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.

(LA Times)   If you have to screw up the facts in a debate, try not to screw up on gun control. Especially if you're the leader of the God, Guns and More Guns party   (latimes.com) divider line 118
    More: Fail, automatic weapon, semiautomatic firearms, federal assault weapons ban, arms industries, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives  
•       •       •

4295 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Oct 2012 at 10:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-17 09:04:07 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com

"Gun Grabbers like MItt Romney are notoriously ignorant about firearms and laws relating to firearms"
 
2012-10-17 09:10:29 AM
That was pretty bad - another example of reflexive lying on Romney's part. But what really had me scratching my head was the part about Massachusetts and how whatever the hell they had there was the result of bipartisanship and pro- and anti-gun cooperation.

So was he saying their ban in his state was cool because opposing sides cooperated? If so, WTF does that have to do with core issue and whether there should be such restrictions?

I'm not arguing one side or the other. I just want to know what the hell Romney was saying (or wasn't, as the case may be).
 
2012-10-17 09:13:53 AM

Diogenes: So was he saying their ban in his state was cool because opposing sides cooperated? If so, WTF does that have to do with core issue and whether there should be such restrictions?

I'm not arguing one side or the other. I just want to know what the hell Romney was saying (or wasn't, as the case may be).


He was saying whatever he thought would benefit him the most at the time. And he's tried to use the bipartisanship of the Mass Legislature during his tenure as Governor to say something he supported was good, but other people supporting the same thing aren't

It's how RomneyCare was a bipartisan free market solution to a health insurance problem, but National RomneyCare ObamaCare was a hyper partisan take over of health insurance.
 
2012-10-17 09:24:57 AM

Aarontology: He was saying whatever he thought would benefit him the most at the time. And he's tried to use the bipartisanship of the Mass Legislature during his tenure as Governor to say something he supported was good, but other people supporting the same thing aren't


If it were anyone but Romney, I'd claim you're not making any sense.
 
2012-10-17 09:29:15 AM

Diogenes: If it were anyone but Romney, I'd claim you're not making any sense.


One of the best parts about Romney's campaign is that my occasionally nonsensical stream of consciousness usually work. So I appreciate him for that to some degree.
 
2012-10-17 09:51:07 AM
I understand that Romney likes to hunt varmints. He has amassed an impressive trophy collection over the years.
 
2012-10-17 09:54:43 AM

mrshowrules: I understand that Romney likes to hunt varmints. He has amassed an impressive trophy collection over the years.


I don't think Bush's former foreign policy advisers count.
 
2012-10-17 10:41:39 AM
When that gun question came up I thought Romney was in trouble because he signed an assualt weapons ban but has the NRA endorsement. I didn't think he'd be stupid enough to mention the ban.

Then he mentioned it.

DRINKDRINKDRINKDRINKDRINK
 
2012-10-17 10:42:07 AM

Some genius comments in that article:

There is no reason for regular citizens to have automatic weapons. The only function of an automatic weapon is to kill people--lots of people. Only the military and the police should have them. Unfortunately, the current laws don't go that far, and possession of these weapons is an issue for law enforcement.


Yeah, except for the fact virtually no crimes are committed with F/A guns, great point.
 
2012-10-17 10:43:55 AM
 
2012-10-17 10:44:09 AM

Diogenes: That was pretty bad - another example of reflexive lying on Romney's part. But what really had me scratching my head was the part about Massachusetts and how whatever the hell they had there was the result of bipartisanship and pro- and anti-gun cooperation.

So was he saying their ban in his state was cool because opposing sides cooperated? If so, WTF does that have to do with core issue and whether there should be such restrictions?

I'm not arguing one side or the other. I just want to know what the hell Romney was saying (or wasn't, as the case may be).


I got the vibe that he was asserting some ephemeral betterness to the plan that made it appeal to even the pro-gun people, to assuage fears of other pro-gun people that Romney might actually be a moderate New England Republican.
 
2012-10-17 10:44:48 AM
I would love to have seen Paul Ryan's face when Romney started waxing poetic about his bipartisan assault weapons ban.
 
2012-10-17 10:45:28 AM
I thought single parents were responsible?
 
2012-10-17 10:46:02 AM
 
2012-10-17 10:46:43 AM

speakandgo: Looks like fox news already threw it down the memory hole "Audio Gap" (pop)


What. The actual. fark.
 
2012-10-17 10:47:44 AM

speakandgo: Looks like fox news already threw it down the memory hole "Audio Gap" (pop)


Holy shiat. Hahahahahaahhahhaha
 
2012-10-17 10:48:39 AM

speakandgo: Looks like fox news already threw it down the memory hole "Audio Gap" (pop)


Wow, that's pretty pathetic even by Fox News standards.
 
2012-10-17 10:48:57 AM

From the internet wayback machine:

"Deadly assault weapons have no place in America ," state Senator Obama said. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

When asked by a reporter if he supported the renewal of the federal "assault weapons" ban and if he had spoken to the senators about it, Senator Obama replied that it was not really his job to lobby on federal legislation, but that he shared Senator Kerry's and Senator Kennedy's position on the issue.


That's right, he wants your guns!

/except replace 'America' with 'Massachusetts'
//and then replace 'state Senator Obama' with Governor Romney
///Link
 
2012-10-17 10:49:22 AM
i.imgur.com

He's single ladies, and by marring him and having his children, you might just save the lives of dozens of people.
 
2012-10-17 10:51:52 AM
Crap, from this spin, romney must have done well. He pointed out that fully auto weapons are already illegal, and then tried to show how his ban that President Obama had already mentioned was a compromise. Crap crap crap crap crap. Obama is actually going to lose.
 
2012-10-17 10:52:25 AM
Guns don't kill people, children of women who leave abusive men kill people. Stay with him no matter what, ladies.
 
2012-10-17 10:52:57 AM
I'm a gun enthusiast, so if it weren't for all the racism, sexism and homophobia written in to the Republican platform and the fact that trickle-down economic policies have been an unquestionable disaster for the country, I could almost think about not voting for Obama.

You guys get rid of all that other stuff and you got yourself a single-issue voter right here.
 
2012-10-17 10:53:26 AM

thurstonxhowell: Guns don't kill people, children of women who leave abusive men kill people. Stay with him no matter what, ladies.


You see, the biggest problem with assault weapons is gay marriage.
 
2012-10-17 10:54:43 AM
Obama: But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.

Finally someone said this out loud.
 
2012-10-17 10:57:26 AM
I'm always surprised when I find out there's something new that FOX 'news' can do to surprise me. Every time I think, "OK. Rock bottom. Nothing they can do will surprise me from now on."

But they manage.
 
2012-10-17 10:57:27 AM

speakandgo: Looks like fox news already threw it down the memory hole "Audio Gap"


Can you advise what's missing? I'm trying my best...
 
2012-10-17 10:58:12 AM
Everyone knows the Bryco-Jennings corporation has deep pockets.
 
2012-10-17 10:58:23 AM

Karma Curmudgeon:

/except replace 'America' with 'Massachusetts'
//and then replace 'state Senator Obama' with Governor Romney
///Link


I was never very good at MadLibs.

/Not a mad Lib
//Except when a Fark Political thread is full of posts that are in various shades of red
///F Todd Akin
 
2012-10-17 10:58:36 AM

thurstonxhowell: Guns don't kill people, children of women who leave abusive men kill people. Stay with him no matter what, ladies.


Link

Link

Actual science that says children with a two parent household do better. OMG ROMNEY WANTS WOMEN ABUSED. This is what makes people like me afraid Romney is going to win big. Guess what, Obama admitted he wants to ban scary looking rifle's. He then admitted they really aren't the problem. Guns that poor people can afford are that problem.
 
2012-10-17 10:58:42 AM
From the transcript:

CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.

ROMNEY: Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on -- on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We have

(AUDIO GAP)

OBAMA: because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they're less likely to engage in these kind of violent acts.
 
2012-10-17 10:59:22 AM

THX 1138: speakandgo: Looks like fox news already threw it down the memory hole "Audio Gap"

Can you advise what's missing? I'm trying my best...


Looks like they fixed it already. They had the entirety of Romney's answer missing, replaced with (audio gap).
 
2012-10-17 10:59:30 AM

Calmamity: I'm a gun enthusiast, so if it weren't for all the racism, sexism and homophobia written in to the Republican platform and the fact that trickle-down economic policies have been an unquestionable disaster for the country, I could almost think about not voting for Obama


Considering Romney has enacted legislation restricting gun rights and Obama's only legislation regarding guns has been to expand rights, I've got to ask... wha?
 
2012-10-17 10:59:35 AM

THX 1138: speakandgo: Looks like fox news already threw it down the memory hole "Audio Gap"

Can you advise what's missing? I'm trying my best...


It looks like they've replaced it. What was missing was the entire conversation about Romney's assualt weapons ban.
 
2012-10-17 10:59:41 AM
We're discussing this and not how Obama said he wanted to reinstate the AWB?
 
2012-10-17 11:00:27 AM
If the NRA isn't just a wing of the GOP at this point, without any principles at all, they are sure trying hard to look like it.

Since being elected, Obama hasn't lifted a finger to change any gun laws, and has actively worked to shoot down any anti-gun legislative proposal from within his own party.

Romney, on the other hand, has a strong record on gun-control legislation, which might even help him with moderate voters, except that he tries to run away from it as fast as possible. If the NRA was really non-partisan, I would think that Obama would have received their endorsement in this cycle, which leads me to conclude that the NRA doesn't give a damn about the 2nd amendment, and are only a branch of the GOP.
 
2012-10-17 11:01:17 AM

max_pooper: speakandgo: Looks like fox news already threw it down the memory hole "Audio Gap" (pop)

Wow, that's pretty pathetic even by Fox News standards.


I don't get it. What am I looking for in the transcripts.
 
2012-10-17 11:01:51 AM

Frank N Stein: We're discussing this and not how Obama said he wanted to reinstate the AWB?


Agreed that's a dumb thing to say, but has pretty much zero chance of happening.
 
2012-10-17 11:02:17 AM

tricycleracer: It looks like they've replaced it. What was missing was the entire conversation about Romney's assualt weapons ban.


Damn. Now I'm trying to find an archived version. Could be nice to have, you know.
 
2012-10-17 11:02:25 AM

Frank N Stein: We're discussing this and not how Obama said he wanted to reinstate the AWB?


Wait a minute, didn't he have a supermajority in Congress for two years? Isn't that the excuse the righties use for everything Obama didn't get done? Well he had that, and didn't do this... what does that say?

(yes, I know it was actually for like 12 weeks, but let's turn that talking point around on them.)
 
2012-10-17 11:02:32 AM
Glad I quoted it before they 'fixed' it.
 
2012-10-17 11:03:15 AM
Obama: But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.

Then why do you want a scary weapons ban if you know that they are not the problem you marooon?
 
2012-10-17 11:03:49 AM

THX 1138: tricycleracer: It looks like they've replaced it. What was missing was the entire conversation about Romney's assualt weapons ban.

Damn. Now I'm trying to find an archived version. Could be nice to have, you know.


I still have it open in a window in Firefox. Where should I send it :)
 
2012-10-17 11:04:10 AM
The bolded portion below are the last words of the exchange in the Fox transcript. Italicized you will find the portion they omitted from their transcript. Underlined is where they pick back up again.

ROMNEY: ...certain guns illegal. We, of course, don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already
illegal in this country to have automatic weapons. What I believe is
we have to do, as the president mentioned towards the end of his
remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun
laws that we have, and to change the culture of violence that we have.

And you ask how - how are we going to do that? And there are a
number of things. He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We
were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my
state. And I believe if we do a better job in education, we'll -
we'll give people the - the hope and opportunity they deserve and
perhaps less violence from that. But let me mention another thing.
And that is parents. We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids.
Wherever possible the - the benefit of having two parents in the
home, and that's not always possible. A lot of great single moms,
single dads. But gosh to tell our kids that before they have babies,
they ought to think about getting married to someone, that's a great
idea.

Because if there's a two parent family, the prospect of living in
poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will
- will be able to achieve increase dramatically. So we can make
changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from
violence and give them opportunity, and bring them in the American
system. The - the greatest failure we've had with regards to - to
gun violence in some respects is what - what is known as Fast and
Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it
worked exactly I think we don't know precisely, where thousands of
automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were - were given to people that
ultimately gave them to - to drug lords.

They used those weapons against - against their own citizens and
killed Americans with them. And this was a - this was a program of
the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can't
imagine. But it's one of the great tragedies related to violence in
our society which has occurred during this administration. Which I
think the American people would like to understand fully, it's been
investigated to a degree, but - but the administration has carried
out executive privilege to prevent all of the information from coming
out.

I'd like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea
was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to
Mexican drug lords.
OBAMA: Candy?

CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about
these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer
banned.

I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in
Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support
that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes
with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?

ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks
and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of
legislation. And it's referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it
had, at the signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun
people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that
both wanted.

There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that haven't
previously been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed-
upon piece of legislation. That's what we need more of, Candy. What
we have right now in Washington is a place that's gridlocked.

CROWLEY: So I could - if you could get people to agree to it,
you would be for it?

ROMNEY: We have -

OBAMA: Candy?

ROMNEY: - we haven't had the leadership in Washington to work
on a bipartisan basis. I was able to do that in my state and bring
these two together.

CROWLEY: Quickly, Mr. President.

OBAMA: The - first of all, I think Governor Romney was for an
assault weapons ban before he was against it. And he said that the
reason he changed his mind was, in part, because he was seeking the
endorsement of the National Rifle Association. So that's on the
record.

But I think that one area we agree on is the important of parents
and the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young
people have opportunity, then they are less likely to engage in these
kinds of violent acts. We're not going to eliminate everybody who is
mentally disturbed and we have got to make sure they don't get
weapons.


OBAMA: because I do believe that if our young people have
opportunity, then they're less likely to engage in these kind of
violent acts. 
 
2012-10-17 11:04:38 AM

CokeBear: Since being elected, Obama hasn't lifted a finger to change any gun laws


Actually, that's not correct.

He's enacted legislation increasing gun rights. But don't tell the derpers if you don't find people holding their hands over their ears to be a pretty sight.
 
2012-10-17 11:05:55 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: thurstonxhowell: Guns don't kill people, children of women who leave abusive men kill people. Stay with him no matter what, ladies.

Link

Link

Actual science that says children with a two parent household do better. OMG ROMNEY WANTS WOMEN ABUSED. This is what makes people like me afraid Romney is going to win big. Guess what, Obama admitted he wants to ban scary looking rifle's. He then admitted they really aren't the problem. Guns that poor people can afford are that problem.


Did you actually read what you linked? It specifically mentions calm two parent households. So yeah staying in an abusive relationship "for the children" is bullshait.
 
2012-10-17 11:06:52 AM

saintstryfe: Frank N Stein: We're discussing this and not how Obama said he wanted to reinstate the AWB?

Wait a minute, didn't he have a supermajority in Congress for two years? Isn't that the excuse the righties use for everything Obama didn't get done? Well he had that, and didn't do this... what does that say?

(yes, I know it was actually for like 12 weeks, but let's turn that talking point around on them.)


because he knows he would have gotten spanked over it come this election.... Just you wait if he gets reelected.

/not sure if serious.
 
2012-10-17 11:08:21 AM

THX 1138: CokeBear: Since being elected, Obama hasn't lifted a finger to change any gun laws

Actually, that's not correct.

He's enacted legislation increasing gun rights. But don't tell the derpers if you don't find people holding their hands over their ears to be a pretty sight.


It's almost as if the NRA wants to drum up contribution support by implying gun rights are at stake in this election and endorsing Obama would cost their financial bottom line.

But they wouldn't do that since they're not a political organization, right?
 
2012-10-17 11:08:38 AM

wippit: I still have it open in a window in Firefox. Where should I send it :)


email in profile.

/this is better than Christmas!
 
2012-10-17 11:08:51 AM

Fart_Machine: globalwarmingpraiser: thurstonxhowell: Guns don't kill people, children of women who leave abusive men kill people. Stay with him no matter what, ladies.

Link

Link

Actual science that says children with a two parent household do better. OMG ROMNEY WANTS WOMEN ABUSED. This is what makes people like me afraid Romney is going to win big. Guess what, Obama admitted he wants to ban scary looking rifle's. He then admitted they really aren't the problem. Guns that poor people can afford are that problem.

Did you actually read what you linked? It specifically mentions calm two parent households. So yeah staying in an abusive relationship "for the children" is bullshait.


Not only that but Mitt Romney in no way applied that women should stay in abusive relationships. I have done this type of thing defending the President before. The spin coming out of this is stupid. IU watched most of the debate, and it was tit for tat and you most likely think your guy won. This applies to Romney supportters as well.
 
2012-10-17 11:10:03 AM

snowshovel: max_pooper: speakandgo: Looks like fox news already threw it down the memory hole "Audio Gap" (pop)

Wow, that's pretty pathetic even by Fox News standards.

I don't get it. What am I looking for in the transcripts.


Fox news had the following clipped out and replaced with "(Audio Gap)"

"We of course don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons. What I believe is we have to do as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence we have. And you ask how are we going to do that? And there are a number of things.

He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state, and I believe if we do a better job in education, we'll, we'll give people the hope and opportunity they deserve, and perhaps less violence from that.

But let me mention another thing, and that is parents. We need moms and dads helping raise kids. Wherever possible, the - the benefit of having two parents in the home, and that's not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh, to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone - that's a great idea because if there's a two-parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will, will be able to achieve increase dramatically.

So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity and bring them in the American system.

The, one of the greatest failure we've had with regards to gun violence, in some respects, is what is known as Fast and Furious, which was a program under this administration - and how it worked exactly, I think we don't know precisely - but where thousands of automatic and AK-47-type weapons were, were given to people that ultimately gave them to drug lords. They used those weapons against - against their own citizens and killed Americans with them.

And this was a, this was a program of the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can't imagine. But it's one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration which I think the American people would like to understand fully. It's been investigated to a degree, but the administration has, has carried out executive privilege to prevent all the information from coming out. I'd like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence - thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.


With Fox News, you never know. It appeared like they were intentionally leaving out a rambling rant by Romney that really didn't answer the question, rambled on about education, teen pregnancy and Fast and Furious but most notably he said "We of course don't want to have automatic weapons." That doesn't really fit the NRA member dumbass redneck voting block so crucial to his campaign.

I will give Fox credit here, this actually appeared to be a legitimate omission due to lack of information that they corrected.
 
2012-10-17 11:10:05 AM
I lol'ed when Romney referred to "AK-747's".
 
2012-10-17 11:11:10 AM

Saiga410: saintstryfe: Frank N Stein: We're discussing this and not how Obama said he wanted to reinstate the AWB?

Wait a minute, didn't he have a supermajority in Congress for two years? Isn't that the excuse the righties use for everything Obama didn't get done? Well he had that, and didn't do this... what does that say?

(yes, I know it was actually for like 12 weeks, but let's turn that talking point around on them.)

because he knows he would have gotten spanked over it come this election.... Just you wait if he gets reelected.

/not sure if serious.


The doofuses who care about this aren't going to vote for Obama anyway.
 
2012-10-17 11:12:09 AM

Saiga410: Obama: But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.

Then why do you want a scary weapons ban if you know that they are not the problem you marooon?


He seems to be using these terms interchangably. Either he doesn't understand the differences or he thinks the audience doesn't understand the differences. Either way the nuance that is being lost is important. Or his definition of "assault weapon" is different than was used in the previous ban.
 
2012-10-17 11:14:00 AM

Arkanaut: I lol'ed when Romney referred to "AK-747's".


It's part of al Qaeda's new Automatic Terrorism Launching Attack System. Thousands of 747's will rain down across America.
 
2012-10-17 11:16:01 AM
test.axisofweevil.com
 
2012-10-17 11:18:40 AM

sprawl15: Arkanaut: I lol'ed when Romney referred to "AK-747's".

It's part of al Qaeda's new Automatic Terrorism Launching Attack System. Thousands of 747's will rain down across America.


Or he has been cramming on firearms since he is not a gun guy. Fun act, There is an AK-47 and there is an AK-74. The 74 uses the same firing system as the 47 but is chambered in the 5.45 instead of the 7.62. it is also stamped in stead of milled.
 
2012-10-17 11:19:08 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Fart_Machine: globalwarmingpraiser: thurstonxhowell: Guns don't kill people, children of women who leave abusive men kill people. Stay with him no matter what, ladies.

Link

Link

Actual science that says children with a two parent household do better. OMG ROMNEY WANTS WOMEN ABUSED. This is what makes people like me afraid Romney is going to win big. Guess what, Obama admitted he wants to ban scary looking rifle's. He then admitted they really aren't the problem. Guns that poor people can afford are that problem.

Did you actually read what you linked? It specifically mentions calm two parent households. So yeah staying in an abusive relationship "for the children" is bullshait.

Not only that but Mitt Romney in no way applied that women should stay in abusive relationships. I have done this type of thing defending the President before. The spin coming out of this is stupid. IU watched most of the debate, and it was tit for tat and you most likely think your guy won. This applies to Romney supportters as well.


Why did he even mention this topic in a question about gun violence?
 
2012-10-17 11:21:54 AM

Fart_Machine: Why did he even mention this topic in a question about gun violence?


It mixes two GOP platforms together for maximum trolling. "Guns don't kill people. Children from single-parent households kill people."
 
2012-10-17 11:23:14 AM

Fjornir: [test.axisofweevil.com image 850x531]


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
 
2012-10-17 11:24:02 AM

Fart_Machine: Why did he even mention this topic in a question about gun violence?


Runs down the clock, plays to the 'family values' of the Republican party, tries to make R the party of wholesome families and D the party of welfare queens with AK-47 toting welfare babies and MOST OF ALL avoids mentioning the assault weapons ban he signed as Governor. With the added bonus that there's a perception that Obama would have a difficult time making an attack on Romney for the assault weapons ban because many (D) voters are for stronger gun control.

Obama did work in a nice, "For x before he was against x" rimshot though.
 
2012-10-17 11:24:54 AM

Fart_Machine: globalwarmingpraiser: Fart_Machine: globalwarmingpraiser: thurstonxhowell: Guns don't kill people, children of women who leave abusive men kill people. Stay with him no matter what, ladies.

Link

Link

Actual science that says children with a two parent household do better. OMG ROMNEY WANTS WOMEN ABUSED. This is what makes people like me afraid Romney is going to win big. Guess what, Obama admitted he wants to ban scary looking rifle's. He then admitted they really aren't the problem. Guns that poor people can afford are that problem.

Did you actually read what you linked? It specifically mentions calm two parent households. So yeah staying in an abusive relationship "for the children" is bullshait.

Not only that but Mitt Romney in no way applied that women should stay in abusive relationships. I have done this type of thing defending the President before. The spin coming out of this is stupid. IU watched most of the debate, and it was tit for tat and you most likely think your guy won. This applies to Romney supportters as well.

Why did he even mention this topic in a question about gun violence?


Because having better home lives is proven to reduce violence.
 
2012-10-17 11:29:28 AM
That fact-checking article needs to check its facts.

FTFA:That law banned the manufacture of assault-style semi-automatic weapons (guns that automatically reload, but fire only once when the trigger is depressed)

Rating: partially true.

It banned 'scary' semi-automatic weapons based on arbitrary characteristics passing an arbitrary threshold (2 out of 5 scary features). If an AR-15-style rifle had a flash suppressor permanently attached, it was legal after the ban. So many manufacturers just switched to making the same damn rifle with a permanent flash suppressor. If an AR-15-style pistol had a manufactured weight of less than 50 ounces, it was legal after the ban. 51 ounces? Illegal. This pistol is a great example of how stupid that 'assault weapon' definition was:

www.ar-15.us

This gun was swiss-cheesed and shipped without a magazine to barely come in under the 50-ounce limit. If it had shipped with a magazine, it would have had a 'manufactured weight' of over 50 ounces. You could add a magazine yourself once you bought it. Stupid law.
 
2012-10-17 11:30:23 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Actual science that says children with a two parent household do better. OMG ROMNEY WANTS WOMEN ABUSED.


I'd like to debate the merits of his statement, but I have been brainwashed by my parents' divorce and, as such, will be spending the rest of the day choking infants.
 
2012-10-17 11:31:20 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Because having better home lives is proven to reduce violence.


So what can either candidate do to improve home lives? I still don't understand what your point is.
 
2012-10-17 11:31:31 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Because having better home lives is proven to reduce violence.


So is being raised by lesbians. Why didn't he bring that up?
 
2012-10-17 11:33:52 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Because having better home lives is proven to reduce violence.


So is being born white.
 
2012-10-17 11:37:12 AM

thurstonxhowell: I'd like to debate the merits of his statement, but I have been brainwashed by my parents' divorce and, as such, will be spending the rest of the day choking infants.


I'll trade you two toddlers for an infant.
 
2012-10-17 11:45:54 AM

thurstonxhowell: globalwarmingpraiser: Actual science that says children with a two parent household do better. OMG ROMNEY WANTS WOMEN ABUSED.

I'd like to debate the merits of his statement, but I have been brainwashed by my parents' divorce and, as such, will be spending the rest of the day choking infants.


My mom got divorced two times so now I have non-stop gay sex in front of whole some families being supported by welfare and only breaking for brunch

Anything to destroy American families.
 
2012-10-17 11:45:55 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Crap, from this spin, romney must have done well. He pointed out that fully auto weapons are already illegal, and then tried to show how his ban that President Obama had already mentioned was a compromise. Crap crap crap crap crap. Obama is actually going to lose.


There is no full auto assault weapon ban.

Yes, you need a fbi backround check for a select fire or an SBR, AND you pay a 200$ per year tax stamp.

This is one thing I was really looking at. Both of them do not understand current gun laws.

Or yer trawlin.
 
2012-10-17 11:47:04 AM
Probably my favorite part of the debate was Romney taking the assault weapons question and turning it into a screed on Fast and Furious, with the coup de grace being a swipe at executive privilege. Because we all know that if there is anything that republicans support, it is the investigative role of Congress and if there is anything they are unshakably opposed to, it's executive privilege.
 
2012-10-17 11:47:05 AM

globalwarmingpraiser: Because having better home lives is proven to reduce violence.


And you agree with Romney when he implied that gun violence is caused by single mothers? That having two parents impedes the use of guns?
 
2012-10-17 11:47:42 AM

Fjornir: [test.axisofweevil.com image 850x531]


Looks like Fox retroactively moderated the debate.
 
2012-10-17 11:48:17 AM

GranoblasticMan: globalwarmingpraiser: Because having better home lives is proven to reduce violence.

So what can either candidate do to improve home lives? I still don't understand what your point is.


Well, not offer them support services like food stamps or other "welfare" programs. Because if I know anything about creating better homes lives, all you need to do is pile on crippling financial worry and the home life just improves dramatically.
 
2012-10-17 11:53:59 AM

And it's referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it
had, at the signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun
people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that
both wanted.

There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that haven't
previously been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed-
upon piece of legislation.


So, Romney is a Fudd. IF the NRA wasn't full of shiat they would be denouncing him as such. Gun rights are not about hunting, they are about self defense.
 
2012-10-17 11:54:17 AM

Karma Curmudgeon: Probably my favorite part of the debate was Romney taking the assault weapons question and turning it into a screed on Fast and Furious, with the coup de grace being a swipe at executive privilege. Because we all know that if there is anything that republicans support, it is the investigative role of Congress and if there is anything they are unshakably opposed to, it's executive privilege.


It was certainly the worse acting that night. Romney was pathetically pretending to be genuinely curious about the whole thing and wanting to know what it was all about just like he received an E-mailed forwarded to him about it from his nephew.
 
2012-10-17 12:01:38 PM

topcon: Some genius comments in that article:

There is no reason for regular citizens to have automatic weapons. The only function of an automatic weapon is to kill people--lots of people. Only the military and the police should have them. Unfortunately, the current laws don't go that far, and possession of these weapons is an issue for law enforcement.

Yeah, except for the fact virtually no crimes are committed with F/A guns, great point.


Hell, I bet if a full auto gun was used in a crime, everyone registered in the area would be getting a visit to check on them to make sure they had their shiat still and it hadn't been used at the time.

I saw that comment too and wanted to say "To have fun at the range with!!!"

I mean honestly, what red blooded American wouldn't want to go to the range and unload a 50 round drum from a Thompson?????
 
2012-10-17 12:16:16 PM

thekilt04: Yes, you need a fbi backround check for a select fire or an SBR, AND you pay a 200$ per year tax stamp.


The tax stamp is a per-transfer thing. If you buy a machine gun from a dealer, you pay a one-time tax stamp of $200. There's no recurring costs.

/has such a tax stamp
 
2012-10-17 12:19:42 PM
The GOP must be creaming their pantaloons over Borderlands 2. SO MANY GUNS - ZERO REGULATION.
I mean, I just found an assault rifle with an 80 round clip in an outdoor toilet. UTOPIA!
 
2012-10-17 12:21:05 PM

heypete: thekilt04: Yes, you need a fbi backround check for a select fire or an SBR, AND you pay a 200$ per year tax stamp.

The tax stamp is a per-transfer thing. If you buy a machine gun from a dealer, you pay a one-time tax stamp of $200. There's no recurring costs.

/has such a tax stamp


I am jealous. I live in commiefornia so no SBR for me... I could have sworn it was recurring, but seeing how I can't get one in my state I wouldn't know.

Which is bull. I want an obrez.
 
2012-10-17 12:29:49 PM

tricycleracer: Fart_Machine: Why did he even mention this topic in a question about gun violence?

It mixes two GOP platforms together for maximum trolling. "Guns don't kill people. Children from single-parent households kill people."


Yeah, just ask Osama Bin Laden.
 
2012-10-17 12:36:58 PM

topcon: Some genius comments in that article:

There is no reason for regular citizens to have automatic weapons. The only function of an automatic weapon is to kill people--lots of people. Only the military and the police should have them. Unfortunately, the current laws don't go that far, and possession of these weapons is an issue for law enforcement.

Yeah, except for the fact virtually no crimes are committed with F/A guns, great point.


After reading that quote, I have to wonder if this person approves of police killing "lots of people" - since they think that police should have access to a weapon that has only 1 function - to kill "lots of people"...
 
2012-10-17 12:49:11 PM

Diogenes: That was pretty bad - another example of reflexive lying on Romney's part. But what really had me scratching my head was the part about Massachusetts and how whatever the hell they had there was the result of bipartisanship and pro- and anti-gun cooperation.

So was he saying their ban in his state was cool because opposing sides cooperated? If so, WTF does that have to do with core issue and whether there should be such restrictions?

I'm not arguing one side or the other. I just want to know what the hell Romney was saying (or wasn't, as the case may be).


Well if we are going to argue that automatic weapons are legal, we most also conclude that the so-called 'assault weapons ban' didn't ban assault weapons.

Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.

Romney was correct.
 
2012-10-17 01:00:23 PM

Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.



upload.wikimedia.org

Lolwut?
 
2012-10-17 01:08:34 PM

GanjSmokr: topcon: Some genius comments in that article:

There is no reason for regular citizens to have automatic weapons. The only function of an automatic weapon is to kill people--lots of people. Only the military and the police should have them. Unfortunately, the current laws don't go that far, and possession of these weapons is an issue for law enforcement.

Yeah, except for the fact virtually no crimes are committed with F/A guns, great point.

After reading that quote, I have to wonder if this person approves of police killing "lots of people" - since they think that police should have access to a weapon that has only 1 function - to kill "lots of people"...


Makes as much sense as Romney stating that single parrents cause violence.
 
2012-10-17 01:12:32 PM
That law banned the manufacture of assault-style semi-automatic weapons (guns that automatically reload, but fire only once when the trigger is depressed)...

Yeah, you fail here, too, dumbases. That describes ANY semi-auto weapon. The AWB was never able to define 'assault weapon' either, so I'll give you that, but they didn't blindly file every single semi-auto gun ever made as an "assault weapon". Just as an example, take my pistol, it's both an 'auto'(Which for pistos really means semi-auto), and it is a double-action, so I don't have do anything to prepare the next bullet to fire. By YOUR definition, that's an "assault weapon". The government focused on stupid stuff like how the gun " looked", because they couldn't define it either.
 
2012-10-17 01:17:34 PM

Saiga410: Makes as much sense as Romney stating that single parrents cause violence


Or the notion that under a Romney presidency, single-parent households will somehow decline in numbers.

Seriously, what was he trying to say with that? That his administration would be able to influence marriages staying together?
 
2012-10-17 01:29:36 PM

THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?


"Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes.
 
2012-10-17 01:34:22 PM
Ha ha, you NRA members thought it was about protecting your gun rights.

//Rubes
 
2012-10-17 01:50:25 PM

PanicMan: Obama: But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.

Finally someone said this out loud.


It's even simpler than that. Gang-bangers use handguns because they are easily concealed and widely available. Cheap is just a convenient (and pejorative) adjective.
 
2012-10-17 01:57:15 PM
According to their own rules and bylaws, the NRA should be support the incumbent-President.

It's not a grey area, it's pretty black & white.
 
2012-10-17 02:03:25 PM

topcon: THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?

"Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes.


Remember all you aspiring murderers, topcon says that mass killings aren't really bad unless you use full-auto weapons.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you are probably already aware, the guns used by my clients were fully automatic, but were made so illegally - making them only semi-automatic. And on those grounds, we can't really know how many of the cowering, scared unarmed schoolchildren were gunned down by accident due to the illegal modification. I'm sure you'd have a case for prohibiting these weapons if they were fully automatic - as you may know, fully automatic weapons are terrible and should be banned - however these were not. We simply don't know who is to blame here - the boys that killed all those people, or the guy who illegally modified their guns. I don't think we can overlook this. Yes, they used these weapons to brutally gun down unarmed children, but did they mean to? Can you really say that if their assault weapons weren't fully automatic that they would still have gone on to kill so many in such a horrific and brutal manner? I simply don't think we can conclude that."
 
2012-10-17 02:08:41 PM

Epoch_Zero: topcon: THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?

"Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes.

Remember all you aspiring murderers, topcon says that mass killings aren't really bad unless you use full-auto weapons.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as you are probably already aware, the guns used by my clients were fully automatic, but were made so illegally - making them only semi-automatic. And on those grounds, we can't really know how many of the cowering, scared unarmed schoolchildren were gunned down by accident due to the illegal modification. I'm sure you'd have a case for prohibiting these weapons if they were fully automatic - as you may know, fully automatic weapons are terrible and should be banned - however these were not. We simply don't know who is to blame here - the boys that killed all those people, or the guy who illegally modified their guns. I don't think we can overlook this. Yes, they used these weapons to brutally gun down unarmed children, but did they mean to? Can you really say that if their assault weapons weren't fully automatic that they would still have gone on to kill so many in such a horrific and brutal manner? I simply don't think we can conclude that."


Someone in a comments section commented that legally owned fully automatic guns "are a problem for police."

However, virtually _no_ crimes are committed with legally owned F/A guns, suppressors, SBS, or anything else covered by NFA, ergo, they are in fact not "a problem for police."

I don't even know WTF point you're even trying to make, but you either missed the point, or you're just trolling.
 
2012-10-17 02:11:10 PM

topcon: "Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes


And you can call me when you figure out where you moved the goalpoasts from the statement I was quoting.
 
2012-10-17 02:20:05 PM

THX 1138: topcon: "Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes

And you can call me when you figure out where you moved the goalpoasts from the statement I was quoting.


Legally owned F/A guns are virtually never used in crimes. Someone said legally owned F/A guns are a problem.

On the illegal side:

Any one of us could go to a local sporting goods store, buy an AK-47, download a PDF off the internet, go to Lowe's, buy some cheap tools, and crudely modify it to be fully automatic, and then go out and kill people with it.

Now, from that, why are legally owned F/A guns "a problem for police?"

They aren't. The people who have the money to buy real, pre-1986, registered machineguns aren't killing anyone with them. If you ban legally owned F/A guns, it still won't stop criminals from modifying semiautomatic guns, and even that isn't exactly common.
 
2012-10-17 02:23:35 PM
I own 12 guns. Everything from a .22 revolver to a AR-15.
I am not worried about the government taking my guns.
Im voting for Obama.
Once my Obama bumper sticker gets here im putting it on my truck right by my NRA sticker.
 
2012-10-17 02:25:09 PM

topcon: Someone in a comments section commented that legally owned fully automatic guns "are a problem for police."

However, virtually _no_ crimes are committed with legally owned F/A guns, suppressors, SBS, or anything else covered by NFA, ergo, they are in fact not "a problem for police."


Too many words, maybe? Lemme try that again.

chimperror02: no one uses fully automatic weapons to commit crimes, you guys.
thx1138: actually, they are and a good example are these two fine young lads here
topcon: yeah, but they were just illegally modified to be automatic
epoch-zero: that doesn't make it ok, stop implying that it does
topcon: they aren't a problem for police though, so therefore more implications
 
2012-10-17 02:29:54 PM

Epoch_Zero: topcon: Someone in a comments section commented that legally owned fully automatic guns "are a problem for police."

However, virtually _no_ crimes are committed with legally owned F/A guns, suppressors, SBS, or anything else covered by NFA, ergo, they are in fact not "a problem for police."

Too many words, maybe? Lemme try that again.

chimperror02: no one uses fully automatic weapons to commit crimes, you guys.
thx1138: actually, they are and a good example are these two fine young lads here
topcon: yeah, but they were just illegally modified to be automatic
epoch-zero: that doesn't make it ok, stop implying that it does
topcon: they aren't a problem for police though, so therefore more implications


Yeah, you're completely missing the point again, or being purposefully obtuse and trolling.
 
2012-10-17 02:36:24 PM

topcon: THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?

"Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes.


I believe there was one in the thirties. It was committed by a police officer.

/(double checking)
 
2012-10-17 02:43:39 PM

topcon: you're completely missing the point again


Actually no, you're the one who missed it.

Once again:

chimperror02: No one uses fully automatic weapons when committing crimes
Me: Here's an example
You: I'm going to ignore that example because I think the original statement should have said "legally owned" automatic weapons.
Everyone: Then you're refuting a different statement than the one at hand, and not addressing the one that the rest of us are talking about here.
You: You're all being obtuse!
 
2012-10-17 02:47:24 PM

DORMAMU: I believe there was one in the thirties. It was committed by a police officer.


1988. He killed a police informant with a fully auto.
 
2012-10-17 02:47:37 PM
Crimes aren't committed with legally owned F/A guns. Ergo, there's no reason to further make them illegal or harder to get than they already are. That's the point, which you're missing yet again.

They're already buried behind many months wait time, but, most importantly, thousands of dollars to buy even the cheapest ones (i.e. MACs.)

Why am I arguing guns with some tard living in Canada, anyway?
 
2012-10-17 02:52:51 PM

topcon: Crimes aren't committed with legally owned F/A guns. Ergo, there's no reason to further make them illegal or harder to get than they already are. That's the point, which you're missing yet again.

They're already buried behind many months wait time, but, most importantly, thousands of dollars to buy even the cheapest ones (i.e. MACs.)

Why am I arguing guns with some tard living in Canada, anyway?


Ironic as Canadians own more guns per capita than the US but commits 1/10th the gun related crimes. Seems like the tards may live here
 
2012-10-17 02:54:34 PM

monoski: topcon: Crimes aren't committed with legally owned F/A guns. Ergo, there's no reason to further make them illegal or harder to get than they already are. That's the point, which you're missing yet again.

They're already buried behind many months wait time, but, most importantly, thousands of dollars to buy even the cheapest ones (i.e. MACs.)

Why am I arguing guns with some tard living in Canada, anyway?

Ironic as Canadians own more guns per capita than the US but commits 1/10th the gun related crimes. Seems like the tards may live here


Uh, no they don't. Where did you get that from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Link
 
2012-10-17 02:57:52 PM
And at least purely from a death standpoint it isn't 1/10th less, either. Crimes, I don't know. Canada is 19th in the world for gun deaths, the U.S. is 10th, with over twice the rate of Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea t h_rate

Link
 
2012-10-17 03:06:52 PM

topcon: Crimes aren't committed with legally owned F/A guns.


Even this extremely pro-automatic-weapon site mentions documented crimes which prove your statement wrong.

topcon: Why am I arguing guns with some tard living in Canada, anyway?


That just happens to be where I've been living for the last three years. Gonna keep changing the subject to distract us from you being proven wrong over and over, huh?
 
2012-10-17 03:12:20 PM

THX 1138: topcon: Crimes aren't committed with legally owned F/A guns.

Even this extremely pro-automatic-weapon site mentions documented crimes which prove your statement wrong.

topcon: Why am I arguing guns with some tard living in Canada, anyway?

That just happens to be where I've been living for the last three years. Gonna keep changing the subject to distract us from you being proven wrong over and over, huh?



From your own article, which you apparently didn't read before you posted, and spent a half hour looking for:

"Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons."

What I said earlier: "Virtually no crimes."

WHOA, A WHOLE TWO MURDERS SINCE 1934! AN EPIDEMIC! BAN ALL LEGALLY OWNED FULLY AUTOMATIC GUNS!
 
2012-10-17 03:21:36 PM

topcon: monoski: topcon: Crimes aren't committed with legally owned F/A guns. Ergo, there's no reason to further make them illegal or harder to get than they already are. That's the point, which you're missing yet again.

They're already buried behind many months wait time, but, most importantly, thousands of dollars to buy even the cheapest ones (i.e. MACs.)

Why am I arguing guns with some tard living in Canada, anyway?

Ironic as Canadians own more guns per capita than the US but commits 1/10th the gun related crimes. Seems like the tards may live here

Uh, no they don't. Where did you get that from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Link


My bad, stats I read were limited to shotguns and long rifles (excluded handguns)
 
2012-10-17 03:26:19 PM

topcon: What I said earlier: "Virtually no crimes."


You do realize you're just digging yourself deeper, right? Chimperror02 said "no crimes are committed by automatic weapons". You changed the argument to "legally owned" automatic weapons. Now you're making up statements about "an epidemic" and "banning legally owned fully-automatics", when I've said neither such thing.

As a matter of fact, the only stance I've taken on weapons in this thread is to point out that Obama increased gun rights and Romney has enacted legislation to reduce rights. The lovely caps-lock typing you did was just something that you fabricated and attributed to me, to have something to argue against. In essence, you're arguing against your own words.

And we're all here to see it.
 
2012-10-17 03:50:56 PM

THX 1138: topcon: What I said earlier: "Virtually no crimes."

You do realize you're just digging yourself deeper, right? Chimperror02 said "no crimes are committed by automatic weapons". You changed the argument to "legally owned" automatic weapons. Now you're making up statements about "an epidemic" and "banning legally owned fully-automatics", when I've said neither such thing.

As a matter of fact, the only stance I've taken on weapons in this thread is to point out that Obama increased gun rights and Romney has enacted legislation to reduce rights. The lovely caps-lock typing you did was just something that you fabricated and attributed to me, to have something to argue against. In essence, you're arguing against your own words.

And we're all here to see it.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-17 04:29:50 PM

DORMAMU: topcon: THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?

"Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes.

I believe there was one in the thirties. It was committed by a police officer.

/(double checking)



Back in the early '30s, you could order Thompson sub-machine guns through the mail. But you haven't been able to order pistols through the mail since 1927.
 
2012-10-17 10:05:25 PM

PanicMan: Obama: But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets


This is what bothers me. I've got three firearms designed for soldiers: 1941 Mosin-Nagant, 1960's Ishapor 2A-1, and an 1886 11mm MAS revolver from France. I'll someday have a beautiful 1918 Mosin-Nagant made by Remington when I buy it from my grandfather. Can anyone with a straight face tell me that those are "assault weapons" despite having the military specifically in mind with their design?

This is a silly topic, the way it's talked about. There are definitely firearms you don't want bad people to have, but stuff of the full auto variety is ludicrisly expensive. There are plenty of common sense ordinances we could instate to mitigate seriously mentally ill people geting their hands on firearms, but few want to act reasonable about it. Gun-grabbing libs want to grab guns because they won't face backlash from their constituents, and Republicans are fearful of doing anything reasonable or responsible on the topic of any sort.

As well, the debate is always framed by making "assault weapons," which can technically only include machine guns, scarier than they actually are. I've tried to find statistics on the topic of someone stabbing someone with a bayonet on their gun and all I've come up with is a zed. As an aside, the last statistic I recall about how many murders have taken place with a legally-owned machine gun in America says that %50 of them occured by a police officer... that is, one person murder by a cop, and one by some other guy. That's right, only two murders have taken place with them since the records started. Muzzle brakes and flash hiders? Magazine size limits? For one, anyone with moderate skill is going to be able to quickly change a mag, and secondly criminals will STILL have illegally large magazines. I just don't see any reasonable ground anyone has to stand on calling for restriction of harmless features on a firearm that isn't even a type of weapon of the ban's namesake.

But there is zero chance of Obama getting an AWB on his desk anyway, and I highly doubt that he truely cares about getting one.
 
2012-10-17 10:38:11 PM

Stibium: This is what bothers me. I've got three firearms designed for soldiers: 1941 Mosin-Nagant, 1960's Ishapor 2A-1, and an 1886 11mm MAS revolver from France. I'll someday have a beautiful 1918 Mosin-Nagant made by Remington when I buy it from my grandfather. Can anyone with a straight face tell me that those are "assault weapons" despite having the military specifically in mind with their design?


Of course she can...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-18 12:05:43 AM

THX 1138: DORMAMU: I believe there was one in the thirties. It was committed by a police officer.

1988. He killed a police informant with a fully auto.


but still it was a cop...

interesting
 
2012-10-20 01:08:33 PM

THX 1138: topcon: "Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic"

Key phrase: Illegally modified.

Call me when actual, legal, NFA F/A guns are used in crimes

And you can call me when you figure out where you moved the goalpoasts from the statement I was quoting.


Okay, Baseball bats kill more people than fully-automatic weapons. How's that? Legal fully-automatic weapons are simply not an issue for crime. Modified guns are illegal anyway so did you just want to make modified guns more illegal? It is already illegal to own a disk shaped piece of metal called a 'sear' because it's labeled a machine gun.

Fully automatic weapons are not an issue.
 
2012-10-20 01:13:00 PM

THX 1138: CokeBear: Since being elected, Obama hasn't lifted a finger to change any gun laws

Actually, that's not correct.

He's enacted legislation increasing gun rights. But don't tell the derpers if you don't find people holding their hands over their ears to be a pretty sight.


And he's enacted executive orders to restrict them. Talk to gun dealers on the border if they think their rights were expanded or curtailed.
 
2012-10-20 01:16:53 PM

THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?


They also failed to kill anybody with those guns.
 
2012-10-20 01:25:21 PM

Chimperror2: THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?

They also failed to kill anybody with those guns.


Your assertion was that automatic weapons aren't used in crimes. If you want to move the goalposts now and say that a killing had to occur, go ahead. But be aware that all of us know that that's not what you first stated.
 
2012-10-20 06:10:35 PM

THX 1138: Chimperror2: THX 1138: Chimperror2: Oh, and fully-automatic weapons aren't used in crimes.


[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x164]

Lolwut?

They also failed to kill anybody with those guns.

Your assertion was that automatic weapons aren't used in crimes. If you want to move the goalposts now and say that a killing had to occur, go ahead. But be aware that all of us know that that's not what you first stated.


Apparently you are retarded if you think fully-automatic weapons are a crime problem that needs to be addressed. If you want to cite one unsuccessful criminal act from nearly 20 years ago as proof that automatic weapons are a crime problem, knock yourself out.
 
Displayed 118 of 118 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report