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.

(Think Progress)   In one day, more people have signed a petition asking Obama to address gun control than Texans wanting to secede from the Union   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 1049
    More: Obvious, President Obama, unions, gun regulation, petitions  
•       •       •

3078 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Dec 2012 at 8:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1049 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 01:37:09 AM

Methadone Girls: That said, a regular person buying them for personal protect smacks of paranoia. Who the fark are you protecting yourself from with 3 guns in the house? That's not protection. That's crazy. I've made it to my 40's without having to "protect" myself from anyone with a gun.


47% of American households have a gun, and I don't know how many of those are explicitly for home defense, but it's not a trivial number. Paranoia almost requires a single person or small group of people to have an irrational fear. Once you're starting to talk about 25-50% of the households and 33% of the total individuals owning a firearm you've moved well past small groups and individuals.

Frankly, I can understand some of it. I'm 26 and I'm routinely told by my parents, grandparents, and the media that my America is darker and more grim than theirs was. This manifests itself in comments like when they were young they never locked the doors, or it was no problem to let your kid walk over to a friends house a few blocks away, with the insinuation being that it's no longer safe to do those things. This seems a reasonable interpretation in light of statistics like the bigger increase in gun ownership has been among women recently.
 
2012-12-16 01:38:25 AM

violentsalvation: graggor: Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.

It will be unconstitutional.

Was the AWB unconstitutional?


Well since it no longer exists it isnt anymore.
 
2012-12-16 01:38:40 AM

violentsalvation: Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.

Well that does seem to be what they're after, you're right. Another unproductive scary-looking weapons ban. But a few months ago that was political suicide, and I think it would be again for the midterms.


You may be correct, as Republicans in the House will likely not introduce any substantive gun control measures, and I suspect that enough new issues will have entered the public's short attention span by 2014.

Unfortunately, that also means that nothing of any actual benefit will be done.
 
2012-12-16 01:39:02 AM

trackstr777: JadedRaverLA: trackstr777: As I said in previous posts, if we wanted to cut down on lots of crime, and particularly child porn, we could just make an agency that has thousands of people to read and listen to every form of electronic communication ever sent over the wires and air in this country. We could cut all forms of crime down considerably overnight! Why don't we do it? Because the positive effect of less crime has to be weighed against the harm to our civil liberties, the general breaking of our Constitutional rights, and because it's not as simple as "we need to fight a problem...make ANY laws that might help!"

You might want to come up with a better example of things we WOULDN'T do.

NSA Utah Data Center

Room 641a

NSA call database

NSA warrantless surveillance

You should totally let them know the reasons we would never do anything like that. It's not difficult -- I'm sure if you reply to my post, someone there will see it.

Go back and read my posts, where I acknowledged this and took it a step further. The NSA wasn't kicking down peoples doors for snooping on drug crime communication, or child porn. Realistically, we could create an agency whose purpose was to snoop all communication and target ANY crime.

The NSA thing was reprehensible, and I made the point we COULD take it even further in the interest of fighting crime, but we don't and we shouldn't because of pesky things like civil liberties and the fact that the positive effects of tighter laws should be weighed against the negative effects to our populace at large.

Or you could just ignore all that to make your point that I already addressed. That works too...


I don't feel like digging through tons of posts, and I won't make you either.

"Other parts of the program were far more sweeping. The NSA, with the secret cooperation of U.S. telecommunications companies, had begun collecting vast amounts of information about the phone and e-mail records of American citizens. Separately, the NSA was also able to access, for the first time, massive volumes of personal financial records-such as credit-card transactions, wire transfers and bank withdrawals-that were being reported to the Treasury Department by financial institutions. These included millions of "suspicious-activity reports," or SARS, according to two former Treasury officials who declined to be identified talking about sensitive programs. (It was one such report that tipped FBI agents to former New York governor Eliot Spitzer's use of prostitutes.) These records were fed into NSA supercomputers for the purpose of "data mining"-looking for links or patterns that might (or might not) suggest terrorist activity." -- Link

I'm not aware of the national security implications of Eliot Spitzer's use of call girls, but if you think the NSA is really good at limiting the scope of their data collection to terrorists, I'd suggest you're a wee bit naive.
 
2012-12-16 01:39:34 AM

Fubini: Methadone Girls: That said, a regular person buying them for personal protect smacks of paranoia. Who the fark are you protecting yourself from with 3 guns in the house? That's not protection. That's crazy. I've made it to my 40's without having to "protect" myself from anyone with a gun.

47% of American households have a gun, and I don't know how many of those are explicitly for home defense, but it's not a trivial number. Paranoia almost requires a single person or small group of people to have an irrational fear. Once you're starting to talk about 25-50% of the households and 33% of the total individuals owning a firearm you've moved well past small groups and individuals.

Frankly, I can understand some of it. I'm 26 and I'm routinely told by my parents, grandparents, and the media that my America is darker and more grim than theirs was. This manifests itself in comments like when they were young they never locked the doors, or it was no problem to let your kid walk over to a friends house a few blocks away, with the insinuation being that it's no longer safe to do those things. This seems a reasonable interpretation in light of statistics like the bigger increase in gun ownership has been among women recently.



Crime is lower today than it has been in years. it isnt even close and considering our heightened population density it is even more incredible.
 
2012-12-16 01:41:51 AM
I guess if you want to ban certain weapons it makes sense but honestly banning all guns. never will happen.

its against the 2nd amendment.
 
2012-12-16 01:42:02 AM

graggor: violentsalvation: graggor: Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.

It will be unconstitutional.

Was the AWB unconstitutional?

Well since it no longer exists it isnt anymore.


well...
 
2012-12-16 01:44:58 AM

violentsalvation: graggor: violentsalvation: graggor: Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.

It will be unconstitutional.

Was the AWB unconstitutional?

Well since it no longer exists it isnt anymore.

well...



lol...in the article...

As a candidate in 2008, Obama campaigned on permanent reinstatement of the expired assault weapons ban, and Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009 indicated that the administration would lobby for a bill. But that never materialized and the White House has largely avoided talking about it.

As I said he mentioned it on the campaign trail ( like conservative do about banning abortion) then when the time comes to do something they do nothing about it.

States have instituted AWBs. When it goes to the supreme court we will see how it holds up.

So far the supreme court has knocked down handgun bans...the civil court upheld an AWB...

personally its territory to avoid. 2nd amendment makes it pretty clear.
 
2012-12-16 01:48:00 AM

Dimensio: violentsalvation: Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.

Well that does seem to be what they're after, you're right. Another unproductive scary-looking weapons ban. But a few months ago that was political suicide, and I think it would be again for the midterms.

You may be correct, as Republicans in the House will likely not introduce any substantive gun control measures, and I suspect that enough new issues will have entered the public's short attention span by 2014.

Unfortunately, that also means that nothing of any actual benefit will be done.


Yep. And that's what sucks, because people like you and I, and others, people who actually want this awful shiat to end, but also understand the situation, we are ignored.

No real solution, not even a legitimate attempt. Any attempts will be for another pointless AWB.
 
2012-12-16 01:48:42 AM

violentsalvation: Dimensio: violentsalvation: Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.

Well that does seem to be what they're after, you're right. Another unproductive scary-looking weapons ban. But a few months ago that was political suicide, and I think it would be again for the midterms.

You may be correct, as Republicans in the House will likely not introduce any substantive gun control measures, and I suspect that enough new issues will have entered the public's short attention span by 2014.

Unfortunately, that also means that nothing of any actual benefit will be done.

Yep. And that's what sucks, because people like you and I, and others, people who actually want this awful shiat to end, but also understand the situation, we are ignored.

No real solution, not even a legitimate attempt. Any attempts will be for another pointless AWB.


Because anything with teeth would be unconstitutional.
 
2012-12-16 01:50:00 AM

violentsalvation: Was the AWB unconstitutional?


Was the AWB ever challenged in SCOTUS?

In US v Miller it was about a short barelled shotgun not being part of the militarys arsenal so the short barelled shotgun was illegal......m4's are in common use by the military.....maybe we need another AWB just so the court can make select fire m4's available to the public....maybe even stingers and at4s...this whole thing could backfire on the gun control crowd.

/although stingers would be bad
//at4s im ok with
 
2012-12-16 01:50:23 AM

birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.


Okay, how's this, 1994, Clinton assault weapons ban goes into effect as crime stats are already starting to drop. 2004(?) Ban sunshines, crime rates continue to fall. Basic deduction, when you do two diametrically opposed actions and get the same result then what you're doing probably doesn't matter either way.

Second, in the next few days the odds are way more than likely that we're going to find out the CT shooter was on some type of psychotropic medication- known side effects to include violent outbursts, suicidal tendencies, lowered inhibitions, etc. - which is in keeping with pretty much every other mass shooting since Columbine.

If you want to get into a numbers game, even the FBI will tell you firearms stop more crimes than they are used to commit, especially in mere deterence - in other words if the predator is too scared to make a victim then nobody has to get shot at all. That's what firearms ownership is - mutally assured destruction on the micro scale.

As for as banning only certain action types, let me be clear - I can kill you with a single shot .22lr just as easily as I can with a barrett M82A1 .50bmg, the difference is how close I have to be. You'll be just as dead either way. A .22lr from a rifle will penetrate a 1/2in pine board at 400+ yards if you can hit the board. The .50bmg will do the same feat at several miles. Bottom line, a gun is a gun is a gun is a gun - there's no point in banning one if you aren't going to ban them all. Case in point, the Holocost museumm shooter used a bolt action .22lr.

Last year in America there were enough firearms sold to outfit every man in every army arouond the world with a sidearm and long arm - that's one frakking year. It doesn't matter where you stand on the issue, there is no way to control guns in the United States. The logistics simply don't exist.
 
2012-12-16 01:51:23 AM

sparkeyjames: Let them have their guns. With a rule to be added that if you step outside your home with a semiauto firearm you spend
5 years in jail and loose all your weapons. (the hunters should have no problem with this). This allows them to fondle their
murder machines in the privacy of their homes.


How will that prevent something like this? If you are going to go on a rampage a law that doesn't allow you to carry a firearm isn't going to matter. It probably won't also stop any criminal either because in most cases they weapon they carry is already illegal.
 
2012-12-16 01:52:12 AM

AutumnWind: But then how can you want them in the classroom? Criminals will know where to get them now. And students with problems will have easier access to them.


One of the reasons that firearms can be stolen is that they're not accounted for as well as they should be, and part of that is the inclination to conceal them. Suppose we were to run with the idea of arming teachers in the classroom: rather than having them laying around in purses or desks you require the teachers to open-carry with a holster, and they check them in and our at the start of every day. That way, you can instantly tell where that teacher's gun is by looking at them- if they have it on their hip they've got control of the weapon, if they don't then you instantly know something is wrong, and no one can get access to the firearm without at least incapacitating a teacher first, which cuts a big chunk out of the crucial first moments of tragedies like this.

I'm not suggesting this, but just running with the thought experiment.

ohokyeah: What about adding a requirement upon purchasing a gun and/or ammo to show proof of ability to store weapons securely?


I really like this idea as a gun owner, because it's an easy sanity check that doesn't require everyone to have a mental health screening for everyone. Three problems I can see with it though: the first and biggest is just that gun safes are expensive- the cheapest ones going for a few hundred dollars, and the cheapest rifle-sized safes going for 800-1000$. For comparison, the cheapest rifles can be had for about $100, so it presents a huge barrier to entry, but perhaps that is what's needed. The second problem is that a gun safe is untenable for a lot of people for non-cost reasons. Most landlords wouldn't be OK with you bolting a safe into your apartment (as is required in most countries that require secure storage), which automatically discriminates against the large population groups (young people, poor people, and minorities) who tend to live in apartments. Finally, most places that have a safe storage requirement also require the gun owner to permit the police onto their property at pretty much any reasonable hour to inspect the gun storage, and this could pretty easily be abused without proper legal safeguards.
 
2012-12-16 01:52:58 AM
Gun control and gun ownership dont effect crime as much as either side would like to believe.

THe societal factors involved are health, economics and social welfare.

civil rights enacted some deep problems for this country and it has taken a long time to move out of them. we are seeing results of more interconnectivity, economic opportunity and better health and lifespans. ALBEIT with a lot of problems intermixed and challenges yet to be faced.

we can hope it continues to get better.
 
2012-12-16 01:55:09 AM

Lionel Mandrake: BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion.


This bears repeating for two reasons.
Solid and absolute reasoning.
And an EPIC post if I ever saw one. (I re-bolded the text that spawned the smack-down for historic evidence.)
 
2012-12-16 01:55:59 AM
If we're interested in making this country better, can I talk you guys into a banning of Mike Huckabee's religion? Also maybe we can talk about how awesome the Patriot act is and how awesome we are at legislation while we're crying.
 
2012-12-16 01:56:02 AM

Lt_Ryan: sparkeyjames: Let them have their guns. With a rule to be added that if you step outside your home with a semiauto firearm you spend
5 years in jail and loose all your weapons. (the hunters should have no problem with this). This allows them to fondle their
murder machines in the privacy of their homes.

How will that prevent something like this? If you are going to go on a rampage a law that doesn't allow you to carry a firearm isn't going to matter. It probably won't also stop any criminal either because in most cases they weapon they carry is already illegal.



I think we should make a law stating if you take alcohol outside of your home you get 5 years in jail and if you have alcohol in your home again you go back for 5 years....

yeah it would be a stupid law wouldnt it.

drunk drivers kill as many people as guns do. lets prevent ALL BAD THINGS EVER...

2nd amendment. if an AWB ever went to supreme court it would be overturned. just like the DC handgun ban was.
 
2012-12-16 01:57:41 AM

graggor: drunk drivers kill as many people as guns do. lets prevent ALL BAD THINGS EVER...


But if would be stupid if we didn't do anything to try and bring the numbers of drunk drivers down, right?
 
2012-12-16 01:58:19 AM

Fart_Machine: Fubini: Fart_Machine: Fubini: I could totally see a coalition of willing gun owners and control advocates coming together and pushing for stricter mental health testing for all gun purchases.

While nobody wants certified mental patients from owning firearms, weren't the guns used by the perp in this case from the mother who wasn't mentally ill?

Yes, but as my wall-o-text demonstrates above, the vast majority of gun crime is not spree killers. I don't think you'll ever be able to *stop* spree killers, to the point where legislation seems pointless. Case in point: the single most feared scenario by most law enforcement agencies isn't terrorism, it's a lone crazy guy that is on no-one's radar and just comes out of the woodwork and starts wreaking havoc.

Remember the gas-station snipers in the Washington area from a few years back? Anyone could go spend $500 on a weapon and ammo and essentially replicate that same thing. There are even a lot of people out there who are so far removed from friends and family that they couldn't even catch the warning signs if there were any.

I think we're in agreement here. I'm hardly a gun enthusiast but trying to craft legislation out of a horrific event which was sensational due to its rarity is a terrible way to go about it.


The other problem, of course, is that the only talking about it we will do is around isolated incidents like this. People will freak out and demand OMFG! Change the gun laws! Change the mental health laws! Change whateverthef*ck else laws! And someone will probably cobble together something that will either be unconstitutional on its face or unconstitutional in application and that will be that--until the next round of mass shootings and spree killings.

As I've been saying since this clusterf*ck began, what we need first is a change in mindset and then a lengthy, rational discussion about the causes and scope of the problem. Guns alone are not the problem; access alone is not the problem; mental health treatment alone is not the problem. Media coverage alone is not the problem. All of them together are, and throw in unrealistic expectations of the public that laws will somehow fix the issue and unwarranted fatalism that nothing will work except moar gunz from half the population.

Even as I write this, some asshole got in a running gun battle with cops here in So Cal--which is being breathlessly described as a "mass shooting" by the media, although it was not; and TruTV is airing that celebration of stupidity and the indestructibility of the human body known as "Top 20 Most Shocking." Think they're related to the slayings in Connecticut? I sure do; but ponderings like that will get lost in the outcry for LESS GUNZ! MOAR GUNZ! which in turn will be lost in the short attention span of most Americans as Xmas approaches. By the beginning of January, barring yet another "mass shooting" (which will probably be neither), nobody will remember a thing about this whole mess, or be talking about it. Which is sad.
 
2012-12-16 01:58:19 AM

Bedurndurn: If we're interested in making this country better, can I talk you guys into a banning of Mike Huckabee's religion? Also maybe we can talk about how awesome the Patriot act is and how awesome we are at legislation while we're crying.


We just need to follow the constitution on this. No law shall be made recognizing religion. We have been doing this obsenely for the past 60 years and it needs to end.

the moment we stop using government to force his god down our throats the better.

but I dont believe we should end freedom of religion either. banning religion is abhorent to me as a government practice...as a practical one...lets sit down and figure out how to convince them to shut up shop because their beliefs are ridiculous....
 
2012-12-16 01:58:39 AM

graggor: violentsalvation: graggor: violentsalvation: graggor: Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.

It will be unconstitutional.

Was the AWB unconstitutional?

Well since it no longer exists it isnt anymore.

well...


lol...in the article...

As a candidate in 2008, Obama campaigned on permanent reinstatement of the expired assault weapons ban, and Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009 indicated that the administration would lobby for a bill. But that never materialized and the White House has largely avoided talking about it.

As I said he mentioned it on the campaign trail ( like conservative do about banning abortion) then when the time comes to do something they do nothing about it.

States have instituted AWBs. When it goes to the supreme court we will see how it holds up.

So far the supreme court has knocked down handgun bans...the civil court upheld an AWB...

personally its territory to avoid. 2nd amendment makes it pretty clear.


Appernetly Obama's still for it I guess he has to placate his constituents with nonsense.
 
2012-12-16 01:59:37 AM
Meanwhile, while the liberals in America are frothing over guns . . . MAN STABS 22 CHILDREN AT CHINA PRIMARY SCHOOL.

According to the FBI, the #1 weapon used in violent crimes . . . is a baseball bat. Why is there no outcry to restrict baseball bat ownership? (Maybe because so many law-abiding citizens enjoy them safely for sport? Hmmm . . . .)

Why we have a 2nd amendment:
"In 1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents were arrested and executed.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were killed by the state.

In 1935 China established gun control. Between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and murdered by the Communists.

In 1956 Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people (about 1/3 of the entire population!) were executed by the Reds.

In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.

In 1970 the Ugandan dictator decreed gun control. During the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were murdered.

Over 56 million people have died, unable to defend themselves, because of gun control in the last century alone."

Beginning to notice a pattern???
 
2012-12-16 02:00:25 AM

Bedurndurn: If we're interested in making this country better, can I talk you guys into a banning of Mike Huckabee's religion? Also maybe we can talk about how awesome the Patriot act is and how awesome we are at legislation while we're crying.


Can we convince you to realize how horrible of a person you are for polluting such a serious thread? Could you maybe gtfo and diaf?
 
2012-12-16 02:00:46 AM

Pincy: graggor: drunk drivers kill as many people as guns do. lets prevent ALL BAD THINGS EVER...

But if would be stupid if we didn't do anything to try and bring the numbers of drunk drivers down, right?


Yes and we do things like have laws that punish people that do drink and drive that but NOT prohibition.

Gun bans are prohibition.

Gun laws are ok with me just like DUI laws are ok with me. Bans are not. Against the 2nd amendment anyway. I dont mind taxing guns or having waiting periods. any of that stuff. But banning guns is against the constitution.
 
2012-12-16 02:01:27 AM

graggor: violentsalvation: Dimensio: violentsalvation: Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.

Well that does seem to be what they're after, you're right. Another unproductive scary-looking weapons ban. But a few months ago that was political suicide, and I think it would be again for the midterms.

You may be correct, as Republicans in the House will likely not introduce any substantive gun control measures, and I suspect that enough new issues will have entered the public's short attention span by 2014.

Unfortunately, that also means that nothing of any actual benefit will be done.

Yep. And that's what sucks, because people like you and I, and others, people who actually want this awful shiat to end, but also understand the situation, we are ignored.

No real solution, not even a legitimate attempt. Any attempts will be for another pointless AWB.

Because anything with teeth would be unconstitutional.


Not necessarily: many potentially effective measures will be rejected because socialism.
 
2012-12-16 02:02:42 AM

violentsalvation: graggor: violentsalvation: graggor: violentsalvation: graggor: Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.

It will be unconstitutional.

Was the AWB unconstitutional?

Well since it no longer exists it isnt anymore.

well...


lol...in the article...

As a candidate in 2008, Obama campaigned on permanent reinstatement of the expired assault weapons ban, and Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009 indicated that the administration would lobby for a bill. But that never materialized and the White House has largely avoided talking about it.

As I said he mentioned it on the campaign trail ( like conservative do about banning abortion) then when the time comes to do something they do nothing about it.

States have instituted AWBs. When it goes to the supreme court we will see how it holds up.

So far the supreme court has knocked down handgun bans...the civil court upheld an AWB...

personally its territory to avoid. 2nd amendment makes it pretty clear.

Appernetly Obama's still for it I guess he has to placate his constituents with nonsense.


Yeah he will toe the party line on it but he knows nothings going to happen on it in the next 4 years.

Nothing did in his first term.

Conservatives make me laugh when they claim he is going to take all their guns.

Just as much as when liberals claim the gop will end abortion now! wont happen.
 
2012-12-16 02:04:36 AM

Gyrfalcon: The other problem, of course, is that the only talking about it we will do is around isolated incidents like this. People will freak out and demand OMFG! Change the gun laws! Change the mental health laws! Change whateverthef*ck else laws!


The vast majority of legislation is pretty mundane stuff, and good laws get written and passed all the time. If anything, I think the sudden and intense scrutiny born out of public outrage is awful for the process, because the politicians will be paralyzed by fear of offending anybody when all eyes are on them.

I think we CAN have this discussion in this country, but the NRA and the Brady campaign both need to put away their pitchforks and stop trying to crucify anyone who doesn't agree with them, and they both need to learn to accept compromise. There are lots of reasonable proposals we could discuss, and this thread is proof of that, but it's also proof of how those reasonable voices get drowned out by people bickering about whether you can stab as many people as you can shoot or why you don't just build an ANFO bomb etc.
 
2012-12-16 02:05:02 AM

tony41454: Meanwhile, while the liberals in America are frothing over guns . . . MAN STABS 22 CHILDREN AT CHINA PRIMARY SCHOOL.

According to the FBI, the #1 weapon used in violent crimes . . . is a baseball bat. Why is there no outcry to restrict baseball bat ownership? (Maybe because so many law-abiding citizens enjoy them safely for sport? Hmmm . . . .)

Why we have a 2nd amendment:
"In 1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents were arrested and executed.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were killed by the state.

In 1935 China established gun control. Between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and murdered by the Communists.

In 1956 Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people (about 1/3 of the entire population!) were executed by the Reds.

In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.

In 1970 the Ugandan dictator decreed gun control. During the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were murdered.

Over 56 million people have died, unable to defend themselves, because of gun control in the last century alone."

Beginning to notice a pattern???


Yeah in a free state you need a regulated militia to defend the state so you cant take away the citizens right to bear arms since you get to have them too...

damn I love the founders! too bad republicans are too dumb to follow them and so is the left.

if you want something changed in it then pass an amendment. (which wont happen)
 
2012-12-16 02:05:32 AM

tony41454: Why is there no outcry to restrict baseball bat ownership? (Maybe because so many law-abiding citizens enjoy them safely for sport? Hmmm . . . .)


frankly, probably fewer than gun owners.

tony41454: Beginning to notice a pattern???


Patterns are hard, we'd rather react emotionally and ban tools of destruction rather than rooting out the causes of destruction. It's much more politically expedient that way. It doesn't do much, but we feel good for the first few weeks.
 
2012-12-16 02:05:56 AM

graggor: Pincy: graggor: drunk drivers kill as many people as guns do. lets prevent ALL BAD THINGS EVER...

But if would be stupid if we didn't do anything to try and bring the numbers of drunk drivers down, right?

Yes and we do things like have laws that punish people that do drink and drive that but NOT prohibition.

Gun bans are prohibition.

Gun laws are ok with me just like DUI laws are ok with me. Bans are not. Against the 2nd amendment anyway. I dont mind taxing guns or having waiting periods. any of that stuff. But banning guns is against the constitution.


I thought we had background checks that kept people who shouldn't have guns from buying them? That is a form of prohibition. I'm not saying that all guns should be banned. But we definitely have some leeway as to who we allow to have them.
 
2012-12-16 02:06:25 AM
The People get to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in the modern world through their state police forces, guards and reserves.

Tax the living piss out of private ownership, and yearly. Ongoing tax. Tax ammo.

Rich people don't shoot up malls and schools.
 
2012-12-16 02:07:38 AM

Fubini: Gyrfalcon: The other problem, of course, is that the only talking about it we will do is around isolated incidents like this. People will freak out and demand OMFG! Change the gun laws! Change the mental health laws! Change whateverthef*ck else laws!

The vast majority of legislation is pretty mundane stuff, and good laws get written and passed all the time. If anything, I think the sudden and intense scrutiny born out of public outrage is awful for the process, because the politicians will be paralyzed by fear of offending anybody when all eyes are on them.

I think we CAN have this discussion in this country, but the NRA and the Brady campaign both need to put away their pitchforks and stop trying to crucify anyone who doesn't agree with them, and they both need to learn to accept compromise. There are lots of reasonable proposals we could discuss, and this thread is proof of that, but it's also proof of how those reasonable voices get drowned out by people bickering about whether you can stab as many people as you can shoot or why you don't just build an ANFO bomb etc.


Agree. There are some basic steps to leave guns accessible to citizens while having smart laws that work to punish those who break the law etc.

As has been repeated gun ownership and gun bans dont have much to do with drops in crime.

NRA and Brady Bill bunch are both wrong in their conclusion.although it is nice to have them warring with each other. keeps it nice and stalemated I suppose.
 
2012-12-16 02:07:40 AM

tuna fingers: Lionel Mandrake: BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion.

This bears repeating for two reasons.
Solid and absolute reasoning.
And an EPIC post if I ever saw one. (I re-bolded the text that spawned the smack-down for historic evidence.)


Exactly. I mean who would ever go to the trouble of making bombs?
 
2012-12-16 02:07:40 AM

tony41454: According to the FBI, the #1 weapon used in violent crimes . . . is a baseball bat. Why is there no outcry to restrict baseball bat ownership? (Maybe because so many law-abiding citizens enjoy them safely for sport?


Just out of curiosity, do you have a specific citation for that? It's a very interesting factiod.
 
2012-12-16 02:09:33 AM
Also, something else no one seems to be talking about - on Friday morning not one single homeschooler took part in a fatal shooting in Newtown, CT.
 
2012-12-16 02:10:07 AM

Insatiable Jesus: The People get to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in the modern world through their state police forces, guards and reserves.

Tax the living piss out of private ownership, and yearly. Ongoing tax. Tax ammo.

Rich people don't shoot up malls and schools.


Oh wow this misses the point of the 2nd amendment completely.

Free state needs militia that is armed....therefore free state cant tell citizens they cant have arms.

This is the basic tenant of the 2nd amendment.
 
2012-12-16 02:12:10 AM

Jarhead_h: Also, something else no one seems to be talking about - on Friday morning not one single homeschooler took part in a fatal shooting in Newtown, CT.


What does this even mean?

how about this???

Link

you fundies just never get it.
 
2012-12-16 02:12:41 AM

Jarhead_h: Also, something else no one seems to be talking about - on Friday morning not one single homeschooler took part in a fatal shooting in Newtown, CT.


Except one.
 
2012-12-16 02:14:03 AM

graggor: Free state needs militia that is armed.


Yeah, in GA we call that GA Nat'l Guard and GA State Police. It need not become any more granular than that.
 
2012-12-16 02:14:42 AM

Insatiable Jesus: The People get to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in the modern world through their state police forces, guards and reserves.

Tax the living piss out of private ownership, and yearly. Ongoing tax. Tax ammo.

Rich people don't shoot up malls and schools.


Unreasonable taxation intended to restrict exercise of a Constitutionally protected right is itself Unconstitutional.
 
2012-12-16 02:14:44 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Jarhead_h: Also, something else no one seems to be talking about - on Friday morning not one single homeschooler took part in a fatal shooting in Newtown, CT.

Except one.


oh that is rich. he was homeschooled too.

so was the family christian too?

oh please oh please oh please.....

where is hitchens when you need him....
 
2012-12-16 02:15:38 AM

CruiserTwelve: It comes down to this: We'll do the same thing we've done after the last 20 mass killings, which is nothing. Next week or next month there'll be another mass killing and we'll do the same. Mass killings are just a way of life in America now. Accept it and move on.


The day I accept that is the day I know we're going the way of Ancient Rome.
 
2012-12-16 02:16:22 AM

Dimensio: Insatiable Jesus: The People get to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in the modern world through their state police forces, guards and reserves.

Tax the living piss out of private ownership, and yearly. Ongoing tax. Tax ammo.

Rich people don't shoot up malls and schools.

Unreasonable taxation intended to restrict exercise of a Constitutionally protected right is itself Unconstitutional.



Unreasonable, there is the rub.
 
2012-12-16 02:17:19 AM
In America, We portray relationships with other people as social/financial/political stepping stones. Love is portrayed as a joke.

Mass murder in American society is the quickest way to attention. You want to be on every TV screen in the country in 30 minutes? Kill a bunch of people and stay alive long enough for the news choppers to show up.

Being mentally ill is stigmatized and people who need it don't get help. If there is even help available to them, since the system is in such shambles.

Is it any wonder people pick up a gun and go out in a blaze of glory? The gun isn't the problem. It's just a totem, the symbol of much deeper social problems that need to be addressed.


If you get rid of the guns, the crazies will find a new totem.
pl.b5z.net
 
2012-12-16 02:19:11 AM

Insatiable Jesus: Dimensio: Insatiable Jesus: The People get to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in the modern world through their state police forces, guards and reserves.

Tax the living piss out of private ownership, and yearly. Ongoing tax. Tax ammo.

Rich people don't shoot up malls and schools.

Unreasonable taxation intended to restrict exercise of a Constitutionally protected right is itself Unconstitutional.


Unreasonable, there is the rub.


A tax specifically intended to restrict exercise of a Constitutionally protected liberty to wealthy individuals would be unreasonable.
 
2012-12-16 02:19:46 AM

Insatiable Jesus: graggor: Free state needs militia that is armed.

Yeah, in GA we call that GA Nat'l Guard and GA State Police. It need not become any more granular than that.


Let me try this one more time.

The GA Natl Guard is the state...the GA STATE police is the state.

So if the state (Natl Guard and Police) can have weapons then private citizens cannot be told to not have guns.

Any government you mention that has guns is part of the well regulated militia.
The founders were saying this militia cant take away private citizens weapons. They just fought a war against a militia in their own country of british soldiers that WOULD NOT ALLOW the citizens to own weapons.

It would be unconstitutional to ban them today unless ....

If you dont like that then pass an amendment to the constitution reversing the 2nd amendment.

I understand that maybe that logic doesnt hold today but if it doesnt then pass the amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment.

til lthen gun bans are have been and will continue to be unconstitutional.

DC gun ban law was found unconstitutional.
 
2012-12-16 02:21:10 AM

Dimensio: Insatiable Jesus: Dimensio: Insatiable Jesus: The People get to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in the modern world through their state police forces, guards and reserves.

Tax the living piss out of private ownership, and yearly. Ongoing tax. Tax ammo.

Rich people don't shoot up malls and schools.

Unreasonable taxation intended to restrict exercise of a Constitutionally protected right is itself Unconstitutional.


Unreasonable, there is the rub.

A tax specifically intended to restrict exercise of a Constitutionally protected liberty to wealthy individuals would be unreasonable.


Absolutely.

If they passed a 50,000 tax to vote how would that sit?
 
2012-12-16 02:26:21 AM

graggor: violentsalvation: graggor: violentsalvation: graggor: Dimensio: violentsalvation: That's the problem with the whole discussion. We want to sit down to talk and see what we can do to keep our guns safe and locked up off the streets, or registered until transferred, and then registered again. And some of them would meet us there and we'd talk about the other societal issues that contribute to the problem and what could be done about it. And then the loudest most vocal groups among us start screaming shoulder things that go up on automatic assault pistols with high capacity clips or Obama is coming for our guns, and suddenly the whole conversation goes to an ugly stalemate until the next shooting where we start all over.

I disagree. Eventually one extreme -- I suspect that of civilian disarmament advocacy -- will gain a legislative advantage and impose legislation that will accomplish absolutely nothing beneficial though which might unreasonably restrict the rights of citizens.

It will be unconstitutional.

Was the AWB unconstitutional?

Well since it no longer exists it isnt anymore.

well...


lol...in the article...

As a candidate in 2008, Obama campaigned on permanent reinstatement of the expired assault weapons ban, and Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009 indicated that the administration would lobby for a bill. But that never materialized and the White House has largely avoided talking about it.

As I said he mentioned it on the campaign trail ( like conservative do about banning abortion) then when the time comes to do something they do nothing about it.

States have instituted AWBs. When it goes to the supreme court we will see how it holds up.

So far the supreme court has knocked down handgun bans...the civil court upheld an AWB...

personally its territory to avoid. 2nd amendment makes it pretty clear.


Once Obama changes the balance of power in the Supreme Court I hope you'll stick to that line of argument.
 
2012-12-16 02:27:11 AM

I_Hate_Iowa: CruiserTwelve: It comes down to this: We'll do the same thing we've done after the last 20 mass killings, which is nothing. Next week or next month there'll be another mass killing and we'll do the same. Mass killings are just a way of life in America now. Accept it and move on.

The day I accept that is the day I know we're going the way of Ancient Rome.


That guy is just a troll. He says, "Mass killings are just a way of life in America now." How many mass killings have you been involved in? As I pointed out upthread, you're about as likely to be killed in a spree killing (even in our modern, hyper-violent world) as you are to be killed by lightning.
 
Displayed 50 of 1049 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report