Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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 Magazine)   Quiz: Who made the following statements on gun control: A.) Barack Obama. B.) Diane Feinstein. C.) Ronald Reagan   (nymag.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, gun controls, Ronald Reagan  
•       •       •

3296 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Dec 2012 at 10:37 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-20 10:03:30 AM  
Spoiler alert!
 
 
"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."

"Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited."

"With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases."

"Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped."

"I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken."

"Well, I think there has to be some [gun] control."
 
2012-12-20 10:34:08 AM  
I hated it when teachers did that on multiple-choice quizzes.
 
2012-12-20 10:38:15 AM  
But ANY "gun control" means "irrational bans and stealing guns from honest Americans!"
 
I should know, it's been drilled into my head for a fkn week now, and years before that. Anything is everything, so do nothing.
 
2012-12-20 10:39:59 AM  
3/30/81 changed everything
 
2012-12-20 10:41:35 AM  
That's not the Real AMerican Reagan that absolutely existed though. Those quotes are libby lib comments that are made up quotes from some made up guy that liberal "history" and "video" and "transcripts" pretend to have existed. They don't represent the Reagan that I know existed because he believes exactly what I believe.
 
2012-12-20 10:41:45 AM  

Jackson Herring: Spoiler alert!




You posted in Comic Sans, your point is invalid, and Palin is now president.
 
2012-12-20 10:44:19 AM  
Was this before or after he got shot?
 
2012-12-20 10:45:02 AM  
"Barack Obama ain't taking my shotguns, so don't buy that malarkey," he said. "If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem."

Joe Biden 2008
 
2012-12-20 10:46:13 AM  

LasersHurt: But ANY "gun control" means "irrational bans and stealing guns from honest Americans!"
 
I should know, it's been drilled into my head for a fkn week now, and years before that. Anything is everything, so do nothing.


Any further ban is unacceptable because the only next logical ban would be wholesale restriction of semiautomatics.

Licencing, registration, storage rules, theft liability. Those things are all acceptable.
 
2012-12-20 10:49:48 AM  

Jackson Herring: Spoiler alert!


Is the spoiler that your post contains no spoilers?
 
// and it does contain potassium benzoate
// ...that's bad
 
2012-12-20 10:50:22 AM  
Well played New York, well played.
 
2012-12-20 10:50:27 AM  
"Licencing, registration, storage rules, theft liability. Those things are all acceptable. "

And all things the NRA has fought tooth and nail against in the past. Think they've learned anything?
 
2012-12-20 10:52:12 AM  
Someone convince me I shouldn't post this to my Facebook, just to troll my gun-nut cousins.
 
2012-12-20 10:52:29 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: LasersHurt: But ANY "gun control" means "irrational bans and stealing guns from honest Americans!"
 
I should know, it's been drilled into my head for a fkn week now, and years before that. Anything is everything, so do nothing.

Any further ban is unacceptable because the only next logical ban would be wholesale restriction of semiautomatics.

Licencing, registration, storage rules, theft liability. Those things are all acceptable.


SCOTUS just may find that storage and licensure requirements are invalid if the majority of people don't do it that way. So if Cletus, Cletus, Cletus, Cletus, Jim-Bob, Cletus and Booger (a majority of people) all store their loaded ARs and AKs on the living room table, that's how the Founders intended our guns to be stored, and only the love child of Stalin, Hitler, Bob Ross and a Satan-Cthulu hybrid would attempt to subvert that will.
 
2012-12-20 10:52:47 AM  
Once the extremist cabal staged their coup and took over the NRA in 1977, the death of measured discourse was inevitable. It was a gradual process, though, and as late as the Reagan years a person could express a reasonable opinion on gun control and not be shunned as a pariah. It wasn't just Reagan, there were lots of conservatives who embraced a reasonable position on firearm regulation - notably, Chief Justice Warren Burger. Now, of course, such apostacy would be punished severely and immediately.
 
2012-12-20 10:53:23 AM  
Always pick C
 
2012-12-20 10:53:39 AM  

Jackson Herring: Spoiler alert!


"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."


The statement was issued by an individual unaware that "assault weapons" are not common criminal weapons.

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."


Any firearm classified as a "machine gun" is already federally restricted.

"Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited."


Handgun ammunition constructed with a steel core, tungsten core or other type of core that facilitates armour penetration ability is already prohibited to civilians.

"With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases."


Handgun purchases are federally regulated.

"Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped."

Despite population increases, the average number of Americans murdered with use of a handgun has decreased; in fact, in recent years fewer than 9,200 Americans have been murdered with use of any model of firearm.

"I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken."

"Well, I think there has to be some [gun] control."


Some "gun control" does exist. Training requirements are imposed for many concealed weapons permit statutes; expansion of such a requirement to general firearm ownership may be acceptable so long as the requirement is not unreasonable.
 
2012-12-20 10:54:58 AM  
Statements issued regarding firearm regulation by an individual who signed into law an act intended to disarm black individuals does not impress me.
 
2012-12-20 10:55:36 AM  
Sounds like some sort of bleeding heart, union member, hollywood elitist Democrat.

/oh wait
 
2012-12-20 10:56:02 AM  
How dare you disparage St. Reagan by correctly quoting him instead of presenting him as the ideal portrait of all that is American Man!
 
2012-12-20 10:57:17 AM  

Dimensio: Jackson Herring: Spoiler alert!


"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."

The statement was issued by an individual unaware that "assault weapons" are not common criminal weapons.

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."
Any firearm classified as a "machine gun" is already federally restricted.

"Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited."
Handgun ammunition constructed with a steel core, tungsten core or other type of core that facilitates armour penetration ability is already prohibited to civilians.

"With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases."
Handgun purchases are federally regulated.

"Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped."
Despite population increases, the average number of Americans murdered with use of a handgun has decreased; in fact, in recent years fewer than 9,200 Americans have been murdered with use of any model of firearm.

"I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken."

"Well, I think there has to be some [gun] control."

Some "gun control" does exist. Training requirements are imposed for many concealed weapons permit statutes; expansion of such a requirement to general firearm ownership may be acceptable so l ...


So the status quo is perfectly fine.
 
2012-12-20 10:57:21 AM  

hiker9999: "Licencing, registration, storage rules, theft liability. Those things are all acceptable. "

And all things the NRA has fought tooth and nail against in the past. Think they've learned anything?


Unfortunately, our current "gun control" debate is held between individuals who oppose any regulation and individuals who are willfully ignorant of anything related to firearms apart from their own fear of them.
 
2012-12-20 10:57:58 AM  

barneyfifesbullet: "Barack Obama ain't taking my shotguns, so don't buy that malarkey," he said. "If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem."

Joe Biden 2008


So, Joe Biden is better than Ronald Reagan?
 
2012-12-20 10:58:11 AM  

Stile4aly: So the status quo is perfectly fine.


No possible rational nor honest interpretation of my statements could allow for such a conclusion.

Opposition to unreasonable regulation is not opposition to any regulation.
 
2012-12-20 10:58:25 AM  
This is stupid. Rounds specifically designed to be "armor piercing" or so called "cop killers" are already banned. The AR-15s and AK-47 variants that most people own for sporting are not "machine guns". "Assault weapon" is a term that has been skewed and misused by the media. They keep referring to the CT shooter's rifle as an "assault weapon" and it didn't even meet the already flawed definition in CT's assault weapons ban. It was not an assault weapon. It was a semi-automatic sporting rifle.

The anti-gun lobby is not trying to ban armor piercing rounds or machine guns. They are trying to limit "high capacity clips", ban firearms that have certain cosmetic features that do not make the firearm more deadly, and make it so that private sellers cannot sell firearms without doing a federal background check.

I for one support banning high capacity "clips". I'll keep my high capacity MAGAZINES though. They attempt to confuse the uneducated into believing something that is not true. For years the media was trying to convince the public that hollow point rounds were vest piercing cop killers. The truth is hollow points break apart and penetrate a shorter depth than their full metal jacket or "ball" counterparts.
 
2012-12-20 10:59:58 AM  

hiker9999: "Licencing, registration, storage rules, theft liability. Those things are all acceptable. "

And all things the NRA has fought tooth and nail against in the past. Think they've learned anything?


One would hope that they can recognize when defeat is inevitable and its time for damage control.

20 dead elementary schoolers is one hell of a bloody shirt.
 
2012-12-20 11:01:29 AM  
Duh! Ronald Reagan(PBUH) was an ACTOR before he was President! These are just lines from his movies, not his actual real-life philosophy.
 
2012-12-20 11:01:56 AM  

numbquil: The anti-gun lobby is not trying to ban armor piercing rounds or machine guns. They are trying to limit "high capacity clips", ban firearms that have certain cosmetic features that do not make the firearm more deadly, and make it so that private sellers cannot sell firearms without doing a federal background check.


What kind of bullets did that CT shooter take into the school (not trolling) asking as I have not seen anything to indicate bullets were the issue as the kids would not have been wearing vests.
 
2012-12-20 11:01:58 AM  
When did the "right to bear arms" become the right to bear "any, and as many as I want" arms?
 
2012-12-20 11:03:11 AM  

numbquil: The anti-gun lobby is not trying to ban armor piercing rounds or machine guns.


Senator Edward Kennedy did propose legislation prohibiting civilian possession of any ammunition capable of penetrating body armour. His proposal, if enacted, would have banned almost all hunting rifle ammunition.
 
2012-12-20 11:03:14 AM  

Dimensio: hiker9999: "Licencing, registration, storage rules, theft liability. Those things are all acceptable. "

And all things the NRA has fought tooth and nail against in the past. Think they've learned anything?

Unfortunately, our current "gun control" debate is held between individuals who oppose any regulation and individuals who are willfully ignorant of anything related to firearms apart from their own fear of them.


true enough....
 
2012-12-20 11:03:44 AM  
None of this matters. What is important, and all the gun nuts and NRA freaks in this thread will prove it, is whether they used the word "semi-automatic" correctly.
 
Actually, doesn't even matter whether it was used correctly or not.
 
"I'm a freak and I have deep knowledge on this freaky topic so anything that you say only shows your ignorance of the subject at hand. Your use of the word "automatic" invalidates your desire to not have 20 children killed so shame on you!"
 
2012-12-20 11:05:10 AM  

Sass-O-Rev: When did the "right to bear arms" become the right to bear "any, and as many as I want" arms?


Never. There are plenty of guns that are banned and who's ban has passed judicial muster.
 
2012-12-20 11:05:11 AM  

numbquil: I for one support banning high capacity "clips". I'll keep my high capacity MAGAZINES though.


I think we'll have restrictions on both. More reloads = more interruptions in killing.

Clip vs magazine

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-20 11:05:15 AM  

Dimensio: hiker9999: "Licencing, registration, storage rules, theft liability. Those things are all acceptable. "

And all things the NRA has fought tooth and nail against in the past. Think they've learned anything?

Unfortunately, our current "gun control" debate is held between individuals who oppose any regulation and individuals who are willfully ignorant of anything related to firearms apart from their own fear of them.


No, it's between individuals who oppose any regulation and everyone else; your statement is what the gun industry lobby tells you to believe, and you do.
 
2012-12-20 11:05:59 AM  
yabbut wild pigs gonna get tiger upgrade and so need moar shootens

www.ecopolis.org
 
2012-12-20 11:06:16 AM  
Wasn't Ronald Reagan the one that signed into law an anti-gun bill in California, when the Black Panthers decided to arm themselves ?
 
2012-12-20 11:07:25 AM  

hinten: None of this matters. What is important, and all the gun nuts and NRA freaks in this thread will prove it, is whether they used the word "semi-automatic" correctly.

Actually, doesn't even matter whether it was used correctly or not.

"I'm a freak and I have deep knowledge on this freaky topic so anything that you say only shows your ignorance of the subject at hand. Your use of the word "automatic" invalidates your desire to not have 20 children killed so shame on you!"


Pedants for Freedom!
 
2012-12-20 11:09:32 AM  

Dimensio: Unfortunately, our current "gun control" debate is held between individuals who oppose any regulation and individuals who are willfully ignorant of anything related to firearms apart from their own fear of them.


That's incredibly dishonest and you know it. Those are, at best, the two extreme ends (with one extreme simply being more populous than the other) that are voiced. Most people who have jumped into the discussion oppose certain regulations, support others, and either know a little bit about firearms, know a lot about firearms, or are willing to learn and educate themselves to some degree.

Most people already have staked out a position, I'll grant you that. And in a time when compromise is a particularly dirty word in politics, you might not see people as willing to give a little on their side so some sort of attempt at a solution can be acted upon (and subsequently revised as we measure their success and/or failure). But don't be silly enough to suggest that only the extremely stupid are the ones having the debate.
 
2012-12-20 11:10:55 AM  

Dimensio: Stile4aly: So the status quo is perfectly fine.

No possible rational nor honest interpretation of my statements could allow for such a conclusion.

Opposition to unreasonable regulation is not opposition to any regulation.


LOL no. Don't be an asshole. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to interpret that as condoning the status quo. And if you're so opposed to "unreasonable" regulation, why don't you go ahead and suggest some "reasonable" regulation. Most people are quite eager to hear the gun lobby stop screaming "NO" to everything and actually help with the problem.

/gun totin' libby lib
 
2012-12-20 11:11:06 AM  
My gun-collector friend is HOPING for another assault weapons ban.  He'll make tons selling off his collection.
 
2012-12-20 11:11:40 AM  

King Speedy: Always pick C


Always.
 
2012-12-20 11:12:22 AM  

numbquil: This is stupid. Rounds specifically designed to be "armor piercing" or so called "cop killers" are already banned. The AR-15s and AK-47 variants that most people own for sporting are not "machine guns". "Assault weapon" is a term that has been skewed and misused by the media. They keep referring to the CT shooter's rifle as an "assault weapon" and it didn't even meet the already flawed definition in CT's assault weapons ban. It was not an assault weapon. It was a semi-automatic sporting rifle.

The anti-gun lobby is not trying to ban armor piercing rounds or machine guns. They are trying to limit "high capacity clips", ban firearms that have certain cosmetic features that do not make the firearm more deadly, and make it so that private sellers cannot sell firearms without doing a federal background check.

I for one support banning high capacity "clips". I'll keep my high capacity MAGAZINES though. They attempt to confuse the uneducated into believing something that is not true. For years the media was trying to convince the public that hollow point rounds were vest piercing cop killers. The truth is hollow points break apart and penetrate a shorter depth than their full metal jacket or "ball" counterparts.



I'm glad you took, the time to type it all out. At least you are trying to educate people.
I knew in the article that they were all Reagan statements. Because they made sense and are all covered today by laws and regulations. Reagan was a pretty level headed common sense type.

Todays uneducated Media and our super out of touch uneducated social media posting on the Inyertubes just look silly when discussing firearms.

Kudos for trying to educate. It is a never ending thing...
 
2012-12-20 11:13:32 AM  

Dimensio: Jackson Herring: Spoiler alert!


"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."

The statement was issued by an individual unaware that "assault weapons" are not common criminal weapons.

 
And he's talking specifically about reducing "assault-weapon crime". I notice his statement also lacks an admission that white people commit most financial-transaction crime. So what?

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home." 

Any firearm classified as a "machine gun" is already federally restricted.

 
So? An AK is a machine gun, but not all machine guns are AKs. He's talking about restricting TYPES of guns, of which the AK is one example. An AK is also made up of very few (4?) parts - do you think Reagan meant to say that any weapon made up of only X parts should be illegal as well? The criteria St Ronald used was weapons that are not "sporting weapon[s] or needed for defense of a home". Hell, that could mean a 30-30, a Garand, a tac-nuke, a gas cooled .50-cal that should be mounted on a Humvee...

"Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited." 

Handgun ammunition constructed with a steel core, tungsten core or other type of core that facilitates armour penetration ability is already prohibited to civilians.

 
And that is an exhaustive list of all ammunition that has "no legitimate sporting, recreational or self-defense use"? How do you know that your criteria are the same as Ron's and that they are the same as the laws prohibiting those types of ammunition? What if I say that tungsten-core ammo is entirely appropriate for self- or home-defense? Is my 2nd Amendment right being restricted? What about depleted-uranium? What about hollow-point?

"With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases." 

Handgun purchases are federally regulated.

 
And that regulation is exactly as restrictive as it needs to be and not overly permissive? We have passed all the laws we need at the federal level? Do you not even allow for the possibility that Reagan meant that a new rule (not necessarily a new restriction, maybe just a clearer codification of some of the rules we already have, or mental-health standards for sale, etc) is needed - i.e. that he disagreed with that notion?

"Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped." 

Despite population increases, the average number of Americans murdered with use of a handgun has decreased; in fact, in recent years fewer than 9,200 Americans have been murdered with use of any model of firearm.

 
And because fewer people die in traffic accidents every year, we can stop researching ways to make cars safer to operate, or creating new ways to mitigate failure of safety systems (including a driver's judgement or reaction time)?

"I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken."

"Well, I think there has to be some [gun] control."

Some "gun control" does exist. Training requirements are imposed for many concealed weapons permit statutes; expansion of such a requirement to general firearm ownership may be acceptable so long as the requirement is not unreasonable.


So you do agree that we can use a few more rules (and again, this could mean things like standardizing, at the federal level, training and storage requirements). So why the rest of that argument?
 
2012-12-20 11:14:47 AM  

Sass-O-Rev: When did the "right to bear arms" become the right to bear "any, and as many as I want" arms?


Most recently? In DC v Heller. Some fairly strange results came out of that. For example, trigger locks are unconstituional. I don't follow the logic.
 
2012-12-20 11:16:11 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Dimensio: hiker9999: "Licencing, registration, storage rules, theft liability. Those things are all acceptable. "

And all things the NRA has fought tooth and nail against in the past. Think they've learned anything?

Unfortunately, our current "gun control" debate is held between individuals who oppose any regulation and individuals who are willfully ignorant of anything related to firearms apart from their own fear of them.

No, it's between individuals who oppose any regulation and everyone else; your statement is what the gun industry lobby tells you to believe, and you do.


Are you telling me that the "gun industry lobby" instructed me to "believe" that I had observed Representative Carolyn McCarthy admit in an interview that she did not know the definition of "barrel shroud" despite authoring legislation prohibiting their presence upon rifles?
 
2012-12-20 11:19:08 AM  

joonyer: Dimensio: Stile4aly: So the status quo is perfectly fine.

No possible rational nor honest interpretation of my statements could allow for such a conclusion.

Opposition to unreasonable regulation is not opposition to any regulation.

LOL no. Don't be an asshole. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to interpret that as condoning the status quo. And if you're so opposed to "unreasonable" regulation, why don't you go ahead and suggest some "reasonable" regulation. Most people are quite eager to hear the gun lobby stop screaming "NO" to everything and actually help with the problem.

/gun totin' libby lib


I am unopposed to reasonable storage requirements (the requirements of the District of Columbia were not "reasonable") and a permitting" processes for firearms ownership so long as licensing cannot be arbitrarily denied. I am unopposed to restricting private transfers to prevent "straw purchases". I am not entirely opposed to registration, but I am wary of a firearms registry being utilized for future confiscation efforts due to such incidents occurring in the past.
 
2012-12-20 11:21:31 AM  

Dimensio: numbquil: The anti-gun lobby is not trying to ban armor piercing rounds or machine guns.

Senator Edward Kennedy did propose legislation prohibiting civilian possession of any ammunition capable of penetrating body armour. His proposal, if enacted, would have banned almost all hunting rifle ammunition.


So rather than try to modify the bill to fix that oversight, it was killed all together and now we all suffer the consequences of letting psychos buy millions of rounds of military purpose only ammunition.
 
2012-12-20 11:26:55 AM  

numbquil: This is stupid. Rounds specifically designed to be "armor piercing" or so called "cop killers" are already banned. The AR-15s and AK-47 variants that most people own for sporting are not "machine guns". "Assault weapon" is a term that has been skewed and misused by the media. They keep referring to the CT shooter's rifle as an "assault weapon" and it didn't even meet the already flawed definition in CT's assault weapons ban. It was not an assault weapon. It was a semi-automatic sporting rifle.

 
The anti-gun lobby is not trying to ban armor piercing rounds or machine guns. They are trying to limit "high capacity clips", ban firearms that have certain cosmetic features that do not make the firearm more deadly, and make it so that private sellers cannot sell firearms without doing a federal background check.
 
I for one support banning high capacity "clips". I'll keep my high capacity MAGAZINES though. They attempt to confuse the uneducated into believing something that is not true. For years the media was trying to convince the public that hollow point rounds were vest piercing cop killers. The truth is hollow points break apart and penetrate a shorter depth than their full metal jacket or "ball" counterparts.
 
 
Another idiot that thinks you need to be a mechanic to know when your car isnt working.
 
2012-12-20 11:28:01 AM  
making them less accessible to criminals."

That bits important, I wonder what the overall point was. Hrm...

that an AK-47, a machine gun

That's probably why machine guns are almost illegal to own and I don't think even the NRA is trying to get that law changed.

no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.

To the best of my knowledge while it is not illegal to own or sell armor piercing ammo, which is what is being talked about here, it is illegal to make or import it.

With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases

Are you trying to make a point in quoting that? You're failing.

Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics.

Quote mining. The article in question calls for support of the 7 day waiting period, which time has shown does not work, and the reason for the waiting period is... Wait for it... a mental health check against a registry, which we still do. The shooter in this instance took legally acquired guns from his mother.

"I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken."

Quote mining again. In the very same press conference he expressed strong belief in the ability of people to defend themselves using guns. Doesn't quite jive with the "point" being made.

"Well, I think there has to be some [gun] control."

Quote mining again. In the very same press conference he expressed strong belief in the ability of people to defend themselves using guns. He was being badgered by pro gun control reporters at the time from the transcript.

Transcript follows

Q. My name is Chris Allen. I'm from Poolesville Junior-Senior High School. I was just wondering what you and Mrs. Reagan feel about the new gun ban law.

A. The President. Gun ban? Well, I think there has to be some control. But I thought that in California we had a system that probably was the best. I have never felt that we should, for the law-abiding citizens, take the gun away from them and make it impossible to have one. I think the wrong people will always find a way to get one.


Amazing how much different it sounds with the whole sentence isn't it?

Fail less next time please.
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report