Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

1520 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 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"
 
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 »
Advertisement
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