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
    More: Asinine, GOP, David Keene, mass shooting, semiautomatic firearms, Sounds Good, assault weapons, NRA, Gabrielle Giffords  
•       •       •

1524 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2012 at 3:42 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 458 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


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