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.

(Talking Points Memo)   The history of the AR-15, the gun used at Sandy Hook. Since the media doing this, I'm impressed we're not looking at a picture of the AK-47. I mean, they're both assault rifles and both have "A" in their name   (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 667
    More: Interesting, Sandy Hook, assault rifles, Kalashnikov, Palm City, semi-automatic rifle, John Allen Muhammad, Cerberus Capital Management LP, assault weapons ban  
•       •       •

13565 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-21 12:50:03 PM

please: There was a time when I could buy a B.A.R. from the Sears catalog - literally one of the most powerful single-man weapons of WW2. Fully automatic, but they called it The Monitor since it was for civilians (no bipod). Why weren't schools getting shot up then?


And a Thompson from the local hardware store.

Fun fact
Just after WWI (may have been right before but in that time frame) it was easier to get a Thompson than a Colt 45 Automatic pistol since the pistol was used by the military

Thompson had a hilarious ad showing a cowboy with the SMG fighting off rustlers at the ranch.

Link
 
2012-12-21 12:51:00 PM

Magorn: "shall Not be Infringed" Sits side by side with "Subject to reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner when necessary to achieve a compelling government " which is what the Supreme court has said all the freedoms in the bill of rights are subject to.


True - which means that any restriction you put in place on those rights needs to actually be either a) clearly shown to provide significant benefit such that it outweighs the restriction or b) it has a clearly identified metric to hit and if it doesn't hit that, the restriction is removed.

Keeping people from being murdered is clearly a compelling government interest so the question is, what restrictions are both "reasonable" and "least restrictive"? I don't pretend to know myself, but i can see some valid arguments for some retrictions on the things that offer the greatest capacity for harm (much Like I'm okay with the fact that I'd never be allowed to have a street-legal car that can go 500 mph) and those that seem to be "attractive nuisances" Ie stuff that people wanting to hurt other people seem to be drawn to.

Actually, if you could have a street legal car that could go 500mph, no one would stop you. We already have street legal cars that will top 200mph. There is not mph restriction. What you've just used is an engineering limitation, not a legal limitation. While I don't disagree that, conceptually, limiting the most capacity for harm could be a good thing I think it's upon those asking for the limitations to provide clear proof that they'd actually do "something". I define that as a measurable reduction in the homicide rate, when discussing firearms and restrictions on them. Anything short of that is nothing more than meaningless restrictions (kind of like the AWB - it failed so miserably it'd be humorous if it wasn't a direct attack on the 2A).

As tasers and other non-lethal weapons come of age, I could also see a decent argument for restricting lethal forms of self defense in favor of the non-lethal variety (not yet though, because honestly tasers aren't as effective as cops like to thing), but that would be trickier because, in my best legal analysis, the 2nd Amendment actually is a right to carry weapons to resist government over-reaching (its proximity to the 3rd reinforces the notion it is meant as a check on the potential tyrannies that can come with keeping a standing army)

I can't see that happening, mostly due to the second part of the paragraph.

I'm not against discussing solutions. But those solutions must have a meaningful impact on the homicide rate or they must either not be implemented or they need to be removed.
 
2012-12-21 12:51:04 PM

Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?


Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?
 
2012-12-21 12:51:58 PM

hobnail: please: hobnail: please:
Generally pretty low penetration with a .45 though. Being smaller and faster, a 9mm penetrates better (but transfers less energy into its target). This is also what makes the AR-15 an ever poorer choice for home defense.

This was my impression, especially regarding the .223. Thanks.

I guess I need a .410 pistol (yeah, I know...)

Are you being facetious because of the whole Taurus Judge pistol thing? I don't think it would be a bad choice, but I think The Judge itself is a piece of junk like other Taurus guns. But if you're going to use .410, just use a 12 gauge.

Actually, no. My grandfather had single shot .410 that had (from memory) about a 10" barrel. I'm not sure the chamber would stand up to modern loads (aside from the fact that it's a smoothbore and clearly illegal).

I always thought that a 4 chamber revolver version would be great for close quarters.


Ah. Actually you can get a similar pistol to that now, just no stock, the Thompson Contender. Those are sweet, and you can shoot .45LC out of them too.
 
2012-12-21 12:52:22 PM

Southern100: [i45.tinypic.com image 629x403]

When the government decides to ban alcohol, let me know and I'll happily give up my guns.


By 2015 according to the CDC gun fatalities will outnumber car deaths.  Cars are used every day, guns are not.  Cars serve necessary purposes instead of  recreation or killing something
 
2012-12-21 12:52:48 PM

please: lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....

Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.


So drunk driving is OK with you?

Look at her.
 
2012-12-21 12:52:48 PM

GanjSmokr: LasersHurt: "I take things wildly out of context and reductio ad absurdum, because I am scared."

Well, accepting it is the first step towards a long recovery. You're off to a good start!


Ding! Ding! Ding!

Here, to me, is the real root of so much of the problems. We aren't suffering so much from a Culture of Violence as we are a Culture of Fear.
We're afraid that the government is going to take from us and give to "them." We're afraid of swarthy peoples who speak in strange tongues and breed and get to vote just like white folks. We're afraid of organized groups that believe in different things than we do and they're armed! They won't stop believing differently than we do even when we repeatedly tell them not to! We even tried to see to it that their votes wouldn't count as much as our votes and the danged government wouldn't let us do it!!
 
2012-12-21 12:53:02 PM

lordjupiter: Thunderpipes: lordjupiter: Bull Moose 76: lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Not a human right...a constitutional right.


Correct in that it is not a "human right".  But...You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the SCOTUS, which evolves with time and probably needs to be revised and updated past the era of muskets and oil lamps.  You do not have a right to any weapon or however many you like....the constitution does not specify those things.

The Constitution does not tell you what rights you have. It tells you what rights the government cannot take away. There is a reason for that. This is why liberal thinking sucks. You think the government exists to provide us with rights as they see fit. The Constitution exists to protect us from government.


Well this is demonstrably wrong to anyone who has read the Constitution.   And regardless, your incorrect opinion doesn't change what I said.  Another misdirection, of course...


At last read the damn thing then, dumbass.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is the second amendment. It states the government cannot take away your right to bear arms. I am right, you are wrong, troll.
 
2012-12-21 12:53:08 PM

Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?


Just stop responding to him. He's shown that he's got no desire to actually engage in a debate. As such, he's nothing more than a poor troll.

I miss the days when we had quality trolls like Czar and Bongo.
 
2012-12-21 12:53:55 PM

Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?


Thanks!!!


If it's select-fire, it's an assault rifle because

a: The shooter can select between semiautomatic and fully automatic or automatic burst fire.
b: It has a detachable magazine of 20 rounds or more.
c: It fires a smaller round with less recoil than a traditional infantry or battle rifle, such as the 5.56 NATO or 7.62X39 Russian.
d: Its barrel is in line, or close to in line, with the center of recoil at the buttplate, reducing muzzle climb
e: In order to accommodate this straight buttstock in line with the barrel, it uses a pistol grip and an elevated sight plane.

If it's not select-fire, it's an "assault weapon" because of all the above, minus full- or burst-auto capability.

There are also "assault weapons" that are pistols that resemble submachine guns, with cosmetic features like ventilated barrel shrouds and magazines in front of the pistol grip. This is pretty much a bullshiat definition, in that a Tec-9 is no more deadly than a Glock 17 with a 30-round clip (less so, because it's less accurate and more likely to jam or break). But the semiauto version of an AR-15 IS functionally different from a .30-06 Remington Model 750 in terms of nutjob spree potential, although both are semi-auto rifles.
 
2012-12-21 12:54:27 PM
Jesus, STFU with this "It's not an assault rifle" crap.

Pepsi ain't a coke either, but that's how cola got branded. Kleenex. Band-Aid. Those words are used to refer to non-Kleenex and non-Band-Aid products.

Sorry that the entire world chooses this term for your precious toy, but get over it. You sound like a child who gets mad because somebody confused the names of two Pokemons.
 
2012-12-21 12:54:41 PM

lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?


You mean sit back with our mouths closed while you discuss ineffective and contradictory ways to restrict our rights? No thanks. Maybe when you're remedies sound remotely informed they won't be pilloried for what they are.
 
2012-12-21 12:55:03 PM
My suggestions (having gone from the non-gun owning side to the dark side - one 9 mm glock style S&W with a scary laser on it so I don't miss) are directed at stopping these teenage boy mass shootings:

1. If you are on an SSRI and male and under 30, you can't have a gun, and guns in your dwelling owned by others must be locked up. The others are under criminal liability to keep the guns away from you. Goth kid grabs your gun, you are liable for what he does with it. Had mom kept the guns locked up, Lanza would have at least had to get guns elsewhere (which he apparently tried and failed to do). Gun grabbers push background checks - fine, lets make the background checks useful. You get a prozac prescription, you give up your gun until you're off the sauce and over 30.

2. Biometric locks on gun handles. Interesting area of research, like automobile safety. I certainly wouldn't mind a biometric lock that limited my gun to only my use, assuming it actually worked (palm pressure pattern is the latest, but reliability is a problem). Have the gummint spend money on that research, much the way the NHTSA does on vehicle safety. Subsidize the sale of biometric locks once they become reliable (we subsidize electric cars), hell, give them away, AND provide a liability benefit to those gun owners who get them - i.e., a biometric lock satisfies the no crazies rule in para 1 above. Of course, Mama Lanza would have to not key in her crazy kid into the gun for this to work, and since there are reports she took him to the gun range (although reports in the press, so who knows), the biometric lock thing probably wouldn't have worked here. I bet moma lanza would like a do over. Biometric handle locks are the ultimate safety tool for law abiding owners, and except for reliability in the heat of the moment, and cost, I can't think of a single reason not to use them (those are two very big reasons).

3. Allow teachers and administrators in schools to pack heat if they want to and get training, much like airline pilots.

My proposals (a) are directed at the columbine aurora newtown crazies, not gun owners in general and (b) could generally increase safety. But the gun grabbers don't like them because increased safety is not the point, grabbing guns is.
 
2012-12-21 12:55:35 PM

Dimensio:
"Assault rifle" is a technical term with an established definition.
.


The why is it that libs have such difficulty using the term based on it's "established definition"? Are they stupid, intentionally lying, or is the definition not so "established"?
 
2012-12-21 12:55:42 PM

Gosling: Carousel Beast: It never ceases to amaze me that so many of you farkers will point out (correctly) that prohibition doesn't work. Didn't for alcohol, doesn't for drugs - then you immediately come to a thread like this and scream for firearm prohibition.

Except this time we have in hand the stat sheet, and can use it to point to examples of countries where gun prohibition DOES work. Japan. South Korea. Romania.

You will note how the United States, on that graph, comes in on the 'gun homicides per 100,000 population' list, as slightly worse than Palestine.


There is so much fail there it's not even funny. I don't know where to start - countries where drug prohibition works better than the US (Japan, for instance), or nations where there's less opportunity for smuggling (islands), where the cultures are vastly different, or the studies where violent crime was completely reclassified to avoid showing how big a fail gun prohibition was (Britain) - all of these were Fark linked, btw.

Guns as a primary means of violent crime is still fairly new in the States - in the 60s/70s it was still knives, bricks, and chains. The proliferation of firearms had the twin effects of shifting weapons to something more lethal (guns) and making violent crime slightly more deadly; guns are not why there is violent crime. But then, it's also more exciting to see "2 shot by gun!: than "Two knifed by attacker."

Not to mention the gun crime is highest in American cities with...gun prohibition.
 
2012-12-21 12:55:58 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Jesus, STFU with this "It's not an assault rifle" crap.

Pepsi ain't a coke either, but that's how cola got branded. Kleenex. Band-Aid. Those words are used to refer to non-Kleenex and non-Band-Aid products.

Sorry that the entire world chooses this term for your precious toy, but get over it. You sound like a child who gets mad because somebody confused the names of two Pokemons.


It's being used in a legal definitions of what can or cannot be owned or sold in the future. Sorry if people want some specificity around the rights they are going to lose.
 
2012-12-21 12:56:37 PM

lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?


You're being willfully obtuse. What precise problem are you advocating requires legislation? What legislation do you suggest would fix this problem? Why can't you answer these simple questions without pointing fingers at the "other side"? How can you expect them to even give an adequate reply when you can't even frame your complaint? Drop the hysterics and give a reasoned response.
 
2012-12-21 12:56:37 PM

Thunderpipes: lordjupiter: Thunderpipes: lordjupiter: Bull Moose 76: lordjupiter: ronaprhys: LasersHurt: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?

Thanks!!!

This is not clever, nor is it an argument. If you disagree with the term, figure out how to accurate describe the weapons in question. I think it's more likely that you're just dismissing the entire idea without considering anything about it sincerely.

It's not firearm owners who disagree with the term. As a general rule, we know what the term actually means. It's those who wish to infringe upon human rights that confuse the term, willfully, to make emotional appeals.


You do not have a "human right" to own any weapon you choose, in any quantity.

Not a human right...a constitutional right.


Correct in that it is not a "human right".  But...You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as defined by the SCOTUS, which evolves with time and probably needs to be revised and updated past the era of muskets and oil lamps.  You do not have a right to any weapon or however many you like....the constitution does not specify those things.

The Constitution does not tell you what rights you have. It tells you what rights the government cannot take away. There is a reason for that. This is why liberal thinking sucks. You think the government exists to provide us with rights as they see fit. The Constitution exists to protect us from government.


Well this is demonstrably wrong to anyone who has read the Constitution.   And regardless, your incorrect opinion doesn't change what I said.  Another misdirection, of course...

At last read the damn thing then, dumbass.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is the second amendment. It states the government cannot take away your right to bear arms. I ...



Yes, because your literal interpretation of one part while ignoring the possible literal intepretations of the other parts is the REAL meaning.

Who's the troll?  You are!
 
2012-12-21 12:56:53 PM

Thunderpipes: If we have to lock our school's doors, we have already lost.

Guns are not the problem. Terrible parenting is. None of this crap happened a few generations ago and we had much more access to weapons.


Wrong. There have been school shootings/violence ever since there have been schools.

http://www.k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings - united-states

I recommend not reading the link unless you really have to. It's very depressing. especially the guy who used dynamite to blow up 38 kids because he was upset his tax money was paying for their education
 
2012-12-21 12:56:59 PM
Matt Seaton @mattseaton

This NRA presser is not train wreck. It's an asteroid impact. Media profs will be teaching it for years as epic 'how not to' do crisis comms


Basically they called for armed security guards in every school in America and most of the media went LOLWUT.
 
2012-12-21 12:57:13 PM
Ever notice every single thing that Obama and the Democrats are pushing into law, diminishes people's rights? Every single thing. I thought liberals were supposed to want people to be free and have rights? Every single piece of legislation you guys favor, takes away the rights of someone, often yourselves. You cheer.
 
2012-12-21 12:57:31 PM

Thunderpipes: mizchief: Thunderpipes: This is quite a unique case anyway. I am all for freedom to own guns. But she had a batshiat crazy kid, with a history of violence. Keeping guns around him was criminal. If she was alive, I would want her to pay dearly for stupidity.

If someone breaks in to your house, steals a gun, then commits a crime, that is different in my eyes.

I'm in favor of holding the owner responsible in civil court, and slapping on criminal negligence which should prevent getting a permit to carry for 5 years, if the owner didn't take reasonable steps to secure the weapons. A large locked gun safe would cover you, but could also be a closet with a dead bolt, installing gun locks, etc.

A large locked gun safe does not protect you though. If someone breaks in to my house, I don't have time to screw around with a safe. If someone steals your car, and commits a crime, should you be held accountable? Has to be some common sense. But if there is obvious reasons to secure firearms, like a crazy son living with you, then maybe.


I mean if your not home use the safe. By all means keep them loaded and as available as possible depending on who is in the home (small kids, psychopaths, etc.) I do this anyway, if not for trying to keep guns out of the hands of thieves, but not wanting to come home to someone who broke in and get shot with my own damned gun.
 
2012-12-21 12:57:50 PM
And not to mention that the so called "new gun laws" being bandied about, ie: a waiting perioid, no more gun shows, background checks, and even the "evil Assualt rifle" ban would not have made a single difference in the Newtown Sandhook killings.

but hell, let's not have the stop us!
 
2012-12-21 12:58:27 PM

ronaprhys: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Just stop responding to him. He's shown that he's got no desire to actually engage in a debate. As such, he's nothing more than a poor troll.

I miss the days when we had quality trolls like Czar and Bongo.


No, I'm totally serious, but I've been in enough of these "debates" to know what's coming next and I'm not wasting my time crafting useless fantasy legislation just so you and the other derpers can just blow it off with more slogans and fudged statistics.


You don't like having your bullshiat called out with that girl staring at you.  And that's exactly what needs to happen.
 
2012-12-21 12:58:32 PM

lordjupiter: please: lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....

Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.

So drunk driving is OK with you?

Look at her.


Again, right out the MADD playbook. "Unless you support 0% BAC drunk driving is OK with you." As well as the cheap appeal to emotion. If that's your approach, you've literally got nothin'.
 
2012-12-21 12:59:00 PM

Magorn: Southern100: [i45.tinypic.com image 629x403]

When the government decides to ban alcohol, let me know and I'll happily give up my guns.

By 2015 according to the CDC gun fatalities will outnumber car deaths.  Cars are used every day, guns are not.  Cars serve necessary purposes instead of  recreation or killing something


Cars aren't the problem - the problem is the 112 million people a year who think they can drive after having "a few drinks".

Besides, what does gun deaths outnumbering car deaths have to do with it? *1* death is too many, isn't it? No? Is it 2? 10? 20? Is there a cut off?

Also keep in mind that not everyone hit by a drunk driver dies - but many of them wish they had.
 
2012-12-21 12:59:28 PM

mbillips: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?


Thanks!!!

If it's select-fire, it's an assault rifle because

a: The shooter can select between semiautomatic and fully automatic or automatic burst fire.
b: It has a detachable magazine of 20 rounds or more.
c: It fires a smaller round with less recoil than a traditional infantry or battle rifle, such as the 5.56 NATO or 7.62X39 Russian.
d: Its barrel is in line, or close to in line, with the center of recoil at the buttplate, reducing muzzle climb
e: In order to accommodate this straight buttstock in line with the barrel, it uses a pistol grip and an elevated sight plane.

If it's not select-fire, it's an "assault weapon" because of all the above, minus full- or burst-auto capability.

There are also "assault weapons" that are pistols that resemble submachine guns, with cosmetic features like ventilated barrel shrouds and magazines in front of the pistol grip. This is pretty much a bullshiat definition, in that a Tec-9 is no more deadly than a Glock 17 with a 30-round clip (less so, because it's less accurate and more likely to jam or break). But the semiauto version of an AR-15 IS functionally different from a .30-06 Remington Model 750 in terms of nutjob spree potential, although both are semi-auto rifles.


I disagree - no full auto or burst, not an assault rifle.
 
2012-12-21 01:00:01 PM

please: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?

You mean sit back with our mouths closed while you discuss ineffective and contradictory ways to restrict our rights? No thanks. Maybe when you're remedies sound remotely informed they won't be pilloried for what they are.


How do you know what my remedies are?  See, this is why I don't play "proof/plan" game you farkers resort to.  Because they'll be dismissed no matter what, even when I haven't even offered them.

Meanwhile, that girl is still dead, and there's nobody breaking down your front door...no british soldiers marching on your lawn....
 
2012-12-21 01:00:26 PM

lordjupiter: ronaprhys: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Just stop responding to him. He's shown that he's got no desire to actually engage in a debate. As such, he's nothing more than a poor troll.

I miss the days when we had quality trolls like Czar and Bongo.

No, I'm totally serious, but I've been in enough of these "debates" to know what's coming next and I'm not wasting my time crafting useless fantasy legislation just so you and the other derpers can just blow it off with more slogans and fudged statistics.


You don't like having your bullshiat called out with that girl staring at you.  And that's exactly what needs to happen.


You really do sound very silly with your "LOOK AT HER" and "SHE'S STARING AT YOU." I guess that hasn't stopped your other arguments though...
 
2012-12-21 01:01:04 PM

2 grams: but hell, let's not have the stop us!


No. Let's not. How many people have said now that it's not about stopping every single gun homicide but rather about making sure there are fewer of them. The 'that won't work, that won't work, that won't work, nothing will work except more guns' line of attack isn't going to work this time. SOMETHING is going to get done. The only question is what.
 
2012-12-21 01:01:11 PM

lordjupiter: The Constitution does not tell you what rights you have. It tells you what rights the government cannot take away. There is a reason for that. This is why liberal thinking sucks. You think the government exists to provide us with rights as they see fit. The Constitution exists to protect us from government.


Well this is demonstrably wrong to anyone who has read the Constitution. And regardless, your incorrect opinion doesn't change what I said. Another misdirection, of course...



Now you've gone full retard....
 
2012-12-21 01:01:28 PM

please: lordjupiter: please: lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....

Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.

So drunk driving is OK with you?

Look at her.

Again, right out the MADD playbook. "Unless you support 0% BAC drunk driving is OK with you." As well as the cheap appeal to emotion. If that's your approach, you've literally got nothin'.


If you ignore the troll, they actually go away. Maybe the die, maybe the disappear. No one actually knows. However, it doesn't matter. Just ignore them.
 
2012-12-21 01:01:38 PM

Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?

You're being willfully obtuse. What precise problem are you advocating requires legislation? What legislation do you suggest would fix this problem? Why can't you answer these simple questions without pointing fingers at the "other side"? How can you expect them to even give an adequate reply when you can't even frame your complaint? Drop the hysterics and give a rea ...


If you could read, you'd have an answer.  Which is one reason I'm not wasting my time.
 
2012-12-21 01:03:07 PM

lordjupiter: please: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: Doom MD: lordjupiter: It's hilarious to me that gun nuts talk about "knee jerk emotional" responses when their rationales include statistically unlikely fears of home invasion and tyrannical governments that need to be put down.

How is that not an emotional justification?  How is your fear any more valid than the emotions of others, and their desires to prevent mass shootings or at least reduce them?  How is there more empirical evidence that you will need 10 semi-auto rifles than evidence of dead children due to largely unregulated proliferation of those weapons among the population at large?

You have no logical, moral ground to stand on.  And soon enough you won't have a legal one, either.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Nvm.


You can dismiss me as a troll all you want, but that doesn't make it true.  You can't follow the conversation, that's your problem.

All you have done is make sweeping emotional appeals for extremely punitive legislation with no empiric identification of a problem nor its solution. You're the stereotype of the gun-grabber people talk about with derision.


Strawman.  Next.

What's the problem? How do you propose to stop it?

Step 1 is for you and the other people obstructing the process and the discussion to stop doing so.  What part of that wasn't clear?

After that, the details will depend on how the lawyers and lawmakers work it out.  Or do you have an emotional fear that they're coming to take your guns from you if you don't sabotage every discussion of how to stop these weapons from ending up pointed at innocent children?

You mean sit back with our mouths closed while you discuss ineffective and contradictory ways to restrict our rights? No thanks. Maybe when you're remedies sound remotely informed they won't be pilloried for what they are.

How do you know what my remedies are?  See, this is why I don't play "proof/plan" game you farkers resort to.  Because they'll be dismiss ...


You're almost adorable, shrilly man.
 
2012-12-21 01:03:26 PM

900RR: he 2nd amendment wasn't written to protect your right to go deer or duck hunting. It was written to affirm your ability to own the meanest military small arms of the time to protect your liberties from tyrants. Period. End of story. Back then it was a smooth-bore musket. Now it's an M-16. This "sporting use" nonsense was created by gun grabbers to justify the divide and conquer method of gun control, finally leading to complete prohibition (which the true goal of all of them, regardless of what they may or may not say publicly).


I don't think they included hunting just because it was just the way people lived. Saying that you couldn't hunt with a gun then, would be about the same as saying you can't use a car to go to the grocery store today. I think self defense pretty much falls into this category as well and both are covered under the whole concept of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
 
2012-12-21 01:04:04 PM
Guns always protect you. Just ask Nancy Lanza.
 
2012-12-21 01:04:31 PM

Satanic_Hamster: I thought the killer at Sandy Hook only used two pistols (but had the rifle with him).


This.

By "used" I guess they mean, "sat in the car without being used".

/or something.
//stupid fear mongering press
 
2012-12-21 01:04:43 PM

ronaprhys: please: lordjupiter: please: lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....

Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.

So drunk driving is OK with you?

Look at her.

Again, right out the MADD playbook. "Unless you support 0% BAC drunk driving is OK with you." As well as the cheap appeal to emotion. If that's your approach, you've literally got nothin'.

If you ignore the troll, they actually go away. Maybe the die, maybe the disappear. No one actually knows. However, it doesn't matter. Just ignore them.



Yes, ignore what makes you uncomfortable.  Like reality.
 
2012-12-21 01:04:57 PM
Do all you cowards realize that an assault rifle will kill you just as fast as a hunting rifle? Just because a gun looks scary doesn't make it more deadly.

images2.wikia.nocookie.netwww.badstockart.com
 
2012-12-21 01:05:31 PM

Gosling: Personally, part of the legislation I'd push for would include a limit on how many guns a specific person can own. There's no reason I can see why someone needs to have dozens and dozens of guns in the house. And a lot of these shootings involve the shooter amassing half an arsenal.


I hope you're trolling...but if not, why don't we limit the number of video game consoles someone can own? How many hours they can play FPS games?

Or using the same logic, we can limit how many cars people can own to combat Global Warming....I mean I can see no reason why some needs to have dozens of cars or motorcycles....And alot of global warming involve polluters amassing half a car lot (ala Jay Leno).
 
2012-12-21 01:05:36 PM

FightDirector: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?

[i1.wp.com image 850x209]

That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.


The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:

[blogs.suntimes.com image 850x250]

They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.


what's frustrating about folks like yourself, is demeaning the counter argument as: 'sorry you are afraid of scary looking guns"

that is pretty farking stupid

if folks like yourself could grasp the concept that (and i'll use the big letters) LIMITING THE CAPACITY OF SEMI AUTO RIFLES TO 10 OR LESS MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

it really is that simple

/i do appreciate the argument that the 'genie is already out of the bottle' and any ban would result only in law abiding people doing without, since there is so much in the market place and has been for decades.
 
2012-12-21 01:05:48 PM

FightDirector: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: "Assault weapon" is a poor term with no established definition that is intentionally utilized to confuse civilian sporting rifles with military weapons.

"Civilian sporting rifle", when used to describe an AR-15, is one of the most ham-fisted attempts at political correctness I've ever seen.

How about this? Is this a legitimate civilian sporting rifle?



That firearm is a Mini-14, a rifle that can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger.


The scary man's firearm is an AR-15. It can accept a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, or 30 rounds (or larger; Betamags can hold approx 100 rounds but have horrific jam rates). It fires a bullet approximately .223 inches wide, at a velocity of about 2800 feet per second. It can fire one - and ONLY one - round each time you pull the trigger. It is covered in black plastic, which makes it lighter and theoretically more impact-resistant. These facts are scary, yes? It looks like this:



They are, functionally, the SAME FARKING GUN. They shoot the same bullet, from magazines of the same size, at the same velocity. But one looks dammed scary, while one looks a lot like a hunting rifle you see on the wall.

There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban - while being intellectually honest - that will make a difference (because you can get a gun that does the same thing - or more - in a different cosmetic package) or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns. And while the latter may be a desirable goal to some minds, there is simply no actual, practical way to make it happen, without setting the military loose on the civilian population in a house-to-house and turning our country into another Afghanistan-style military quagmire.


"Intellectual Honesty" is not a concept with which they (the gun-ban crowd) are familiar... But then, you knew that.
 
2012-12-21 01:06:17 PM

Gosling: 2 grams: but hell, let's not have the stop us!

No. Let's not. How many people have said now that it's not about stopping every single gun homicide but rather about making sure there are fewer of them. The 'that won't work, that won't work, that won't work, nothing will work except more guns' line of attack isn't going to work this time. SOMETHING is going to get done. The only question is what.


What is your actual suggestion? Please make sure to detail it out. Also, make sure it doesn't violate the 2A or any other portion of the Constitution, that it's effective (i.e., that it'll provide a measurable and significant reduction in the homicide rate), and show clear proof that it'll work.
 
2012-12-21 01:06:21 PM
"I'm not the troll, you are!" and this thread meets it's logical conclusion.

I'm off to ar15.com to clean up on selling all the AK mags I've stockpiled (I'm into M1As now). Have fun!
 
2012-12-21 01:06:31 PM

RussianPooper: It's funny when gun nuts act like knowing things about guns suffices for intelligence.



It's funny when gun grabbers can't get their facts right, but still act like their ignorance on the subject doesn't matter.
 
2012-12-21 01:06:53 PM

CujoQuarrel: please: There was a time when I could buy a B.A.R. from the Sears catalog - literally one of the most powerful single-man weapons of WW2. Fully automatic, but they called it The Monitor since it was for civilians (no bipod). Why weren't schools getting shot up then?

And a Thompson from the local hardware store.

Fun fact
Just after WWI (may have been right before but in that time frame) it was easier to get a Thompson than a Colt 45 Automatic pistol since the pistol was used by the military

Thompson had a hilarious ad showing a cowboy with the SMG fighting off rustlers at the ranch.

Link


True. It was a federal offense to own a Colt stamped U.S. Property, and there were far more military than commercial models out there in the teens and '20s. The government didn't make Thompsons a military weapon until the 1940s, except for a few 1928 models used by the Marines.
 
2012-12-21 01:07:50 PM

ronaprhys: mbillips: Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?


Thanks!!!

If it's select-fire, it's an assault rifle because

a: The shooter can select between semiautomatic and fully automatic or automatic burst fire.
b: It has a detachable magazine of 20 rounds or more.
c: It fires a smaller round with less recoil than a traditional infantry or battle rifle, such as the 5.56 NATO or 7.62X39 Russian.
d: Its barrel is in line, or close to in line, with the center of recoil at the buttplate, reducing muzzle climb
e: In order to accommodate this straight buttstock in line with the barrel, it uses a pistol grip and an elevated sight plane.

If it's not select-fire, it's an "assault weapon" because of all the above, minus full- or burst-auto capability.

There are also "assault weapons" that are pistols that resemble submachine guns, with cosmetic features like ventilated barrel shrouds and magazines in front of the pistol grip. This is pretty much a bullshiat definition, in that a Tec-9 is no more deadly than a Glock 17 with a 30-round clip (less so, because it's less accurate and more likely to jam or break). But the semiauto version of an AR-15 IS functionally different from a .30-06 Remington Model 750 in terms of nutjob spree potential, although both are semi-auto rifles.

I disagree - no full auto or burst, not an assault rifle.


Read what I wrote. "Assault weapon" is used to describe a semi-auto version of an assault rifle.
 
2012-12-21 01:08:23 PM

please: lordjupiter: please: lordjupiter: mizchief: lordjupiter: The Southern Dandy: lordjupiter: [i.imgur.com image 633x728]

or photoshopped jpegs.


True.  But the answer is not more of the same derp in the jpeg.

If your tired of the catch phrases, show solid stats to prove them wrong.


Why?  So you and your pals can just ignore them?  This isn't my first rodeo, Tex.

That girl is staring at you....

Right out of the M.A.D.D. playbook.

So drunk driving is OK with you?

Look at her.

Again, right out the MADD playbook. "Unless you support 0% BAC drunk driving is OK with you." As well as the cheap appeal to emotion. If that's your approach, you've literally got nothin'.



Strawman and ducking the question.  Well done.

What's with the objection to emotion?  Are you arrogant enough to think that you really only make decisions in life based on pure logic.  You're not Spock.  You just don't like OTHER peoples' emotions that conflict with your own.

And this is not just about emotional blathering, either.  This is about taking a reasoned approach without letting the bumper sticker slogan people shot down alternative with the "too soon, knee jerk" talk.  And that's exactly what you assclowns resort to when cornered, every time.  All it took was a picture of one of the victims to strike the nerve and put you on the defensive because DEEP DOWN YOU KNOW YOU'RE WRONG.

In case you hadn't noticed, I've been giving you farkers exactly what you bring to the table in these discussions.  If you dislike it, you dislike your own arguments and tactics.
 
2012-12-21 01:08:41 PM

Mr.BobDobalita: Can anyone please tell me if this is an "assault rifle"?

[www.comentakeit.com image 827x456]
If so, what about it makes it an "assault rifle"?


Thanks!!!


Absolutely it is an assault rifle....it is scary looking. Just one glance at something so dangerous would cause Barney Frank to break out in menstrual cramps.
 
2012-12-21 01:09:27 PM

please: Insatiable Jesus: Jesus, STFU with this "It's not an assault rifle" crap.

Pepsi ain't a coke either, but that's how cola got branded. Kleenex. Band-Aid. Those words are used to refer to non-Kleenex and non-Band-Aid products.

Sorry that the entire world chooses this term for your precious toy, but get over it. You sound like a child who gets mad because somebody confused the names of two Pokemons.

It's being used in a legal definitions of what can or cannot be owned or sold in the future. Sorry if people want some specificity around the rights they are going to lose.



Well, my suggestion would be that you stop playing the semantic games. I don't think the public much cares right now. They certainly won't care at all after the next one.
 
Displayed 50 of 667 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report