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  
•       •       •

1511 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2012 at 3:42 PM (1 year 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 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!
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report