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.

(New York Daily News)   There is a reason why you haven't heard a single word from the NRA and why they have taken down their Facebook page with 1.7million fans   (nydailynews.com) divider line 644
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Facebook, Jared Loughner, assault weapons, Newtown, Joe Manchin, gun controls  
•       •       •

7195 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:04 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-18 10:34:01 AM  

Sandusky Knows Best: Dinki: I'm a gun owner and former hunter. But we have to change. Here is a radical idea- Ban all guns

Sorry that won't happen. There's this weird thing called the Constitution.


There are also these weird things called Amendments. It turns out that you can create one of these Amendments to change the Constitution or another Amendment.

Now what do you have to say?
 
2012-12-18 10:34:34 AM  

skipjack: Citation needed. I've only seen where a hand gun was used.


For whatever reason, the lines about the rifle not being used was trumpeted on that Friday and Saturday. Before any reasonable analysis of the scene could've possibly been done. There were countless posts here on Fark about how the rifle was found in his car.

All three weapons were found next to his body.

And, officials stated that the kids were shot 6-11 times with a rifle.
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-sho o ting/hc-newtown-assault-weapons-20121217,0,7818253.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-a t -school-in-connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html
 
2012-12-18 10:34:40 AM  

KellyX: What we need in this country isn't new gun laws; what we need is in increased healthcare system, specifically more MENTAL HEALTHCARE. There are too many sick people out there that aren't getting the treatment they need, it's easier for them to get access to guns than it is to get access to the medicine they need.


America spends more in healthcare per GDP than any other industrialized country, and spends as much of a percentage of their healthcare costs on treating mental illness as any other country. Yet, America is where the mass gun violence largely occurs.

This isn't an either/or mutually exclusive scenerio. We need to identify crazies and we need to mitigate the amount of damage crazies can do by restricting their access to weapons that serve no other functional purpose than to wipe out high numbers of human beings in an incredibly short period of time.

I think you'll find that mentally ill and the gun fetishists are probably one in the same. I grew up around a lot of gun fetishists and post-apocalyptic scenerio daydreamers, and I doubt many of them could pass a paranoid personality disorder screening. So when I hear all these gun fetishists screaming we don't need government involved in gun restrictions, but rather more government involvement in mental health screenings and profiling .... well, they better be careful in what they wish for.
 
2012-12-18 10:35:15 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Linux_Yes: "Tyranny derives from the oligarchy's mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms, ill-treat the lower class, and keep them from residing in the capital. These are common to oligarchy and tyranny."
Aristotle in Politics (J. Sinclair translation, pg. 218, 1962)

The only disagreement I have with that statement is the oligarchy trusts the people. It knows exactly how to manipulate them with depressed wages, lousy schools and even allowing them to shoot each other in record numbers.

When rich people start getting shot, then we'll have serious gun control in this country.


you got that right. control laws would change overnight.
 
2012-12-18 10:35:28 AM  

skipjack: chuckufarlie:
automatic weapons are either semi-automatic or fully automatic. Every innocent person that the idiot shot last Friday was shot with a semi-automatic rifle.

Citation needed. I've only seen where a hand gun was used.


I'm surprised you haven't seen it. It started out an assault weapon, then it was the two guns, then the medical examiner said the kids were all shot with .223. The handguns have not been described as the exotic ones capable of firing the .223.
 
2012-12-18 10:35:33 AM  

Dinki: sprawl15: You really don't know that people were deployed far longer and far more often than we were ever supposed to allow because of how thin our military was stretched?

the reason it was stretched is because we made the conscious decision to not invest the resources necessary. Do you really think that if we thought that Iraq or Afghanistan was a serious threat we wouldn't institute a draft and send not 160,000 troops but 2,000,000?


We have 2 million combat troops? Neat, tell me more about the magical world that exists only inside your head.
 
2012-12-18 10:35:37 AM  
InmanRoshi

The United States spends 5.6 percent of its health care budget on mental health treatment, which is on par with other developed nations.

Why didn't you link to the articel, which includes items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7?
 
2012-12-18 10:35:41 AM  

sprawl15: dittybopper: The reason? So that they can control their message. It's that simple, really. With an open Facebook page, anyone can post on it, and there will be idiots who post there (much like on Fark).

They also stopped posting on twitter, where they don't risk that problem.


Gee, an organization that is under a microscope, taking time to consider its response to a senseless tragedy?

How *INHUMAN* of them.
 
2012-12-18 10:35:46 AM  

bartink: That leaves you with high capacity magazines, which means the same nut will just have to reload a few more times between slayings.


So they're less efficient killers and would probably end up killing less people? Why is this considered a bad thing?
 
2012-12-18 10:35:57 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Because they are literally pro-murder instead of just pro-gun. Why else would they fight for the "stand your ground" laws?


Trayvon could have used that bag of skittles to trip George Zimmerman like the gunball machine that fell over in the beginning of Superman III. Pretty tough to Stand Your Ground if you're slip sliding on delicious balls.
 
2012-12-18 10:36:06 AM  

sprawl15: Dinki: Our military can easily take on any armed force in the world. They have fully automatic weapons, grenades, armored vehicles, armed helicopters, armed jets, real time satellite surveillance, and a host of other weapons. Anyone that thinks a bunch of untrained unorganized civilians with hunting rifles is going to last 1 week against that force is a delusional fool.

You should tell all the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans that the wars were over almost a decade ago.


We took out the Iraq military in a number of days. One by one identifying individuals who are trying to kill you versus the individuals who simply want to protect their homes on a house by house level through an entire country is another matter entirely. If they decided to F it and kill everyone or round everyone up it would go faster but obviously that isn't acceptable was of conducting one-selves as a modern country.
 
2012-12-18 10:36:42 AM  

LandOfChocolate: SuperT: an M1 was good enough to take down the nazis,M it's good enough to defend my home and shoot pumpkins.

Let me preface this by saying I don't own guns, I don't hunt and I don't have any plans or fantasies about stopping home invaders. That said, an M1 or any long gun is terrible for home defense unless you live in a castle with turrets. The barrel is too long to be effective around tight corners and hallways.

I don't need a 30 round magazine. I'm also ok with having a license to own a firearm/ammo above certain lethality.

Who is to say that this kids mom wouldn't have been able to obtain the required license?

AND I'm ok with mental screens, and universal health care to get the crazies the help they need.

Again, it was the kids mother who owned the firearms. Will you extend the screens to anyone who lives in the residence or who has regular access to it?


Yes. Absolutely. Everyone in the house must pass the screen on a regular and recurring basis.
 
2012-12-18 10:36:52 AM  

vygramul: The handguns have not been described as the exotic ones capable of firing the .223.


i.imgur.com ?
 
2012-12-18 10:36:57 AM  

FriarReb98: Because they're gagged and tied up in the back room of Maynard's pawn shop with Zed and the Gimp?



What about the American people?
the American people are sleeping.
well, i guess you'd better wake them up, then.
 
2012-12-18 10:37:24 AM  

please: If you propose a solution, please step back and ask "would this have made a difference?" There are quite a few people who have always hated guns that are seeing this as an opportunity to grind an axe. We should not lightly approach taking away rights, and we should ensure that steps we take would be meaningful.

I generally oppose more gun control laws. Why? because in the past they have been written by clueless politicians who no idea what they are legislating, and the laws often make no sense, are contradictory to other laws, and leave huge loopholes.


Exactly. So many of the things people are proposing wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference in this tragedy

Rushing Congress to action gives us things like the TSA, PATRIOT ACT, DMCA etc. Be careful what you wish for
 
2012-12-18 10:37:32 AM  

qorkfiend: bartink: That leaves you with high capacity magazines, which means the same nut will just have to reload a few more times between slayings.

So they're less efficient killers and would probably end up killing less people? Why is this considered a bad thing?


From a Darwinian perspective, the jury is definitely out on this.

From a compassionate human being who gives a f*ck about his community and nation perspective, it would be tough to see a downside.
 
2012-12-18 10:37:50 AM  

chuckufarlie: Sandusky Knows Best: Dinki: I'm a gun owner and former hunter. But we have to change. Here is a radical idea- Ban all guns

Sorry that won't happen. There's this weird thing called the Constitution.

There are also these weird things called Amendments. It turns out that you can create one of these Amendments to change the Constitution or another Amendment.

Now what do you have to say?


Yes that's good and fine. Feel free to propose one. However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!". Probably make the uneducated assumption that laws can just be written to do so. Realistically, considering how polarized the gun debate is, do you really think that an amendment like that would pass through? I am by no means a gun nut, but I'm realistic about expectations.
 
2012-12-18 10:38:16 AM  

qorkfiend: bartink: That leaves you with high capacity magazines, which means the same nut will just have to reload a few more times between slayings.

So they're less efficient killers and would probably end up killing less people? Why is this considered a bad thing?


Because people would still be killed, therefore there is no need to do anything.

For other arguments, please see "taxing every millionaire at 100% would not eliminate the debt. we need to cut spending" from the fiscal cliff debate.
 
2012-12-18 10:38:23 AM  
Federally-licensed gun dealers have to perform background checks on everybody, period, wherever they sell guns. pepper who don't derive a significant portion of their income from gun sales (private citizens) can legally sell to anybody who is a resident of the same state and not otherwise barred from owning guns.

Private sellers are legally barred from accessing the NICS, so right now they couldn't submit a background check even if they wanted to.

This is kind of why gun rights supporters dismiss anti-gun people outright, you constantly use 'I think' and 'I'm not sure,' yet you continue to expound on the issue,...
 
2012-12-18 10:39:25 AM  

Sandusky Knows Best: However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!".


In the past four days, I have seen people throw this around as a strawman far more than I have seen people actually make that argument.

The ratio has to be four or five to 1
 
2012-12-18 10:39:29 AM  

Sandusky Knows Best: chuckufarlie: Sandusky Knows Best: Dinki: I'm a gun owner and former hunter. But we have to change. Here is a radical idea- Ban all guns

Sorry that won't happen. There's this weird thing called the Constitution.

There are also these weird things called Amendments. It turns out that you can create one of these Amendments to change the Constitution or another Amendment.

Now what do you have to say?

Yes that's good and fine. Feel free to propose one. However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!". Probably make the uneducated assumption that laws can just be written to do so. Realistically, considering how polarized the gun debate is, do you really think that an amendment like that would pass through? I am by no means a gun nut, but I'm realistic about expectations.


These people are few. But if you want to focus on them rather than moderates who are the majority, enjoy your futility.
 
2012-12-18 10:39:31 AM  

dittybopper: sprawl15: dittybopper: The reason? So that they can control their message. It's that simple, really. With an open Facebook page, anyone can post on it, and there will be idiots who post there (much like on Fark).

They also stopped posting on twitter, where they don't risk that problem.

Gee, an organization that is under a microscope, taking time to consider its response to a senseless tragedy?

How *INHUMAN* of them.


Amusing to see you so quickly move the goalposts.

MindStalker: We took out the Iraq military in a number of days. One by one identifying individuals who are trying to kill you versus the individuals who simply want to protect their homes on a house by house level through an entire country is another matter entirely.


Congratulations, you got the farking point of my post.
 
2012-12-18 10:39:48 AM  

Karac: urbangirl: Karac: Two Democratic senators with top National Rifle Association ratings

You should never start an article off with a baldfaced lie.

Please, tell me exactly how that is a lie.

Democrats, by definition, are incapable of holding top rating from the NRA. It will always endorse a republican with an F rating over a democrat with an A+.


The article says they have top ratings, not that they were endorsed.
Senator Mark Warner-VA and Senator Joe Manchin-W VA. They've both stated they have A ratings and I'm pretty sure if they didn't, someone would have called them out on it by now.
 
2012-12-18 10:40:16 AM  

bartink: While I can't stand the NRA and their mindless slippery slope defenses that get in the way of common sense ideas, I don't know how to make much progress on gun control.

Banning assault weapons is mostly a cosmetic ban, unless you are willing to ban semi-auto rifles altogether. You can't ban hand guns because of Heller. That leaves you with high capacity magazines, which means the same nut will just have to reload a few more times between slayings.

I think the truth is that barring a constitutional change and an abandonment of gun culture, we aren't going to change anything. Maybe it will look different if the nuts keep killing white children in bunches.


I am a very process-oriented guy. I don't like clever circumventions of rights, like all the Republican rape-wands and medical requirements that are making abortion more and more difficult to obtain. I also don't like modernity being used as a justification for why we can ban something, because, well, the Founders couldn't have possibly conceived of a communications medium as powerful as the Internet, so we can censor it, right?

I'm convinced, based on what the Founders wrote before and after the Bill of Rights, as well as the content of the constitution, that the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment is a lot closer to the truth than people who want to ban them. There's a process for changing that, and if we don't use it, realize that any alternative process can be applied to any other amendment.

And that's a worse threat than the hypothetical tyrannical government that the guns are supposed to protect us from.
 
2012-12-18 10:40:16 AM  

SuperT: an M1 was good enough to take down the nazis, it's good enough to defend my home and shoot pumpkins. I don't need a 30 round magazine.


http://www.keepshooting.com/m1-carbine-30rd-magazine.html

Since 1944.
 
2012-12-18 10:40:35 AM  

please: I'm a pretty reasonable gun owner who is willing to make some compromises, but I won't even approach it with the hateful rhetoric right now. I feel like some people need to be reminded that this is a right that exists today, and you are going to need some buy-in to reduce those rights.

If you propose a solution, please step back and ask "would this have made a difference?" There are quite a few people who have always hated guns that are seeing this as an opportunity to grind an axe. We should not lightly approach taking away rights, and we should ensure that steps we take would be meaningful.

I generally oppose more gun control laws. Why? because in the past they have been written by clueless politicians who no idea what they are legislating, and the laws often make no sense, are contradictory to other laws, and leave huge loopholes.

I'd support making gun owner legally responsible for their guns. Lock em up. Secure them. Pay the piper if you don't. It's an access issue. Mag and "assault rifle" are largely ineffective and miss the point.


The problem is that the people who end up paying the piper are the people shot down by these morons, you moron. Gun owners are already responsible for their guns and yet people are still getting shot and killed.

All that is needed is a law that bans all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. That is not difficult to understand and it eliminates the problem of automatic weapons in the hands of civilians.
 
2012-12-18 10:40:57 AM  

qorkfiend: Plus, the ones who are being treated aren't the ones to worry about.


The ones who are being treated aren't the ones to worry about.

Thank you.  the ones we need to worry about do not go get treatment on their own. People of a mindset to kill a bunch of innocent strangers are not the same people who wake up one day and think, "Gosh, things are getting out control. I admit it--I need some outside help."
 
2012-12-18 10:40:59 AM  

bulldg4life: Sandusky Knows Best: However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!".

In the past four days, I have seen people throw this around as a strawman far more than I have seen people actually make that argument.

The ratio has to be four or five to 1


This This and by the way This. All the Facebook infographics from the right-wing derp brigade would have you believe there are citizens with pitchforks and lanterns at their doorstop, ready to confiscate their guns.

Paranoid pussies.
 
2012-12-18 10:41:16 AM  

sprawl15: Dinki: sprawl15: You really don't know that people were deployed far longer and far more often than we were ever supposed to allow because of how thin our military was stretched?

the reason it was stretched is because we made the conscious decision to not invest the resources necessary. Do you really think that if we thought that Iraq or Afghanistan was a serious threat we wouldn't institute a draft and send not 160,000 troops but 2,000,000?

We have 2 million combat troops? Neat, tell me more about the magical world that exists only inside your head.


What part of 'institute a draft' did you not understand? Reading is Fundamental!
 
2012-12-18 10:41:19 AM  

urbangirl: pudding7: urbangirl:

What exactly is "the gun show loophole"?

The way I understand it is that sellers at these events are waived from normal requirements regarding background checks, waiting periods, etc.


Varies by state, most are trying to strengthen their checks. Some aren't, probably never will.
 
2012-12-18 10:41:57 AM  

chuckufarlie: Sandusky Knows Best: Dinki: I'm a gun owner and former hunter. But we have to change. Here is a radical idea- Ban all guns

Sorry that won't happen. There's this weird thing called the Constitution.

There are also these weird things called Amendments. It turns out that you can create one of these Amendments to change the Constitution or another Amendment.

Now what do you have to say?


We should stop looking at ways to be clever about it and just pass an amendment.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:11 AM  

Dinki: LandOfChocolate: Dinki: Because if we don't And even if we do, we will be seeing more of these massacres. And everyone knows it.

FTFY

Sigh. Yes, because we all know those crazy people are actually master criminals that would have access to the black market of guns. Or are you saying that if they didn't have guns they would find some other way to kill many people quickly? Maybe we should ask the 22 students that were attacked in china by a crazy person the same day as the Newtown massacre. And we can ask them, because they are all still alive. And why is that? because the crazy person had to use a knife and not a gun.


And?

Is it somehow better that all he did was "merely" wound them? If we had a mass stabbing problem would that be less of an issue? If you were a parent of one of the kids attacked in China, would you be going "Golly Gee, I'm sure glad my baby was only attacked with a knife!"

No. You'd be farking hysteric because somebody went to town on your kid with a farking knife, and terrified if there's another maniac hiding behind every corner waiting to do it again. It's just as traumatic for the kids, parents, and everyone else involved for it to be a stabbing instead of a shooting. Because they survived it "only" being wounded doesn't make it any less bad. Would a school shooting be any less horrifying if the perpetrator just used a .22 and thus failed to kill anyone either?

The issue is not the weapons the maniacs use, it's the maniacs themselves. Until we rebuild our mental health care system, we will always be waiting on pins and needles for the next insane person to snap. We need to make it so they get found before they do.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:19 AM  
Everyone should be armed starting at age 5.If those little kids had guns they could have blasted the shiat out of that guy. With all their training in first person shooter games I bet they would be damn good.

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:27 AM  
Of the top countries with gun related homocides, the US is the only developed nation on the list. Other westernized countries with developed economies have the same rate of mental illness and all the other "people" factors, but the only difference is the guns. When the hell are people going to wake up and realize that nothing positive comes from owning a gun?
 
2012-12-18 10:42:37 AM  

coeyagi: Sandusky Knows Best: chuckufarlie: Sandusky Knows Best: Dinki: I'm a gun owner and former hunter. But we have to change. Here is a radical idea- Ban all guns

Sorry that won't happen. There's this weird thing called the Constitution.

There are also these weird things called Amendments. It turns out that you can create one of these Amendments to change the Constitution or another Amendment.

Now what do you have to say?

Yes that's good and fine. Feel free to propose one. However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!". Probably make the uneducated assumption that laws can just be written to do so. Realistically, considering how polarized the gun debate is, do you really think that an amendment like that would pass through? I am by no means a gun nut, but I'm realistic about expectations.

These people are few. But if you want to focus on them rather than moderates who are the majority, enjoy your futility.


In the beginning of this thread it was pointed out to ban all guns. I pointed out that there was a constitution. Someone else pointed out that you can amend the constitution. And I agreed, but pointed out that my "there's a Constitution" comment was to point out to those who aren't moderate that there is something that just blocks any random law written. I continued to point out that it's unlikely for an amendment to pass.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:43 AM  

sprawl15: vygramul: The handguns have not been described as the exotic ones capable of firing the .223.

[i.imgur.com image 93x71] ?


I didn't say they didn't exist. I said that the Newtown shooter's handguns were not said to be .223, which would warrant comment.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:46 AM  

chuckufarlie: please: I'm a pretty reasonable gun owner who is willing to make some compromises, but I won't even approach it with the hateful rhetoric right now. I feel like some people need to be reminded that this is a right that exists today, and you are going to need some buy-in to reduce those rights.

If you propose a solution, please step back and ask "would this have made a difference?" There are quite a few people who have always hated guns that are seeing this as an opportunity to grind an axe. We should not lightly approach taking away rights, and we should ensure that steps we take would be meaningful.

I generally oppose more gun control laws. Why? because in the past they have been written by clueless politicians who no idea what they are legislating, and the laws often make no sense, are contradictory to other laws, and leave huge loopholes.

I'd support making gun owner legally responsible for their guns. Lock em up. Secure them. Pay the piper if you don't. It's an access issue. Mag and "assault rifle" are largely ineffective and miss the point.

The problem is that the people who end up paying the piper are the people shot down by these morons, you moron. Gun owners are already responsible for their guns and yet people are still getting shot and killed.

All that is needed is a law that bans all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. That is not difficult to understand and it eliminates the problem of automatic weapons in the hands of civilians.


As rifles of any type are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks, your proposal does not solve a pertinent problem. Your suggestion is entirely unreasonable.
 
2012-12-18 10:43:09 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: randomjsa: The NRA has nothing to do with this.

Sure they do.


Since 2009, the NRA and its allies in state capitols have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, easier to carry in public-eight states now even allow them in bars-and harder for the government to track. More than two-thirds of the laws were passed by Republican-controlled legislatures, though often with bipartisan support. Link


Bars? Guns and alcohol! America! Fark yeah!
 
2012-12-18 10:43:10 AM  
Oh, Boy, here we go.........

SFW


Link
 
2012-12-18 10:43:44 AM  

Sandusky Knows Best: coeyagi: Sandusky Knows Best: chuckufarlie: Sandusky Knows Best: Dinki: I'm a gun owner and former hunter. But we have to change. Here is a radical idea- Ban all guns

Sorry that won't happen. There's this weird thing called the Constitution.

There are also these weird things called Amendments. It turns out that you can create one of these Amendments to change the Constitution or another Amendment.

Now what do you have to say?

Yes that's good and fine. Feel free to propose one. However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!". Probably make the uneducated assumption that laws can just be written to do so. Realistically, considering how polarized the gun debate is, do you really think that an amendment like that would pass through? I am by no means a gun nut, but I'm realistic about expectations.

These people are few. But if you want to focus on them rather than moderates who are the majority, enjoy your futility.

In the beginning of this thread it was pointed out to ban all guns. I pointed out that there was a constitution. Someone else pointed out that you can amend the constitution. And I agreed, but pointed out that my "there's a Constitution" comment was to point out to those who aren't moderate that there is something that just blocks any random law written. I continued to point out that it's unlikely for an amendment to pass.


I fail to see how 2 posters constitute a majority. But thanks for playing.
 
2012-12-18 10:44:11 AM  

vygramul: bartink: While I can't stand the NRA and their mindless slippery slope defenses that get in the way of common sense ideas, I don't know how to make much progress on gun control.

Banning assault weapons is mostly a cosmetic ban, unless you are willing to ban semi-auto rifles altogether. You can't ban hand guns because of Heller. That leaves you with high capacity magazines, which means the same nut will just have to reload a few more times between slayings.

I think the truth is that barring a constitutional change and an abandonment of gun culture, we aren't going to change anything. Maybe it will look different if the nuts keep killing white children in bunches.

I am a very process-oriented guy. I don't like clever circumventions of rights, like all the Republican rape-wands and medical requirements that are making abortion more and more difficult to obtain. I also don't like modernity being used as a justification for why we can ban something, because, well, the Founders couldn't have possibly conceived of a communications medium as powerful as the Internet, so we can censor it, right?

I'm convinced, based on what the Founders wrote before and after the Bill of Rights, as well as the content of the constitution, that the NRA's interpretation of the second amendment is a lot closer to the truth than people who want to ban them. There's a process for changing that, and if we don't use it, realize that any alternative process can be applied to any other amendment.

And that's a worse threat than the hypothetical tyrannical government that the guns are supposed to protect us from.


The 2nd Amendment is completely out of date and needs to be revoked or revised to eliminate rifles that use clips or magazines.
 
2012-12-18 10:45:25 AM  

coeyagi: I fail to see how 2 posters constitute a majority. But thanks for playing.


I never mentioned they are the majority. But I was responding to them. That is all. But thanks for including me in a game that I wasn't actually playing.
 
2012-12-18 10:45:40 AM  

coeyagi: Sandusky Knows Best: chuckufarlie: Sandusky Knows Best: Dinki: I'm a gun owner and former hunter. But we have to change. Here is a radical idea- Ban all guns

Sorry that won't happen. There's this weird thing called the Constitution.

There are also these weird things called Amendments. It turns out that you can create one of these Amendments to change the Constitution or another Amendment.

Now what do you have to say?

Yes that's good and fine. Feel free to propose one. However, most people on Fark who post "just ban all gunz!!1!". Probably make the uneducated assumption that laws can just be written to do so. Realistically, considering how polarized the gun debate is, do you really think that an amendment like that would pass through? I am by no means a gun nut, but I'm realistic about expectations.

These people are few. But if you want to focus on them rather than moderates who are the majority, enjoy your futility.


I'd be good with banning all guns. Fark guns. But realistically, that's not going to happen so let's just work toward some gun control laws that will get rid of rapid-fire weapons with no real purpose other than to kill a lot of people in a short time.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:15 AM  

please: I'd support making gun owner legally responsible for their guns. Lock em up. Secure them. Pay the piper if you don't. It's an access issue.


Actually, that's unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court:
Held:
...
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 

Any storage requirement that puts the guns out of immediate use within the home is unconstitutional.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:22 AM  

Dinki: What part of 'institute a draft' did you not understand?


The part where "we could have had a bigger military" means "we had a bigger military but didn't use it".

Because that's what you're arguing - that the strongest military in the world was only bogged down by insurgents because we didn't draft millions more people, therefore it's stupid to say that insurgencies of low-tech defenders can hold off military forces far better than actual military forces.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:33 AM  

Dimensio: chuckufarlie: please: I'm a pretty reasonable gun owner who is willing to make some compromises, but I won't even approach it with the hateful rhetoric right now. I feel like some people need to be reminded that this is a right that exists today, and you are going to need some buy-in to reduce those rights.

If you propose a solution, please step back and ask "would this have made a difference?" There are quite a few people who have always hated guns that are seeing this as an opportunity to grind an axe. We should not lightly approach taking away rights, and we should ensure that steps we take would be meaningful.

I generally oppose more gun control laws. Why? because in the past they have been written by clueless politicians who no idea what they are legislating, and the laws often make no sense, are contradictory to other laws, and leave huge loopholes.

I'd support making gun owner legally responsible for their guns. Lock em up. Secure them. Pay the piper if you don't. It's an access issue. Mag and "assault rifle" are largely ineffective and miss the point.

The problem is that the people who end up paying the piper are the people shot down by these morons, you moron. Gun owners are already responsible for their guns and yet people are still getting shot and killed.

All that is needed is a law that bans all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. That is not difficult to understand and it eliminates the problem of automatic weapons in the hands of civilians.

As rifles of any type are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks, your proposal does not solve a pertinent problem. Your suggestion is entirely unreasonable.


And yet just about every mass shooting events have been perpetrated with a rifle. It will not eliminate EVERY murder but it will stop people from killing a bunch of kids in a short period of time.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:47 AM  

Sandusky Knows Best: coeyagi: I fail to see how 2 posters constitute a majority. But thanks for playing.

I never mentioned they are the majority. But I was responding to them. That is all. But thanks for including me in a game that I wasn't actually playing.


No, you're playing a game called futility. And you just proved it.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:50 AM  
I hear a lot of gun fetishists calling for increased mental health screenings and profiling, rather than gun restrictions.

According to the WHO Paranoid Personality Disorder is defined by having at least three of the following traits ....

a) Excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs;

b) Tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights;

c) Suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by misconstruing the neutral or friendly ac
ttions of others as hostile or contemptuous;

d) A combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping with the actual situation;

e) Recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual fidelity of spouse or sexual partner;

f) Tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a persistent self-referential attitude;

g) Preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large.


If gun fetishists want the government screening out people who meet this description, I'm fine with that ... as that probably covers about 98% of gun fetishists.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:55 AM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-18 10:47:57 AM  

dittybopper: please: I'd support making gun owner legally responsible for their guns. Lock em up. Secure them. Pay the piper if you don't. It's an access issue.

Actually, that's unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court:
Held:
...
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 

Any storage requirement that puts the guns out of immediate use within the home is unconstitutional.


change the Constitution.
 
Displayed 50 of 644 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report