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  
•       •       •

7194 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 01:58:34 PM

CPennypacker: 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.



So you're saying that we no longer need guns, because guns are more dangerous now, and we no longer have to worry, because we have the perpetually benevolent government to protect us from all scary things?

I would counter that the primary reason for the Second Amendment was that the FF's did NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT - not even the one that they were then crafting. They were wise enough to know that the nature of man is corruptible, and that the thirst for power is unquenchable. They had just fought a costly and bloody war to free themselves from tyranny, and were well aware that tyrants WILL seize power anytime they are presented with the opportunity to do so.

The Second Amendment was intended to assure that THE PEOPLE had the power to resist such tyranny. Here's a little quote that might lend credence to my position:

QUOTE:

"God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

End quote
 
2012-12-18 02:01:25 PM

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


There were probably a lot of different reasons, given that the framers held a wide variety of opinions among them on almost every subject imaginable, but clearly the main reason was to avoid raising a standing army.
 
2012-12-18 02:07:58 PM

CPennypacker: 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.


Lets not bring the Catholic Church or Penn State into this.
 
2012-12-18 02:08:17 PM

Amos Quito: CPennypacker: 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.


So you're saying that we no longer need guns, because guns are more dangerous now, and we no longer have to worry, because we have the perpetually benevolent government to protect us from all scary things?

I would counter that the primary reason for the Second Amendment was that the FF's did NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT - not even the one that they were then crafting. They were wise enough to know that the nature of man is corruptible, and that the thirst for power is unquenchable. They had just fought a costly and bloody war to free themselves from tyranny, and were well aware that tyrants WILL seize power anytime they are presented with the opportunity to do so.

The Second Amendment was intended to assure that THE PEOPLE had the power to resist such tyranny. Here's a little quote that might lend credence to my position:

QUOTE:

"God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions i ...


Oh, so you're one of those people. Carry on then.
 
2012-12-18 02:15:14 PM

Amos Quito: The Second Amendment was intended to assure that THE PEOPLE had the power to resist such tyranny.


This is stupid and wrong. If you honestly believe that the same men who in Article III, section 3 defined treason in Article III, sec. 3 as levying war against the United States, the same men who not long thereafter enacted the first Aliens and Sedition Act, the same men who expressly left the states free of any obligation to adhere to the Bill of Rights such that any state would have been empowered to infringe any citizen's right to keep and bear arms (and many did) - if you think these men dropped the Second Amendment like a bomb into this context, complete with what you're essentially proposing is an unnecessary verbal trifle in the "well-regulated militia" clause, you're an utter loon.

And by the way, quoting Jefferson doesn't help. Everyone already knows that, as brilliant as he was, he was certainly a bit of a loon himself.
 
2012-12-18 02:16:38 PM

Amos Quito: "We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?"


Tommy Jeff - the original Disco Stu
thestandard.org.nz

// and it's pretty clear that 2A was meant to obviate the need for a standing army
// the FFs wrote specifically that such was "the greatest threat to a free state", they begin the Amendment by tying it to "militias" (typically formed by whatever able-bodied males 16 and older could carry arms and materiel) because absent those, there was ZERO homeland defense in 1789
 
2012-12-18 02:26:58 PM

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Every gun can be used for hunting. Every gun can be used for murder. Arguing over which ones are better than others is just arguing over which drug/drink/car/comic/movie you like better.

Not at all, moron. You are wrong in so many ways.

The type of weapon is very important. Semi-autos kill at a much faster rate that a bolt action rifle. You COULD use an automatic rifle to go hunting but it would be a waste. IF you first shot misses, the target will be moving too fast to make a second shot worthwhile. Unless, of course, you are hunting people.

You are so dumb... so very very dumb.

IT would be way too much of a coincidence if we were both very, very stupid. You have already shown how incredibly stupid you are.

Sorry, but the idea that you need a semi-auto for hunting is just wrong. You need to come to terms with that.


Do you hunt? (I haven't read through all comments) Having a semi auto for hunting is not odd. Having a 30 rd mag is odd.
 
2012-12-18 02:29:00 PM

orclover: 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 pr ...



You need to re-examine your past personal experiece and contrast it with the new reality you're creating for mental health professionals.

If anyone is seeking to pass government mandated psychological screenings .... particularly those to screen those prone to violence and homicide .... this is asking public health officials to go on record, with a paper trail and documentation with their signatures and professional credibility on the line, whether or not they deem a subject to be capable of something we saw in Red Hook.

Now, just consider for a moment, the ramifications on a public health official who let's someone pass through their screening who then goes on to shoot up an elementary school. The state mandated documentation and paper work of their evaluations will be made public and scrutinized. There will be a shiat ton of lawsuits brought against them. Best case scenerio is that your career is over. The most likely scenario is your career is over and you're sued into financial oblivion through the civil courts by the victim's families. Worst case scenario is your career is over, you're sued into financial oblivion in civil court by the victim's families, AND on top of that you get some jail time for criminal negligence. With these kind of ramifications at stake, there will be no blazzah "Well, he owns guns and he seems a little nutty, but I'm not so sure he's actually violent."

Screening for mental illness is not like screening for high blood pressure, high cholesteral or high blood suger. There are no objective benchmark numbers to go by. It's an entirely subjective and interpretive process based on a set of loose definition. Every licensed evaluator and screener is going to be supremely and overly cautious and in CYA mode to cover their liability.


With these kind of ramifications, in essence, state psychological exams will be a de facto form of gun control. If a subject own guns for any other reason than sporting or hunting, they will be immediately red flagged by the screened as a possible danger to yourself and/or others by evaluators.


Anyone who displays 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 actions 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.

Can be classified as having Paranoid Personality Disorder according to the World Health Organization.

This would constitute about 98% of gun nuts.
 
2012-12-18 02:31:45 PM

chuckufarlie: Epicedion: chuckufarlie: Ho

No one likes you.

so?


I not only not like him, I very much dislike him. But without losers, what kind of internet would we have?
 
2012-12-18 02:35:05 PM
capable of something we saw in Red Hook Newtown.

FTFM
 
2012-12-18 02:38:03 PM

Armored Vomit Doll: bare asser


This needs to be said more than once.
 
2012-12-18 02:38:56 PM

Armored Vomit Doll: How to argue like Dimensio:

1) Never provide citations to back up your claims. Dimensio has probably made 150+ posts on the topic of gun laws since Friday. He has never provided a citation to back up his claims.
2) Misrepresent and cherry-pick statistics. Dimensio occasionally provides "statistics" to back up his claims. But, as noted above, never provides cites for them. If you go searching for the data you find that he has picked a state/country or year that is an outlier and presented that as the only data point.
3) Dismiss any proposed solution as not solving "enough" of the problem. Proposed solutions are dismissed out of hand by DImensio by stating they won't go far enough in addressing the problem. Because, obviously, solutions that solve only part of the problem aren't worth it. Strangely, Dimensio has never provided a value for how "efficient" a solution must be for him to accept it.
4) Callously disregard any statistic about lives lost due to guns. On the weekend someone presented, with citation, the number of gun-related deaths in America over the years. DImensio just dismissed the stat as if it was meaningless.

I never post on Fark, I created this account to vote in Photoshop threads. But I decided to post this because I'm amazed that people are still responding to . It's obvious that he isn't interested in honest debate. He just wants to fill threads with cherry-picked statistics and bare assertions.




Well I meant to copy the whole quote, but Bare Asser about covers it.
 
2012-12-18 02:42:28 PM

Funbags: Summoner101: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

It's just guns allow those people to kill those people so much more efficiently.

[i.imgur.com image 600x321]


Light sabers aren't guns in the star wars scenario. The force is, much like guns the force can be used for good or evil.
 
2012-12-18 02:43:29 PM

InmanRoshi: orclover: 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 ...


Obviously were not going to let you or me set it up.
 
2012-12-18 02:44:30 PM

codergirl42: Light sabers aren't guns in the star wars scenario. The force is, much like guns the force can be used for good or evil.


Weren't light sabres banned by the Empire? Or was it just Jedis in general?
 
2012-12-18 02:59:13 PM

sinisterben: codergirl42: Light sabers aren't guns in the star wars scenario. The force is, much like guns the force can be used for good or evil.

Weren't light sabres banned by the Empire? Or was it just Jedis in general?


The Jedi's were purged but that was only so the Emperor could go unchecked. It was more like a genocide than a ban.

But I guess it's like a catch 22. Jedi's can easily be corrupted by the dark side, but even if you outlaw Jedi's the Sith will still be around to commit crimes. i.e. lawful gun owners can sometimes commit horrible crimes, but on the other hand if we ban them only the criminals will have guns.
 
2012-12-18 03:00:43 PM

sinisterben: codergirl42: Light sabers aren't guns in the star wars scenario. The force is, much like guns the force can be used for good or evil.

Weren't light sabres banned by the Empire? Or was it just Jedis in general?


When Ben Kenobi first hands Luke his light saber, Luke doesn't immediately recoil. His disdain for the Empire is established, but based on that and how non-secretive that transfer is in general, I'll guess that it's the Jedi religion they're after, rather than their chosen weapon. Besides which, no one seems to care that Vader is packing.

// but maybe that's because who's going to ask the angry 7-foot Force-choker to put down his weapon?
 
2012-12-18 03:07:59 PM

Artisan Sandwich: chuckufarlie: Epicedion: chuckufarlie: Ho

No one likes you.

so?

I not only not like him, I very much dislike him. But without losers, what kind of internet would we have?


Wow, people on the internet who have never met me, telling me that they don't like me. Do you have any idea how devastating that is to me?

Not even a little. Besides, you are a very shallow person.
 
2012-12-18 03:10:25 PM

sprawl15: 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.


I didn't move the goal posts, you asked a different question.

The reasons why they might take down their Facebook page are almost certainly different as to why they haven't posted anything to Twitter. Different media, different reaction, not that hard to understand.
 
2012-12-18 03:13:49 PM

Artisan Sandwich: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Every gun can be used for hunting. Every gun can be used for murder. Arguing over which ones are better than others is just arguing over which drug/drink/car/comic/movie you like better.

Not at all, moron. You are wrong in so many ways.

The type of weapon is very important. Semi-autos kill at a much faster rate that a bolt action rifle. You COULD use an automatic rifle to go hunting but it would be a waste. IF you first shot misses, the target will be moving too fast to make a second shot worthwhile. Unless, of course, you are hunting people.

You are so dumb... so very very dumb.

IT would be way too much of a coincidence if we were both very, very stupid. You have already shown how incredibly stupid you are.

Sorry, but the idea that you need a semi-auto for hunting is just wrong. You need to come to terms with that.

Do you hunt? (I haven't read through all comments) Having a semi auto for hunting is not odd. Having a 30 rd mag is odd.


yes, I hunt. But I do not use a semi-auto. I actually use a muzzle loader. The idea that you need to fire off two or three rounds in a hurry is absurd. If the first shot misses, the animal will be going away to fast to get in a second shot that would be worth taking. If you have to go after a wounded animal, you have plenty of time to reload. Considering how I hunt, I know what I am talking about.
 
2012-12-18 03:21:15 PM

sprawl15: 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.


Fundamentally, this is a problem that muggles can't seem to get over. They've been told time and again the scary-looking weapon is somehow more destructive, or high-powered, or more capable than a host of more traditional weapons. They have been told that these are military weapons.

People have developed emotional reasons to believe it, making it harder to get them to understand they've been lied to. It's like the War on Drugs. Pot will turn you into a homeless bum with no prospects. They'll believe it with President Barack Obama standing in front of them. They'll believe it with former President George W. Bush standing in front of them. People will believe what they WANT to, and explaining it to them only makes them decide that maybe the right answer is to lower the bar, because if the AR-15 is a military rifle, and it's no different from the Browning semi-auto hunting rifle, then that means maybe ALL rifles are military grade and should be banned.

There's a saying: those who can, teach. Those who cannot, pass laws about teaching. The same is true with guns. Those who know jack squat about guns clumsily fumble about trying to figure out how to ban stuff without banning everything, and end up banning mounted bayonets instead.*

*This is literally true

/I know you already know all this, Sprawl
 
2012-12-18 03:26:13 PM

CPennypacker: 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.


Unfortunately, their lack of foresight applies equally well to other amendments. They could not have imagined a communications medium as powerful and misleading as the Internet. However, modernity is a poor excuse for ignoring the processes in place for dealing with change. The Founders, though perhaps a little mathematically unsophisticated, did provide society with a way to keep up, and that's further amending the Constitution. We have not only eliminated parts of the original document, but altered other amendments. To choose a different process leaves open the entire construct to similar work-arounds, and I am not willing to trade an easier way to fix the second amendment for an easier way to fix the first.
 
2012-12-18 03:28:24 PM

bulldg4life: Zeno-25: Lanza had three semi-auto handguns on him as well as the AR. He would have killed just as many people without an assault rifle, as many other mass shooters already have.

But don't let facts get in the way of the big anti-assault rifle circle jerk going on lately.

You said that the attack was done with a semi-auto handgun. That is demonstrably false.

And, when confronted with that, you now say "it doesn't matter anyway, he would've killed them all with a handgun"


That is not what I said. Learn to read, jackass.
 
2012-12-18 03:45:18 PM

dittybopper: I didn't move the goal posts, you asked a different question.


I didn't ask a question at all. You can tell because I didn't put any question marks and didn't actually ask anything.

Please, let me know which of these you think is a question so I can dissuade you of your confusion:

sprawl15: They also stopped posting on twitter, where they don't risk that problem.


sprawl15: Amusing to see you so quickly move the goalposts.

 
2012-12-18 04:26:57 PM

BMulligan: Amos Quito: The Second Amendment was intended to assure that THE PEOPLE had the power to resist such tyranny.

This is stupid and wrong. If you honestly believe that the same men who in Article III, section 3 defined treason in Article III, sec. 3 as levying war against the United States, the same men who not long thereafter enacted the first Aliens and Sedition Act, the same men who expressly left the states free of any obligation to adhere to the Bill of Rights such that any state would have been empowered to infringe any citizen's right to keep and bear arms (and many did) - if you think these men dropped the Second Amendment like a bomb into this context, complete with what you're essentially proposing is an unnecessary verbal trifle in the "well-regulated militia" clause, you're an utter loon.

And by the way, quoting Jefferson doesn't help. Everyone already knows that, as brilliant as he was, he was certainly a bit of a loon himself.


If he was a bit of a loon on the 2nd amendment, maybe all the amendments are loony?!?

OMG! SCRAP ALL THE THINGS!!
 
2012-12-18 04:45:40 PM

KellyX: If he was a bit of a loon on the 2nd amendment, maybe all the amendments are loony?!?

OMG! SCRAP ALL THE THINGS!!


Right. That's what I was saying. You were smart to skip over all those other big words I wrote.
 
2012-12-18 04:54:32 PM
Hey, guys, 6 seconds ago the NRA posted something on Twitter!

https://twitter.com/NRA
 
2012-12-18 05:00:04 PM

Sargun: Hey, guys, 6 seconds ago the NRA posted something on Twitter!

https://twitter.com/NRA


Their site is getting hammered, I can't get to their statement.
 
2012-12-18 05:01:38 PM

Fail in Human Form: Sargun: Hey, guys, 6 seconds ago the NRA posted something on Twitter!

https://twitter.com/NRA

Their site is getting hammered, I can't get to their statement.


Bashir read it on msnbc. Basically, "This was a tragedy." Oh, and the NRA is mommies and daddies.
 
2012-12-18 06:04:36 PM

sprawl15: 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?


MisterRonbo: 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.


Secondly, the whole "Would you ban cars for car accidents?" argument is basically an assertion that inanimate objects are inherently benign, and therefore pose no intrinsic threat to society and thus require no government regulation or oversight.

Following this line of reasoning, there is no reason to prevent or regulate an individual from owning and carrying his own personal nuclear or biological dirty bomb, as they too are simply inanimate objects that are inherently benign if unused. However, if you believe that people shouldn't own their own personal nuclear dirty bomb, then you believe that government should have a say as to what inanimate objects people should and shouldn't have access to. Once that's established, then the argument becomes a relative conservation as to where you personally draw your own subjective line in the sand. Not whether or not some inanimate objects are too potentially lethal/dangerous/damaging to indiscriminately entrust to the judgement of the general populace at large. Most sane people know that to be the case, thus the reason we don't allow you to have your own personal nuclear dirty bomb.
 
2012-12-18 06:32:13 PM

InmanRoshi: Following this line of reasoning, there is no reason to prevent or regulate an individual from owning and carrying his own personal nuclear or biological dirty bomb, as they too are simply inanimate objects that are inherently benign if unused.


My post was in response to the idea that 'primary purpose' as the sole (or at least primary) designator for degree of regulation - I consider such reasoning silly and oversimplification to an absurd extreme. A katana and a nuke share the sole purpose of killing people, yet regulating them based solely on that classification leads naturally to regulating each similarly. Obviously totally farking ridiculous.

And the reason it's ridiculous is that risk to society is far greater a metric for regulation than some innate purpose of the device.
 
2012-12-18 08:11:29 PM

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 387x255]


Disingenuous AND a disservice to actual potential genocide warning signs. Not surprising.
 
2012-12-18 09:36:37 PM

roddack: Connecticut already had an assault weapon ban in place before this horrible event occurred. The issue continues to be the inability of this country to have a serious talk about mental health  anything but gun control



 
 
2012-12-18 11:03:53 PM
Because they are pussies.

Had this reason been first in the thread, it would have ended there.
I listened to the BBC on our public radio station, and they had two "gun advocates" on the program. Almost every other phrase to erupt from their pieholes (and were questioned about by the international callers) was "to defend ourselves".

Started me thinking... many of these "gun advocates" are from red states... which are some of the whitest states in the union. From their rhetoric, one might think that any moment now Whitey McWhiterson is expecting the "black/brown horde" to stream unstoppably through their town of Whiteville (pop. 1500), robbing, raping, pillaging, looting, spitting on the sidewalk and jaywalking at will. Their gunz, and the 15,000 rounds of ammo they lovingly polish every saturday night, are the only things standing between them and the hordes, and must be protected at all costs.
Last time he even saw a black person was the substitute UPS guy who delivered a package to his neighbor's house, and that was through the curtains. Two months ago.

Yet Joe Hipster (also a white guy) actually lives and rides his fixie in the same neighborhoods in the same city (pop 2 million) as the alleged hordes with their jaywalking and spitting on the sidewalk, yet feels no need to have, own or use a gun. Never even touched one.

My question is - "What is McWhiterson afraid of?"
 
2012-12-18 11:11:45 PM

rewind2846: My question is - "What is McWhiterson afraid of?"



Her son?
 
2012-12-18 11:19:44 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: rewind2846: My question is - "What is McWhiterson afraid of?"


Her son?


She should have been... but then it was she who taught him to shoot as well as he did.
If he was a worse shot some of the people he aimed at might have only been wounded.
The phrase "coming back to bite you in the ass" works here...
 
2012-12-19 12:42:04 AM
 
2012-12-19 12:56:01 AM
The NRA leadership is suddenly capable of feeling shame?

No, seriously, there should be a law required all citizens over the age of 21 to strap on a six shooter. An armed society is a polite society. When everyone is armed, then we'll have law and order just like in Carson City and Tombstone.
 
2012-12-19 12:56:01 AM
The NRA has spent the last few days hunkering down and trying to come up with some sort of assault weapon regulations. They're smart enough to know that if they don't get in front of this, they're gonna have to swallow Feinstein's ban. They have to come up with something that does the least amount of damage to gun manufacturer's bottom lines while still looking like they're doing something to control guns. This way they can claim to be taking the lead in creating regulations for responsible gun owners and still keep the money flowing.
 
2012-12-19 01:05:28 AM

Summoner101: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

It's just guns allow those people to kill those people so much more efficiently.


Atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people, too.
 
2012-12-19 01:07:32 AM

propasaurus: The NRA has spent the last few days hunkering down and trying to come up with some sort of assault weapon regulations. They're smart enough to know that if they don't get in front of this, they're gonna have to swallow Feinstein's ban. They have to come up with something that does the least amount of damage to gun manufacturer's bottom lines while still looking like they're doing something to control guns. This way they can claim to be taking the lead in creating regulations for responsible gun owners and still keep the money flowing.


How can they do this? They've been arguing for years that any restrictions are intolerable violations of the second amendment. Thus the shoot first and ask questions later law here in Florida.
 
2012-12-19 01:47:30 AM

Bucky Katt: propasaurus: The NRA has spent the last few days hunkering down and trying to come up with some sort of assault weapon regulations. They're smart enough to know that if they don't get in front of this, they're gonna have to swallow Feinstein's ban. They have to come up with something that does the least amount of damage to gun manufacturer's bottom lines while still looking like they're doing something to control guns. This way they can claim to be taking the lead in creating regulations for responsible gun owners and still keep the money flowing.

How can they do this? They've been arguing for years that any restrictions are intolerable violations of the second amendment. Thus the shoot first and ask questions later law here in Florida.



My guess is (since the emphasis in all the talking points seems to be this) that they'll push for tighter regulations on semi-auto purchases by people with mental illness. That way, they can look like they're leading the way on new regulations while at the same time trying to make the recent shootings the fault of the left wing who weakened mental health services.
 
2012-12-19 09:29:08 AM
FTFH: There is a reason why you haven't heard a single word from the NRA


What about the ACLU, subby?

Connecticut Mental Health Bill Defeated Months Before Deadly School Shooting (with the help of the ACLU)
 
2012-12-19 12:28:30 PM

propasaurus: The NRA has spent the last few days hunkering down and trying to come up with some sort of assault weapon regulations. They're smart enough to know that if they don't get in front of this, they're gonna have to swallow Feinstein's ban. They have to come up with something that does the least amount of damage to gun manufacturer's bottom lines while still looking like they're doing something to control guns. This way they can claim to be taking the lead in creating regulations for responsible gun owners and still keep the money flowing.



They could just call for the useless AWB and laugh all the way to the range.
 
Displayed 44 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