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  
•       •       •

7191 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:04 AM (1 year 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 01:10:28 PM

InmanRoshi: Meanwhile, 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.


Given the amount of genocide that has happened in the last 50 years around the world I'm going to have to call bullshiat on that. I'd be surprised if this would even rank in the top 25 mass shootings that happened this year around the world. It just normally happens to people you don't care about in places you don't care about. White kids in Conn. are just getting more coverage.
 
2012-12-18 01:10:45 PM

justtray: Amos Quito: gilgigamesh: chuckufarlie: NO, THIS WAY NOT A FALSE FLAG ATTACK.


Is that plain enough for anybody stupid enough to even consider the idea?

I know that. You need to read the whole conversation. He first compared Sandy Hook to the Reichstag fire, which was a false flag attack, then moved the goalposts back to imply that whether it was a false flag attack is not relevant because it will be used in the same manner.

I was responding to that.


I didn't move any goal posts, sir.

I carefully and patiently explained my comparison between the Reichstag Fire and the Sandy Hook shootings - SEVERAL TIMES, but I'll do it again, as you appear to be a bit stupefied today:

Both the Reichstag Fire AND the Sandy Hook massacre were shocking events that were and are being used by ambitious, opportunistic authoritarians to excuse a power grab.

If you fail to grasp the concept at this point, I shall have to assume that you suffer cognitive deficiency or (god forbid) are simply a dishonest person.

Thank you.

But Sandy Hook isnt, so.... Keep on being stupid.

Gotta love how coy you are. Adorable troll is adorable



"But Sandy Hook isnt" what?

Pleas clarify.
 
2012-12-18 01:11:42 PM

amoral: Why do his words matter.


Because words matter.

If someone says evolution shouldn't be taught in schools because it's 'just a theory', they aren't technically wrong but that is a distinction without a difference. What qualifies as an 'assault weapon' to most people is equally meaningless in terms of the capability of that weapon.

People need to recognize that a military looking gun and a non-military looking gun can have the exact same killing power to honestly debate the issue.

amoral: Why don't you frame -your- opinion on what is an assult weapon


There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. Well, anymore. The AWB was the sole source of defining it, and it's no longer law. The definition had nothing to do with capabilities of firearms, so it's not a practical definition that can possibly have meaning elsewhere.
 
2012-12-18 01:12:00 PM
FWIW, anyone suggesting we need to give government or licensed professionals more power in concerns of mental illness to institutionalize those possibly mentally ill to circumvent these tragedies, let's be real clear as to what it's going to entail...

First off, the mental health professional is going to determine whether one is a danger to himself or others. (I.E. DO YOU HAVE ANY FIREARMS?)

If you do have firearms, they are going to ask why you have them. Anything other than hunting or sport shooting could easily be classified as some sort of Paranoid Personality Disorder. Especially in regards to any self imagined scenerios that anything having to do with the collapse of civilization or hostile government takeovers.

Then you will be committed. That will be the only course of action. There will be no "Tell me about your mother". There will be no "Did you get stood up for the prom in high school?". There will be no "Show me on the doll where the bad man touched you." You will be institutionalized, and that will the the one and only course of action. No licensed health official is going to take on the potential civil and criminal liability of knowingly letting a person they believe has a form of mental illness walk the streets when they have easy access to firearms.
 
2012-12-18 01:12:09 PM

gilgigamesh: KellyX: Hypothetical, but that's meant to cause you to think... If that had happened, they'd start talking about some kind of enclosed drivers section with a kill switch instead of mental healthcare reform in this country, cause that's a problem affecting us not just in these gun killings, but in other aspects of our lives here in America.

Its a terrible analogy for lots and lots of reasons. Because school buses are not designed specifically to kill things. Because it would be much harder to kill everyone on a bus by driving it into a wall than by shooting them all. Because people don't own school buses, and driving is not a fundamental right enshrined in the constitution with a multi-billion dollar lobby backing up that right to a logical extreme.

In order to make you think about an issue, hypotheticals have to make a lick of sense.


Neither are airplanes... but you know how that goes.
 
2012-12-18 01:12:45 PM

Epicedion: CPennypacker: They could always reload. The "defense from home invasion" thing is largely a parnoid fantasy anyway.

Knowing people that have died from home invaders, I don't see it as that paranoid. It's relatively rare, sure, but it does happen and having at least the potential opportunity to do something about it seems right.


Hence the 3 bullet magazine
 
2012-12-18 01:14:06 PM

Epicedion: CPennypacker: They could always reload. The "defense from home invasion" thing is largely a parnoid fantasy anyway.

Knowing people that have died from home invaders, I don't see it as that paranoid. It's relatively rare, sure, but it does happen and having at least the potential opportunity to do something about it seems right.


How many home invasions were conducted by a group of six of more people? How many people attempting to invade a home would not be scared off by the sight of a gun, let alone firing off a shot at them? If you home is being invaded by 15 to 20 people, you might have need of a semi-automatic rifle. Chances are that if that many people are trying to get in, they are either the police or a rival gang wanting to shut down your meth lab.
 
2012-12-18 01:14:12 PM

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Oh chuckie... it didn't take long for you to bring out the penis attacks

shortcomings was a reference to your inability to express yourself clearly and completely. It was not a reference to your penis. You seem fixated on penises.

Your mom was fixated on my penis last night

My mother died years ago, It must have been your imagination, just like your other "women".

No... I dug her up and lubed her up pretty well.

yea, that is probably the only way you could get close to a woman, alive or dead. You should go back to sheep.

Nah... your mom is just so sweet and ripe I could never bury her again.

This is why we all know that you are incredibly stupid. Well, this and every other post that you have posted.

How dare you talk about your own mother that way

IF you try to insult a person and you fail miserably, you really should stop or at least try something different. Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is a sign of insanity.

I am not surprised to find out that you are insane. I think that I am done with you. You serve no purpose beyond being an example of what intelligent people are not.


Can you post that video of you shooting a semi-auto 10 times a second please?
 
2012-12-18 01:14:16 PM

Amos Quito: gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?

ANSWER:

That didn't happen, he shot a bunch of kids to death, and your hypothetical is stupid.


Okay, so you're an opportunist seeking to capitalize on this tragedy to further your authoritarian agenda.

Thanks for clearing that up.


I am not the one Godwinning up the thread by babbling about Nazis, and I have no agenda.

I think more regulations are probably in order, but I certainly don't think guns should be outlawed. And I don't even think they should be regulated in the heat of an emotional national tragedy because this would almost certainly lead to crappy legislation.

So there. Stick that in your Reichstag and smoke it.
 
2012-12-18 01:14:20 PM

Dr Dreidel: Maybe I didn't realize that the rest of it was just as sarcastic?


Not quite as sarcastic, just not very relevant anymore -- the idea behind the unorganized militia was that a local area was potentially under threat all the time and they needed everyone of age in the area to come running to lend to the common defense -- hence, everyone should be able to have regular weapons. I mean, if the French attacked us today they'd have the military to deal with, but back then it took ages to move armies around, and in those times hostile nations owned territory right next door.
 
2012-12-18 01:15:51 PM
Look, here's how this is going to play out: There will be new restrictions on firearms passed into law. It's unclear exactly what restrictions will be enacted, but likely subjects are semi-auto rifles, handguns, and large capacity magazines. Most of these restrictions will be passed on the state and local level, and many of them will ultimately be invalidated based on the Supreme Court's laughable decision in McDonald, but some will probably survive. Gun nuts will scream, but it won't matter. It's simply a political reality.

On the other hand, there will be no general ban on firearms, or even on most kinds of firearms, either federally or in any state. Restrictions, sure, but not bans. Gun control advocates will scream, but it won't matter. It's simply a political reality.
 
2012-12-18 01:15:56 PM

CPennypacker: .

They could always reload. The "defense from home invasion" thing is largely a parnoid fantasy anyway.


paranoia stoked by every politics tab TAX thread ever. "Pay your taxes rich people or we will come and take your money with our torches and pitchforks!"

seriously, you fark libtards are terrifying when you get your dander up
 
2012-12-18 01:16:08 PM

NEDM: bulldg4life:
Then you should phrase your responses better.

Saying "is it really that much better" when 26 people were killed vs 20 people wounded is pretty silly.

I admit, it was a very crass thing to say, and I am sorry for the offense that it caused. I'm just saying that exchanging one traumatic event for another is a really shiatty trade, and that anyone trying to hold up one kind of attack as "better" is missing the point that someone is still randomly attacking children where they're supposed to be safe. THAT is the problem that needs to be solved. You get what I mean now, right?


Trading 6 dead people for 6 alive people is not a shiatty trade, and no one understands wtf you are talking about.

Are you trying to tell us that making things better is not a reasonable goal? Only if things can be made perfect should we institute change?
 
2012-12-18 01:16:30 PM

KellyX: Neither are airplanes... but you know how that goes.


That's an even worse analogy. I would have to think pretty hard to imagine anything that is more heavily regulated in this country than air traffic.
 
2012-12-18 01:16:52 PM

InmanRoshi: FWIW, anyone suggesting we need to give government or licensed professionals more power in concerns of mental illness to institutionalize those possibly mentally ill to circumvent these tragedies, let's be real clear as to what it's going to entail...

First off, the mental health professional is going to determine whether one is a danger to himself or others. (I.E. DO YOU HAVE ANY FIREARMS?)

If you do have firearms, they are going to ask why you have them. Anything other than hunting or sport shooting could easily be classified as some sort of Paranoid Personality Disorder. Especially in regards to any self imagined scenerios that anything having to do with the collapse of civilization or hostile government takeovers.

Then you will be committed. That will be the only course of action. There will be no "Tell me about your mother". There will be no "Did you get stood up for the prom in high school?". There will be no "Show me on the doll where the bad man touched you." You will be institutionalized, and that will the the one and only course of action. No licensed health official is going to take on the potential civil and criminal liability of knowingly letting a person they believe has a form of mental illness walk the streets when they have easy access to firearms.


How many mentally ill people are on the streets today simply because they have never been seen by a health care professional? How many people who are perfectly sane today will go over the edge tomorrow?

You cannot make health care professionals our last line of defense from mass killers.
 
2012-12-18 01:17:21 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: CPennypacker: .

They could always reload. The "defense from home invasion" thing is largely a parnoid fantasy anyway.

paranoia stoked by every politics tab TAX thread ever. "Pay your taxes rich people or we will come and take your money with our torches and pitchforks!"

seriously, you fark libtards are terrifying when you get your dander up


When I think of a gun nut I don't think of a rich guy. Maybe its just me, YMMV.
 
2012-12-18 01:18:01 PM

CPennypacker: Hence the 3 bullet magazine


Except the 3 bullet magazine can't reasonably be considered enough to stop a threat. You'll on average hit with fewer than one bullet, which may not be sufficient. Your 3 bullet idea is a nonstarter. If you accept that guns should be allowed for self defense, you can't then make an argument to make them useless for that purpose.
 
2012-12-18 01:19:13 PM

chuckufarlie: Ho


No one likes you.
 
2012-12-18 01:19:22 PM

BMulligan: Look, here's how this is going to play out: There will be new restrictions on firearms passed into law. It's unclear exactly what restrictions will be enacted, but likely subjects are semi-auto rifles, handguns, and large capacity magazines. Most of these restrictions will be passed on the state and local level, and many of them will ultimately be invalidated based on the Supreme Court's laughable decision in McDonald, but some will probably survive. Gun nuts will scream, but it won't matter. It's simply a political reality.

On the other hand, there will be no general ban on firearms, or even on most kinds of firearms, either federally or in any state. Restrictions, sure, but not bans. Gun control advocates will scream, but it won't matter. It's simply a political reality.


and when did you get that crystal ball? You have no more idea what is going to happen that our family dog. The only difference is that the dog is actually smart enough not to put forth her stupid opinion.
 
2012-12-18 01:19:41 PM

Epicedion: CPennypacker: Hence the 3 bullet magazine

Except the 3 bullet magazine can't reasonably be considered enough to stop a threat. You'll on average hit with fewer than one bullet, which may not be sufficient. Your 3 bullet idea is a nonstarter. If you accept that guns should be allowed for self defense, you can't then make an argument to make them useless for that purpose.


Fine take all the guns away then. I was trying to be nice.
 
2012-12-18 01:19:57 PM

Epicedion: chuckufarlie: Ho

No one likes you.


so?
 
2012-12-18 01:20:15 PM

InmanRoshi: FWIW, anyone suggesting we need to give government or licensed professionals more power in concerns of mental illness to institutionalize those possibly mentally ill to circumvent these tragedies, let's be real clear as to what it's going to entail...

First off, the mental health professional is going to determine whether one is a danger to himself or others. (I.E. DO YOU HAVE ANY FIREARMS?)

If you do have firearms, they are going to ask why you have them. Anything other than hunting or sport shooting could easily be classified as some sort of Paranoid Personality Disorder. Especially in regards to any self imagined scenerios that anything having to do with the collapse of civilization or hostile government takeovers.

Then you will be committed. That will be the only course of action. There will be no "Tell me about your mother". There will be no "Did you get stood up for the prom in high school?". There will be no "Show me on the doll where the bad man touched you." You will be institutionalized, and that will the the one and only course of action. No licensed health official is going to take on the potential civil and criminal liability of knowingly letting a person they believe has a form of mental illness walk the streets when they have easy access to firearms.


You need to talk to more psychiatrist. Sure theres a few who believe their doctorate is carte blanche to pass whatever judgement they see fit on peoples lifestyles, believe me I've dealt with a few of them and personally seen 1 run out of business over it. But for every quackjob with a permit theres dozens more who are quite up to the task of figuring out who's just a lonely paranoid hermit who finds comfort in cuddling with their box of nuggets, and who is a serious danger to his/her fellow human beings because of (whatever their farking excuse is here). In fact the only person who is making broad generalizations so far is you, chill out man. Maybe talk to some professionals instead of a message board.
 
2012-12-18 01:21:14 PM

Amos Quito: Dr Dreidel: Amos Quito: chuckufarlie: Geotpf: Under current Supreme Court rulings, it is unconstitutional to ban any weapon currently in common civilian use. The weapons used in the massacre were common civlian weapons.

So we change that. The idea that it cannot be banned just because it is common use is ignorant. There needs to be a more intelligent guideline than that.


Question to all:

If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?

For the same reason that when OBL was killed, we weren't discussing a gun ban. It's not relevant to the discussion.

But since you brought it up, we did do things to make buses safer to operate normally - like adding seatbelts and


FYI, School buses have NO seatbelts OR airbags - at least not for the children.

For the driver, yes, but for the kids, no.

Now, what were you saying?


Newer school buses do have seatbelts, They weren't shown to make the kids any safer, but they're there. Also, seat belts, seat belt laws, and airbags weren't always a thing, even for the drivers. The fact is, both of those things, even if done for the driver's safety only, are new laws/rules that were developed with "bus safety" in mind, rather than simply removing "buses" from usage.

So can we have some gun safety laws now?
 
2012-12-18 01:22:22 PM

gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?

ANSWER:

That didn't happen, he shot a bunch of kids to death, and your hypothetical is stupid.


Okay, so you're an opportunist seeking to capitalize on this tragedy to further your authoritarian agenda.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I am not the one Godwinning up the thread by babbling about Nazis, and I have no agenda.

I think more regulations are probably in order, but I certainly don't think guns should be outlawed. And I don't even think they should be regulated in the heat of an emotional national tragedy because this would almost certainly lead to crappy legislation.

So there. Stick that in your Reichstag and smoke it.



Moving the goalposts, glgamesh?

Tell you what: You stop falsely accusing me of alleging that Sandy Hook was a "false flag attack", and I'll refrain from pointing you out as "opportunist seeking to capitalize on this tragedy to further your authoritarian agenda".

Deal?
 
2012-12-18 01:22:45 PM

gilgigamesh: KellyX: Neither are airplanes... but you know how that goes.

That's an even worse analogy. I would have to think pretty hard to imagine anything that is more heavily regulated in this country than air traffic.


How'd that regulation work out for us 10 years ago?

Maybe the point got lost somewhere, but the original intent in the question asked was what would we do if someone decided to use a bus as a weapon to kill 20 kids.
 
2012-12-18 01:22:56 PM

CPennypacker: Epicedion: CPennypacker: They could always reload. The "defense from home invasion" thing is largely a parnoid fantasy anyway.

Knowing people that have died from home invaders, I don't see it as that paranoid. It's relatively rare, sure, but it does happen and having at least the potential opportunity to do something about it seems right.

Hence the 3 bullet magazine


IF you allow for any size magazine you leave open the possibility that somebody will acquire a larger one. Just get rid of all guns that utilize mags/clips.
 
2012-12-18 01:23:17 PM

CPennypacker: Fine take all the guns away then. I was trying to be nice.


That's at least more consistent.
 
2012-12-18 01:24:57 PM
Since the gun nutz do not want to give up their semi-autos we can offer them a different solution. Just change the manufacturing process so that every fourth round sold explodes and destroys the weapon.

It would actually make hunting more of a sport than it is now.
 
2012-12-18 01:25:00 PM

chuckufarlie: You cannot make health care professionals our last line of defense from mass killers.


Dude, right now, health care professionals aren't even the 3rd line of defense. Hell they aren't even off the bench. We seriously need changes that will at least put them in play. As of right now our only defense from wackjobs is "the police", followed by "praying".
 
2012-12-18 01:25:05 PM

CPennypacker: Epicedion: CPennypacker: Hence the 3 bullet magazine

Except the 3 bullet magazine can't reasonably be considered enough to stop a threat. You'll on average hit with fewer than one bullet, which may not be sufficient. Your 3 bullet idea is a nonstarter. If you accept that guns should be allowed for self defense, you can't then make an argument to make them useless for that purpose.

Fine take all the guns away then. I was trying to be nice.


:)
 
2012-12-18 01:26:16 PM

chuckufarlie: Since the gun nutz do not want to give up their semi-autos we can offer them a different solution. Just change the manufacturing process so that every fourth round sold explodes and destroys the weapon.

It would actually make hunting more of a sport than it is now.


Let me know when you want to have a conversation with the adults ;)~
 
2012-12-18 01:29:01 PM

orclover: chuckufarlie: You cannot make health care professionals our last line of defense from mass killers.

Dude, right now, health care professionals aren't even the 3rd line of defense. Hell they aren't even off the bench. We seriously need changes that will at least put them in play. As of right now our only defense from wackjobs is "the police", followed by "praying".


Mental health professionals are part of the defense, that much was spelled out in the previous post. The problem is that they are not sufficient enough. We need much more stringent protection. Yes, the medicos should make sure that crazy people do not have guns. That is only a small part of the solution.
 
2012-12-18 01:29:41 PM

KellyX: chuckufarlie: Since the gun nutz do not want to give up their semi-autos we can offer them a different solution. Just change the manufacturing process so that every fourth round sold explodes and destroys the weapon.

It would actually make hunting more of a sport than it is now.

Let me know when you want to have a conversation with the adults ;)~


Do you actually know any adults??
 
2012-12-18 01:29:58 PM

BMulligan: Amos Quito: chuckufarlie: Geotpf: Under current Supreme Court rulings, it is unconstitutional to ban any weapon currently in common civilian use. The weapons used in the massacre were common civlian weapons.

So we change that. The idea that it cannot be banned just because it is common use is ignorant. There needs to be a more intelligent guideline than that.


Question to all:

If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?

School buses have a legitimate purpose with no good alternative available to satisfy that purpose. Semi automatic rifles with 30-round magazines have no legitimate purpose



What, in your estimation, was the reasoning behind the Second Amendment?

Why would the FF's bother to write such "garbage"?

Were they avid hunters? Target shooters? Was it about defending themselves against burglars?

What?
 
2012-12-18 01:30:05 PM

chuckufarlie: Since the gun nutz do not want to give up their semi-autos we can offer them a different solution. Just change the manufacturing process so that every fourth round sold explodes and destroys the weapon.

It would actually make hunting more of a sport than it is now.


i153.photobucket.com
Exploding crossbow bolts. No usable meat or hide.
 
2012-12-18 01:30:25 PM

Benjamin Orr: CPennypacker: Epicedion: CPennypacker: Hence the 3 bullet magazine

Except the 3 bullet magazine can't reasonably be considered enough to stop a threat. You'll on average hit with fewer than one bullet, which may not be sufficient. Your 3 bullet idea is a nonstarter. If you accept that guns should be allowed for self defense, you can't then make an argument to make them useless for that purpose.

Fine take all the guns away then. I was trying to be nice.

:)


LOL apparently he doesn't even want to shoot 60% of a person
 
2012-12-18 01:37:35 PM

CPennypacker: LOL apparently he doesn't even want to shoot 60% of a person


The reality is that your limits would make guns ineffective at the purpose you yourself were referring to. If you just want to ban guns, argue for banning guns. Don't go around your ass to get to your elbow.
 
2012-12-18 01:38:15 PM

Bendal: Mouldy Squid: qorkfiend: Mouldy Squid: ...

What are the penalties for failure to comply? I think a large portion of the problems us Americans have stem from the lack of interest in enforcing laws already on the books.

Well, it's situational, but can range from minor fines to losing my firearms license to confiscation of the firearms without compensation to prohibition of ownership of firearms for life to hard time. IANAL, but if this had happened in Canada and it can be shown that the mother did not store the firearms correctly, at the very least she would be banned from ever owning a firearm again and could possibly be charged with accessory to murder, manslaughter, depraved indifference to human life, criminal negligence causing death. It would be unlikely that murder charges would be filed by the Crown, but it could happen.

Except the mother is dead, so how would those laws have been a deterrent from what happened?


I imagine that your argument makes a lot of sense when you say it to yourself. Maybe she and a lot of children wouldn't be dead if she had have taken more precautions in the storage of her firearms.

Your question is inane. I own firearms. Under the laws of my country I am required to store them in a particular manner. If I do not want to lose my firearms, I must store them that way. If she were a responsible gun owner who did not want to lose her firearms she would have stored them in a way that would have prevented her son from easily stealing them. The problem is, she was American so she can leave them lying around the house all willy nilly because there are no laws to deter her from doing just that.*

Can laws that require safe storage of firearms work in all cases? No, there is still the element of human stupidity. Can laws that require safe storage of firearms cut down on accidental, pre-meditated and mass shootings? Absolutely.

*I have no idea what the gun storage laws of her particular state are, so this is obviously hyperbole for rhetorical effect.
 
2012-12-18 01:39:22 PM

Amos Quito: BMulligan: Amos Quito: chuckufarlie: Geotpf: Under current Supreme Court rulings, it is unconstitutional to ban any weapon currently in common civilian use. The weapons used in the massacre were common civlian weapons.

So we change that. The idea that it cannot be banned just because it is common use is ignorant. There needs to be a more intelligent guideline than that.


Question to all:

If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?

School buses have a legitimate purpose with no good alternative available to satisfy that purpose. Semi automatic rifles with 30-round magazines have no legitimate purpose


What, in your estimation, was the reasoning behind the Second Amendment?

Why would the FF's bother to write such "garbage"?

Were they avid hunters? Target shooters? Was it about defending themselves against burglars?

What?


The founding fathers lived in a time of civil unrest with England. They fought against perceived tyranny and formed their army from militias because the army of their country was fighting against them. The weaponry of the time was single shot manual load, and the propulsion was loaded separatly from the ammunition. They lived on the edge of a wild frontier full of dangerous animals and hostile and angry indiginous people. A lot of people were farmers and generally lived much further apart than we do now.

Maybeeeeee we need to reevaluate how our circumstances and firearms themselves have changed with regards to the second amendment.
 
2012-12-18 01:40:34 PM

KellyX: gilgigamesh: KellyX: Neither are airplanes... but you know how that goes.

That's an even worse analogy. I would have to think pretty hard to imagine anything that is more heavily regulated in this country than air traffic.

How'd that regulation work out for us 10 years ago?

Maybe the point got lost somewhere, but the original intent in the question asked was what would we do if someone decided to use a bus as a weapon to kill 20 kids.



That is a question that many of those posting here can't entertain, as it might distract them from their emotionally induced myopic hysteria.
 
2012-12-18 01:40:59 PM

Epicedion: CPennypacker: LOL apparently he doesn't even want to shoot 60% of a person

The reality is that your limits would make guns ineffective at the purpose you yourself were referring to. If you just want to ban guns, argue for banning guns. Don't go around your ass to get to your elbow.


You don't have to hit the person to protect yourself
 
2012-12-18 01:42:23 PM

Amos Quito:

Question to all:

If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?


Remember when 19 guys hijacked some planes and crashed them, killing 3,000 people? Remember how nobody called for banning planes, but we did look for ways to make it harder to hijack them?

Now notice that very, very few people here are argung for banning guns. But many are trying to come up with ways that make it harder to "hijack" them.

Pretty simple, actually.
 
2012-12-18 01:45:01 PM

Benjamin Orr: CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: For all the people who want to limit magazine capacity... what is the appropriate limit?

I think 3 is reasonable

:)

That would make reloading a lot more of an issue I grant you that much. Does that mean that revolvers would have that same limit as well?

(Not even going to get into the logistics of how we would get all of the existing guns/magazines melted down)

Ideally.

You could do a phaseout with a collection system. Say, for example, we decide to phase out any magazine with a capacity over 3 over the next five years. Give a tax credit for turning them in that goes down every year. In the 5th year owning one is a crime with a big penalty.

Interesting proposal. Not sure it would ever get passed but interesting.

if you are going to limit capacity then this would be the way to go. limiting them from 30 to 15 or 10 just wouldn't make that much of a difference in my opinion.


In Canada, since 1992, handgun magazines are limited to 10 rounds, restricted rifle magazines to 5. Most people would say that that sounds stupid, but our largest mass shooting was committed with a Mini-14 and 30 round magazines. The idea was that if someone was going to use a auto-loading rifle to shoot a bunch of people, he would only be able to do 5 at a time, slowing down the whole process.
 
2012-12-18 01:45:24 PM

CPennypacker: You don't have to hit the person to protect yourself


Unless you do. Also, firearms self-defense training will tell you not to try to scare someone off with a gun or hold them at gunpoint for the police. Trying either is a good way to get yourself killed.
 
2012-12-18 01:47:16 PM

Epicedion: CPennypacker: You don't have to hit the person to protect yourself

Unless you do. Also, firearms self-defense training will tell you not to try to scare someone off with a gun or hold them at gunpoint for the police. Trying either is a good way to get yourself killed.


Fine, again, take them away. If the only useful solution for protection is a 30 round clip because nobody can hit anything, i'd rather people not have them at all.
 
2012-12-18 01:48:38 PM

BMulligan: Look, here's how this is going to play out: There will be new restrictions on firearms passed into law. It's unclear exactly what restrictions will be enacted, but likely subjects are semi-auto rifles, handguns, and large capacity magazines. Most of these restrictions will be passed on the state and local level, and many of them will ultimately be invalidated based on the Supreme Court's laughable decision in McDonald, but some will probably survive. Gun nuts will scream, but it won't matter. It's simply a political reality.

On the other hand, there will be no general ban on firearms, or even on most kinds of firearms, either federally or in any state. Restrictions, sure, but not bans. Gun control advocates will scream, but it won't matter. It's simply a political reality.


I dunno. I can't see anything substantive passing the Republican-controlled House. The Democrats will yell and scream, push some non-religious right gun-owners back into the R camp, and get nothing to show for it except for a loss of 5-10 House seats come November 2014.
 
2012-12-18 01:50:26 PM

Geotpf: BMulligan: Look, here's how this is going to play out: There will be new restrictions on firearms passed into law. It's unclear exactly what restrictions will be enacted, but likely subjects are semi-auto rifles, handguns, and large capacity magazines. Most of these restrictions will be passed on the state and local level, and many of them will ultimately be invalidated based on the Supreme Court's laughable decision in McDonald, but some will probably survive. Gun nuts will scream, but it won't matter. It's simply a political reality.

On the other hand, there will be no general ban on firearms, or even on most kinds of firearms, either federally or in any state. Restrictions, sure, but not bans. Gun control advocates will scream, but it won't matter. It's simply a political reality.

I dunno. I can't see anything substantive passing the Republican-controlled House. The Democrats will yell and scream, push some non-religious right gun-owners back into the R camp, and get nothing to show for it except for a loss of 5-10 House seats come November 2014.


Though, there might be some state-level laws passed in blue states that get overturned by the Supremes, like you said. But nothing Federally.
 
2012-12-18 01:50:52 PM

bulldg4life: skipjack: neither link pulled up. I guess I'll have to wait until the official report is released. Right now there are to many differing accounts to know for certain what happened. Thanks for the links.

Fark adds in spaces when you copy and paste a url. Remove the spaces and view the parts where officials said the rifle was used.

Here


Thanks again.
 
2012-12-18 01:55:57 PM

CPennypacker: Fine, again, take them away. If the only useful solution for protection is a 30 round clip because nobody can hit anything, i'd rather people not have them at all.


So now you get into the territory of whether you prefer innocent people to die because they're not allowed to have guns, or for them to die because someone might use guns they have illegally. Do you have a criteria for which is better?
 
2012-12-18 01:58:17 PM

Epicedion: CPennypacker: Fine, again, take them away. If the only useful solution for protection is a 30 round clip because nobody can hit anything, i'd rather people not have them at all.

So now you get into the territory of whether you prefer innocent people to die because they're not allowed to have guns, or for them to die because someone might use guns they have illegally. Do you have a criteria for which is better?


Yes. We can add up how many civilians died because they were the victims of gun violence and compare that to the number of civilians who protected themselves from death using a gun. Properly weighed for how many of them were farking 7 year olds.
 
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 »






Report