to put a weight on the death itself, you get to the point where you have to decide, is a child dying worse than an adult dying, or an old person not so bad as a young person? The value of the life lost is always 100%, whether they were shot to death by a crazed thug or slipped and fell into a woodchipper.

What CAN be evaluated is the nature and quality of the action and the intent of the actor. If the shooter meant to kill someone, then he is obviously more culpable killing one person than the janitor who didn't mop the floor in front of the woodchipper. THOSE actions can be ranked and evaluated; but the value of the life of the dead person is not greater because he was shot or lessened because he died by accident. You have this odd idea that because people want to prevent deliberate killings that they therefore value those victims more; but the fact is that this is merely an acknowledgement that deliberate killings are easier to control--because they involve a deliberate act--than accidental killings, where it may be that nobody is at fault.
 
2012-08-31 01:22:25 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Mikey1969: Please define an "assault rifle". Difficulty: Don't describe cosmetic aspects of the gun. Extra difficulty: Remove all guns that have a "non-assault rifle" type considered a "hunting rifle", unless the difference is something other than looks.

There's no such thing as a hunting rifle.


But there are "assault rifles." They are full-auto and have barrels usually less 16 inches. Guns that "look like" assault rifles are not assault rifles. There are no functional differences between a post-ban, during-ban or pre-ban AR-15 or AK-47. Shootings didn't stop during this period.

Please look up a mini-14 ranch rifle. Then look at "stock kits" that make it look evil. All the mechanical parts and rate of fire is the same. This is the greatest example of form trumping function. By the left's logic, racial profiling and pulling over red cars just because they are red should be perfectly legal instead of actually looking at traffic violations.

You're imaginary pink elephant doesn't violate local zoning codes either even though he looks like an elephant to you.
 
2012-08-31 01:24:14 PM  

Fail in Human Form: I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.


I'd like to see a nation-wide ban on all auto and semi-auto firearms, and on any magazine over 6 shots, and on easily concealable arms, a ban on concealed carry, and a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That would leave revolvers and manual action long arms available by permit to those who can pass minimum standards.
 
2012-08-31 01:41:40 PM  

Gyrfalcon: What CAN be evaluated is the nature and quality of the action and the intent of the actor.


Which in effect places the people killed by a firearm with intent above those killed in something like a car accident.
 
2012-08-31 02:32:13 PM  

Gyrfalcon: You're trying to put a value on the number of deaths in an act. The issue that needs to be addressed is the quality of the act and the intent of the actor.


Only in a world with unlimited resources.

Obviously both sides are bad in this situation when you're talking 12 or 14 people dead. But you can quantify how bad.

Gyrfalcon: ANY death is a tragedy; and if you try to put a weight on the death itself, you get to the point where you have to decide, is a child dying worse than an adult dying, or an old person not so bad as a young person?


You've already put weight on the death itself. You've said that 12 people dying on purpose has less weight than 14 people dying on accident "because one is an accident and one is an intentional act."

I'm honestly trying to understand where you're coming from.

Gyrfalcon: What CAN be evaluated is the nature and quality of the action and the intent of the actor. If the shooter meant to kill someone, then he is obviously more culpable killing one person than the janitor who didn't mop the floor in front of the woodchipper. THOSE actions can be ranked and evaluated; but the value of the life of the dead person is not greater because he was shot or lessened because he died by accident.


You're advocating action not based on danger to the public, but rather on culpability of individuals who inflict that danger on the public. If a vat worker in a baby food factory accidentally got ebola into thousands of jars of baby food, he's not as culpable as one person who threw a baby into a woodchipper, and by your basis you'd consider the latter instance to be the one to be worth controlling if you had to choose between the two.

I would think that the danger to the public should take precedence - if 10,000 people die in car accidents every day and 5,000 people die from violent gun crime every day, the former would be a higher priority. Better reward for the effort in terms of lives saved.
 
2012-08-31 06:42:54 PM  

Wrathskellar: Fail in Human Form: I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.

I'd like to see a nation-wide ban on all auto and semi-auto firearms, and on any magazine over 6 shots, and on easily concealable arms, a ban on concealed carry, and a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That would leave revolvers and manual action long arms available by permit to those who can pass minimum standards.


Good thing you're never going to get it. LOL.
 
2012-08-31 07:24:28 PM  

Wrathskellar: Fail in Human Form: I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.

I'd like to see a nation-wide ban on all auto and semi-auto firearms, and on any magazine over 6 shots, and on easily concealable arms, a ban on concealed carry, and a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That would leave revolvers and manual action long arms available by permit to those who can pass minimum standards.


Are you willing to have another civil war to implement it, because that's what it would take?
 
2012-08-31 09:18:47 PM  

Wrathskellar: Fail in Human Form: I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.

I'd like to see a nation-wide ban on all auto and semi-auto firearms, and on any magazine over 6 shots, and on easily concealable arms, a ban on concealed carry, and a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That would leave revolvers and manual action long arms available by permit to those who can pass minimum standards.


You know you're going to get nibbles on that one, Trollin'Marienplatz.
 
2012-08-31 10:19:18 PM  

sprawl15: Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm sorry, why do I have to choose between saving two groups of people from different things?

I don't know. You chose to value 14 lives as less than 12 lives, and I'm trying to figure out why:Keizer_Ghidorah: Dancin_In_Anson: Exactly. More people died in a one vehicle accident in south Texas than did in a theater in Colorado but you don't hear screams for banning the wheel.

Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible. Maybe when more people start using cars and trucks as actual weapons to commit murder this line of "reasoning" will have a bit more weight.You can try just explaining from scratch why you think that the deliberate killing of 12 people has more weight than the accidental death of 14 people if you'd like.


Actually, I was referring to the tendency of people to say "these people were killed in a car accident, clearly wheels/cars need to be banned!" whenever there's a mass shooting involving guns. You can rant and rave about your completely different subject, though.
 
2012-08-31 11:47:43 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: sprawl15: Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm sorry, why do I have to choose between saving two groups of people from different things?

I don't know. You chose to value 14 lives as less than 12 lives, and I'm trying to figure out why:Keizer_Ghidorah: Dancin_In_Anson: Exactly. More people died in a one vehicle accident in south Texas than did in a theater in Colorado but you don't hear screams for banning the wheel.

Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible. Maybe when more people start using cars and trucks as actual weapons to commit murder this line of "reasoning" will have a bit more weight.You can try just explaining from scratch why you think that the deliberate killing of 12 people has more weight than the accidental death of 14 people if you'd like.

Actually, I was referring to the tendency of people to say "these people were killed in a car accident, clearly wheels/cars need to be banned!" whenever there's a mass shooting involving guns. You can rant and rave about your completely different subject, though.


Anyway, cars are intentionally used as weapons all the time...
 
2012-09-01 12:21:35 AM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7298442/79079938#c79079938" target="_blank">Wrathskellar</a>:</b> <i>Fail in Human Form: I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.

I'd like to see a nation-wide ban on all auto and semi-auto firearms, and on any magazine over 6 shots, and on easily concealable arms, a ban on concealed carry, and a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That would leave revolvers and manual action long arms available by permit to those who can pass minimum standards.</i>

We call that safe place "the South Side of Chicago."
 
2012-09-01 12:39:29 AM  

sprawl15: Empty Matchbook: Eh, the point still stands as you could say they're the same thing.

Paper targets are people, my friend.


Not REALLY my point, but sure.
 
2012-09-01 01:07:41 AM  

Empty Matchbook: sprawl15: Empty Matchbook: Eh, the point still stands as you could say they're the same thing.

Paper targets are people, my friend.

Not REALLY my point, but sure.


No, you're right. You COULD say that going to the range and shooting at paper targets is exactly the same thing as killing people.

You'd have to be a farking idiot to say that, but you went ahead and did it anyway.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Actually, I was referring to the tendency of people to say "these people were killed in a car accident, clearly wheels/cars need to be banned!" whenever there's a mass shooting involving guns.


Possibly because people would like to prioritize reactions based on the threat's danger to society.
 
2012-09-01 02:00:04 AM  

sprawl15: Empty Matchbook: sprawl15: Empty Matchbook: Eh, the point still stands as you could say they're the same thing.

Paper targets are people, my friend.

Not REALLY my point, but sure.

No, you're right. You COULD say that going to the range and shooting at paper targets is exactly the same thing as killing people.

You'd have to be a farking idiot to say that, but you went ahead and did it anyway.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Actually, I was referring to the tendency of people to say "these people were killed in a car accident, clearly wheels/cars need to be banned!" whenever there's a mass shooting involving guns.

Possibly because people would like to prioritize reactions based on the threat's danger to society.


There's still a difference between "Oops" and "DIE DIE DIE!".
 
2012-09-01 02:45:48 AM  

sprawl15: Empty Matchbook: sprawl15: Empty Matchbook: Eh, the point still stands as you could say they're the same thing.

Paper targets are people, my friend.

Not REALLY my point, but sure.

No, you're right. You COULD say that going to the range and shooting at paper targets is exactly the same thing as killing people.

You'd have to be a farking idiot to say that, but you went ahead and did it anyway.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Actually, I was referring to the tendency of people to say "these people were killed in a car accident, clearly wheels/cars need to be banned!" whenever there's a mass shooting involving guns.

Possibly because people would like to prioritize reactions based on the threat's danger to society.


Oh YES! That's PRECISELY what I said. Or, wait! You're taking what a said to a hilarious extreme to avoid actually talking about the problem like a rational human being!

/it's definitely one OR the other!
 
2012-09-01 03:25:10 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: There's still a difference between "Oops" and "DIE DIE DIE!".


I don't think stomping your feet and resorting to absurd generalities is going to justify your assertion that it's better to have 14 dead by accident than 12 dead by murder.

Empty Matchbook: Oh YES! That's PRECISELY what I said.


It is:

Empty Matchbook: The SOLE purpose [of a gun] is to maim or kill OR to practice at being more effective at maiming or killing.


Empty Matchbook: Eh, the point still stands as you could say they're the same thing.

 
2012-09-01 10:12:56 AM  
The sad part is that Obama could steal the gun rights issue away from republicans with relative ease. He just has to undo the Hugh's amendment and/or remove SBR and suppressor restrictions from the NFA.

Crime rates go unchanged and gun lovers will flee from Romney and the NRA in droves.

/Even a smaller token, like lifting the import ban, would drive a wedge between the right and gun owners.
/The support of the Brady bunch isn't worth nearly as much.
 
2012-09-01 10:21:50 AM  

Fail in Human Form: I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.


That would be Hr-822

Introduced bi-partisan and passed Bi-partisan. Harry Reid refuses to take it up for vote.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Well regulated: Equipped and trained to national standards, disciplined, proficient, and under civilian-led military command.
The Founders had in mind a militia system much like that of the modern-day Swiss.


The founders also understood (per federalist 28) that in times of crisis, a well-equipped/regulated, etc citizenry would be able to handle themselves. We see it today in the even of natural disasters in some areas, firearms become the way by which people defend themselves and their families and gather food.

CSB: Was working with a cell tower restoration crew in the aftermath of the Alabama Tornados. The Alabama guard was walking around with cadaver dogs and came up on the foreman for our crew, asked him if he was carrying and said "Good, we cant be everywhere" when the foreman responded in the affirmative.
 
2012-09-01 11:09:53 AM  

o5iiawah: Fail in Human Form: I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.

That would be Hr-822

Introduced bi-partisan and passed Bi-partisan. Harry Reid refuses to take it up for vote.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Well regulated: Equipped and trained to national standards, disciplined, proficient, and under civilian-led military command.
The Founders had in mind a militia system much like that of the modern-day Swiss.

The founders also understood (per federalist 28) that in times of crisis, a well-equipped/regulated, etc citizenry would be able to handle themselves. We see it today in the even of natural disasters in some areas, firearms become the way by which people defend themselves and their families and gather food.

CSB: Was working with a cell tower restoration crew in the aftermath of the Alabama Tornados. The Alabama guard was walking around with cadaver dogs and came up on the foreman for our crew, asked him if he was carrying and said "Good, we cant be everywhere" when the foreman responded in the affirmative.


Thanks, I didn't realize there was a bill trying to do just that. Off to look at the bill then write the congress critter.
 
2012-09-01 06:25:49 PM  

sprawl15: Keizer_Ghidorah: There's still a difference between "Oops" and "DIE DIE DIE!".

I don't think stomping your feet and resorting to absurd generalities is going to justify your assertion that it's better to have 14 dead by accident than 12 dead by murder.

Empty Matchbook: Oh YES! That's PRECISELY what I said.

It is:Empty Matchbook: The SOLE purpose [of a gun] is to maim or kill OR to practice at being more effective at maiming or killing.

Empty Matchbook: Eh, the point still stands as you could say they're the same thing.


Dude, when did I ever say that having oen group dead is BETTER than the other? When the fark have I said ANYTHING besides "Comparing an accident to a deliberate act and proclaiming that we should ban the accident-related thing" is nonsensical? Seriously, stop making up things and saying I said it.
 
2012-09-01 10:52:28 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Thanks, I didn't realize there was a bill trying to do just that. Off to look at the bill then write the congress critter.


It isn't a national right to carry but means that states have to honor each others CCW permits just as they do loans, marriages and drivers licenses. It has already passed with large bipartisan support in the house. It was introduced in part by Blue-dog democrat and former NFL QB Heath Schuler (D-NC I think)

Might be better to write your senator and demand that it be called up at least for a vote. Reid seems reluctant, pass or fail, to make it known where democratic senators stand on certain issues this one notwithstanding.
 
Displayed 458 of 458 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report