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.

(Huffington Post)   "We reached out to all 31 pro-gun rights senators in the new Congress to invite them on the program to share their views on the subject this morning," ... "We had no takers"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 1019
    More: Sad, congresses, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Louie Gohmert, assault weapons, Michael Bloomberg, senate democrats, Mayor of New York City, Fox News Sunday  
•       •       •

4955 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 5:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1019 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 08:51:58 PM  

chumboobler: iq_in_binary: chumboobler: iq_in_binary: chumboobler: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

Don't even get me started on the meaning of a "well regulated militia". There are those that claim registering for the draft is just that but that means that all the ladies have to turn in their guns right? Right?

Cling to your guns you effing nutjobs. You have the ghost of George the third coming for revenge and lots of American governments to overthrow. So sick of the violence that I am forced to hear about three times a year because you can't understand that handguns and semiautomatic rifles designed for the military have one purpose and that is to kill people.

Let the hunters hunt with a three round mag. Let the farmers kill things that threaten their livestock with shotguns. End gun legalization there though.

No more death. If the guy had shown up at the school with a knife instead of semi automatic guns there would have been a lot less and possibly zero fatalities.

But criminals will still have guns and then they will rule America and kill my family!!!! Where do criminals get their guns? By stealing them from legal owners. Take away the supply and the gun problem diminishes significantly.

Someone brought up the idea that gun owners should have to buy insurance for their guns. Include random check by insurance companies to ensure they are stored properly. If you fail your inspection, you lose your coverage and therefore your gun. If they are stolen the insurance premium goes up because if it is used in a crime you are responsible. Until that gun is found or turned ...


I carry a pistol for self defense. Kind of came with the job, though, it's not like I carry because I think I'm going to stop the next spree shooter. Killing people is perfectly legal in self defense, and for a lot of people a very real possibility. Battered wives, girlfriends, people in the LGBT community in places like Alabama, I worked with many people for whom somebody wanted them harmed and the realities of the justice system leave them very little protection.

Pistols would fall under the legislation I proposed, if that's what you're asking. But if you think banning handguns is going to be practical, I have some bad news for you. There is absolutely no way to make it happen that would not put a lot of people in danger, unless you're willing to search every home and apartment, dig up every inch of earth and take x-ray machines to every inch of concrete. There's simply no way to do it that doesn't leave a lot of handguns in the hands of criminals and law abiding citizens without them to defend themselves.

My proposal though would do a lot to get the handguns criminals are using off the streets. The way the NFA works is that all firearms it governs are destroyed if they don't have a tax stamp. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Does that assuage some of the issues you have?
 
2012-12-16 08:52:30 PM  

Tellingthem: Farker Soze: chumboobler: I guess my question to you is this...... Can you think of a purpose for handguns in their design and function, other than for killing people? If the main purpose behind the design of a weapon is to kill people, not deer or moose or wolves, then people should not own them. They are designed to kill people, which in any place I can think of, is against the law. If there were many different types of auto driving cars available, but certain ones were designed to kill pedestrians, would you be allowed to own one of those? I mean, some of those pedestrians could be dangerous and out to get you. They could also have cars of their own! I need my pedestrian killing car or they will get me!

It probably doesn't make much of a difference to a dead hit and run or shooting victim that the car he was run over with wasn't designed to kill people but the gun he was shot with was. I doubt I'd be too outraged over the semantics if I was lying in the morgue.

I'm sure my ghost would be more concerned by the grouping..."Seriously 10 shots and he only hit me twice? lucky bastard, he needs to spend more time at the range..."


Maybe he wasn't using the version with ergonomic grips?
 
2012-12-16 08:53:30 PM  
Since i keep using this, i may have to update it.


Someone asked how i would ban guns, the answer is, "through the market."

1. Property taxes on guns yearly, proceeds go to victims and proactive mental health programs.
So a percent of value? How much?

2. Buyback programs that give close to, or just under market value. Military grade weapons can be used to arm our military, antiques to museums, or whatever other feasible safe non-use.
thats fine

3. 2x-5x increases in punishments for all gun related crime. Basically using a gun in any crime doubles the penalty automatically.
mandatory sentences rarely work to decrease crime. Look up three strikes or other drug crime laws to see how poorly most of those work

4. In any place it doesnt exist, registration, just like cars with titles. The owner of the title is legally responsible for the weapon. (this is already in place i believe)
Many do states do have laws about being responsible with firearms, Approved safes, trigger locks, etc. I'm not a big fan of mandatory registration for all firearms...but it's not a deal breaker either

5. Required mental health screenings for a license to own a gun, that need to be renewed yearly, or periodically, akin to updating registration / drivers license.
Possibly...depends on how it is organized and operated.

6. 100% government tax on all new guns, across the board.
meh...you would just decrease sales of expensive guns. More people would just purchase cheaper guns.

With these solutions you will dramatically lower the number of guns in the general populace and change the entire gun culture within the US in less than a generation.
 
2012-12-16 08:53:41 PM  

Tellingthem: I'm sure my ghost would be more concerned by the grouping..."Seriously 10 shots and he only hit me twice? lucky bastard, he needs to spend more time at the range..."


I read that as groping. Yeah, my ghost would be more concerned with that in fact.
 
2012-12-16 08:54:09 PM  

iq_in_binary: I carry a pistol for self defense. Kind of came with the job, though, it's not like I carry because I think I'm going to stop the next spree shooter. Killing people is perfectly legal in self defense, and for a lot of people a very real possibility. Battered wives, girlfriends, people in the LGBT community in places like Alabama, I worked with many people for whom somebody wanted them harmed and the realities of the justice system leave them very little protection.


OK, I know you mean well, but I'm not sure you know that much about domestic violence. I guarantee you that women are at a much greater risk of dying if there is a gun in the house. It will most likely used against her, not for her.
 
2012-12-16 08:55:58 PM  

Weaver95: iq_in_binary: Weaver95: GoldSpider: Weaver95: look - they HAVE to know they're going to get raked over the coals for their pro-gun stance

Trying to reason with the torch-and-pitchfork-bearing mob is seldom time well-spent.

no, it's a question of choosing your best possible venue. for the GOP, any response to this tragedy is going to have to be carefully coordinated and released in a controlled environment. just jumping out there blind is going to end up with the GOP getting their livers ripped out and their ideology destroyed.

I don't want to wait for that to happen. I'm looking forward to the GOP's eventual implosion, but in the mean time I'd like to see shiat get done, did you take a look at my proposal? You actually have something to contribute.

I did look it over, and it certainly looks reasonable. i'm just not convinced the GOP is desperate enough to accept a reasonable solution.


They're really not going to have a choice. They've got to stare down the barrel of 20 dead children. This WILL cost them the House if they don't agree to something, and Obama knows full well how to bend them over.
 
2012-12-16 08:56:39 PM  
i figure we'll solve the gun issue right about the time we start the Laser Death Ray issue.
 
2012-12-16 08:57:44 PM  

Weaver95: GoldSpider: Weaver95: look - they HAVE to know they're going to get raked over the coals for their pro-gun stance

Trying to reason with the torch-and-pitchfork-bearing mob is seldom time well-spent.

no, it's a question of choosing your best possible venue. for the GOP, any response to this tragedy is going to have to be carefully coordinated and released in a controlled environment. just jumping out there blind is going to end up with the GOP getting their livers ripped out and their ideology destroyed.


They will probably choose... Time.

Fact is that the more distant this tragedy becomes, the less emotional sting it has. In three months the idea of using gun control to deal with outlier incidents will be about as laughable as the idea of using the TSA to fight terrorism.

The people who want to stand on this soap box intend to do it sooner rather than later. Failing that, they'll use it to score cheap points.

If the politicians ever intend to have the real conversation about mental health that we need, it will happen well out of earshot of the public. Because it involves both the republicans backing down on health care and the democrats accepting that gun control isn't a solution.

The only debate that happens else wise is just a meeting held to try and legitimize one sides forgone conclusion... And the other side will avoid it, as they probably should.
 
2012-12-16 08:57:45 PM  

chumboobler: skullkrusher: chumboobler: I guess my question to you is this...... Can you think of a purpose for handguns in their design and function, other than for killing people? If the main purpose behind the design of a weapon is to kill people, not deer or moose or wolves, then people should not own them. They are designed to kill people, which in any place I can think of, is against the law. If there were many different types of auto driving cars available, but certain ones were designed to kill pedestrians, would you be allowed to own one of those? I mean, some of those pedestrians could be dangerous and out to get you. They could also have cars of their own! I need my pedestrian killing car or they will get me!

that's why you have the right to keep and bear arms. It isn't to kill deer, moose and wolves.

How many tyrants have you overthrown? How many innocent people have died because of guns, be it improper storage or straight up violence like this week? 0 tyrants and thousands of deaths related to easy gun access. Have a muzzle loading musket and your second amendment prize as it was intended then.


I don't recall the 2nd Amendment containing any mention of "Musket."
 
2012-12-16 08:59:11 PM  

justtray: Since i keep using this, i may have to update it.


Someone asked how i would ban guns, the answer is, "through the market."

1. Property taxes on guns yearly, proceeds go to victims and proactive mental health programs.
So a percent of value? How much?

2. Buyback programs that give close to, or just under market value. Military grade weapons can be used to arm our military, antiques to museums, or whatever other feasible safe non-use.
thats fine

3. 2x-5x increases in punishments for all gun related crime. Basically using a gun in any crime doubles the penalty automatically.
mandatory sentences rarely work to decrease crime. Look up three strikes or other drug crime laws to see how poorly most of those work

4. In any place it doesnt exist, registration, just like cars with titles. The owner of the title is legally responsible for the weapon. (this is already in place i believe)
Many do states do have laws about being responsible with firearms, Approved safes, trigger locks, etc. I'm not a big fan of mandatory registration for all firearms...but it's not a deal breaker either

5. Required mental health screenings for a license to own a gun, that need to be renewed yearly, or periodically, akin to updating registration / drivers license.
Possibly...depends on how it is organized and operated.

6. 100% government tax on all new guns, across the board.
meh...you would just decrease sales of expensive guns. More people would just purchase cheaper guns.

With these solutions you will dramatically lower the number of guns in the general populace and change the entire gun culture within the US in less than a generation.


Or there's my solution, which taxes, registers, and licenses practically all ownership of semi-automatic weapons. Why wouldn't that work?
 
2012-12-16 08:59:22 PM  

GoldSpider: iq_in_binary: Fark the NRA up the ass. They lost my respect a long time ago. And it's already been retooled once, I'd like to go through a few ideas to have something more comprehensive that more people would support. Some people helped by contributing.

I'd love to see the NRA expel the nuts, or maybe the ACLU take up the mantle and become the rational voice for the 2nd Amendment.


You know its bad when the godfolk break ranks and side with the heathen liberals
 
2012-12-16 08:59:25 PM  
Well, it's official: Barack Obama is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore.
 
2012-12-16 09:00:45 PM  
Gee, gun nuts turn out to be COWARDS. Surprise,surprise.
 
2012-12-16 09:01:20 PM  

iq_in_binary: chumboobler: skullkrusher: chumboobler: I guess my question to you is this...... Can you think of a purpose for handguns in their design and function, other than for killing people? If the main purpose behind the design of a weapon is to kill people, not deer or moose or wolves, then people should not own them. They are designed to kill people, which in any place I can think of, is against the law. If there were many different types of auto driving cars available, but certain ones were designed to kill pedestrians, would you be allowed to own one of those? I mean, some of those pedestrians could be dangerous and out to get you. They could also have cars of their own! I need my pedestrian killing car or they will get me!

that's why you have the right to keep and bear arms. It isn't to kill deer, moose and wolves.

How many tyrants have you overthrown? How many innocent people have died because of guns, be it improper storage or straight up violence like this week? 0 tyrants and thousands of deaths related to easy gun access. Have a muzzle loading musket and your second amendment prize as it was intended then.

I don't recall the 2nd Amendment containing any mention of "Musket."


But it does mention "well regulated," and "as part of a militia," which you have no problem ignoring, so why is taking a logical interpretation a problem for you, or a literal one?

You can't have both.
 
2012-12-16 09:01:42 PM  

dustman81: chumboobler: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

The United States Supreme Court, the court that decides issues of constitutionality, disagrees with you. See District of Columbia v Heller which protects the individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves and McDonald v City of Chicago which, through the 14th Amendment, extends the right of the individual to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes to the states as well.


I am familiar with the Heller case and you are overlooking some things that were rendered in judgement that can be reviewed. Specifically what constitutes a militia. The court declined to make that definition. This means that while Heller could walk free, the definition of a militia was up for debate. They have not made that debate yet but may now, in light of the events that are coming more and more often. They also said that "reasonable restriction" is on the table. It was hardly the slam dunk victory the NRA claims. It opened the door to further investigation.

" They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

As an aside, what part of you needs to own something that is designed to kill someone? Are you that insecure as a man that you have to know you have the power to kill at your fingertips at all times? It strikes me as weak when people need something like a gun to feel comfortable.
 
2012-12-16 09:01:59 PM  

Weaver95: coeyagi:

I will make it very clear, Allen West guy: have your rights, just know that you can have your rights and also be interested in improving society. Most people here who are gun nuts don't want to have the conversation. They are paranoid dicks who care only about themselves and will block rational discussion at all costs.

the conversation seems to go like this:

NRA: I have 2nd amendment rights.
voters: 'yeah, but we're getting tired of people murdering kids and shooting up places of worship. plus, ya know, street crime'.
NRA: I...have SECOND AMENDMENT...rights.
voters: 'yes, we understand that but...we're trying to find a way to make sense of this tragedy. maybe gun control is part of that, maybe not. we're just tired of seeing piles of dead kindergarten children paraded around on the evening news. you're part of this discussion too ya know. any suggestions?
NRA: I have second amendment rights. you can't have them! they're MINE! DISCUSSION OVER!' [slams door]. [runs away screaming]
voters: WTF just happened...?


Along the same vein, I've seen people, on these forums at least, who are gun owners or supporters (or claim to be, at least) who have made reasonable sounding proposals, and they are immediately shouted down by others who brand them as "killers" and are "compensating for something", and then those same people turn in proposals that are, at best, dream-like in nature. In one thread yesterday, one guy posted a blog he agreed with where the writer suggested a) restricting guns to a certain length and painting them day-glo orange and b) taxing the entertainment industry 20% of a production's profits if said production features guns in any way. Think about that one for a second. Does that not seem patently ridiculous to you?

Like I said a few posts before, people are losing their collective shiat over this. What's needed is people with clear heads and decent intelligence who can sit down and determine actual, workable solutions to things like this. Maybe they require a constitutional amendment, maybe they don't. Personally, I think that we're quite a ways from amending/repealing the 2nd Amendment, and there are quite a few steps between now and that point. I think the best avenues towards a solution lie in reforming mental health care and the attitudes toward it, and dealing with the NRA so that they pull their heads out of their ass and actually get back to the job they were created for in the first place. What the actual solution is, I don't know - that's up to people smarter than me. But I think that locking up all the crazy people and/or taking away all the guns aren't it. Those just seem like band-aids that'll make everyone feel better until the next thing happens with the next bad thing on the list that needs to be taken away from us "for our good".
 
2012-12-16 09:02:24 PM  

iq_in_binary: Weaver95: iq_in_binary: Weaver95: GoldSpider: Weaver95: look - they HAVE to know they're going to get raked over the coals for their pro-gun stance

Trying to reason with the torch-and-pitchfork-bearing mob is seldom time well-spent.

no, it's a question of choosing your best possible venue. for the GOP, any response to this tragedy is going to have to be carefully coordinated and released in a controlled environment. just jumping out there blind is going to end up with the GOP getting their livers ripped out and their ideology destroyed.

I don't want to wait for that to happen. I'm looking forward to the GOP's eventual implosion, but in the mean time I'd like to see shiat get done, did you take a look at my proposal? You actually have something to contribute.

I did look it over, and it certainly looks reasonable. i'm just not convinced the GOP is desperate enough to accept a reasonable solution.

They're really not going to have a choice. They've got to stare down the barrel of 20 dead children. This WILL cost them the House if they don't agree to something, and Obama knows full well how to bend them over.


Really? This gets propped up after any major new worthy event. The people get all riled up and the politicians make some speeches...at best I figure they may reenact the old ban. Mostly just window dressing on the issue. Because they know that there isn't much we can do to stop anything. Limit clips to 5-10 rounds. Maybe ban some more select versions...thats about it. As soon as this fades from the realm of the public mind and we find the next thing to get outraged about it will mostly just fade away like it has before.
 
2012-12-16 09:02:34 PM  

iq_in_binary: Weaver95: iq_in_binary: Weaver95: GoldSpider: Weaver95: look - they HAVE to know they're going to get raked over the coals for their pro-gun stance

Trying to reason with the torch-and-pitchfork-bearing mob is seldom time well-spent.

no, it's a question of choosing your best possible venue. for the GOP, any response to this tragedy is going to have to be carefully coordinated and released in a controlled environment. just jumping out there blind is going to end up with the GOP getting their livers ripped out and their ideology destroyed.

I don't want to wait for that to happen. I'm looking forward to the GOP's eventual implosion, but in the mean time I'd like to see shiat get done, did you take a look at my proposal? You actually have something to contribute.

I did look it over, and it certainly looks reasonable. i'm just not convinced the GOP is desperate enough to accept a reasonable solution.

They're really not going to have a choice. They've got to stare down the barrel of 20 dead children. This WILL cost them the House if they don't agree to something, and Obama knows full well how to bend them over.


Something will happen. No way in hell will it be a reasonable solution though. It will be a political do-nothing bill that won't solve anything but give an out so both sides can say they're doing something. Book it.
 
2012-12-16 09:03:31 PM  

Pincy: iq_in_binary: I carry a pistol for self defense. Kind of came with the job, though, it's not like I carry because I think I'm going to stop the next spree shooter. Killing people is perfectly legal in self defense, and for a lot of people a very real possibility. Battered wives, girlfriends, people in the LGBT community in places like Alabama, I worked with many people for whom somebody wanted them harmed and the realities of the justice system leave them very little protection.

OK, I know you mean well, but I'm not sure you know that much about domestic violence. I guarantee you that women are at a much greater risk of dying if there is a gun in the house. It will most likely used against her, not for her.


I'm the guy the divorce lawyer sends in to get the woman out of the house. I was a legal investigator, I was the guy who helped get the restraining orders in order, etc. etc.. Don't try to lecture me about domestic violence because unlike you, I've been brought in to court to testify in front of the soulless chucklefarking tile shark abusive husbands hire to try and punish the women through the family court system. Trust me, I know better about this than you do.
 
2012-12-16 09:04:36 PM  

justtray: iq_in_binary: chumboobler: skullkrusher: chumboobler: I guess my question to you is this...... Can you think of a purpose for handguns in their design and function, other than for killing people? If the main purpose behind the design of a weapon is to kill people, not deer or moose or wolves, then people should not own them. They are designed to kill people, which in any place I can think of, is against the law. If there were many different types of auto driving cars available, but certain ones were designed to kill pedestrians, would you be allowed to own one of those? I mean, some of those pedestrians could be dangerous and out to get you. They could also have cars of their own! I need my pedestrian killing car or they will get me!

that's why you have the right to keep and bear arms. It isn't to kill deer, moose and wolves.

How many tyrants have you overthrown? How many innocent people have died because of guns, be it improper storage or straight up violence like this week? 0 tyrants and thousands of deaths related to easy gun access. Have a muzzle loading musket and your second amendment prize as it was intended then.

I don't recall the 2nd Amendment containing any mention of "Musket."

But it does mention "well regulated," and "as part of a militia," which you have no problem ignoring, so why is taking a logical interpretation a problem for you, or a literal one?

You can't have both.


Did you even read my proposal?
 
2012-12-16 09:04:40 PM  

PlasticMoby: Gee, gun nuts turn out to be COWARDS. Surprise,surprise.


Yeah why don't they come take a verbal beating like they deserve for what a mentally ill person did. Whipping boys should know their place.
 
2012-12-16 09:04:49 PM  

iq_in_binary: justtray: Since i keep using this, i may have to update it.


Someone asked how i would ban guns, the answer is, "through the market."

1. Property taxes on guns yearly, proceeds go to victims and proactive mental health programs.
So a percent of value? How much?

2. Buyback programs that give close to, or just under market value. Military grade weapons can be used to arm our military, antiques to museums, or whatever other feasible safe non-use.
thats fine

3. 2x-5x increases in punishments for all gun related crime. Basically using a gun in any crime doubles the penalty automatically.
mandatory sentences rarely work to decrease crime. Look up three strikes or other drug crime laws to see how poorly most of those work

4. In any place it doesnt exist, registration, just like cars with titles. The owner of the title is legally responsible for the weapon. (this is already in place i believe)
Many do states do have laws about being responsible with firearms, Approved safes, trigger locks, etc. I'm not a big fan of mandatory registration for all firearms...but it's not a deal breaker either

5. Required mental health screenings for a license to own a gun, that need to be renewed yearly, or periodically, akin to updating registration / drivers license.
Possibly...depends on how it is organized and operated.

6. 100% government tax on all new guns, across the board.
meh...you would just decrease sales of expensive guns. More people would just purchase cheaper guns.

With these solutions you will dramatically lower the number of guns in the general populace and change the entire gun culture within the US in less than a generation.

Or there's my solution, which taxes, registers, and licenses practically all ownership of semi-automatic weapons. Why wouldn't that work?


I read your proposal. It's not nearly severe enough. $20 stamp? No, that's nothing.

The disincentives should be focused on reducing the number of guns per person, taxing them based on their cost, not limited to specific types (as we're not just trying to lower mass shootings - 75% are done by handguns), nor does your suggestion require frequent and updated registration of the user to ensure they are still mentally worthy of handling them.

Since you asked. But at least we're on the same page with "registration," and I give you that.
 
2012-12-16 09:05:03 PM  
BTW, just thought I should chime in that Lanza's father was paying out $240,000 a year in child support for the little shiat, so he would be the big winner in this one.
 
2012-12-16 09:06:07 PM  

Mentat: Well, it's official: Barack Obama is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore.


Hah, good one. Now post the Obama version of the "Many emotions of Kristen Stewart"
 
2012-12-16 09:06:23 PM  

iq_in_binary: chumboobler: iq_in_binary: chumboobler: iq_in_binary: chumboobler: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

Don't even get me started on the meaning of a "well regulated militia". There are those that claim registering for the draft is just that but that means that all the ladies have to turn in their guns right? Right?

Cling to your guns you effing nutjobs. You have the ghost of George the third coming for revenge and lots of American governments to overthrow. So sick of the violence that I am forced to hear about three times a year because you can't understand that handguns and semiautomatic rifles designed for the military have one purpose and that is to kill people.

Let the hunters hunt with a three round mag. Let the farmers kill things that threaten their livestock with shotguns. End gun legalization there though.

No more death. If the guy had shown up at the school with a knife instead of semi automatic guns there would have been a lot less and possibly zero fatalities.

But criminals will still have guns and then they will rule America and kill my family!!!! Where do criminals get their guns? By stealing them from legal owners. Take away the supply and the gun problem diminishes significantly.

Someone brought up the idea that gun owners should have to buy insurance for their guns. Include random check by insurance companies to ensure they are stored properly. If you fail your inspection, you lose your coverage and therefore your gun. If they are stolen the insurance premium goes up because if it is used in a crime you are responsible. Until that gun is fo ...


It is similar to the insurance I propose. Or really, the insurance idea I stole from someone else in another thread. It adds responsibility to the mix and a cost to ensure you are serious. Inspections of storage facilities prior to issuing the insurance certificate and random checks to ensure compliance.
 
2012-12-16 09:06:27 PM  

iq_in_binary: justtray: iq_in_binary: chumboobler: skullkrusher: chumboobler: I guess my question to you is this...... Can you think of a purpose for handguns in their design and function, other than for killing people? If the main purpose behind the design of a weapon is to kill people, not deer or moose or wolves, then people should not own them. They are designed to kill people, which in any place I can think of, is against the law. If there were many different types of auto driving cars available, but certain ones were designed to kill pedestrians, would you be allowed to own one of those? I mean, some of those pedestrians could be dangerous and out to get you. They could also have cars of their own! I need my pedestrian killing car or they will get me!

that's why you have the right to keep and bear arms. It isn't to kill deer, moose and wolves.

How many tyrants have you overthrown? How many innocent people have died because of guns, be it improper storage or straight up violence like this week? 0 tyrants and thousands of deaths related to easy gun access. Have a muzzle loading musket and your second amendment prize as it was intended then.

I don't recall the 2nd Amendment containing any mention of "Musket."

But it does mention "well regulated," and "as part of a militia," which you have no problem ignoring, so why is taking a logical interpretation a problem for you, or a literal one?

You can't have both.

Did you even read my proposal?


Yes. See above
 
2012-12-16 09:08:07 PM  

Farker Soze:
Something will happen. No way in hell will it be a reasonable solution though. It will be a political do-nothing bill that won't solve anything but give an out so both sides can say they're doing something. Book it.


i'm not so sure. I have NEVER seen the GOP in such a weak position before. Obama isn't stupid, nor does he have any real reason to be merciful to the GOP...I fully expect him to shove the Republicans into a corner and leverage them into a deal on the fiscal cliff AND some kind of gun control legislation. I also suspect Democrats at the state level are going to make it exceptionally difficult for GOP governors to screw over teacher's unions (teachers gave their LIVES and the GOP is trying to make their jobs impossible blah blah).

now you can pretend to be disgusted by that sort of thing if you want...but we all know that the GOP wouldn't hesitate to do the exact same thing if they had a tragedy to exploit for their agenda. hell, they've already done it a couple/few times. so lets not pretend either party has any sort of 'moral high ground' over the other.
 
2012-12-16 09:08:10 PM  

GoldSpider: Weaver95: look - they HAVE to know they're going to get raked over the coals for their pro-gun stance

Trying to reason with the torch-and-pitchfork-bearing mob is seldom time well-spent.


David Gregory is well known for his strong GOP slant. The fact that pro-gun Republicans refused to show up on the program most likely to be sympathetic to them (outside of Fox News) says a lot about their cowardice.
 
2012-12-16 09:08:15 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: PlasticMoby: Gee, gun nuts turn out to be COWARDS. Surprise,surprise.

Yeah why don't they come take a verbal beating like they deserve for what a mentally ill person did. Whipping boys should know their place.


Or was the mentally ill person the mother of the shooter, who was convinced she needed to stockpile guns and amo because of the common economic collapse. Perhaps the NRA people are right. We should round up all these crazy people and that will help solve the problem.
 
2012-12-16 09:08:29 PM  
I just want to say that, as a libby lib and an Obama booster, I don't think that radically stricter gun control is the answer. If I have to give an answer in it's place I suggest we start with more listening.

The slew of shootings is probably at least partly due to hysteria over dec 21.
 
2012-12-16 09:08:53 PM  

iq_in_binary: Did you even read my proposal?


It's really difficult for your attempt at discussion of reasoned policy changes, however impassioned and persistant, to compete with a good troll who is willing to resort to religious and sexual identity slurs to get attention. Sorry.
 
2012-12-16 09:09:12 PM  

iq_in_binary: chumboobler: skullkrusher: chumboobler: I guess my question to you is this...... Can you think of a purpose for handguns in their design and function, other than for killing people? If the main purpose behind the design of a weapon is to kill people, not deer or moose or wolves, then people should not own them. They are designed to kill people, which in any place I can think of, is against the law. If there were many different types of auto driving cars available, but certain ones were designed to kill pedestrians, would you be allowed to own one of those? I mean, some of those pedestrians could be dangerous and out to get you. They could also have cars of their own! I need my pedestrian killing car or they will get me!

that's why you have the right to keep and bear arms. It isn't to kill deer, moose and wolves.

How many tyrants have you overthrown? How many innocent people have died because of guns, be it improper storage or straight up violence like this week? 0 tyrants and thousands of deaths related to easy gun access. Have a muzzle loading musket and your second amendment prize as it was intended then.

I don't recall the 2nd Amendment containing any mention of "Musket."


That's what "arms" were when the 2nd amendment was written. Cannons as well I suppose.
 
2012-12-16 09:09:21 PM  

Phony_Soldier: Mentat: I've never seen the GOP so reluctant to engage in a gun rights debate. I don't think anything could come of this, but it's interesting to see that the GOP has (for the most part) enough sense to stay away from a fight involving 20 dead kindergartners.

Exactly, now is not the time for the GOP to debate this. Democrats are trying to lure them into an obvious trap. I can't say I blame either side, but it is kind of shameless.


Only shameless in the sense that the GOP sees it as a trap.
 
2012-12-16 09:10:19 PM  

Notabunny: GoldSpider: iq_in_binary: Fark the NRA up the ass. They lost my respect a long time ago. And it's already been retooled once, I'd like to go through a few ideas to have something more comprehensive that more people would support. Some people helped by contributing.

I'd love to see the NRA expel the nuts, or maybe the ACLU take up the mantle and become the rational voice for the 2nd Amendment.

You know its bad when the godfolk break ranks and side with the heathen liberals


Hall is Episcopal. We lean liberal as a whole, breakaways notwithstanding.
 
2012-12-16 09:10:19 PM  

richard_1963: GoldSpider: Weaver95: look - they HAVE to know they're going to get raked over the coals for their pro-gun stance

Trying to reason with the torch-and-pitchfork-bearing mob is seldom time well-spent.

David Gregory is well known for his strong GOP slant. The fact that pro-gun Republicans refused to show up on the program most likely to be sympathetic to them (outside of Fox News) says a lot about their cowardice.


nah, I don't think the GOP are being cowards. I think they're being paranoid about going out in public with a pro-gun message. if I were them, I'd keep a low profile right now too.
 
2012-12-16 09:10:29 PM  

Snapper Carr: Meanwhile in Indiana

Dammit.


I've always considered myself a pro-gun liberal, but if you farkers are going to keep acting like this, I'm going to have to reconsider my position.


Interesting. Guy has been IDed as biker gang scum.
 
2012-12-16 09:11:09 PM  

justtray: iq_in_binary: justtray: Since i keep using this, i may have to update it.


Someone asked how i would ban guns, the answer is, "through the market."

1. Property taxes on guns yearly, proceeds go to victims and proactive mental health programs.
So a percent of value? How much?

2. Buyback programs that give close to, or just under market value. Military grade weapons can be used to arm our military, antiques to museums, or whatever other feasible safe non-use.
thats fine

3. 2x-5x increases in punishments for all gun related crime. Basically using a gun in any crime doubles the penalty automatically.
mandatory sentences rarely work to decrease crime. Look up three strikes or other drug crime laws to see how poorly most of those work

4. In any place it doesnt exist, registration, just like cars with titles. The owner of the title is legally responsible for the weapon. (this is already in place i believe)
Many do states do have laws about being responsible with firearms, Approved safes, trigger locks, etc. I'm not a big fan of mandatory registration for all firearms...but it's not a deal breaker either

5. Required mental health screenings for a license to own a gun, that need to be renewed yearly, or periodically, akin to updating registration / drivers license.
Possibly...depends on how it is organized and operated.

6. 100% government tax on all new guns, across the board.
meh...you would just decrease sales of expensive guns. More people would just purchase cheaper guns.

With these solutions you will dramatically lower the number of guns in the general populace and change the entire gun culture within the US in less than a generation.

Or there's my solution, which taxes, registers, and licenses practically all ownership of semi-automatic weapons. Why wouldn't that work?

I read your proposal. It's not nearly severe enough. $20 stamp? No, that's nothing.

The disincentives should be focused on reducing the number of guns per person, taxing them based on their co ...


Ok so you know absolutely nothing of the NFA then. Half of what you're complaining about is already taken care of by my proposal. Pistols are semi-automatic and thus would be covered. Did you not see the Tax Stamp thing? And NFA firearms are subject to at will inspection.
 
2012-12-16 09:12:01 PM  

One Bad Apple: skullkrusher: IlGreven: Of course not. They're too busy hyperventilating over a duck stamp that magically appeared on Election Day.

/It was invisible when the Democrat introduced the act containing it months ago.

duck stamp?

RABBIT STAMP


...in seriousness, just google the Sportsmen's Act. It was NRA-approved, and Republicans were on-board...right up until they didn't have to fight for their office anymore.
 
2012-12-16 09:12:19 PM  

Mentat: Phony_Soldier: Mentat: I've never seen the GOP so reluctant to engage in a gun rights debate. I don't think anything could come of this, but it's interesting to see that the GOP has (for the most part) enough sense to stay away from a fight involving 20 dead kindergartners.

Exactly, now is not the time for the GOP to debate this. Democrats are trying to lure them into an obvious trap. I can't say I blame either side, but it is kind of shameless.

Only shameless in the sense that the GOP sees it as a trap.


Isn't it amazing? The focus isn't on the latest tragedy or protecting citizens from the next one. The focus is on not falling for an "obvious trap".
 
2012-12-16 09:12:44 PM  

Mentat: Only shameless in the sense that the GOP sees it as a trap.


Any more shameless than those who see this as an opportunity?
 
2012-12-16 09:12:55 PM  

Weaver95: i'm not so sure. I have NEVER seen the GOP in such a weak position before. Obama isn't stupid, nor does he have any real reason to be merciful to the GOP...I fully expect him to shove the Republicans into a corner and leverage them into a deal on the fiscal cliff AND some kind of gun control legislation. I also suspect Democrats at the state level are going to make it exceptionally difficult for GOP governors to screw over teacher's unions (teachers gave their LIVES and the GOP is trying to make their jobs impossible blah blah).


I find it morbidly amusing that the GOP spends the entire year demonizing teachers and calling them parasites and now calls them heroes and wants to arm them. Yeah, I'm sure they'll be open to losing their collective bargaining rights once you've allowed them to form well-regulated militias.
 
2012-12-16 09:13:20 PM  

iq_in_binary: Pincy: iq_in_binary: I carry a pistol for self defense. Kind of came with the job, though, it's not like I carry because I think I'm going to stop the next spree shooter. Killing people is perfectly legal in self defense, and for a lot of people a very real possibility. Battered wives, girlfriends, people in the LGBT community in places like Alabama, I worked with many people for whom somebody wanted them harmed and the realities of the justice system leave them very little protection.

OK, I know you mean well, but I'm not sure you know that much about domestic violence. I guarantee you that women are at a much greater risk of dying if there is a gun in the house. It will most likely used against her, not for her.

I'm the guy the divorce lawyer sends in to get the woman out of the house. I was a legal investigator, I was the guy who helped get the restraining orders in order, etc. etc.. Don't try to lecture me about domestic violence because unlike you, I've been brought in to court to testify in front of the soulless chucklefarking tile shark abusive husbands hire to try and punish the women through the family court system. Trust me, I know better about this than you do.


No, you necessarily don't. My wife worked for a battered women's shelter non-profit for about five years. She's the one who picked up the mom, who had the shiat beat out of her, and her crying kids and drove them to the shelter. She's the one who had to listen to women on the phone cry about the abuse they were taking but couldn't convince them to leave because they were afraid their husbands/boyfriends were going to kill them. She's the one who had to call the police because the husband/boyfriend would come down to the office threatening to kill them. Trust me pal, the last thing they would ever recommend is that a woman bring a gun into the house.
 
2012-12-16 09:13:41 PM  

GardenWeasel: Notabunny: GoldSpider: iq_in_binary: Fark the NRA up the ass. They lost my respect a long time ago. And it's already been retooled once, I'd like to go through a few ideas to have something more comprehensive that more people would support. Some people helped by contributing.

I'd love to see the NRA expel the nuts, or maybe the ACLU take up the mantle and become the rational voice for the 2nd Amendment.

You know its bad when the godfolk break ranks and side with the heathen liberals

Hall is Episcopal. We lean liberal as a whole, breakaways notwithstanding.


Sorry. I painted with an overly broad brush.
 
2012-12-16 09:14:19 PM  

justtray: iq_in_binary: justtray: Since i keep using this, i may have to update it.


Someone asked how i would ban guns, the answer is, "through the market."

1. Property taxes on guns yearly, proceeds go to victims and proactive mental health programs.
So a percent of value? How much?

2. Buyback programs that give close to, or just under market value. Military grade weapons can be used to arm our military, antiques to museums, or whatever other feasible safe non-use.
thats fine

3. 2x-5x increases in punishments for all gun related crime. Basically using a gun in any crime doubles the penalty automatically.
mandatory sentences rarely work to decrease crime. Look up three strikes or other drug crime laws to see how poorly most of those work

4. In any place it doesnt exist, registration, just like cars with titles. The owner of the title is legally responsible for the weapon. (this is already in place i believe)
Many do states do have laws about being responsible with firearms, Approved safes, trigger locks, etc. I'm not a big fan of mandatory registration for all firearms...but it's not a deal breaker either

5. Required mental health screenings for a license to own a gun, that need to be renewed yearly, or periodically, akin to updating registration / drivers license.
Possibly...depends on how it is organized and operated.

6. 100% government tax on all new guns, across the board.
meh...you would just decrease sales of expensive guns. More people would just purchase cheaper guns.

With these solutions you will dramatically lower the number of guns in the general populace and change the entire gun culture within the US in less than a generation.

Or there's my solution, which taxes, registers, and licenses practically all ownership of semi-automatic weapons. Why wouldn't that work?

I read your proposal. It's not nearly severe enough. $20 stamp? No, that's nothing.

The disincentives should be focused on reducing the number of guns per person, taxing them based on their co ...


Oh yeah, did you read the NICS part of the proposal? The mental health thing is covered, up to and including confiscation if you're reported.
 
2012-12-16 09:14:41 PM  

chumboobler: dustman81: chumboobler: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says so! Therefore every American citizen that is not a felon should be issued with a muzzle loaded musket, some ball rounds an a pound of black powder. There are the "arms" that were intended in the Constitution. Not fully/semi automatic rifles and handguns with large magazines.

The United States Supreme Court, the court that decides issues of constitutionality, disagrees with you. See District of Columbia v Heller which protects the individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves and McDonald v City of Chicago which, through the 14th Amendment, extends the right of the individual to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes to the states as well.

I am familiar with the Heller case and you are overlooking some things that were rendered in judgement that can be reviewed. Specifically what constitutes a militia. The court declined to make that definition. This means that while Heller could walk free, the definition of a militia was up for debate. They have not made that debate yet but may now, in light of the events that are coming more and more often. They also said that "reasonable restriction" is on the table. It was hardly the slam dunk victory the NRA claims. It opened the door to further investigation.

" They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

As an aside, what ...


So you say the Constitution says people only have the right to own muskets. I point out the Supreme Court says people have to right to own firearms for traditionally lawful purposes. Unable to back up your argument, you procede to attack me. You lose.
 
2012-12-16 09:15:37 PM  

Weaver95: Farker Soze:
Something will happen. No way in hell will it be a reasonable solution though. It will be a political do-nothing bill that won't solve anything but give an out so both sides can say they're doing something. Book it.

i'm not so sure. I have NEVER seen the GOP in such a weak position before. Obama isn't stupid, nor does he have any real reason to be merciful to the GOP...I fully expect him to shove the Republicans into a corner and leverage them into a deal on the fiscal cliff AND some kind of gun control legislation. I also suspect Democrats at the state level are going to make it exceptionally difficult for GOP governors to screw over teacher's unions (teachers gave their LIVES and the GOP is trying to make their jobs impossible blah blah).

now you can pretend to be disgusted by that sort of thing if you want...but we all know that the GOP wouldn't hesitate to do the exact same thing if they had a tragedy to exploit for their agenda. hell, they've already done it a couple/few times. so lets not pretend either party has any sort of 'moral high ground' over the other.


He could spend a lot of political capital like he did for the AHA and sure he'd get real results, but I doubt it. Maybe he'll push a 10 round magazine cap through. I better go buy some magpuls.

No, I have no illusions that both sides won't ever let a crisis go to waste.
 
2012-12-16 09:16:57 PM  

DoctorCal: iq_in_binary: Did you even read my proposal?

It's really difficult for your attempt at discussion of reasoned policy changes, however impassioned and persistant, to compete with a good troll who is willing to resort to religious and sexual identity slurs to get attention. Sorry.


Please explain. I get that I mentioned women but not in a negative way. Just that they cannot be part of a well regulated militia if you are using the draft as your criteria. I never mentioned religion at all. So, if I am following things, if I disagree with you, I am a troll. Then you get to make stuff up out of nothing and call me a troll.

Got it.
 
2012-12-16 09:18:22 PM  

Pincy: iq_in_binary: Pincy: iq_in_binary: I carry a pistol for self defense. Kind of came with the job, though, it's not like I carry because I think I'm going to stop the next spree shooter. Killing people is perfectly legal in self defense, and for a lot of people a very real possibility. Battered wives, girlfriends, people in the LGBT community in places like Alabama, I worked with many people for whom somebody wanted them harmed and the realities of the justice system leave them very little protection.

OK, I know you mean well, but I'm not sure you know that much about domestic violence. I guarantee you that women are at a much greater risk of dying if there is a gun in the house. It will most likely used against her, not for her.

I'm the guy the divorce lawyer sends in to get the woman out of the house. I was a legal investigator, I was the guy who helped get the restraining orders in order, etc. etc.. Don't try to lecture me about domestic violence because unlike you, I've been brought in to court to testify in front of the soulless chucklefarking tile shark abusive husbands hire to try and punish the women through the family court system. Trust me, I know better about this than you do.

No, you necessarily don't. My wife worked for a battered women's shelter non-profit for about five years. She's the one who picked up the mom, who had the shiat beat out of her, and her crying kids and drove them to the shelter. She's the one who had to listen to women on the phone cry about the abuse they were taking but couldn't convince them to leave because they were afraid their husbands/boyfriends were going to kill them. She's the one who had to call the police because the husband/boyfriend would come down to the office threatening to kill them. Trust me pal, the last thing they would ever recommend is that a woman bring a gun into the house.


Not for the women STILL IN abusive relationships, for the ones that got out. You think those assholes like to let it go? They don't.
 
2012-12-16 09:18:30 PM  

Mentat: Weaver95: i'm not so sure. I have NEVER seen the GOP in such a weak position before. Obama isn't stupid, nor does he have any real reason to be merciful to the GOP...I fully expect him to shove the Republicans into a corner and leverage them into a deal on the fiscal cliff AND some kind of gun control legislation. I also suspect Democrats at the state level are going to make it exceptionally difficult for GOP governors to screw over teacher's unions (teachers gave their LIVES and the GOP is trying to make their jobs impossible blah blah).

I find it morbidly amusing that the GOP spends the entire year demonizing teachers and calling them parasites and now calls them heroes and wants to arm them. Yeah, I'm sure they'll be open to losing their collective bargaining rights once you've allowed them to form well-regulated militias.


i've noticed that none of my more conservative facebook friends have replied to any of my comments along those lines....
 
2012-12-16 09:20:09 PM  
I've never actually gone on FreeRepublic.com but only read what I see on here. I decided to check on it since Obama was speaking at that high school and the comments weren't even amusing or funny. They were downright depressing and scary. What the fark? Upset because they cut away from 49ers vs Bradys to show the speech? Then someone mentioned they were happy that Republican Dallas beat Liberal Steelers?

I...I just can't. I have no words. Never going on that shiat again.
 
Displayed 50 of 1019 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report