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  
•       •       •

1518 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 458 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report