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 11:43:10 AM

sprawl15: CPennypacker: sprawl15: CPennypacker: Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. Its fine if you want to keep your toys but please join us in an adult conversation.

I don't own - nor do I want to own - a gun. But congratulations on the hilarious, hilarious irony of this post.

So you're just being intellectually dishonest for fun?

Let me get this straight - you're asserting that the only use of a firearm is to destroy things, thus it should be banned, and my examples of other objects that are sold with a primary purpose of destruction is somehow dishonest?

Your arguments are shiatty. Jumping into BUT YOU JUST WANT TO KEEP YOUR TOYS is intellectually dishonest, and doubling down on it is kind of the opposite of "an adult conversation". Unless you believe an adult conversation is just replying "I concur".


No, I am asserting that comparing a firearm to a car is a BS analogy because the primary purpose of a car isn't destructive while the primary purpose of a firearm is. I assumed you just wanted to "keep your toys" because then you compared them to nail guns, meat cleavers, etc.

We have to look at the pros of the positive applications of that destructive power (defense in the case of a gun, deboning and portioning meat in the case of a meat cleaver, for example) vs the negative applications of that destructive power (gunning down a bunch of kids, chopping people up, etc) to determine what, if any, restrictions will be placed on th eownership and use of them.

I assert that the negative applications of firearms in the hands of civilians are starting to outweigh the positive and we need to address ownership of guns to acknowledge that.
 
2012-12-18 11:44:07 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: NEDM: Only in this most recent attack, however. Per the list dittybopper posted earlier, these Chinese school stabbings (that we know about, China is quite good at censorship) aren't always totally non-fatal.

So we shouldn't even bother trying to reduce gun violence! America is uniquely powerless in this situation!


No. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that massively boosting mental health care would do more good towards stopping these attacks (in addition to helping the country as a whole as a very beneficial side effect) than just reactionary hollow bans.

Inner-city gun crime is a completely different issue with a completely different set of causes and potential solutions (Solution Number One: Stop the "war on drugs".)
 
2012-12-18 11:44:23 AM

dittybopper: What fantasy? Automatic fire is inaccurate. It's useful for pretty much one thing: Suppressive fire in a military context.


You sound like you spend a lot of time thinking about how to murder a large group of people.
 
2012-12-18 11:44:37 AM

bulldg4life: Well, the line of debate was concerning steps taken by Canada. I'm fairly certain Canada has much less mass shooting violence than the US. What are they doing differently?


They don't, not really.

École Polytechnique massacre - 1989
Dawson College Shooting - 2006

When you consider that Canada has about 1/10th the amount of people as the United States, it should have about 1/10th the number of mass shootings, and low and behold, they do, +/- a fairly large margin of error, because these are very rare events, even in the United States.
 
2012-12-18 11:44:57 AM

sprawl15: MisterRonbo: So some sellers are not licensed, and are not required to conduct background checks.

Yup. The idea being that if you buy a gun, then later decide to sell it, you don't need to go out and get Federally licensed for the sale.


Because it would be such a huge burden to make you go through a licensed dealer to sell it. You know, a small fee to have the dealer handle the background check. And a big fat jail sentence for bypassing this.

Bonus: the old "criminals will ignore gun control laws" argument won't work here, because you're placing the burden on law abiding citizens to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
 
2012-12-18 11:45:39 AM

Benjamin Orr: Bendal: Dimensio: Bendal: Want my definition? If the military uses the weapon, and the company sells a "civilianized" version of it, and it has semi-auto capability, then it's an assault weapon and civilians have no need for them.

Your standard is arbitrary and unreasonable. Prohibiting firearms based solely upon cosmetic appearance serves no purpose.

You keep saying that when people make suggestions on reducing the number of these people-killing weapons. My standard has measurable guidelines (weapon used by the military, but sold with 'changes' to civilians, has semi-auto capability) that can be used to differentiate what can and cannot be sold.

So all of the other semi-auto rifles not used by the military with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity would be ok?


I'd be perfectly happy with simply banning semi-auto rifles, period. Drop the military/civilianized wording if it makes you uncomfortable. Civilians don't need semi-auto rifles to hunt game, they don't need them for self defense. So, what do they need semi-auto rifles for? Because they look cool? Because they "give you your man card back"? Because they keep the tyrannical government at bay?

Come on, let's see the arguments for keeping semi-auto rifles in civilian hands.
 
2012-12-18 11:46:07 AM

Amos Quito: [a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

Sandy Hook Shootings

[www.schillerinstitute.org image 425x545]

Reichstag Fire


Move along citizens... Nothing to see here...


i159.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-18 11:46:13 AM

Fail in Human Form: ...
If this tragedy is a reason to restrict my rights then why wouldn't they be further restricted after the next shooting or do you think passing an AW ban means no more shootings?


Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

Or are you one of those paranoids who thinks he needs his guns to protect himself from the government?
 
2012-12-18 11:47:35 AM

Amos Quito: Conspiracy? No.

Opportunism? Fark yeah!


Oh come on.

If you're going to compare the Sandy Hook shootings to a well known historical conspiracy by the Nazis to seize power, don't back off from it at the first hint of a straight jacket.

Own that shiat, my under-medicated, tin foil hat wearing brutha.
 
2012-12-18 11:48:03 AM

BMulligan: Dimensio: BMulligan: Bullshiat. Since 1986, federal law has permitted licensed firearms dealers to make sales without background checks so long as the transaction occurs away from the dealer's principle place of business. This is under federal law, mind you - several states have more restrictive statutes (the vitality of which may be subject to debate pursuant to the Supreme Court's ridiculous decision in McDonald). That's part of the reason, along with private sales, why 40% of the legally purchased firearms in this country were sold with no background check.

The article that you have referenced cites a Congressional Research Service report, yet I can find no information corroborating the claim of the article within the report.

Upon further research, it appears that you are correct on this point and the NPR piece I cited was wrong.


Wait: background checks weren't required federally for *ANY* guns prior to the 1993 Brady Law, and they weren't required for long guns prior to 1998, so how could a 1986 law prevent that? Who wrote that law, Dr. Who?
 
2012-12-18 11:48:08 AM

Ardilla: Fail in Human Form: ...
If this tragedy is a reason to restrict my rights then why wouldn't they be further restricted after the next shooting or do you think passing an AW ban means no more shootings?

Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

Or are you one of those paranoids who thinks he needs his guns to protect himself from the government?


Not paranoid, but yep it's far more than "a leisure activity"
 
2012-12-18 11:48:09 AM

gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: [a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

Sandy Hook Shootings

[www.schillerinstitute.org image 425x545]

Reichstag Fire


Move along citizens... Nothing to see here...

Wow. Dude.

You are seriously, seriously crazy.

Step away from the internet, and seek help.



Now why would you say that?

The Reichstag Fire was a horrible disaster - yet golden opportunity that allowed authoritarians to do what no one would have dreamed possible.

The aftermath wasn't pretty, if you recall.
 
2012-12-18 11:48:09 AM

coeyagi: star_topology: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 600x600]
He was so deep in the internet he didn't have a Facebook page. Fap fap fap fap fap fap O'REILLY fap fap fap.... spooge!
The cream of truth rises to the top again.


Nope. A couple of accounts I read said that the police were kind of shocked that they could find almost nothing from him on the internet, just a couple of emails here and there.

This guy was totally isolated.
 
2012-12-18 11:48:13 AM

NEDM: No. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that massively boosting mental health care would do more good towards stopping these attacks (in addition to helping the country as a whole as a very beneficial side effect) than just reactionary hollow bans.

Inner-city gun crime is a completely different issue with a completely different set of causes and potential solutions (Solution Number One: Stop the "war on drugs".)


We can improve mental health care and issue stricter gun control laws. They are not mutually exclusive. You bringing up stabbings does nothing to help your argument, and is exactly the kind of "if we do X, we'll then the bad guys will just do Y" defeatist attitude that does us no good. Also, I completely agree with ending the war on drugs.
 
2012-12-18 11:48:45 AM

Fail in Human Form: Ardilla: Fail in Human Form: ...
If this tragedy is a reason to restrict my rights then why wouldn't they be further restricted after the next shooting or do you think passing an AW ban means no more shootings?

Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

Or are you one of those paranoids who thinks he needs his guns to protect himself from the government?

Not paranoid, but yep it's far more than "a leisure activity"


Please explain.
 
2012-12-18 11:49:25 AM

sweetmelissa31: dittybopper: What fantasy? Automatic fire is inaccurate. It's useful for pretty much one thing: Suppressive fire in a military context.

You sound like you spend a lot of time thinking about how to murder a large group of people.


No, that's common sense. Guns don't work like they do in the movies, if you shoot them full-auto, the recoil is going to make them spray their bullets all over the place accomplishing nothing but wasting ammo. Ask any military veteran and they'll tell you the same thing: trying to keep a weapon on full auto aimed at a specific point is extremely hard to the point of uselessness in attempting it versus aimed fire. There's a reason the Army's standard-issue assault rifles only have a 3-round burst function nowadays.
 
2012-12-18 11:49:32 AM

Bendal: Benjamin Orr: Bendal: Dimensio: Bendal: Want my definition? If the military uses the weapon, and the company sells a "civilianized" version of it, and it has semi-auto capability, then it's an assault weapon and civilians have no need for them.

Your standard is arbitrary and unreasonable. Prohibiting firearms based solely upon cosmetic appearance serves no purpose.

You keep saying that when people make suggestions on reducing the number of these people-killing weapons. My standard has measurable guidelines (weapon used by the military, but sold with 'changes' to civilians, has semi-auto capability) that can be used to differentiate what can and cannot be sold.

So all of the other semi-auto rifles not used by the military with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity would be ok?

I'd be perfectly happy with simply banning semi-auto rifles, period. Drop the military/civilianized wording if it makes you uncomfortable. Civilians don't need semi-auto rifles to hunt game, they don't need them for self defense. So, what do they need semi-auto rifles for? Because they look cool? Because they "give you your man card back"? Because they keep the tyrannical government at bay?

Come on, let's see the arguments for keeping semi-auto rifles in civilian hands.


Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.
 
2012-12-18 11:50:57 AM

cryinoutloud: coeyagi: star_topology: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 600x600]
He was so deep in the internet he didn't have a Facebook page. Fap fap fap fap fap fap O'REILLY fap fap fap.... spooge!
The cream of truth rises to the top again.

Nope. A couple of accounts I read said that the police were kind of shocked that they could find almost nothing from him on the internet, just a couple of emails here and there.

This guy was totally isolated.


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-18 11:51:09 AM

NEDM: Dusk-You-n-Me: NEDM: Only in this most recent attack, however. Per the list dittybopper posted earlier, these Chinese school stabbings (that we know about, China is quite good at censorship) aren't always totally non-fatal.

So we shouldn't even bother trying to reduce gun violence! America is uniquely powerless in this situation!

No. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that massively boosting mental health care would do more good towards stopping these attacks (in addition to helping the country as a whole as a very beneficial side effect) than just reactionary hollow bans.


This kid had been diagnosed with mental illness at a very young age and was probably on a laundry list of psych medications. He came from a very wealthy family who could afford him the best psychiatrists and drugs money had to offer.

So spell out for me how "boosting mental health" more was going to prevent this specific situation?
 
2012-12-18 11:52:01 AM

Benjamin Orr: Nobody (sane) really thinks that the US citizens could go toe to toe with the US Armed Forces and win. The point is making the Armed Forces fight with the general population. That is pretty much a guarantee for civil war and mass defections.

Having unarmed citizens makes it easier to use the Armed Forces to clamp down on domestic dissent... especially when it is being done "for their own good". Making soldiers shoot their own people is a bit harder.


Here is the hole in your argument - if a group of citizens rises up in revolt against the government, they are going to be considered criminals. They are going to be facing the FBI or other agency, not the military. The FBI has no problem shooting criminals.

The idea that a large part of the population is going to rise up against the government is just pure fiction and not very good fiction at that. We are a nation of laws. We elect out officials on a regular schedule. IF people do not like the current government, vote them out in the next election.

Now, if you belong to a political party that is so out of touch with the mainstream that your candidates do not get elected, a revolution is still not the solution. You should probably try to appeal to a broader section of the population.

It seems that lots of people in the minority opinion operate under the mistaken impression that they represent the majority opinion. Those people might decide to start a revolution but they would be wrong to do so. We call people like that traitors.

I am afraid that your idea of some sort of future revolution in the USA is just plain stupidity. It is not going to happen.
 
2012-12-18 11:52:14 AM

Benjamin Orr: Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.


The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes. There's a start.
 
2012-12-18 11:52:17 AM

Amos Quito: Now why would you say that?

The Reichstag Fire was a horrible disaster - yet golden opportunity that allowed authoritarians to do what no one would have dreamed possible.

The aftermath wasn't pretty, if you recall.


Yes, it was a golden opportunity the Nazis created as a false flag attack. As I am sure you know.

Anyway, like I said, own that shiat. Don't hold back, let's hear it. I could use a good dose of crazytalk this morning.
 
2012-12-18 11:53:07 AM

Fark It: Cletus C.: 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.

If the only purpose of these weapons is to kill a lot of people in a short time then why do all of these proposals to ban them carve out exemptions for law enforcement. Surely, if there is a legitimate use to have them in each squad car, why doesn't a private citizen deserve that legitimate use?


Why would law enforcement be allowed to have such weapons. The answer is so expansive I'm surprised you ask the question.

Why not private citizens? See the growing pile of dead bodies for your answer.
 
2012-12-18 11:53:10 AM

Benjamin Orr: Bendal: Benjamin Orr: Bendal: Dimensio: Bendal: Want my definition? If the military uses the weapon, and the company sells a "civilianized" version of it, and it has semi-auto capability, then it's an assault weapon and civilians have no need for them.

Your standard is arbitrary and unreasonable. Prohibiting firearms based solely upon cosmetic appearance serves no purpose.

You keep saying that when people make suggestions on reducing the number of these people-killing weapons. My standard has measurable guidelines (weapon used by the military, but sold with 'changes' to civilians, has semi-auto capability) that can be used to differentiate what can and cannot be sold.

So all of the other semi-auto rifles not used by the military with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity would be ok?

I'd be perfectly happy with simply banning semi-auto rifles, period. Drop the military/civilianized wording if it makes you uncomfortable. Civilians don't need semi-auto rifles to hunt game, they don't need them for self defense. So, what do they need semi-auto rifles for? Because they look cool? Because they "give you your man card back"? Because they keep the tyrannical government at bay?

Come on, let's see the arguments for keeping semi-auto rifles in civilian hands.

Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.


Heard on NPR this morning a politician (forget who) saying "Hunters don't need machine guns..." I just love when people who have no farking idea what they're talking about get to decide policy...
 
2012-12-18 11:53:44 AM
They looked through their files and saw where Nancy Lanza was nominated for 'NRA Mother of the Year'?
 
2012-12-18 11:53:58 AM

gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: Conspiracy? No.

Opportunism? Fark yeah!

Oh come on.

If you're going to compare the Sandy Hook shootings to a well known historical conspiracy by the Nazis to seize power, don't back off from it at the first hint of a straight jacket.

Own that shiat, my under-medicated, tin foil hat wearing brutha.



I'm not alleging that Sandy Hook was any kind of conspiracy - government or otherwise. The cause of an event is irrelevant to those who would use it for their political gain.

I am comparing the INFLUENCE that each incident had on the MINDSET of the respective PEOPLES, and the POWER GRAB that followed.

It's easy to see that with the Reichstag Fire - in retrospect, but America is too caught up in its shiatstorm of emotion to see what is happening now.
 
2012-12-18 11:54:14 AM

KellyX: Benjamin Orr: Bendal: Benjamin Orr: Bendal: Dimensio: Bendal: Want my definition? If the military uses the weapon, and the company sells a "civilianized" version of it, and it has semi-auto capability, then it's an assault weapon and civilians have no need for them.

Your standard is arbitrary and unreasonable. Prohibiting firearms based solely upon cosmetic appearance serves no purpose.

You keep saying that when people make suggestions on reducing the number of these people-killing weapons. My standard has measurable guidelines (weapon used by the military, but sold with 'changes' to civilians, has semi-auto capability) that can be used to differentiate what can and cannot be sold.

So all of the other semi-auto rifles not used by the military with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity would be ok?

I'd be perfectly happy with simply banning semi-auto rifles, period. Drop the military/civilianized wording if it makes you uncomfortable. Civilians don't need semi-auto rifles to hunt game, they don't need them for self defense. So, what do they need semi-auto rifles for? Because they look cool? Because they "give you your man card back"? Because they keep the tyrannical government at bay?

Come on, let's see the arguments for keeping semi-auto rifles in civilian hands.

Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

Heard on NPR this morning a politician (forget who) saying "Hunters don't need machine guns..." I just love when people who have no farking idea what they're talking about get to decide policy...


hunters do not need machine guns. They do not need semi-automatic weapons. They are not practical.
 
2012-12-18 11:54:15 AM

CPennypacker: No, I am asserting that comparing a firearm to a car is a BS analogy because the primary purpose of a car isn't destructive while the primary purpose of a firearm is.


And I'm saying that's a stupid way to address the analogy because there's plenty of things out there whose primary purpose is destructive that aren't regulated. A captive bolt pistol's sole purpose is killing living things. I'd consider its 'sole purpose' irrelevant for purposes of regulation, though. Wouldn't you?

CPennypacker: I assumed you just wanted to "keep your toys" because then you compared them to nail guns, meat cleavers, etc.


Of course you did - because you're entering into the conversation with intellectually dishonest assumptions. You assume that I cannot possibly argue that claiming a gun's primary purpose being killing things is irrelevant even if we assume it's true without being a pro-gun nut. You've poisoned your own well before even starting to post.

CPennypacker: We have to look at the pros of the positive applications of that destructive power (defense in the case of a gun, deboning and portioning meat in the case of a meat cleaver, for example) vs the negative applications of that destructive power (gunning down a bunch of kids, chopping people up, etc) to determine what, if any, restrictions will be placed on th eownership and use of them.


Except that's a totally different argument than the 'purpose' of an object. You're talking about the risk to society, not the destructive power of an item, and weighing that risk against the reward of allowing said items. And that's reliant entirely on intent. If people all ran out and bought powder actuated nailguns and started shooting up schools with them, the risk to society would be considered much higher and would warrant reexamination of powder actuated nailguns' commercial availability...despite the destructive power or purpose of the item not changing one bit.

I'm simply asking you to be honest in your logic because the gun debate is absolutely hurt by massive amounts of dishonesty - intentional and unintentional - on both sides.
 
2012-12-18 11:54:48 AM

InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes. There's a start.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-12-18 11:54:52 AM

NEDM: sweetmelissa31: dittybopper: What fantasy? Automatic fire is inaccurate. It's useful for pretty much one thing: Suppressive fire in a military context.

You sound like you spend a lot of time thinking about how to murder a large group of people.

No, that's common sense. Guns don't work like they do in the movies, if you shoot them full-auto, the recoil is going to make them spray their bullets all over the place accomplishing nothing but wasting ammo. Ask any military veteran and they'll tell you the same thing: trying to keep a weapon on full auto aimed at a specific point is extremely hard to the point of uselessness in attempting it versus aimed fire. There's a reason the Army's standard-issue assault rifles only have a 3-round burst function nowadays.



That doesn't exactly matter if you're firing into a group of people trying to take out as many as possible now does it?
 
2012-12-18 11:55:11 AM

NEDM: Dusk-You-n-Me: NEDM: Only in this most recent attack, however. Per the list dittybopper posted earlier, these Chinese school stabbings (that we know about, China is quite good at censorship) aren't always totally non-fatal.

So we shouldn't even bother trying to reduce gun violence! America is uniquely powerless in this situation!

No. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that massively boosting mental health care would do more good towards stopping these attacks (in addition to helping the country as a whole as a very beneficial side effect) than just reactionary hollow bans.


Except at Sandy Hook, better mental health options wouldn't have changed a thing. The gunman's mother was well off enough to get him any amount of help, but she didn't, or didn't get enough. Plus, getting someone committed to a mental hospital once they're an adult takes a court order, and while he was 'creepy' and a 'loner' as a teenager, is that enough to commit someone involuntarily? If someone refuses to see a psychiatrist, no one can force them to do so until the courts decide they are a threat and mandate it.
 
2012-12-18 11:55:53 AM

chuckufarlie: KellyX: Benjamin Orr: Bendal: Benjamin Orr: Bendal: Dimensio: Bendal: Want my definition? If the military uses the weapon, and the company sells a "civilianized" version of it, and it has semi-auto capability, then it's an assault weapon and civilians have no need for them.

Your standard is arbitrary and unreasonable. Prohibiting firearms based solely upon cosmetic appearance serves no purpose.

You keep saying that when people make suggestions on reducing the number of these people-killing weapons. My standard has measurable guidelines (weapon used by the military, but sold with 'changes' to civilians, has semi-auto capability) that can be used to differentiate what can and cannot be sold.

So all of the other semi-auto rifles not used by the military with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity would be ok?

I'd be perfectly happy with simply banning semi-auto rifles, period. Drop the military/civilianized wording if it makes you uncomfortable. Civilians don't need semi-auto rifles to hunt game, they don't need them for self defense. So, what do they need semi-auto rifles for? Because they look cool? Because they "give you your man card back"? Because they keep the tyrannical government at bay?

Come on, let's see the arguments for keeping semi-auto rifles in civilian hands.

Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

Heard on NPR this morning a politician (forget who) saying "Hunters don't need machine guns..." I just love when people who have no farking idea what they're talking about get to decide policy...

hunters do not need machine guns. They do not need semi-automatic weapons. They are not practical.


Completely missed the point... Carry on.
 
2012-12-18 11:56:02 AM

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Nobody (sane) really thinks that the US citizens could go toe to toe with the US Armed Forces and win. The point is making the Armed Forces fight with the general population. That is pretty much a guarantee for civil war and mass defections.

Having unarmed citizens makes it easier to use the Armed Forces to clamp down on domestic dissent... especially when it is being done "for their own good". Making soldiers shoot their own people is a bit harder.

Here is the hole in your argument - if a group of citizens rises up in revolt against the government, they are going to be considered criminals. They are going to be facing the FBI or other agency, not the military. The FBI has no problem shooting criminals.

The idea that a large part of the population is going to rise up against the government is just pure fiction and not very good fiction at that. We are a nation of laws. We elect out officials on a regular schedule. IF people do not like the current government, vote them out in the next election.

Now, if you belong to a political party that is so out of touch with the mainstream that your candidates do not get elected, a revolution is still not the solution. You should probably try to appeal to a broader section of the population.

It seems that lots of people in the minority opinion operate under the mistaken impression that they represent the majority opinion. Those people might decide to start a revolution but they would be wrong to do so. We call people like that traitors.

I am afraid that your idea of some sort of future revolution in the USA is just plain stupidity. It is not going to happen.


Note that I never said anything about the population "rising up". Nor did I advocate a revolution. Keep farking that chicken though.
 
2012-12-18 11:56:16 AM

KellyX: The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes


It was about 10 minutes. Link 

Is that good err
 
2012-12-18 11:56:22 AM

Amos Quito: I'm not alleging that Sandy Hook was any kind of conspiracy - government or otherwise.


Nooooo. You just compared it to a known conspiracy the Nazis engineered to seize power. Silly of me to think otherwise.
 
2012-12-18 11:57:13 AM

InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes. There's a start.


First off it wasn't 2 minutes....but since you said that... basically any gun made in the last 100 years including revolvers and lever action rifles?
 
2012-12-18 11:57:32 AM

Fail in Human Form: Ardilla: Fail in Human Form: ...
If this tragedy is a reason to restrict my rights then why wouldn't they be further restricted after the next shooting or do you think passing an AW ban means no more shootings?

Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

Or are you one of those paranoids who thinks he needs his guns to protect himself from the government?

Not paranoid, but yep it's far more than "a leisure activity"


Apparently it's worth the lives of 20 children and 6 adults to you, though. Right?
 
2012-12-18 11:57:36 AM

oldernell: And in a few weeks everything will be back to the way it was. Nothing constructive will happen. There are millions of assault weapons and high capacity magazines out there and even if a ban passes, there will be sufficient time for manufacturers to get rid of the inventory, so fear not, they won't go away and will be available for mass murderers for the next 100 years.


Basically this.

A basic mental health question list would solve at least half of this, and we'd need only a few tweakings for the other half. But that would involve actually paying attention to expert theories and knowing what the fark you're doing.
 
2012-12-18 11:57:48 AM

Ardilla: Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.


I think all constitutional rights, including the rights enumerated in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and perhaps Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all have an ongoing cost in human lives. For example, we have decided as a society that requiring the police to get a warrant before searching a home for evidence of a crime is a protection worth having, despite the fact that untold numbers of people have died because the police couldn't gather the evidence they needed to arrest a criminal, or if they did, that evidence was tossed out of court.

Does the Second Amendment have a cost? Absolutely it does, and at times like this, that cost is especially painful. But there is a reason why it's written into the founding document of this nation, and it has nothing to do with recreation. If you think it no longer applies, feel free to try and get it repealed through the proper mechanism.

I will not fault you for that.

Don't try to side-step it, however, with the excuse "it's for the children!".
 
2012-12-18 11:58:40 AM

Benjamin Orr: InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes. There's a start.

First off it wasn't 2 minutes....but since you said that... basically any gun made in the last 100 years including revolvers and lever action rifles?


Sure, I have no problem outlawing a 20 round revolver.
 
2012-12-18 11:58:53 AM

cryinoutloud: coeyagi: star_topology: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 600x600]
He was so deep in the internet he didn't have a Facebook page. Fap fap fap fap fap fap O'REILLY fap fap fap.... spooge!
The cream of truth rises to the top again.

Nope. A couple of accounts I read said that the police were kind of shocked that they could find almost nothing from him on the internet, just a couple of emails here and there.

This guy was totally isolated.


Makes you wonder why he broke the computer's hard drive into pieces then, doesn't it?
 
2012-12-18 11:59:08 AM

Ardilla: Fail in Human Form: Ardilla: Fail in Human Form: ...
If this tragedy is a reason to restrict my rights then why wouldn't they be further restricted after the next shooting or do you think passing an AW ban means no more shootings?

Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

Or are you one of those paranoids who thinks he needs his guns to protect himself from the government?

Not paranoid, but yep it's far more than "a leisure activity"

Please explain.


I think an armed populace helps prevent against tyranny, but I do not believe the government is currently tyrannical.
 
2012-12-18 11:59:25 AM

sweetmelissa31: dittybopper: What fantasy? Automatic fire is inaccurate. It's useful for pretty much one thing: Suppressive fire in a military context.

You sound like you spend a lot of time thinking about how to murder a large group of people.


I spent 10 years thinking about how to murder a large group of people.

/There are scenarios I am surprised terrorists have not tried
 
2012-12-18 11:59:45 AM

Dimensio: Cletus C.: 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.

To which specific firearm models do you refer?


I'm not into guns so I'll just throw up a few examples of fine ban-worthy weapons.

www.vashtie.com
 
2012-12-18 12:00:06 PM

gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: Now why would you say that?

The Reichstag Fire was a horrible disaster - yet golden opportunity that allowed authoritarians to do what no one would have dreamed possible.

The aftermath wasn't pretty, if you recall.

Yes, it was a golden opportunity the Nazis created as a false flag attack. As I am sure you know.

Anyway, like I said, own that shiat. Don't hold back, let's hear it. I could use a good dose of crazytalk this morning.



Did the German people know that it was a FALSE FLAG ATTACK at the time?

Again, I'm not alleging that Sandy Hook was ANYTHING other than an unimaginably dastardly attack on innocents perpetrated by a lone evil madman.

But again, the cause if the incident is IRRELEVANT to those who would use it for political gain. 

An Authoritarian's wet dream.
 
2012-12-18 12:00:11 PM

dittybopper: Does the Second Amendment have a cost? Absolutely it does, and at times like this, that cost is especially painful.


A moral choice, clearly made.

They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns-we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them-is more important than children's lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that's a moral choice, clearly made. Link
 
2012-12-18 12:00:13 PM

KellyX: InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes. There's a start.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]


seriously? You do not know enough about semi-autos that you are asking for a citation? Look at the rate of fire. The other component is the shooters accuracy and you will not see any citation for that. A sustained rate of aimed fire of ten rounds a minute is well within the parameter of most, if not all, semi-auto rifles.
 
2012-12-18 12:00:28 PM

InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes. There's a start.

First off it wasn't 2 minutes....but since you said that... basically any gun made in the last 100 years including revolvers and lever action rifles?

Sure, I have no problem outlawing a 20 round revolver.


So you are just retarded and have no idea how guns work... carry on then
 
2012-12-18 12:00:36 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: KellyX: The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes

It was about 10 minutes. Link 

Is that good err


Yes, that's better, it's more accurate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for certain kinds of gun control, although trying to ban them won't help solve the underlining problems this country has. Just don't exaggerate to that degree, there's enough uninformed people that will take it for gospel and start posting on their Facebook wall saying he fired off 100 rounds in 2 minutes, all the while fending off 2-3 adult women that charged him trying to take him down.
 
2012-12-18 12:00:46 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: We can improve mental health care and issue stricter gun control laws. They are not mutually exclusive. You bringing up stabbings does nothing to help your argument, and is exactly the kind of "if we do X, we'll then the bad guys will just do Y" defeatist attitude that does us no good. Also, I completely agree with ending the war on drugs.


That's the difference, though. A lot of people are trying to use the school stabbings as a "If we ban guns, they'll just move to knives, so we shouldn't do anything!" cloak. I'm saying "No, that means we need to do more."

A massive point of argument is simply what "gun control" means. A hollow ban won't do anything of measure against this or crime in general, and would thus be a waste of time. HOWEVER, actual gun "control"? Limiting the sale of guns to people who have proven that they are responsible enough to own one? Hell yes, I'm all for it! And I'd like to think all responsible gun owners would be too. It would be doing the country a service, keeping guns out of the hands of irresponsible idiots as well as other people who have no business owning a gun. Make anyone who wants to buy a gun has to get a license for it, and in order to get that license you have to pass an in-depth gun safety course as well as a thorough background check.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report