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.

(The Hill)   Obama asks Cabinet how best to take away your guns   (thehill.com) divider line 307
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Mark Warner, ownership rights, Vice President Joe Biden, Newtown, assault weapons, Health and Human Services  
•       •       •

2632 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Dec 2012 at 12:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-18 10:12:29 AM  
Deal with the users of the tools, not the tools themselves.

...

Well, some of the users ARE tools, but never mind that.
 
2012-12-18 10:43:01 AM  
What's the big fuss? If the Administration takes your guns just go join a Mexican gun cartel and they'll give them right back. This is not rocket surgery, people.
 
2012-12-18 10:52:57 AM  

Nabb1: If the Administration takes your guns just go join a Mexican gun cartel and they'll give them right back.


i1123.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-18 11:16:42 AM  
Oh god, not a comprehensive review of an issue in the country! NOOO MAI RIGHTS
 
2012-12-18 11:25:11 AM  
here come the pants shiatting cowards who buy guns to make up for their mental issues.
 
2012-12-18 11:32:44 AM  

LasersHurt: Oh god, not a comprehensive review of an issue in the country! NOOO MAI RIGHTS


You're right. We should probably have a comprehensive review of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

The First - Come on, the Internet! The Founders just had to deal with the printing press. Obviously the First Amendment is completely outdated in this day and age of smart phones. And who really needs religion, anyway?

The Second - Already doing that.

The Third - Eh, skip this one.

The Fourth - The only people who need this one are folks with something to hide. Cops should have more leeway about this stuff.

The Fifth - Same as the Fourth. You shouldn't be able to hide behind that and not tell the truth in Court.

The Sixth - Do we really need all these damned lawyers involved? I'd say judging by all the FARK Law GEDs out there, most people know all there is to know about legal talking.

The Seventh - Jury duty? For civil cases? Screw that. I hate jury duty. No one has time for that BS.

The Eighth - Bad people deserve whatever happens to them. Why shouldn't we be cruel and unusual to cruel and unusual people? We're too soft on crime.

The Ninth - Oh, screw that. We should have only the rights the government gives us. Period.

The Tenth - I don't know what this means, but the teabaggers love it, so it must be bad.
 
2012-12-18 11:34:37 AM  

Nabb1: LasersHurt: Oh god, not a comprehensive review of an issue in the country! NOOO MAI RIGHTS

You're right. We should probably have a comprehensive review of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

A giant list of idiotic strawmen


Don't be obtuse.
 
2012-12-18 11:39:05 AM  

LasersHurt: Nabb1: LasersHurt: Oh god, not a comprehensive review of an issue in the country! NOOO MAI RIGHTS

You're right. We should probably have a comprehensive review of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

A giant list of idiotic strawmen

Don't be obtuse.


Why not? You have to face the fact that what you are debating is an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights. There's no asterisk by it that gives it less heft than the others.
 
2012-12-18 11:49:59 AM  

Nabb1: LasersHurt: Nabb1: LasersHurt: Oh god, not a comprehensive review of an issue in the country! NOOO MAI RIGHTS

You're right. We should probably have a comprehensive review of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

A giant list of idiotic strawmen

Don't be obtuse.

Why not? You have to face the fact that what you are debating is an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights. There's no asterisk by it that gives it less heft than the others.


No, but this does not mean that we have to do NOTHING at all when the "right" starts causing a problem. I agree that it's important to address the problem without infringing on the rights of those responsible gun owners. I also happen to think that ridiculous shiat like you just did makes it really hard, because you can't seem to separate between "we should fix some problems" and "we should directly infringe on this right in a serious way."

I abhor absolutism because it is destructive.
 
2012-12-18 11:53:36 AM  
When you want to talk about gun control you run up against the 2d Amendment.

When you want to talk about mental health you run up against the 5th Amendment and forcing people to be committed to force them to take medication and be properly diagnosed....AND...you also run into people not being able to afford medication, which was fixed with that handy little Affordable Healthcare Act thing.  "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
 
Also, the pesky 4th comes into play on mental health and commitment too.  So, let's have the conversation but not pretend that to do what some, maybe most want, will require a redo of the 2d, 4th, and 5th Amendments not to mention many state and federal laws.
 
2012-12-18 11:54:48 AM  
From their cold dead hands...


/really? I'm the first?
 
2012-12-18 11:57:54 AM  

LasersHurt: Nabb1: LasersHurt: Nabb1: LasersHurt: Oh god, not a comprehensive review of an issue in the country! NOOO MAI RIGHTS

You're right. We should probably have a comprehensive review of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

A giant list of idiotic strawmen

Don't be obtuse.

Why not? You have to face the fact that what you are debating is an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights. There's no asterisk by it that gives it less heft than the others.

No, but this does not mean that we have to do NOTHING at all when the "right" starts causing a problem. I agree that it's important to address the problem without infringing on the rights of those responsible gun owners. I also happen to think that ridiculous shiat like you just did makes it really hard, because you can't seem to separate between "we should fix some problems" and "we should directly infringe on this right in a serious way."

I abhor absolutism because it is destructive.


I'm not arguing in favor of absolutism at all. What I am trying to do is remind us that we are dealing with a very powerful issue, and that is the elevated status of gun ownership as an enumerated right in this country. And quite frankly, I think there are other elements of these sorts of incidents of mass violence that are not being discussed at the expense of framing this solely as a problem of gun ownership. For one, we clearly have had for many years now a problem with access to mental health care resources. This has been endemic in our juvenile justice system which is ill-equipped to do more than issue punitive measures that have shown to have little to no effect as a deterrent. And, by addressing our mental health crisis, you would actually help many, many people who probably won't ever pull off a mass killing, but are nonetheless in need of it.
 
2012-12-18 11:58:48 AM  

I_C_Weener: When you want to talk about gun control you run up against the 2d Amendment.

When you want to talk about mental health you run up against the 5th Amendment and forcing people to be committed to force them to take medication and be properly diagnosed....AND...you also run into people not being able to afford medication, which was fixed with that handy little Affordable Healthcare Act thing.  "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
 
Also, the pesky 4th comes into play on mental health and commitment too.  So, let's have the conversation but not pretend that to do what some, maybe most want, will require a redo of the 2d, 4th, and 5th Amendments not to mention many state and federal laws.


There is a HUGE difference between improving our mental health resources and making them more accessible and having people involuntarily committed.
 
2012-12-18 12:00:46 PM  

Nabb1: I'm not arguing in favor of absolutism at all. What I am trying to do is remind us that we are dealing with a very powerful issue, and that is the elevated status of gun ownership as an enumerated right in this country. And quite frankly, I think there are other elements of these sorts of incidents of mass violence that are not being discussed at the expense of framing this solely as a problem of gun ownership. For one, we clearly have had for many years now a problem with access to mental health care resources. This has been endemic in our juvenile justice system which is ill-equipped to do more than issue punitive measures that have shown to have little to no effect as a deterrent. And, by addressing our mental health crisis, you would actually help many, many people who probably won't ever pull off a mass killing, but are nonetheless in need of it.


I feel like this ridiculous. That's not what's being said at the highest levels of government. That's not what I read in the news all day long. Pro-gun individuals have wasted no time or effort in reminding people that this is a right.

I mean to suggest that people are taking this as "OMG BAN GUNS" is to be totally ignorant of the shape of the conversation over the last few days.
 
2012-12-18 12:03:49 PM  

LasersHurt: Nabb1: I'm not arguing in favor of absolutism at all. What I am trying to do is remind us that we are dealing with a very powerful issue, and that is the elevated status of gun ownership as an enumerated right in this country. And quite frankly, I think there are other elements of these sorts of incidents of mass violence that are not being discussed at the expense of framing this solely as a problem of gun ownership. For one, we clearly have had for many years now a problem with access to mental health care resources. This has been endemic in our juvenile justice system which is ill-equipped to do more than issue punitive measures that have shown to have little to no effect as a deterrent. And, by addressing our mental health crisis, you would actually help many, many people who probably won't ever pull off a mass killing, but are nonetheless in need of it.

I feel like this ridiculous. That's not what's being said at the highest levels of government. That's not what I read in the news all day long. Pro-gun individuals have wasted no time or effort in reminding people that this is a right.

I mean to suggest that people are taking this as "OMG BAN GUNS" is to be totally ignorant of the shape of the conversation over the last few days.


They are certainly going after restricting gun rights first (and I am completely aware they are not talking about a wholesale ban) right out of the chute and that issue is clearly dominating the media discussion. It seemed like they were talking about reviving the assault weapons ban before the families had even removed the bodies from the crime scene.
 
2012-12-18 12:09:17 PM  

Nabb1: There is a HUGE difference between improving our mental health resources and making them more accessible and having people involuntarily committed.



They are two different issues.  I don't think you can push the involuntary commitment any further.  But that is what is needed for those who do these shootings.  They don't take medications not because they can't, but because they won't.  Lots of people refuse meds or diagnosis.  People who shoot people don't go to the hospital and demand Prozac at gunpoint.  They aren't seeking this help.  Those people will need to be involuntarily committed.  The Giffords shooter went off his meds voluntarily.  The Aurora guy wasn't seeking help.  This kid was apparently at home with mom who was possibly part of the problem and may have been trying desperately to force a 20 year old to seek help.  She seems to have been aware of his issues and tried to isolate him. 
 
You can improve healthcare for those who want it.  But that is what the Affordable Healthcare Act was supposed to do. 
 
2012-12-18 12:18:34 PM  

Nabb1: LasersHurt: Nabb1: I'm not arguing in favor of absolutism at all. What I am trying to do is remind us that we are dealing with a very powerful issue, and that is the elevated status of gun ownership as an enumerated right in this country. And quite frankly, I think there are other elements of these sorts of incidents of mass violence that are not being discussed at the expense of framing this solely as a problem of gun ownership. For one, we clearly have had for many years now a problem with access to mental health care resources. This has been endemic in our juvenile justice system which is ill-equipped to do more than issue punitive measures that have shown to have little to no effect as a deterrent. And, by addressing our mental health crisis, you would actually help many, many people who probably won't ever pull off a mass killing, but are nonetheless in need of it.

I feel like this ridiculous. That's not what's being said at the highest levels of government. That's not what I read in the news all day long. Pro-gun individuals have wasted no time or effort in reminding people that this is a right.

I mean to suggest that people are taking this as "OMG BAN GUNS" is to be totally ignorant of the shape of the conversation over the last few days.

They are certainly going after restricting gun rights first (and I am completely aware they are not talking about a wholesale ban) right out of the chute and that issue is clearly dominating the media discussion. It seemed like they were talking about reviving the assault weapons ban before the families had even removed the bodies from the crime scene.


Confirmation Bias. That's what you're most concerned about, so you think it's dominating.
 
2012-12-18 12:23:09 PM  

LasersHurt: Confirmation Bias. That's what you're most concerned about, so you think it's dominating.


That's most of what I am seeing when I watch the news. I am not claiming to have done a formal study on it. The news gets turned off when the kids are in the room right now.
 
2012-12-18 12:29:27 PM  

Nabb1: LasersHurt: Confirmation Bias. That's what you're most concerned about, so you think it's dominating.

That's most of what I am seeing when I watch the news. I am not claiming to have done a formal study on it. The news gets turned off when the kids are in the room right now.


Fair cop, my point is that I am NOT seeing that dominate when I watch news, other than some mentions. I guess it's where you draw the line. If you consider any restrictions of any kind on any type "bans" and therefore a violation of the second amendment, I could see thinking it's more prevalent than it is.

I'd also disagree with that idea.
 
2012-12-18 12:30:23 PM  

Nabb1: That's most of what I am seeing when I watch the news. I am not claiming to have done a formal study on it. The news gets turned off when the kids are in the room right now.



I had to switch the radio from the Christmas music channel in the car this morning for that reason. 
 
2012-12-18 12:40:35 PM  

LasersHurt: Fair cop, my point is that I am NOT seeing that dominate when I watch news, other than some mentions. I guess it's where you draw the line. If you consider any restrictions of any kind on any type "bans" and therefore a violation of the second amendment, I could see thinking it's more prevalent than it is.

I'd also disagree with that idea.


It's fine to disagree, but any discussion of restrictions has to recognize that there is a Constitutional implication, particularly since any legislation that is seen as over-reaching will likely be challenged in the courts. I am not saying there is not room for discussion within that framework. But at the same time, you don't want to put a bunch of work into something that ends up being knocked down on Constitutional grounds because it was too restrictive.

I_C_Weener: Nabb1: That's most of what I am seeing when I watch the news. I am not claiming to have done a formal study on it. The news gets turned off when the kids are in the room right now.


I had to switch the radio from the Christmas music channel in the car this morning for that reason.


A friend of mine had a situation where his four-year-old was watching the "Elf on the Shelf" special on CBS the other night, left the room to tend to their baby, and when he came back, the four-year-old was watching CBS's in-depth news coverage of the shooting. Who the hell runs that right after a kid's Christmas special?
 
2012-12-18 12:48:31 PM  

Nabb1: LasersHurt: Fair cop, my point is that I am NOT seeing that dominate when I watch news, other than some mentions. I guess it's where you draw the line. If you consider any restrictions of any kind on any type "bans" and therefore a violation of the second amendment, I could see thinking it's more prevalent than it is.

I'd also disagree with that idea.

It's fine to disagree, but any discussion of restrictions has to recognize that there is a Constitutional implication, particularly since any legislation that is seen as over-reaching will likely be challenged in the courts. I am not saying there is not room for discussion within that framework. But at the same time, you don't want to put a bunch of work into something that ends up being knocked down on Constitutional grounds because it was too restrictive.


Agreed. I was happy to hear this news - sourcing it out to everyone to begin work - because it indicates a more studied and varied approach to the issue might be in the works.

Proof, pudding, etc, but at least that is positive news.
 
2012-12-18 12:55:52 PM  
Very slowly through a series of seemingly innocuous regulations, which once put together make it practically impossible to posses a firearm despite it never being made explicitly illegal. Basically the exact same technique used by the anti-abortion movement
 
2012-12-18 12:56:11 PM  

Nabb1: Why not? You have to face the fact that what you are debating is an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights. There's no asterisk by it that gives it less heft than the others.


And it only took 30 years of packing the Supreme court with far-right activists misinterpret the 2nd amendment at the behest of the NRA.
 
2012-12-18 12:56:12 PM  

Nabb1: You're right. We should probably have a comprehensive review of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights.


Nah, just the ones involved in frequent gun massacres.
 
2012-12-18 12:57:04 PM  
I figure Obama is cooking up something but I'm not going to assume it's some massive move to slice hunks off the 2nd Amendment until I see what it is.
 
2012-12-18 12:57:09 PM  
Noooo how well I protect myself from these beasts??

pubpages.unh.edu
 
2012-12-18 12:57:54 PM  

randomjsa: I figure Obama is cooking up something


The story of your life.
 
2012-12-18 12:58:14 PM  
You just know the NRA has been using this quiet time to draw up the letters and emails to the faithful that Obama is gonna take your guns just like we predicted so you need to send money NOW! LOTSA MONEY! NOW, NOW, NOW!
 
2012-12-18 12:59:38 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Nabb1: You're right. We should probably have a comprehensive review of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

Nah, just the ones involved in frequent gun massacres.


Which should include #1, which is part of what makes it near impossible for medical professionals to preempt this type of tragedy.
 
2012-12-18 12:59:54 PM  

xanadian: Deal with the users of the tools, not the tools themselves.



This.

Look at mental health care and issues in this country first.
 
2012-12-18 01:01:23 PM  

vegasj: xanadian: Deal with the users of the tools, not the tools themselves.


This.

Look at mental health care and issues in this country first.


Why not a comprehensive plan that examines all angles?
 
2012-12-18 01:02:03 PM  

vegasj: xanadian: Deal with the users of the tools, not the tools themselves.


This.

Look at mental health care and issues in this country first.


Reagan did. Decided it wasn't a worthwhile pursuit.

But if you're serious, don't cry about getting taxed for it.
 
2012-12-18 01:02:35 PM  
The 2nd Amendment is not violated by the rules surrounding ownership of machine guns. Yes, you may get a permit to do so, but it's a long process, it involves a lot of paperwork and a $200 fee, and a significant background check.

If this is true for machine guns, what is different about every other type of gun that would forbid the same level of registration and background checks? If we can do it for fully-automatic weapons, why not semi-automatic weapons? Or maybe just high-capacity magazines? Or just that stupid list of "assault weapons" that are just the scary looking guns?

The serious right-wingers can mewl all day about "herpaderp registration just gives Obama a list of the gun owners so that when he declares martial law, he knows whose guns to grab derpaherp!". I want someone to give me a serious, Constitutionally-based answer to my question. We've already agreed that SOME guns are subject to significant registration and taxation hurdles. Why not a larger subset? Based on what argument?
 
2012-12-18 01:03:11 PM  

Nabb1: What's the big fuss? If the Administration takes your guns just go join a Mexican gun cartel and they'll give them right back. This is not rocket surgery, people.


I love that you're making a Fast and Furious joke right after a guy made a "guns don't kill people" comment.
 
2012-12-18 01:03:41 PM  

Nabb1: LasersHurt: Oh god, not a comprehensive review of an issue in the country! NOOO MAI RIGHTS

You're right. We should probably have a comprehensive review of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

The First - Come on, the Internet! The Founders just had to deal with the printing press. Obviously the First Amendment is completely outdated in this day and age of smart phones. And who really needs religion, anyway?

The Second - Already doing that.

The Third - Eh, skip this one.

The Fourth - The only people who need this one are folks with something to hide. Cops should have more leeway about this stuff.

The Fifth - Same as the Fourth. You shouldn't be able to hide behind that and not tell the truth in Court.

The Sixth - Do we really need all these damned lawyers involved? I'd say judging by all the FARK Law GEDs out there, most people know all there is to know about legal talking.

The Seventh - Jury duty? For civil cases? Screw that. I hate jury duty. No one has time for that BS.

The Eighth - Bad people deserve whatever happens to them. Why shouldn't we be cruel and unusual to cruel and unusual people? We're too soft on crime.

The Ninth - Oh, screw that. We should have only the rights the government gives us. Period.

The Tenth - I don't know what this means, but the teabaggers love it, so it must be bad.


Yeah, because at no time in the past have we amended the Constitution in a way that made it better.
 
2012-12-18 01:05:05 PM  

Nabb1: What's the big fuss? If the Administration takes your guns just go join a Mexican gun cartel and they'll give them right back. This is not rocket surgery, people.


Now now, guns don't kill people. We can give Mexico ALL OF OUR GUNS and its not the guns killing people.
 
2012-12-18 01:05:38 PM  
These things are rampant.

www.eatmedaily.com
 
2012-12-18 01:06:02 PM  
I don't trust the cabinet. I would prefer Obama get his suggestions from the credenza or as a last resort, the sink.
 
2012-12-18 01:06:47 PM  

Nabb1: What's the big fuss? If the Administration takes your guns just go join a Mexican gun cartel and they'll give them right back. This is not rocket surgery, people.


Republican humor!
 
2012-12-18 01:07:09 PM  
Still wondering what "well-regulated" militia you gun owners belong to.
 
2012-12-18 01:08:11 PM  

NateGrey: Nabb1: What's the big fuss? If the Administration takes your guns just go join a Mexican gun cartel and they'll give them right back. This is not rocket surgery, people.

Republican humor!


I think Rush must have said this yesterday, because I see it everywhere. Nevermind that stupid republicans in the same breathe scream "guns don't kill people"
 
2012-12-18 01:08:13 PM  
you can't take guns away...

...FROM THE MOON
 
2012-12-18 01:09:56 PM  
More 'mental health' red herrings. Get ready gun nuts, Obama is coming.

Here you go Obama, start here; (we can start negotiating here)

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.
 
2012-12-18 01:10:03 PM  

netringer: You just know the NRA has been using this quiet time to draw up the letters and emails to the faithful that [Insert Democrat's name here] is gonna take your guns just like we predicted so you need to send money NOW! LOTSA MONEY! NOW, NOW, NOW!


They've been sending that same letter out for decades.

Cracks me up. A friend of mine bought a 9mm pistol, he had to get it "before they take them all away from us".

That was in 1993.
 
2012-12-18 01:10:05 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Very slowly through a series of seemingly innocuous regulations, which once put together make it practically impossible to posses a firearm despite it never being made explicitly illegal. Basically the exact same technique used by the anti-abortion movement



Or against cigarettes.
 
2012-12-18 01:10:32 PM  
most effective proposal to significantly stop gun violence? That's easy, end the war on drugs.
 
2012-12-18 01:10:40 PM  
Woop, somehow i got replies into my copy paste....
 
2012-12-18 01:10:54 PM  
 
2012-12-18 01:12:03 PM  

LasersHurt: Nabb1: LasersHurt: Oh god, not a comprehensive review of an issue in the country! NOOO MAI RIGHTS

You're right. We should probably have a comprehensive review of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

A giant list of idiotic strawmen

Don't be obtuse.


And take away a Fark Independents most deadly weapon? Try again Fartbama.
 
Displayed 50 of 307 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report