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  
•       •       •

4954 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 | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-17 05:24:26 PM

lennavan: manimal2878: I own guns and a car, I worry more about getting hit by a drunk driver than ever being killed by a gun.

Drinking and driving is illegal. So what the fark is your point? So is mass murdering people. So what the fark is your point?

Are you afraid of cars killing you without drinking and driving? Not really, but more than guns, since it is more likely. No? Now recall driving a car has more regulations and restrictions than owning a gun. It doesn't, we have gone over this. I can take my 10 year old kid bear hunting in Michigan. He can't drive for another 6 years though. Link

 
2012-12-17 05:28:16 PM

manimal2878: lennavan: manimal2878: lennavan: manimal2878: DId you not read anything I said about rifles vs handguns? I thought you did, but then you repeat the same thing about not needing a rifle.

I did read what you said. You said rifles are more accurate at a distance. No, at any distance. A rifle is always more accurate than a handgun.

I contend you do not need the increased accuracy a rifle gives you over a handgun at a distance of 5 feet. What's more, I contend you'll never need to defend your home at any distance significantly larger than 5 feet. I cannot possibly imagine that went over your head. You're actively trying to not understand, right?

I contend, that since you have never shot a handgun or rifle


I have! It was a rifle, we were shooting it for fun. I was actually pretty decent at it from about 30 yards away.

manimal2878: as far as I can tell, that your opinion of what you think I need or should be able to justify means less than nothing.


That's a really stupid opinion of yours. If you have never done it you have zero say in the matter? I've never exterminated jews but I'm pretty sure what Hitler did was bad.

OH YEAH WE WENT THERE
 
2012-12-17 05:29:16 PM

Pincy: But we also put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink and still drive and if you violate those rules you are punished. That's what I, and a whole bunch of other people, are asking for with guns, that we put some limits on them in order to protect society as a whole.


Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

By banning some guns or their accessories that would be like banning vodka and not whiskey, and 2 oz shot glasses but not 1oz. Neither really address the fact that you can still get loaded and drive your car.
 
2012-12-17 05:29:48 PM

manimal2878: No? Now recall driving a car has more regulations and restrictions than owning a gun. It doesn't, we have gone over this. I can take my 10 year old kid bear hunting in Michigan. He can't drive for another 6 years though. Link


Read the next sentence. I can take my 10 year old bear hunting. You think that's more or equally restrictive as driving a car?
 
2012-12-17 05:32:35 PM

lennavan: I have! It was a rifle, we were shooting it for fun. I was actually pretty decent at it from about 30 yards away.


No you weren't.

lennavan: That's a really stupid opinion of yours. If you have never done it you have zero say in the matter? I've never exterminated jews but I'm pretty sure what Hitler did was bad.

OH YEAH WE WENT THERE



We? Maybe you are the crazy one. You don't understand the diff between a rifle and a handgun in the context of defense because you have not shot both. What that has to do with killing jews and how you think it is an apt anology escapes me.
 
2012-12-17 05:33:32 PM

manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?


One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.
 
2012-12-17 05:34:35 PM

lennavan: manimal2878: No? Now recall driving a car has more regulations and restrictions than owning a gun. It doesn't, we have gone over this. I can take my 10 year old kid bear hunting in Michigan. He can't drive for another 6 years though. Link

Read the next sentence. I can take my 10 year old bear hunting. You think that's more or equally restrictive as driving a car?


That you don't care about your child's life is very telling.
 
2012-12-17 05:37:55 PM

Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.


No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.
 
2012-12-17 05:40:50 PM

manimal2878: lennavan: I have! It was a rifle, we were shooting it for fun. I was actually pretty decent at it from about 30 yards away.

No you weren't.


Yeah, that's actually probably true. My Father in Law was an entire world better than me. I hit the targets every now and then, he never missed. I was pretty happy though.

manimal2878: We? Maybe you are the crazy one. You don't understand the diff between a rifle and a handgun in the context of defense because you have not shot both. What that has to do with killing jews and how you think it is an apt anology escapes me.


Have you ever been attacked which required you to pull a handgun in defense? What about having to pull a rifle in defense? No? Oh, awkward, then you don't understand it either.

The point was you can understand without having been in the situation before. However being in it I'm sure helps. But as we established, you weren't in it either, teehee.
 
2012-12-17 05:51:29 PM

manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.


Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.
 
2012-12-17 05:53:58 PM

Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.

Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.


OH, I forgot, you may not have a loaded gun in the car, but if you are over 21 you can have it in your car if it is not loaded.
 
2012-12-17 05:56:15 PM

Pincy: Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.

Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.

OH, I forgot, you may not have a loaded gun in the car, but if you are over 21 you can have it in your car if it is not loaded.


Man, the ideas just keep coming. You may not give a gun to a minor. You can be held criminally responsible if you give a gun to a minor and he later shoots someone with it.
 
2012-12-17 06:04:32 PM

Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.

Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.


For guns used for CCW, analogous to driving on the public road, I'll agree with you.
 
2012-12-17 06:05:48 PM

Pincy: Pincy: Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.

Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.

OH, I forgot, you may not have a loaded gun in the car, but if you are over 21 you can have it in your car if it is not loaded.

Man, the ideas just keep coming. You may not give a gun to a minor. You can be held criminally responsible if you give a gun to a minor and he later shoots someone with it.


That's already a law.
 
2012-12-17 06:15:48 PM

lennavan: I contend you do not need the increased accuracy a rifle gives you over a handgun at a distance of 5 feet


You are an ill-informed poltroon.

It takes a lot more training and effort to be accurate with a handgun under stress than it does a rifle or carbine. This is the entire reason why the US military adopted the M1 carbine in WWII: it was primarily intended for rear-area troops to use to defend themselves, because REAL WORLD DATA showed that in a combat situation it's hard for most people to hit the broad side of a barn with a handgun.

The same rationale is behind the modern Personal Defense Weapon (EG the P90) - it's just an updated implementation of the same concept, with the same rationale behind it - a small, light shoulder arm that more accurate and easier to use than a handgun.

Whether you care to admit it or not, there is a plethora of data that shows that the real world it's a lot easier to hit your target with a long gun than a handgun. In the words of Jeff Cooper - the world's foremost authority on handgun combat - a handgun should only be considered a stop-gap measure intended to give you time to get a rifle.
 
2012-12-17 06:20:46 PM

lennavan: I have! It was a rifle, we were shooting it for fun. I was actually pretty decent at it from about 30 yards away


That obviously makes you an expert in combat arms and self defense.
 
2012-12-17 08:10:50 PM

manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.

Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.

For guns used for CCW, analogous to driving on the public road, I'll agree with you.


Sorry, these restrictions are placed on the gun manufacturers, just like they are on car manufacturers, so you won't be able to buy a gun (at least legally) that doesn't fall under the legal restrictions. And the age limit is analogous to the alcohol age limit, so it doesn't matter where the gun is, anyone under 21 cannot fire a gun.
 
2012-12-17 10:43:21 PM

Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Pincy: manimal2878: Look carefully at what you wrote. We put limits on the amount of alcohol you can drink while driving, that's regulating action of driving under impairment. With guns though that is not what is happening at all, people are just talking about restricting gun access or certain types of gun accessories, where is the corresponding action that is regulated?

One more time, the analogy between guns and cars/alcohol is not a perfect analogy. You keep bringing it up and so I am just trying to put things in your terms, but I have said plenty of times that it is not a perfect analogy and there are differences.

No the analogy is sound, you just don't like that it shows the flaws in your argument. Guns, like cars are dangerous, and should used responsibly. When the user of that gun or car acts criminally or irresponsibility it is logical to blame the user not the object he used.

Great, then you have no problem with placing further restrictions on guns, just like we do with cars and alcohol. I'm going to start with no one under 21 can fire a gun unless they are in the military. All guns must be registered and you must have proof of gun insurance. There will of course be a myriad of regulations on the capabilities your gun may have. This is great. It's practically what we've been asking for all along.

For guns used for CCW, analogous to driving on the public road, I'll agree with you.

Sorry, these restrictions are placed on the gun manufacturers, just like they are on car manufacturers, so you won't be able to buy a gun (at least legally) that doesn't fall under the legal restrictions. And the age limit is analogous to the alcohol age limit, so it doesn't matter where the gun is, anyone under 21 cannot fire a gun.


They are only placed on manufacturers that wan't their guns to be "street legal." Plenty of people manufacture their own vehicles.
 
2012-12-18 09:28:27 AM
 
Displayed 19 of 1019 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