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 10:32:03 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 absolutely agree with your right to have 10 pounds of heroin.  Go nuts.  
 
2012-08-30 10:41:40 PM

Somacandra: 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.


You presented the only logically consistent and clear objection.

Whether its armed church members or hired security doesn't particularly matter but the "No guns at all!" policies keep biting people in the rear over and over again. As stated, you never see mass shootings anywhere that the assailant(s) would expect people to be able to fight back. In the case of churches, you probably cannot coerce them in to accepting people carrying guns, but if they had any sense they would have private meetings with the conceal carry holders to ask them to rise to the defense of the church members. Encouragement of that idea by the various governmental powers would produce good results.

Without Fail: The reason these shooting incidents keep happening is because the shooters are crazy and it's easy to get guns.


Why it happens is only tangentially connected to why the aforementioned crazies pick the targets they do. Do you or do you not acknowledge that spree shooters almost without exception select targets that have lots of unarmed people? These people are crazy but not so crazy that they go anywhere somebody can shoot back.

Without Fail: Can you name a time that a civilian with a concealed carry permit stopped one of these sprees?


Guns are regularly used for self defense. If one were used to stop a spree killer how would you tell he was a spree killer? As stated, spree killers pick large groups of unarmed people for a reason so you're basically asking "Hey, why don't see see cases of spree killers being stopped by somebody with a gun in a place where nobody else has guns?"

justtray: This logic employs the same fallacy to a rock that keeps tigers away. Correlation does not equal causation.


Right and people who rob banks and convenience stores don't select their targets based on the likelihood of getting cold hard cash. There's no correlation at all there just as there's no correlation between "large numbers of unarmed people" and "targets of spree killers". No correlation at all. Really.

To think that because conceal carry is not allowed, more gun sprees occur or are not being prevented is not based in any facts in reality, only in the mind of fantastical crazy person like most small penis gun nuts.

An armed population is a safe population. As normal crime is prevented on a regular basis using personal fire arms and self defense is conducted on a regular basis using person fire arms only in the mind of somebody as simple as you could you look at these two facts and say "No way would a spree killer be stopped by one person with a gun... Like other criminals are."

By the way I'll also translate what you actually said "I am so insure about myself and my argument that I'll finish it with what I think is a witty insult". I'll give you a hint, if you want to be a wise arse, you must first... Be wise.
 
2012-08-30 11:30:58 PM
The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.
 
2012-08-30 11:37:29 PM

CokeBear: What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?


"not infringed"
 
2012-08-31 12:00:32 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: CokeBear: What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

"not infringed"


More than that. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
2012-08-31 12:12:23 AM

CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.


Absolutely. Anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right that shall not be infringed is a loon.
 
2012-08-31 12:13:46 AM
Well, took me a while to finish reading through this thread, and disappointingly it is probably now dead. I feel I must make a few points though. Firstly, why did only 1 person respond to hubiestubert's post in any way? Is it because he was the only person that didn't make a stupid analogy, reductio ad absurd absurdum strawman, sweeping generalization, or penis-based insult? Honestly, go read it Link

Guns are not causes of death. Violent crime is what ultimately leads to a gun related death. Assault with a deadly weapon/ murder. Stop attributing malice and intent to an object. I've yet to see someone bring up reducing or removing current regulation on explosives except when they're trying to make a point for increasing gun regulation. Honestly, stop it. Firearms, especially the firearms currently purchased and in circulation are discriminant weapons. Explosives are not, thus increasing the chance for collateral damage to unintended targets.

Back to the violent crime issue, why are so many people focusing on the method of violent crime rather than the cause? Guns don't cause violent crime, shiatty circumstances do. Poverty, drug law, insufficient mental health care, insufficient education, things which lead people to believe crime is an effective alternative to not being a complete dick to other people are to blame. You can argue all you want that guns make people more efficient at indescriminent violence, but that's just not true. Large capacity magazines jam frequently, rifles are difficult to conceal, and gunshots are not 1 hit kills. Arson and explosives have potentially higher body counts with greater probabilities of success. Only through the fetishizing of guns are they as popular for mass murder as they are. Does that mean that fetishizing guns is good? No, not really.

Yes, rights are not predicated upon need. The benefits of removing "high capacity" magazines and "assault weapons" have already been proven to be statistically nil. Try coming up with something that addresses why guns are being used, not the guns themselves.

/ I would thank you kindly to leave out "why are you so afraid"
// And "you must have a small peen
/// And any insults really, they don't support honest debate, which sadly enough is why I stopped lurking
 
2012-08-31 12:34:44 AM

Fark It: CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.

Absolutely. Anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right that shall not be infringed is a loon.


From what I've read of the Constitutional Conventions, I agree. Mostly they seemed worried over whether it meant that conscientious objectors, like Quakers, would be forced to participate. This leads me to believe that they were more thinking of having to go out and march up and down the square a weekend a month, practicing formations and manual of arms as opposed to joe bob collecting a bunch of muskets in his spare room.

But regardless, in District of Columbia v. Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd gave individuals some rights to possess weapons. Not carte blanche, mind you, but rights.

So, loons or not, 5 v 4, the current case law holds there is an individual right.
 
2012-08-31 12:39:12 AM
Given who's going to be first against the wall when the revolution comes, you'd think the Publicans would favor banning guns outright.
 
2012-08-31 12:42:40 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Fark It: CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.

Absolutely. Anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right that shall not be infringed is a loon.

From what I've read of the Constitutional Conventions, I agree. Mostly they seemed worried over whether it meant that conscientious objectors, like Quakers, would be forced to participate. This leads me to believe that they were more thinking of having to go out and march up and down the square a weekend a month, practicing formations and manual of arms as opposed to joe bob collecting a bunch of muskets in his spare room.

But regardless, in District of Columbia v. Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd gave individuals some rights to possess weapons. Not carte blanche, mind you, but rights.

So, loons or not, 5 v 4, the current case law holds there is an individual right.


This is not how the Constitution works. It is a limiting document, not a granting one.
 
2012-08-31 12:47:19 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Given who's going to be first against the wall when the revolution comes, you'd think the Publicans would favor banning guns outright.


Why's that? There are plenty of Democrats rich enough to stand right next to them.

/Lobbying and "campaign donations" are out of control all throughout the federal government
 
2012-08-31 01:41:11 AM

lewismarktwo: YOU GONNA GET MASS-KILLED!!!! OOGA BOOGA!


Can I get killed by Shepard? He can mass-kill me any day of the week.
 
2012-08-31 01:43:45 AM

CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.


At the time of ratification, "regulated" meant equipped i.e. an army regular.

I give you Federalist 28:

That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
 
2012-08-31 01:50:16 AM

Loaded Six String: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Given who's going to be first against the wall when the revolution comes, you'd think the Publicans would favor banning guns outright.

Why's that? There are plenty of Democrats rich enough to stand right next to them.


They'll be second against the wall.

/BSABSVR
 
2012-08-31 01:54:58 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: PolloDiablo: Right. So in a constitutionally just world (or country, i guess) I should be able to walk into my local gun shop and buy hand grenades, RPGs, landmines, and fully automatic weapons?

Sure. Why not?

GAT_00: Thanks for confirming that you won't address a question

Which question?" The one about the conditions in a situation that didn't exist in the first place? I answered you you farking idiot. Now go whine to the mods that the bad man called you a name.


Pfactor: I have no issue with you owning them. I don't fear people who are responsible actors.

Exactly. More people died in a one vehicle accident in south Texas than did in a theater in Colorado but you don't hear screams for banning the wheel.


Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible. Maybe when more people start using cars and trucks as actual weapons to commit murder this line of "reasoning" will have a bit more weight.
 
2012-08-31 01:59:16 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible.


Is your goal to save lives, or just save lives that are ended intentionally?
 
2012-08-31 02:14:08 AM

Fark It: Vlad_the_Inaner: Fark It: CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.

Absolutely. Anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right that shall not be infringed is a loon.

From what I've read of the Constitutional Conventions, I agree. Mostly they seemed worried over whether it meant that conscientious objectors, like Quakers, would be forced to participate. This leads me to believe that they were more thinking of having to go out and march up and down the square a weekend a month, practicing formations and manual of arms as opposed to joe bob collecting a bunch of muskets in his spare room.

But regardless, in District of Columbia v. Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd gave individuals some rights to possess weapons. Not carte blanche, mind you, but rights.

So, loons or not, 5 v 4, the current case law holds there is an individual right.

This is not how the Constitution works. It is a limiting document, not a granting one.


It generally limits the actions of the government, So what verb does one use to describe the resulting effects to the individual. Not all rights are unalienable. Some require government action to create. example an accused in a criminal trial has a right "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, " What limit effectuates that?
 
2012-08-31 02:14:13 AM

sprawl15: Keizer_Ghidorah: Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible.

Is your goal to save lives, or just save lives that are ended intentionally?


Is there a middle ground where we can meet and discuss something? Better mental health care and some way to track guns to see if they end up in the hands of undesireables like criminals, gang members, etc?

Yes, it's a right, but too much of anything is never a good thing.
 
2012-08-31 02:24:54 AM

hubiestubert: Part of the problem, is that when we talk about gun control, we are pretty much talking about a distraction...


I've only just begun reading the thread, so I apologize if this has already been covered: You are an intelligent and articulate person and I value the comments you have made. I appreciate your even handed approach to some very difficult and often emotional issues. Thank you.
 
2012-08-31 02:28:38 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Is there a middle ground where we can meet and discuss something?


Sure. You could determine if saving 14 people from dying in a car crash is a more or less important goal than saving 12 people from a shooting.

You've drawn a distinction in importance, I'm simply asking you to define it.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Better mental health care and some way to track guns to see if they end up in the hands of undesireables like criminals, gang members, etc?


That has nothing to do with what I'm asking you about.
 
2012-08-31 02:32:29 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Loaded Six String: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Given who's going to be first against the wall when the revolution comes, you'd think the Publicans would favor banning guns outright.

Why's that? There are plenty of Democrats rich enough to stand right next to them.

They'll be second against the wall.

/BSABSVR

Both Sides Are Bad So Petition Government To Reduce Or Remove The Influence Of Money On The Legislative Process

BSABSPGTRORTIOMOTLP
/FTFY
// I'd also like to see the terms of Representatives extended to 4 years so they are not under as much pressure to raise funds and campaign when they should be doing their job, as well as reduce the term limit for senators to 3 terms (senators shouldn't be senators for life, and politics was never meant to be a career), as well as have State Representatives elect Senators to represent their state, not a popular vote (essentially repealing or restructuring the 17th amendment). Senators are supposed to represent their state's interest, not things which effect the nation as a whole.
 
2012-08-31 02:50:02 AM

sprawl15: Keizer_Ghidorah: Is there a middle ground where we can meet and discuss something?

Sure. You could determine if saving 14 people from dying in a car crash is a more or less important goal than saving 12 people from a shooting.

You've drawn a distinction in importance, I'm simply asking you to define it.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Better mental health care and some way to track guns to see if they end up in the hands of undesireables like criminals, gang members, etc?

That has nothing to do with what I'm asking you about.


I'm sorry, why do I have to choose between saving two groups of people from different things? Is this like Spider-man having to choose between the trolley and his girlfriend? What the hell does it have to do with what I pointed out?

Using an accident as a comparison to a deliberate act is nonsensical.
 
2012-08-31 02:52:39 AM

Loaded Six String: Senators are supposed to represent their state's interest, not things which effect the nation as a whole.


Right. We need antebellum-style sedition and regionalism, as opposed to a national legislature that addresses the needs of our entire nation.

/You lost "Reb", and we are all better off for it.
//Don't think for an instant that we don't know that it's far cheaper to buy off a state legislature than it is to convince the entire electorate of a state.
 
2012-08-31 02:59:54 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm sorry, why do I have to choose between saving two groups of people from different things?


I don't know. You chose to value 14 lives as less than 12 lives, and I'm trying to figure out why:

Keizer_Ghidorah: Dancin_In_Anson: Exactly. More people died in a one vehicle accident in south Texas than did in a theater in Colorado but you don't hear screams for banning the wheel.

Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible. Maybe when more people start using cars and trucks as actual weapons to commit murder this line of "reasoning" will have a bit more weight.

You can try just explaining from scratch why you think that the deliberate killing of 12 people has more weight than the accidental death of 14 people if you'd like.
 
2012-08-31 03:04:47 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: Senators are supposed to represent their state's interest, not things which effect the nation as a whole.

Right. We need antebellum-style sedition and regionalism, as opposed to a national legislature that addresses the needs of our entire nation.

/You lost "Reb", and we are all better off for it.
//Don't think for an instant that we don't know that it's far cheaper to buy off a state legislature than it is to convince the entire electorate of a state.


You'll pardon me if I ask for a more detailed response. Representatives are elected to represent districts within states by popular vote, why shouldn't they elect the people who are in essence representing them (the state as a whole)? I think it would cut down on the popularity contest style senatorial elections we have now (Gram and Gramps voting for Senator Cryptkeeper for 60 years). Also, if a Senator is voting on a bill which has nationwide implications and their vote is based on party lines rather than their state's interest, how is that not dereliction of duty? As far as buying of a state legislature, money in politics is something I'd like to see reformed as well.
 
2012-08-31 03:05:40 AM

o5iiawah: CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.

At the time of ratification, "regulated" meant equipped i.e. an army regular.


That is absolute and utter nonsense.
I give you Federalist Paper 29:
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Well regulated: Equipped and trained to national standards, disciplined, proficient, and under civilian-led military command.
The Founders had in mind a militia system much like that of the modern-day Swiss.
 
2012-08-31 03:22:17 AM

Loaded Six String: demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: Senators are supposed to represent their state's interest, not things which effect the nation as a whole.

Right. We need antebellum-style sedition and regionalism, as opposed to a national legislature that addresses the needs of our entire nation.

/You lost "Reb", and we are all better off for it.
//Don't think for an instant that we don't know that it's far cheaper to buy off a state legislature than it is to convince the entire electorate of a state.

You'll pardon me if I ask for a more detailed response. Representatives are elected to represent districts within states by popular vote, why shouldn't they elect the people who are in essence representing them (the state as a whole)? I think it would cut down on the popularity contest style senatorial elections we have now (Gram and Gramps voting for Senator Cryptkeeper for 60 years). Also, if a Senator is voting on a bill which has nationwide implications and their vote is based on party lines rather than their state's interest, how is that not dereliction of duty? As far as buying of a state legislature, money in politics is something I'd like to see reformed as well.


What do you have against democracy?
Look at the history of the Seventeenth Amendment and convince me that the process should be turned over to corrupt and idiotic state legislatures again. (Difficulty: I live in Arizona.)
 
2012-08-31 03:28:45 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: o5iiawah: CokeBear: The words "well-regulated" are right there in the second amendment.

What part of "well-regulated" do gun-nuts not understand?

Based on those 2 words, I would argue that the removal of regulations was in fact unconstitutional.

At the time of ratification, "regulated" meant equipped i.e. an army regular.

That is absolute and utter nonsense.
I give you Federalist Paper 29:
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Well regulated: Equipped and trained to national standards, disciplined, proficient, and under civilian-led military command.
The Founders had in mind a militia system much like that of the modern-day Swiss.


... I'm not quite sure about that. In the quote given, it seems that he is expressing the belief that making an obligation of keeping weaponry and going through military exercises "would be a real grievance to the people." So forcing the citizenry to be part of the well-regulated militia is frowned upon. It does nicely define well-regulated militia though.

Plugging that into the Second Amendment we get... "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A properly equipped and trained militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What I'm getting out of that is, compulsory militia service is bad; in order to be called a militia, exercises must be carried out to achieve military performance; the militia may be equipped by the government; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of voluntary militia service and with no exercise requirements except within the militia.
 
2012-08-31 03:38:04 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: Senators are supposed to represent their state's interest, not things which effect the nation as a whole.

Right. We need antebellum-style sedition and regionalism, as opposed to a national legislature that addresses the needs of our entire nation.

/You lost "Reb", and we are all better off for it.
//Don't think for an instant that we don't know that it's far cheaper to buy off a state legislature than it is to convince the entire electorate of a state.

You'll pardon me if I ask for a more detailed response. Representatives are elected to represent districts within states by popular vote, why shouldn't they elect the people who are in essence representing them (the state as a whole)? I think it would cut down on the popularity contest style senatorial elections we have now (Gram and Gramps voting for Senator Cryptkeeper for 60 years). Also, if a Senator is voting on a bill which has nationwide implications and their vote is based on party lines rather than their state's interest, how is that not dereliction of duty? As far as buying of a state legislature, money in politics is something I'd like to see reformed as well.

What do you have against democracy?
Look at the history of the Seventeenth Amendment and convince me that the process should be turned over to corrupt and idiotic state legislatures again. (Difficulty: I live in Arizona.)


I have nothing against democracy. You failed to address that my proposal would involve State Senators being elected by State Representatives, which if I'm correct, are part of the federal government, not state government, thus not state legislatures. I also mentioned that reduction or removal monetary corruption was also a goal, hence hand in hand sort of thing. Really, the removal of monetary incentives needs to come first.
 
2012-08-31 03:44:44 AM
On a somewhat side note, I also really frown upon riders being attached to bills that have no demonstrable relevence to the bill for example: the following from 2009's credit CARD Act-

"Gun rights advocates in the Senate, led by Tom Coburn (R-Okla) added an unrelated rider to the bill to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from enforcing any regulation that would prohibit an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System.[4][5] The Senate passed the amendment 67-29.[6][7]

This amendment overturns a Reagan-era policy prohibiting firearms from being carried in national parks. The George W. Bush administration had attempted to implement a similar policy through the rulemaking process just before leaving office; however the change was struck down by a federal judge. This provision has been heavily criticized by environmentalists, anti-gun groups, and park supporters including the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, but applauded by gun rights groups.[7][8]"

I find this practice highly distasteful, regardless of whether I approve of the outcome.
 
2012-08-31 04:03:29 AM

sprawl15: Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm sorry, why do I have to choose between saving two groups of people from different things?

I don't know. You chose to value 14 lives as less than 12 lives, and I'm trying to figure out why:Keizer_Ghidorah: Dancin_In_Anson: Exactly. More people died in a one vehicle accident in south Texas than did in a theater in Colorado but you don't hear screams for banning the wheel.

Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible. Maybe when more people start using cars and trucks as actual weapons to commit murder this line of "reasoning" will have a bit more weight.You can try just explaining from scratch why you think that the deliberate killing of 12 people has more weight than the accidental death of 14 people if you'd like.


Because one is an accident and one is an intentional act. Assuming the vehicle driver truly was not at fault, or at least only negligent in his actions, he simply cannot be held to the same standard as someone who deliberately and with malice killed people.

If the driver intentionally and maliciously drove his car into another vehicle and thus deliberately killed 14 people, then the actions are equivalent. However, you indicated that the killing of the 14 was accidental (or at worst negligent), and therefore the actions are NOT the same, even though the results (a lot of dead people) are. A deliberate action can be prevented and/or punished, whereas an accidental action simply cannot. Even an act of simple negligence is not in the same category as willful and malicious act.

So given a single option of saving 14 people in an accident vs. 12 people in a deliberate act, obviously saving the 12 people must take precedence. Now ideally, the goal would be to save all of them; but that's not the option you're allowing in this hypothetical.
 
2012-08-31 04:04:42 AM

Loaded Six String: What I'm getting out of that is, compulsory militia service is bad; in order to be called a militia, exercises must be carried out to achieve military performance; the militia may be equipped by the government; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of voluntary militia service and with no exercise requirements except within the militia.


"Well-regulated" never meant "equipped like the regular Army".
Hamilton envisioned states having small, professionalized, well-regulated militias and less-well trained and armed citizens available to supplement those militias in emergencies.
There is no constitutional limitation preventing states from requiring mandatory militia service.
Nor does the Constitution forbid reasonable regulation of access to firearms. The insane, for example, should not have anywhere near as ready access to weapons and ammunition as they now have.

/And concealed carry is still farking stupid.
 
2012-08-31 04:17:03 AM

jso2897: 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?


I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.
 
2012-08-31 04:26:44 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Loaded Six String: What I'm getting out of that is, compulsory militia service is bad; in order to be called a militia, exercises must be carried out to achieve military performance; the militia may be equipped by the government; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of voluntary militia service and with no exercise requirements except within the militia.

"Well-regulated" never meant "equipped like the regular Army".
Hamilton envisioned states having small, professionalized, well-regulated militias and less-well trained and armed citizens available to supplement those militias in emergencies.
There is no constitutional limitation preventing states from requiring mandatory militia service.
Nor does the Constitution forbid reasonable regulation of access to firearms. The insane, for example, should not have anywhere near as ready access to weapons and ammunition as they now have.

/And concealed carry is still farking stupid.


So a reasonable compromise would be allowing military comparable firearms to only be owned by those who are in the militia? Yes, there is no Constitutional prevention to mandatory militia service, it seemed that Hamilton found compulsory service to be distasteful in the quote you provided (for conscientious objections?)

As for the insane having readily available access to firearms, wouldn't it be better to focus on reducing the insane's accessibility to the public? Like instituting better health care in the nation?

/ If concealed carry isn't legal, then open carry must be, as "to bear arms" does not just mean to use them, but to have them on your person, and that right shall not be infringed, per the amendment. Whether or not required licensing is an infringement is debateable, but my personal feeling on it is that as long as the cost and process involved does not prevent those in the lower economic class from being issued the permit, it's not an infringement. Similar to how Voter ID's are a bad idea when they disenfrachise the poor, but are okay when they are given freely. Shall issue is preferred to may issue.
 
2012-08-31 04:34:05 AM

Fail in Human Form: jso2897: 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?

I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.


Normalization of carry permits would definitely be nice to see. It is rediculous to have a law which can be broken by crossing state lines and no other action. Driver's licenses are accepted from state to state, though I'm pretty sure the standards with which they are issued vary.
 
2012-08-31 09:07:35 AM

Gyrfalcon: So given a single option of saving 14 people in an accident vs. 12 people in a deliberate act, obviously saving the 12 people must take precedence.


Alright, this we can work with.

If a million people die on accident but 12 people die from shootings, I'd like to think the million people is a greater tragedy and should be prevented given a magical choice. But if it's just 14, then 12 people dying from shootings is apparently a greater tragedy.

Alright, we can use those as two initial boundaries. Where's the breakpoint? How much does an the death being accidental depreciate the value of the lives lost? Using 14 as the breakpoint, if you die on accident then your death was only worth 86% of an intentional death.
 
2012-08-31 09:58:14 AM

sprawl15: given a magical choice


There's your prime mistake right there.

If a genie grants you a wish, you need to wish for more wishes.
 
2012-08-31 12:46:05 PM

sprawl15: Gyrfalcon: So given a single option of saving 14 people in an accident vs. 12 people in a deliberate act, obviously saving the 12 people must take precedence.

Alright, this we can work with.

If a million people die on accident but 12 people die from shootings, I'd like to think the million people is a greater tragedy and should be prevented given a magical choice. But if it's just 14, then 12 people dying from shootings is apparently a greater tragedy.

Alright, we can use those as two initial boundaries. Where's the breakpoint? How much does an the death being accidental depreciate the value of the lives lost? Using 14 as the breakpoint, if you die on accident then your death was only worth 86% of an intentional death.


Probably too late, but...

You're trying to put a value on the number of deaths in an act. The issue that needs to be addressed is the quality of the act and the intent of the actor. It's not that there is somehow a magical break-even point at which X number of accidental deaths equals Y number of deliberate deaths. ANY death is a tragedy; and if you try to put a weight on the death itself, you get to the point where you have to decide, is a child dying worse than an adult dying, or an old person not so bad as a young person? The value of the life lost is always 100%, whether they were shot to death by a crazed thug or slipped and fell into a woodchipper.

What CAN be evaluated is the nature and quality of the action and the intent of the actor. If the shooter meant to kill someone, then he is obviously more culpable killing one person than the janitor who didn't mop the floor in front of the woodchipper. THOSE actions can be ranked and evaluated; but the value of the life of the dead person is not greater because he was shot or lessened because he died by accident. You have this odd idea that because people want to prevent deliberate killings that they therefore value those victims more; but the fact is that this is merely an acknowledgement that deliberate killings are easier to control--because they involve a deliberate act--than accidental killings, where it may be that nobody is at fault.
 
2012-08-31 01:22:25 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.


But there are "assault rifles." They are full-auto and have barrels usually less 16 inches. Guns that "look like" assault rifles are not assault rifles. There are no functional differences between a post-ban, during-ban or pre-ban AR-15 or AK-47. Shootings didn't stop during this period.

Please look up a mini-14 ranch rifle. Then look at "stock kits" that make it look evil. All the mechanical parts and rate of fire is the same. This is the greatest example of form trumping function. By the left's logic, racial profiling and pulling over red cars just because they are red should be perfectly legal instead of actually looking at traffic violations.

You're imaginary pink elephant doesn't violate local zoning codes either even though he looks like an elephant to you.
 
2012-08-31 01:24:14 PM

Fail in Human Form: I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.


I'd like to see a nation-wide ban on all auto and semi-auto firearms, and on any magazine over 6 shots, and on easily concealable arms, a ban on concealed carry, and a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That would leave revolvers and manual action long arms available by permit to those who can pass minimum standards.
 
2012-08-31 01:41:40 PM

Gyrfalcon: What CAN be evaluated is the nature and quality of the action and the intent of the actor.


Which in effect places the people killed by a firearm with intent above those killed in something like a car accident.
 
2012-08-31 02:32:13 PM

Gyrfalcon: You're trying to put a value on the number of deaths in an act. The issue that needs to be addressed is the quality of the act and the intent of the actor.


Only in a world with unlimited resources.

Obviously both sides are bad in this situation when you're talking 12 or 14 people dead. But you can quantify how bad.

Gyrfalcon: ANY death is a tragedy; and if you try to put a weight on the death itself, you get to the point where you have to decide, is a child dying worse than an adult dying, or an old person not so bad as a young person?


You've already put weight on the death itself. You've said that 12 people dying on purpose has less weight than 14 people dying on accident "because one is an accident and one is an intentional act."

I'm honestly trying to understand where you're coming from.

Gyrfalcon: What CAN be evaluated is the nature and quality of the action and the intent of the actor. If the shooter meant to kill someone, then he is obviously more culpable killing one person than the janitor who didn't mop the floor in front of the woodchipper. THOSE actions can be ranked and evaluated; but the value of the life of the dead person is not greater because he was shot or lessened because he died by accident.


You're advocating action not based on danger to the public, but rather on culpability of individuals who inflict that danger on the public. If a vat worker in a baby food factory accidentally got ebola into thousands of jars of baby food, he's not as culpable as one person who threw a baby into a woodchipper, and by your basis you'd consider the latter instance to be the one to be worth controlling if you had to choose between the two.

I would think that the danger to the public should take precedence - if 10,000 people die in car accidents every day and 5,000 people die from violent gun crime every day, the former would be a higher priority. Better reward for the effort in terms of lives saved.
 
2012-08-31 06:42:54 PM

Wrathskellar: Fail in Human Form: I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.

I'd like to see a nation-wide ban on all auto and semi-auto firearms, and on any magazine over 6 shots, and on easily concealable arms, a ban on concealed carry, and a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That would leave revolvers and manual action long arms available by permit to those who can pass minimum standards.


Good thing you're never going to get it. LOL.
 
2012-08-31 07:24:28 PM

Wrathskellar: Fail in Human Form: I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.

I'd like to see a nation-wide ban on all auto and semi-auto firearms, and on any magazine over 6 shots, and on easily concealable arms, a ban on concealed carry, and a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That would leave revolvers and manual action long arms available by permit to those who can pass minimum standards.


Are you willing to have another civil war to implement it, because that's what it would take?
 
2012-08-31 09:18:47 PM

Wrathskellar: Fail in Human Form: I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.

I'd like to see a nation-wide ban on all auto and semi-auto firearms, and on any magazine over 6 shots, and on easily concealable arms, a ban on concealed carry, and a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That would leave revolvers and manual action long arms available by permit to those who can pass minimum standards.


You know you're going to get nibbles on that one, Trollin'Marienplatz.
 
2012-08-31 10:19:18 PM

sprawl15: Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm sorry, why do I have to choose between saving two groups of people from different things?

I don't know. You chose to value 14 lives as less than 12 lives, and I'm trying to figure out why:Keizer_Ghidorah: Dancin_In_Anson: Exactly. More people died in a one vehicle accident in south Texas than did in a theater in Colorado but you don't hear screams for banning the wheel.

Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible. Maybe when more people start using cars and trucks as actual weapons to commit murder this line of "reasoning" will have a bit more weight.You can try just explaining from scratch why you think that the deliberate killing of 12 people has more weight than the accidental death of 14 people if you'd like.


Actually, I was referring to the tendency of people to say "these people were killed in a car accident, clearly wheels/cars need to be banned!" whenever there's a mass shooting involving guns. You can rant and rave about your completely different subject, though.
 
2012-08-31 11:47:43 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: sprawl15: Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm sorry, why do I have to choose between saving two groups of people from different things?

I don't know. You chose to value 14 lives as less than 12 lives, and I'm trying to figure out why:Keizer_Ghidorah: Dancin_In_Anson: Exactly. More people died in a one vehicle accident in south Texas than did in a theater in Colorado but you don't hear screams for banning the wheel.

Versus a deliberate and planned attempt to take as many lives as possible. Maybe when more people start using cars and trucks as actual weapons to commit murder this line of "reasoning" will have a bit more weight.You can try just explaining from scratch why you think that the deliberate killing of 12 people has more weight than the accidental death of 14 people if you'd like.

Actually, I was referring to the tendency of people to say "these people were killed in a car accident, clearly wheels/cars need to be banned!" whenever there's a mass shooting involving guns. You can rant and rave about your completely different subject, though.


Anyway, cars are intentionally used as weapons all the time...
 
2012-09-01 12:21:35 AM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7298442/79079938#c79079938" target="_blank">Wrathskellar</a>:</b> <i>Fail in Human Form: I'd like to see a nation wide CCW permit and the 86 ban repealed.

I'd like to see a nation-wide ban on all auto and semi-auto firearms, and on any magazine over 6 shots, and on easily concealable arms, a ban on concealed carry, and a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That would leave revolvers and manual action long arms available by permit to those who can pass minimum standards.</i>

We call that safe place "the South Side of Chicago."
 
2012-09-01 12:39:29 AM

sprawl15: Empty Matchbook: Eh, the point still stands as you could say they're the same thing.

Paper targets are people, my friend.


Not REALLY my point, but sure.
 
2012-09-01 01:07:41 AM

Empty Matchbook: sprawl15: Empty Matchbook: Eh, the point still stands as you could say they're the same thing.

Paper targets are people, my friend.

Not REALLY my point, but sure.


No, you're right. You COULD say that going to the range and shooting at paper targets is exactly the same thing as killing people.

You'd have to be a farking idiot to say that, but you went ahead and did it anyway.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Actually, I was referring to the tendency of people to say "these people were killed in a car accident, clearly wheels/cars need to be banned!" whenever there's a mass shooting involving guns.


Possibly because people would like to prioritize reactions based on the threat's danger to society.
 
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