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.

(PJ Media)   Why gun microstamping won't work. But who cares about expensive regulations that lose jobs, jail innocent people, and can be thwarted with a $12 part, if we can look like we DID something   ( pjmedia.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, semiautomatic firearms, PJM, shell casings, Remington Arms  
•       •       •

1985 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Oct 2012 at 11:35 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2012-10-09 01:01:10 PM  
How about we spend government effort on fixing the conditions that make people want to kill each other, rather than make suspects slightly easier to find?

Oh wait, that's difficult...
 
2012-10-09 01:01:34 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Or you can stamp your foot like a child and say people are going to shoot each other so we may as well do nothing to assist law enforcement in identifying them.


I'm all for assisting law enforcement. I'm not for using that as an excuse for more regulation against people who aren't breaking the law.

This microstamping business is an attempt to make it so that the gun makers just won't be able to sell guns in areas that pass it. It's a pathetic attempt to circumvent the supreme court, and nothing more.
 
2012-10-09 01:01:49 PM  

CPennypacker: Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: paygun: liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.

Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!

You think gun ownership is a civil right?

Jefferson and Mason thought so. I'd say that's relevant here.

yawn


ie Got Nuthin'
 
2012-10-09 01:01:58 PM  

Dave Lister: Rashnu: Seriously gun nuts? Now you want to be able to unrestrictedly mail each other guns too?

If I chose to get my Curio and Relic FFL, I could sorta do that (some restrictions do apply: must be a weapon on the ATF list, must be between FFL's of some type, personal recording requirements)


Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Already can. Called C&R FFL (curio and relic). Some restrictions on it, but perfectly doable.


dittybopper: Back in the 1950's, when homicide rates were under 5 per 100,000, just like they are today, you could do just that, and we didn't seem to be any the worse for wear.


Well in that case I'll be mail-ordering a blunderbuss and flintlock pistol forthwith.

/still not sure why the size of the postage is important
 
2012-10-09 01:02:46 PM  

LasersHurt: We know how to stop and spot forged coins, and cash, I don't see why we couldn't accomplish something similar here. I dunno - get all of the manufacturers of guns together and say "come up with a creative solution, boys." Get the people most knowledgable to do something about it.


Exactly, have law enforcement lay out a number of features that would assist them in identifying criminals and then let industry and organizations like the NRA and GOA come up with proposals they find acceptable with the understanding that if they dig their heels in a propose nothing that they'll be left out of the process.
 
2012-10-09 01:03:01 PM  

CPennypacker: cars have a primary purpose other than running people over


Even guns made expressly for the purpose of killing people have a valid legal use. Yes, even when used to kill people.

Feel free to make either a legal or moral case against self defense, those are always fun.
 
2012-10-09 01:03:10 PM  

paygun: Law abiding gun owners aren't responsible for gun crime. Just like you're not responsible for someone driving drunk even if you own a car drink alcohol.

 
2012-10-09 01:03:35 PM  

Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: paygun: liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.

Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!

You think gun ownership is a civil right?

Jefferson and Mason thought so. I'd say that's relevant here.

yawn

ie Got Nuthin'


As opposed to you, who 'got the opinions of two guys from the 18th century. Really pertinent information. Lets ask them what they thought about internet privacy laws too.
 
2012-10-09 01:03:56 PM  

Myria: How about we spend government effort on fixing the conditions that make people want to kill each other, rather than make suspects slightly easier to find?

Oh wait, that's difficult...


we have a winner
 
2012-10-09 01:04:16 PM  

paygun: CPennypacker: cars have a primary purpose other than running people over

Even guns made expressly for the purpose of killing people have a valid legal use. Yes, even when used to kill people.

Feel free to make either a legal or moral case against self defense, those are always fun.


They take more lives than they save?
 
2012-10-09 01:05:49 PM  

CPennypacker: As opposed to you, who 'got the opinions of two guys from the 18th century. Really pertinent information. Lets ask them what they thought about internet privacy laws too.


This might be news to you, but firearms existed in the 18th century.
 
2012-10-09 01:06:28 PM  

CPennypacker: They take more lives than they save?


Let's see the data.
 
2012-10-09 01:07:01 PM  

CPennypacker: Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: paygun: liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.

Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!

You think gun ownership is a civil right?

Jefferson and Mason thought so. I'd say that's relevant here.

yawn

ie Got Nuthin'

As opposed to you, who 'got the opinions of two guys from the 18th century. Really pertinent information. Lets ask them what they thought about internet privacy laws too.


He's also got the opinions of the seated supreme court justices.
 
2012-10-09 01:07:24 PM  

LasersHurt: I absolutely know there is a way you can start to make the problem better. I


And I'm saying it's not a *GUN* problem, it's a *VIOLENCE* problem. Enacting new regulations is the equivalent of putting an icepack on the forehead of someone with a high fever: You are merely treating a symptom, not the underlying cause of the problem.

Then too, how do you know when you've "won", assuming you do manage to make some dent in the homicide rate? What if you lower it by 25% over where it is now, so that it's the lowest homicide rate in the history of the United States. Is that good enough? Or will we need something more to try and get it even lower? Do we ever stop?

But let's say that microstamping is something worth trying (which numerous people, including the author of TFA have pointed out is very likely to fail badly). My next question is, in order for me to support something like that, we have to roll back some other onerous regulations. How about repealing the Hughes Amendment? Registered machine guns have never been a significant source of crime guns, so there is no reason why the ban on newly manufactured ones should exist, plus the Hughes Amendment was likely passed in violation of Congressional rules.

How about removing suppressors from the NFA? They were never a significant problem either, despite Hollywood's portrayal of them.

What about a federal law mandating concealed carry reciprocity if there is a certain minimum standard met, tied to federal law enforcement grants. If your state doesn't participate, fine, they don't get the federal dollars, just like they did with the drinking age. Would you support that?

How about a law specifically authorizing non-violent felons to have their right to own a firearm restored, subject to a background check. Does it really serve a public purpose that Martha Stewart can't own a gun? Does a tax cheat lose their right to self-defense for the rest of their life?

Tell me, in return for microstamping, what would you give *US*?
 
2012-10-09 01:07:41 PM  

Rashnu: Dave Lister: Rashnu: Seriously gun nuts? Now you want to be able to unrestrictedly mail each other guns too?

If I chose to get my Curio and Relic FFL, I could sorta do that (some restrictions do apply: must be a weapon on the ATF list, must be between FFL's of some type, personal recording requirements)

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Already can. Called C&R FFL (curio and relic). Some restrictions on it, but perfectly doable.

dittybopper: Back in the 1950's, when homicide rates were under 5 per 100,000, just like they are today, you could do just that, and we didn't seem to be any the worse for wear.

Well in that case I'll be mail-ordering a blunderbuss and flintlock pistol forthwith.

/still not sure why the size of the postage is important


You wouldn't need anything (license, background, etc) whatsoever to mail a pre-1899 "antique" firearm, to include old .45 Colt SAA or 1873 Springfield 45-70 or Winchester 1894 30-30 which is totally modern. Link
 
2012-10-09 01:09:12 PM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: As opposed to you, who 'got the opinions of two guys from the 18th century. Really pertinent information. Lets ask them what they thought about internet privacy laws too.

This might be news to you, but firearms existed in the 18th century.


www.green-wood.com

Yup totally relevant

Holocaust Agnostic: CPennypacker: Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: Ricardo Klement: CPennypacker: paygun: liam76: Because it would make the guns cost more, because when you had to replace the firing pin it will cost more, becasue unless they then keep a database fo those serial numbers it is worthless, even if they dot hey expensive system can be defeated by switching firing pins before a murder, etc.

Making the exercise of a civil right expensive is no big deal. Just like voter ID!

You think gun ownership is a civil right?

Jefferson and Mason thought so. I'd say that's relevant here.

yawn

ie Got Nuthin'

As opposed to you, who 'got the opinions of two guys from the 18th century. Really pertinent information. Lets ask them what they thought about internet privacy laws too.

He's also got the opinions of the seated supreme court justices.


Yeah, strict constitutionalist Scalia who created a right that didn't exist before.
 
2012-10-09 01:11:50 PM  

dittybopper: What if you lower it by 25% over where it is now, so that it's the lowest homicide rate in the history of the United States. Is that good enough? Or will we need something more to try and get it even lower? Do we ever stop?


We stop when all guns are banned, of course. I still haven't heard anything convincing that the goal of gun control isn't gun bans.
 
2012-10-09 01:13:20 PM  

NowhereMon: All guns should have a function that automatically takes a picture of the shooter, the target and calls 911 every time the trigger is pulled. Why would any law abiding citizen object to this?


I swear to God, Officer, that deer was coming right for me!!!
 
2012-10-09 01:14:07 PM  

CPennypacker: Yeah, strict constitutionalist Scalia who created a right that didn't exist before.


I understand that it's a civil right you don't like, but it's awful hard to say that it didn't exist before.

Feel free to go down the road of "the bill of rights protects the rights of the people, except for the 2nd, which of course means that the government has the right to have guns" because that one is hilarious.

I'm saying this because it will save both of us a lot of time.
 
2012-10-09 01:14:14 PM  

CPennypacker: Yup totally relevant


If people like you had your way back then, America would still be part of the British Empire.

Now grace us with your predictable retort about the British invading us today, and show us how proud you are of deliberately missing the point.
 
2012-10-09 01:14:31 PM  

dittybopper:
First, for guns that don't automatically eject casings when fired, this would be useless as a tool for law enforcement. That means that guns like revolvers that are manually reloaded, like revolvers, bolt actions, pump actions, lever actions, single shots (including break-open, rolling block, falling block, etc.) and even guns like multiple barrel derringers wouldn't necessarily leave any evidence at the scene.

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be better to be in a gunfight with someone limited to revolvers and single or double barrel shotguns, or someone with everything from automatic handguns, semi-auto .30-06s, pump-action shotguns (or better yet, semi-auto)? I'm pretty sure I would take something for the later group, and it would still be a no-brainer for home protection.

dittybopper:
Or just making them. Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made using the tools and materials you can find at your local Home Depot.


Very funny. So you are telling me I can still have a pump-action 12 gauge and a home invader no longer brings the .45 auto (the eebul assault rifle was just too bulky) but is stuck with a zip gun? And this is a problem?

Other issues:
Defective offspring of defective gun owners will continue to darwinate themselves even though defective gun owner is in even more legal danger after his gun collection is stolen. Self darwinating types just don't learn.

While I wouldn't expect the typical convicted criminal to bother with the $12 part (is there any indication that criminals spend any time at the range? You think they would try that first...), there might be an increase in the value of fenced firearms (regardless of what anti-gun regulation is passed). Burglaries increase, casual buyers buy guns but not safes. Burglaries are more successful, burglaries increase, more idiot buyers... more autodarwination of kids (and unfortunately, the kid's otherwise perfectly good friend).

And finally, if the so-called "gun grabbers" couldn't grab your guns after 9/11 "terrorists everywhere! And all they gotta answer is 'cash or charge' for a .50 sniper rifle", they are never going to get your guns.
 
2012-10-09 01:15:42 PM  

Fark It: Mr_Fabulous: But who cares about expensive regulations that lose jobs...

It's like anti abortion laws that Republicans keep trying to pass. Sure, they can't outlaw abortion, but they can establish so many legal and regulatory barriers as to make it impossible for someone to get one.


Except that while all the histrionic anti-gun people are celebrating a "Clear victory that will reduce violence and keep out CHILDREN safe"; entrepreneurs will be quietly buying guns in surrounding areas driving/shipping them to NYC and simply selling them at a profit. Total availability of guns on the street will remain the same of course.

GoldSpider: Gonz: I saw more than one dealer at a gun show accept the name "John Doe", with no ID check, because the buyer "looked like an all right guy".

So you witnessed a crime, but didn't call the police?


Better to say nothing, go home and post online about how superior they are to the 'evil' gun people than actually do the right thing.


mrshowrules: randomjsa: Microstamping is a stupid idea done purely to and simply to hurt companies who make guns. That's the only reason.

This makes absolutely no sense? If they find the shell casing, it was because a crime was committed. They trace it back to the gun owner and do the ballistics test? That means the gun owner still has the gun? If the ballistics match that means they probably committed the crime. Obviously they are in big trouble. What was your point?


That your the type of person that fully trusts the police to be interested in the truth and not just closing a case.


mrshowrules: dittybopper: mrshowrules: More accurately then, people who are pro-gun, should come up with the strategy/rules to reduce gun violence.

Without guns people would be running into public places and beating a dozen people to death? Listen, you don't even think guns in the hands of criminals and nut jobs is necessarily a problem that needs to be dealt with so you are inviting gun control laws. Nature abhors a vacuum. If you don't deal with it, it may be dealt with in a manner you don't like (e.g., microstamping).


Yes. As I posted in the last gun thread:

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4


It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.
 
2012-10-09 01:16:04 PM  

paygun: CPennypacker: Yeah, strict constitutionalist Scalia who created a right that didn't exist before.

I understand that it's a civil right you don't like, but it's awful hard to say that it didn't exist before.

Feel free to go down the road of "the bill of rights protects the rights of the people, except for the 2nd, which of course means that the government has the right to have guns" because that one is hilarious.

I'm saying this because it will save both of us a lot of time.


The second amendment doesn't expressly give individuals the right to bear arms. Heller interprets it to. I don't think its very funny.

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Yup totally relevant

If people like you had your way back then, America would still be part of the British Empire.

Now grace us with your predictable retort about the British invading us today, and show us how proud you are of deliberately missing the point.


People like me?
 
2012-10-09 01:16:56 PM  

paygun: mrshowrules: It is only logical that Side A should propose and advocate solutions other than gun controls.

Law abiding gun owners aren't responsible for gun crime. Just like you're not responsible for someone driving drunk even if you own a car.


I'm not advocating drive-through cocktail bars.
 
2012-10-09 01:17:31 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be better to be in a gunfight with someone limited to revolvers and single or double barrel shotguns, or someone with everything from automatic handguns, semi-auto .30-06s, pump-action shotguns (or better yet, semi-auto)?


In what fictional world does gun control accomplish this?

yet_another_wumpus: Defective offspring of defective gun owners will continue to darwinate themselves even though defective gun owner is in even more legal danger after his gun collection is stolen. Self darwinating types just don't learn.


That's kind of a self-correcting problem, isn't it?
 
2012-10-09 01:17:48 PM  

CPennypacker: The second amendment doesn't expressly give individuals the right to bear arms. Heller interprets it to. I don't think its very funny.


So you do believe that the original meaning of the 2nd amendment was that it allows the military to have guns. Otherwise they'd have to use sharp sticks.

I think we're done.
 
2012-10-09 01:18:04 PM  

paygun: I'm all for assisting law enforcement. I'm not for using that as an excuse for more regulation against people who aren't breaking the law.


And yet you act as if I'm a naive fool for pointing out that the best way to avoid onerous regulation while meeting the needs of law enforcement is to be part of the process.

It's a moot point to me, I don't care one way or another since I don't own firearms. I just think that you're ensuring a suboptimal outcome by acting like a child rather than engaging in a rational, proactive strategy.
 
2012-10-09 01:20:50 PM  

CPennypacker: People like me?


"Gun stupid" people, yeah.
 
2012-10-09 01:21:12 PM  

paygun: CPennypacker: The second amendment doesn't expressly give individuals the right to bear arms. Heller interprets it to. I don't think its very funny.

So you do believe that the original meaning of the 2nd amendment was that it allows the military to have guns. Otherwise they'd have to use sharp sticks.

I think we're done.


The second amendment was drafted in the late 18th sentury to give the country a way to protect itself in spite of the publics opposition to having a standing army.
 
2012-10-09 01:22:55 PM  
Nice blog, bro!
 
2012-10-09 01:23:09 PM  

mrshowrules: Ricardo Klement: There are effective ways to regulate guns, and then there's this.

I once saw an image that read, "People who can, teach. People who can't, pass laws about teaching." Well, the same certainly holds true for guns. "People who know guns go to the range. People who don't know guns pass laws regulating them."

So the solution (thank you Dusk You and Me) is that the people who under gun ownership and stewardship should be advocating solutions to reduce gun violence? Right?


Actually, yes. The people who don't like proffered solutions should come up with some themselves. (Like those against Yucca Mountain should tell us where to put nuclear waste rather than reject every site ever proposed to store the already-produced spent fuel.)

So the question is what to do? The background check thing has been of limited usefulness, partly because of the NRA's insistence that the government not maintain information. (For some people, background checks take 30 minutes. For me it takes hours, but wouldn't if the government could maintain records. So really, the NRA didn't do me any favors with that one.)

I would close the gun show loophole, for one. I know that individuals selling or giving each other firearms is a fine tradition going back hundreds of years. Heck, I have a rifle I got from someone in exchange for lunch at a fancy restaurant. I understand that people will find ways around it, too. But I would propose that it would be illegal for any FFL holder (except C&R) to sell a firearm without a background check.

Anyone selling a used firearm on consignment or to a pawnbroker would have to have a background check, not to keep them from selling it, but to catch firearms being disposed of.

I am open to ballistic fingerprinting, including barrels sold as spare parts - even for replacements for older guns (exceptions for guns over 50 years old or on the C&R list - it's already nigh impossible to get a replacement barrel for an 1888 Mauser). It's not trivially defeated like microstamping, and while it has its problems, I think the benefits outweigh the costs. Yes, it makes a difference in cost and therefore costs jobs, but so does just about everything done for any reason to regulate any industry. That's not an a priori excuse.

I support stiffer sentences for those who used guns in the commission of a crime.

Parents/Guardians should be at least partly liable for guns their children use in a crime. After all, if you have a troubled child, you shouldn't keep guns where they can get them to begin with. But leaving guns unlocked when you have kids is plain irresponsible.
 
2012-10-09 01:23:09 PM  

mrshowrules: Without guns people would be running into public places and beating a dozen people to death?


That actually happens in places where guns are largely banned. Here are a few highlights:

Obwara, Lazaro, 55 July 28 1950 Kampala Uganda 12 killed, melee weapon
Caceres, Gregorio, 50 Feb. 18 1942 Trujillo Venezuela 11 killed, 4 wounded, melee weapon
Shi Yuejun, 35 Sep. 24-29 2006 Liuhe & Tonghua county China 12 killed, 5 wounded, melee weapon
Duong Van Mon, 35 Aug. 8 1998 Đắk Lắk Province Vietnam 12 killed, 2-6 wounded, melee weapon
Qiu Xinghua, 47 July 14/31 2006 Ankang & Suizhou China 11 killed, 2 wounded, melee weapon/arson
Guo Zhongmin, 36 Feb. 18 2003 Yangxiaoxiang China 13 killed, melee weapon
Wu Huanming, 47 May 12 2010 Linchang China 9 killed, 11 wounded, melee weapon
Bai Ningyang, 18 May 8 2006 Shiguan China 12 killed, 5 wounded, melee weapon/arson
Pusok Anak Ngaik, 28 May 29 1965 Kampong Bukit Merah Malaysia 14 killed, 4 wounded, melee weapon.
Wirjo, 42 April 15 1987 Banjarsari Indonesia 20 killed, 12 injured, melee weapon.

Melee weapon = club, knife, sword, spear, hammer, fists, etc.
 
2012-10-09 01:23:10 PM  
Holy shiat did I really just spell century with an S
 
2012-10-09 01:23:15 PM  

GranoblasticMan: mrshowrules: If you think deaths equivalent to 9/11 happening every month is not a big deal that you must consider 9/11 itself to be meaningless.

Not so much the first half, but I certainly agree with the second half.

/ 9/11 is the new Godwin


People are now even using 9/11 as a marketing tool for phone service. I was setting up a Verizon account for my new house and the idiot seller kept trying to push the stupid phone service on me. I kept telling him I didn't want it because...land lines are freaking useless other than for telemarketers to spam you 24/7. His response, "sometimes your cell phone won't work. Like during 9/11, you couldn't use your cell phone."

I dropped my freaking phone in shock. If they didn't have a monopoly on my neighborhood (cause im not getting Dish Network) I would have ended the phone call right there.

Paying farking more than my current comcast setup...and getting a shiat load less.

fark Verizon and fark this monopoly bullshiat.
 
2012-10-09 01:23:16 PM  
Regardless of the constitution, the right of free people to be armed without being an employee of the government is a fundamental one.
 
2012-10-09 01:24:40 PM  

CPennypacker: Holy shiat did I really just spell century with an S


That's the least of your argument's flaws.
 
2012-10-09 01:24:50 PM  

CPennypacker: As opposed to you, who 'got the opinions of two guys from the 18th century. Really pertinent information. Lets ask them what they thought about internet privacy laws too.


We have a couple of guys who helped write the laws you're interpreting. Shall we ask them their opinion about your right to free speech on the Internet, or can we arbitrarily decide the Internet is a way more powerful mechanism for disseminating your ideas and therefore subject to regulations?
 
2012-10-09 01:25:35 PM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Holy shiat did I really just spell century with an S

That's the least of your argument's flaws.


And Eric the Red and Pythagoras agree with you too! I wonder what Pliny the Elder has to say?
 
2012-10-09 01:25:35 PM  
The reason homicide rates have dipped to 1950's levels is incarceration rates and sentence lengths have gone up. And that's a good thing to have happen.

If we were serious about reducing them further local prosecutors wouldn't throw out gun charges during plea bargaining. Right now they're usually the first charges thrown in the trash, ergo we as a society aren't serious about punishing criminals violating gun laws.
 
2012-10-09 01:26:08 PM  

CPennypacker:

Yeah, strict constitutionalist Scalia who created a right that didn't exist before.


The guys from the 18th century you cavalierly dismissed just a few posts earlier were "before" were they not?
 
2012-10-09 01:28:37 PM  

CPennypacker: The second amendment was drafted in the late 18th sentury to give the country a way to protect itself in spite of the publics opposition to having a standing army.


So you would say arming citizens was an alternative to a standing army, but it didn't preserve the right of citizens being armed. Okay.
 
2012-10-09 01:29:44 PM  

paygun: CPennypacker: The second amendment was drafted in the late 18th sentury to give the country a way to protect itself in spite of the publics opposition to having a standing army.

So you would say arming citizens was an alternative to a standing army, but it didn't preserve the right of citizens being armed. Okay.


I would say context is important
 
2012-10-09 01:29:46 PM  

Ricardo Klement: But I would propose that it would be illegal for any FFL holder (except C&R) to sell a firearm without a background check.


I support that too. We're in luck, that's been in place since 1968.
 
2012-10-09 01:30:07 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Exactly, have law enforcement lay out a number of features that would assist them in identifying criminals


Why? That's absurd. Should car manufacturers have to make it easier to identify cars? The can be used to commit crimes or be the getaway vehicle after a crime. Should ski masks have to have an identifier system built in so that they can be identified if they are used in a stick up?

The whole concept is stupid.
 
2012-10-09 01:30:58 PM  

CPennypacker: I would say context is important


The context is private ownership of firearms. I don't know how you can spin that into meaning the 2nd protects the right of the government to have guns but give it a shot.
 
2012-10-09 01:32:29 PM  

paygun: CPennypacker: I would say context is important

The context is private ownership of firearms. I don't know how you can spin that into meaning the 2nd protects the right of the government to have guns but give it a shot.


The context is an organized militia taking the place of a standing army to defend a fledgling nation and not a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence.
 
2012-10-09 01:33:08 PM  

paygun: The context is private ownership of firearms. I don't know how you can spin that into meaning the 2nd protects the right of the government to have guns but give it a shot.


I can't wait to see where this line of discussion leads us.
 
2012-10-09 01:33:12 PM  

mrshowrules: My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.


I'm not a conservative, but this seems pretty simple.

Problem: don't want to get killed by a gun or a victim of gun violence

1. Don't commit crime
2. Don't join a gang.
3. Don't go to the bad neighborhood
4. Don't be in relationships with crazy gun owners

That probably accounts for 99% of all gun crime.
 
2012-10-09 01:34:04 PM  

CPennypacker: a bunch of rednecks shooting cans on their back fence


Maybe we need to form a militia for the culture war.

So this organized militia, was that to be an army with a different name, or did that mean plain old private ownership of guns?
 
2012-10-09 01:34:19 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: dittybopper:
Or just making them. Guns are a 600 year old technology that can be made using the tools and materials you can find at your local Home Depot.

Very funny. So you are telling me I can still have a pump-action 12 gauge and a home invader no longer brings the .45 auto (the eebul assault rifle was just too bulky) but is stuck with a zip gun? And this is a problem?


These guns were both homemade:

i54.tinypic.com

A gun doesn't have to be crude. But even a crude zip gun can be effective if all legal guns are banned. If I were a criminal, and I *KNEW* that my victims were unarmed, I might be perfectly happy to have a zip gun, because it's good enough.

Other issues:
Defective offspring of defective gun owners will continue to darwinate themselves even though defective gun owner is in even more legal danger after his gun collection is stolen. Self darwinating types just don't learn.


By your philosophy, I should have been darwinated a long time ago:

img144.imageshack.us

Seriously, though, there are only about 600 accidental gun deaths every year, in a country with 300 million guns. It's statistical noise. More people die on bicycles every year.
 
Displayed 50 of 322 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | 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





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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