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 05:36:41 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: qorkfiend: Took longer than I expected for "b-b-but Fast and Furious!"

But nothing. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, also Eric Holder is personally responsible for killing an ATF agent because the ATF let someone get a gun.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-30 05:37:35 PM  

bulldg4life: Dancin_In_Anson: Kind of like imprisoning people for using high firearms with high capacity magazines for murder. Hell of concept.

I didn't say the people in the cars had killed anyone. They had simply exceeded posted limits.


Its okay, he's building your argument for you so he can knock it down.

/guns don't kill people, dumbass gun politics do
 
2012-08-30 05:37:49 PM  
Or wait, border patrol agent.
 
2012-08-30 05:38:55 PM  

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

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


That's funny, because every single farkin' sporting firearm, with *VERY* few exceptions, is based upon a military design.
 
2012-08-30 05:39:20 PM  

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

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


So can I have 10 pounds of heroin and an nuclear weapon please? I don't need it, but it sure would be fun.
 
2012-08-30 05:39:46 PM  

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

Do you think that drugs can cause overdoses?

/'cause' means _____

A person overdoses on the drugs they chose use. Well, they usually have a choice in the matter.

So is "There would be no overdoses without drugs" a lemma or not?


Do you consider people overdosing on huffing things like butane or gasoline drug related? We'd have to ban of ton of things to stop people from overdosing.
 
2012-08-30 05:41:13 PM  

Cyclonic Cooking Action: So can I have 10 pounds of heroin and an nuclear weapon please? I don't need it, but it sure would be fun.


I'd have no problem with you having the heroin. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, would violate our non-proliferation treaties.
 
2012-08-30 05:43:21 PM  

Bontesla: Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

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

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

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


Please define an "assault rifle". Difficulty: Don't describe cosmetic aspects of the gun. Extra difficulty: Remove all guns that have a "non-assault rifle" type considered a "hunting rifle", unless the difference is something other than looks.
 
2012-08-30 05:45:10 PM  

bk3k: One of the very few Republican platform pieces I am fine with.


Me too, but I can't really support them even on this because they're vehemently opposed to other things that would truly help. Like-

1- ending the drug war
2- making public education -especially in poor urban areas- a top priority
3- working to take the stigma away from mental illness
 
2012-08-30 05:45:45 PM  

bulldg4life: I didn't say the people in the cars had killed anyone. They had simply exceeded posted limits


In other words they broke a law by using their vehicle in a certain way.

Go on.
 
2012-08-30 05:46:44 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

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


So the better thing is to allow belt-fed ammo for all handguns?
 
2012-08-30 05:48:48 PM  

Mikey1969: Please define an "assault rifle". Difficulty: Don't describe cosmetic aspects of the gun. Extra difficulty: Remove all guns that have a "non-assault rifle" type considered a "hunting rifle", unless the difference is something other than looks.


There's no such thing as a hunting rifle.
 
2012-08-30 05:49:55 PM  

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

Do you think that drugs can cause overdoses?

/'cause' means _____

A person overdoses on the drugs they chose use. Well, they usually have a choice in the matter.

So is "There would be no overdoses without drugs" a lemma or not?

Do you consider people overdosing on huffing things like butane or gasoline drug related? We'd have to ban of ton of things to stop people from overdosing.


Actually I'm just leading up to saying the people talking about guns causing homicides are trying to convey that gun related homicides are impossible without guns. Because implying that guns can aim and shoot themselves is just a premise for a bad Stephen King movie, so you should have looked for another interpretation of what they said.

/They also avoid being told "you said 'gun' twice"
 
2012-08-30 05:50:25 PM  

sprawl15: Cyclonic Cooking Action: So can I have 10 pounds of heroin and an nuclear weapon please? I don't need it, but it sure would be fun.

I'd have no problem with you having the heroin. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, would violate our non-proliferation treaties.


Yeah, but if they outlaw nuclear weapons only outlaws will have nuclear weapons. What about a big fuel air bomb?
 
2012-08-30 05:50:44 PM  

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

Why not?

Well, there we go. The next campus or theater shooter will thank you for such an honest reply.


While he phrased it perhaps excessively tersely, he's basically correct.

There's no evidence that magazine capacity limits do anything to curb gun crime, and you can't make things illegal because you imagine that banning them would help or that they're harmful. That's not how the US is supposed to work.

Even really stupid ideas like prohibition have some sort of causative link established between what they're trying to ban and some harmful effect, whereas there's no evidence that this form of gun control (limiting magazine sizes) does anything whatsoever to crime rates. The AWB, which instituted the "no guns that look scary to dumb senators" rule, did nothing perceptible to the crime rate (it was in the same slow decline it's been in for a long time before and after), so I'm talking ineffective empirically, not theoretically. People need to leave off the gun issue for the same reason they need to lay off the idea of re-banning abortion: we've tried it the other way and it empirically does not help.

//Whereas bans on things like explosives have, in fact, demonstrably reduced the destructive power of, say, domestic terrorists. So restricting nukes and bazookas to specially permitted people is fine.
 
2012-08-30 05:51:17 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

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

So the better thing is to allow belt-fed ammo for all handguns?


I didn't know there was "belt-fed ammo" for handguns. I'm intrigued. Can you show me these belt-fed handguns?
 
2012-08-30 05:51:19 PM  
Advice to Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party:

Don't fight the Republicans on this one. Ignore it. If you fight them on it, you'll lose. Support for gun control is at the lowest point in almost 50 years. The number of guns and ammunition being sold is increasing every year (It's practically the only growth industry in the US in the last few years). After decades of decline, the number of hunting licenses has increased in the last few years. Then too, we have the Heller and McDonald decisions, which sharply limit the things you can do.

If you let the Republicans make an issue out of this, and you fight them, you will lose rural and suburban Democrats, and you won't *GAIN* anything for it. The number of people who consistently care about gun rights far outweigh (and out-spend, and out-vote) the number of people who consistently care about gun control.

In essence, this is a trap. If you want to win the election, don't fall for it.

/Pro-gun.
//Not a Rethuglican or a Demonrat.
 
2012-08-30 05:53:59 PM  

dittybopper: Advice to Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party:

Don't fight the Republicans on this one. Ignore it. If you fight them on it, you'll lose. Support for gun control is at the lowest point in almost 50 years. The number of guns and ammunition being sold is increasing every year (It's practically the only growth industry in the US in the last few years). After decades of decline, the number of hunting licenses has increased in the last few years. Then too, we have the Heller and McDonald decisions, which sharply limit the things you can do.

If you let the Republicans make an issue out of this, and you fight them, you will lose rural and suburban Democrats, and you won't *GAIN* anything for it. The number of people who consistently care about gun rights far outweigh (and out-spend, and out-vote) the number of people who consistently care about gun control.

In essence, this is a trap. If you want to win the election, don't fall for it.

/Pro-gun.
//Not a Rethuglican or a Demonrat.


This isn't the Democratic Party from the 90s, they're the ones setting the traps for the Republicans now, it's not the other way around.
 
2012-08-30 05:55:43 PM  

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


Fear and paranoia.
 
2012-08-30 05:55:51 PM  

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

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


What's a 'military-grade firearm?' Like a howitzer or stinger missile?

The 100 rnd large capacity magazine in Aurora saved a lot of lives by being unreliable and failing (whence why the military doesn't use them). If he had used California Approved magazines, a lot more people would be dead today.
 
2012-08-30 05:57:47 PM  

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

The military wouldn't be particularly interested in most of the weapons people are seeking to ban.


The 82nd Airborne Division tested the 90-round "C-Mags" for their M4s and M16s, to basically try to turn an M4 into a super light-weight M249 SAW for mountain fighting in Afghanistan. They jammed so often that they abandoned the idea. That's what happened to the Aurora shooter. It jammed after only a fewer shots.

That piece of shiat giganto mag ironically saved lives.
 
2012-08-30 05:58:14 PM  

dittybopper: Don't fight the Republicans on this one. Ignore it. If you fight them on it, you'll lose


They probably won't, if just to keep a possible debate statement "There is only one person on this stage who signed a firearms restricting bill into law, and it's not me"

also everyone knows its over

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-30 05:59:32 PM  

the biggest redneck here: bk3k: One of the very few Republican platform pieces I am fine with.

Me too, but I can't really support them even on this because they're vehemently opposed to other things that would truly help. Like-

1- ending the drug war
2- making public education -especially in poor urban areas- a top priority
3- working to take the stigma away from mental illness


You forgot "would send us into a depression".

/we nearly got that from the 'six year reign of epic retardation' during 2001-2007
//and the gop's current platform doesn't exactly differ from said brilliant plans
 
2012-08-30 05:59:55 PM  
But what if Obama's Muslim New Black Panther army tries to come on my property to rape and kill my family? How will I stand my ground?

Guns don't kill people. Minorities do.
 
2012-08-30 06:00:34 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-08-30 06:00:40 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Mikey1969: Please define an "assault rifle". Difficulty: Don't describe cosmetic aspects of the gun. Extra difficulty: Remove all guns that have a "non-assault rifle" type considered a "hunting rifle", unless the difference is something other than looks.

There's no such thing as a hunting rifle.


Assuming you're serious, what do you calls made for and used exclusively for hunting?
 
2012-08-30 06:01:33 PM  
/call rifles
 
2012-08-30 06:01:43 PM  

Gyrfalcon: So the better thing is to allow belt-fed ammo for all handguns?


Is there such a thing? Hell, I'd love to try one out!

Fark It: I didn't know there was "belt-fed ammo" for handguns. I'm intrigued. Can you show me these belt-fed handguns?


I know, right?!
 
2012-08-30 06:02:14 PM  

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

Do you think that drugs can cause overdoses?

/'cause' means _____

A person overdoses on the drugs they chose use. Well, they usually have a choice in the matter.

So is "There would be no overdoses without drugs" a lemma or not?


Damn, maybe we should prohibit drug use.
 
2012-08-30 06:02:20 PM  

the biggest redneck here: Assuming you're serious, what do you calls made for and used exclusively for hunting?


The same thing I calls made for and used exclusively for assaulting: Ginger.
 
2012-08-30 06:02:55 PM  
Also, bad assumption.
 
2012-08-30 06:06:43 PM  

Fark It: Gyrfalcon: Dancin_In_Anson: Blues_X: Because mass killings?

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

So the better thing is to allow belt-fed ammo for all handguns?

I didn't know there was "belt-fed ammo" for handguns. I'm intrigued. Can you show me these belt-fed handguns?


I doubt there are--yet--but it's the only way I could imagine "unlimited capacity" for any type of small arms.
 
2012-08-30 06:06:50 PM  

andersoncouncil42: EatHam: make me some tea: Okay I have a genuine question to ask the pro-gun folks around here: Why do you need these things?

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

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

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

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

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

Otherwise, keep your handguns, rifles, and shotguns and be happy with that. To be honest, handguns should be illegal too, but the ship has sailed on that one as well. It works both ways.


What would you say is a reasonable limit on number of firearms per person?, per household?

I will use a legit firearm activity - hunting.

I have personally hunted duck, deer, elk, mountain goat, black bear, coyote & a few others. The ideal firearm for each of those varies. In a sense a weapon is a tool for killing. Just like any other tool, they have specific uses.

Expand this. As a responsible firearm owner/user, I would be negligent if my children were not at the vaery least aware of what a firearm does and how to safely handle one. It would be far better if they were proficient in there use. A .22rifle is ideal for this. Low kick, easy to handle. When shoukd you start teaching your kids is up to each parent.

So right now I am at around 6 firearms, give or take a couple. That is just for me. I would stil want the .22 for target shooting since the rounds are cheap, but still allow for practice of the basics.

Is that too many?

/on mobile, appologizes for typos
 
2012-08-30 06:06:57 PM  
I'm going to speak in hypothetical terms:

Hypothetically, I live in New Jersey, a state not very friendly to gun ownership. How much profit can I make if I hypothetically go to an out-of-state gun show and buy an AR-15, then drive to Newark and sell it to a crack dealer?

Just thinking about supplemental income.
 
2012-08-30 06:06:59 PM  

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

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


Oh, I don't know. Maybe because of shiat like this. Link
 
2012-08-30 06:09:56 PM  
"Okay guys, people are starting to figure out that our economic plan is basically 'Gut the middle class and cut taxes for the wealthy'. We need a distraction. What's been in the news lately that we can exploit? Mass shootings? Great! Let's propose looser gun restrictions and then watch the liberals lose their shiat!! Then the Republicans will react by circulating fresh rumors that the scary black man in the White House will outlaw all weapons if he gets a second term, which will probably make Hotmail's server farm explode from all of the FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD: emails.That should buy us another week or so. I can't believe these f*cking idiots keep falling for this shiat. It's like shooting fish in a barrel! It's almost not even fun anymore."
 
2012-08-30 06:13:53 PM  

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

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

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

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

You aren't either, are you? Nobody is talking about private citizens owning RPGs. And you can take your racial slur and cram it right up your ass, you bigot.


So I'm clear, do you usually just wander into conversations and throw around insults without any real substance? You're not helping.
 
2012-08-30 06:15:58 PM  

PiffMan420: I'm going to speak in hypothetical terms:

Hypothetically, I live in New Jersey, a state not very friendly to gun ownership. How much profit can I make if I hypothetically go to an out-of-state gun show and buy an AR-15, then drive to Newark and sell it to a crack dealer?

Just thinking about supplemental income.


I'm not sure exactly, but I'm willing to bet you'd get a free place to live, and free meals as well, for quite a while.
 
2012-08-30 06:23:43 PM  

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


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

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

/you antis really need to educate yourselves, every time you post it's "a series of tubes..." all over again.


So, the magazine didn't look like a dick?
 
2012-08-30 06:28:04 PM  
This just doesn't resonate with me. I am a gun owner, and I don't want more restrictive gun laws - but then, I don't see anyone of note trying to pass any. I don't have any urgent desire to make gun laws more lenient, either. I'm fine the way things are, in that regard, pretty much.
Do the Republicans have anything that matters to talk about?
 
2012-08-30 06:31:19 PM  

sprawl15: Dr. Whoof: That's not to say that there shouldn't be gun laws. There are laws for flying, for driving, etc. We have them because quite honestly no matter how responsible you are, someone else might not be, and that's too much of a risk. It's a balance, between what we make illegal because it's for the best for everyone and what we allow because we're a nation based on the idea of freedom. Extremes either way are bad.

Exactly.

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

lol


Eh, the point still stands as you could say they're the same thing.
 
2012-08-30 06:31:21 PM  
Unlimited magazine sizes, lol. Most "huge capacity" magazines are utter junk.
 
2012-08-30 06:32:55 PM  

Empty Matchbook: Eh, the point still stands as you could say they're the same thing.


Paper targets are people, my friend.
 
2012-08-30 06:33:54 PM  

trotsky: Unlimited magazine sizes, lol. Most "huge capacity" magazines are utter junk.


Gang bangers and spree killers seem to like them a lot.
 
2012-08-30 06:52:54 PM  

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

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

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

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

PUSSIES!


0/10. You're not even trying, are you?
 
2012-08-30 06:54:51 PM  

PiffMan420: trotsky: Unlimited magazine sizes, lol. Most "huge capacity" magazines are utter junk.

Gang bangers and spree killers seem to like them a lot.


to say nothing of trigger-happy cops who, say wound nine people trying to take out one gunman. even cops don;t need 15 if they only had six they MIGHT start caring about an arcane art called "aiming" again
 
2012-08-30 06:57:00 PM  
While some crazies like to take civilian 'assault rifles' and mod them to the hilt, please keep in mind that many of the incidents of people going postal included simple semi-auto pistols.

/For instance a mini-14 is probably just as dangerous as a semi-auto ak or an ar15, but they don't have the bling. I still am not convinced they are any more dangerous. Just more sexy for those that want to be glamorous and postal.
 
2012-08-30 06:57:20 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: There's no such thing as a hunting rifle.


Yes, there is.
 
2012-08-30 06:59:01 PM  

Eshman: So I'm clear, do you usually just wander into conversations and throw around insults without any real substance? You're not helping.


You know what? I refuse to get into a battle of wits with someone who is obviously unarmed.
 
2012-08-30 07:00:16 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: Yes, there is.


No there isn't.
 
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