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  
•       •       •

13558 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 01:12:00 PM

clane: 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.net image 500x326][www.badstockart.com image 337x508]


Which kills 20 people faster?
 
2012-12-21 01:12:24 PM

Insatiable Jesus: 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.


Are you going to come up with an effective, practical, enforceable, and Constitutional suggestion for stopping things like this or are you just going to take random pot shots?
 
2012-12-21 01:13:04 PM

Eponymous: 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.


Why are people pretending that this is the issue? So they can just ignore it rather than address it on a mature level?
 
2012-12-21 01:13:05 PM

amindtat: WinoRhino: Gosling: The fact that the Bushmaster AR-15 was legally purchased by the shooter's mom and that it was the gun used in the shooting isn't evidence enough for you?

Someone steals my car and hits a pedestrian. Ban the Honda Civic.

No, it's covered by the 2nd Amendment. Being in a militia is a Civic duty.


Holy shiat that's funny!
 
2012-12-21 01:13:33 PM

Gosling: mizchief: Limiting the number of guns is the most pointless of the control ideas. You can only shoot one at a time! Don't bother exposing your igonrance and by saying something about duel wielding, RL isn't like COD.

You can only SHOOT one at a time.

You can CARRY more than one at a time. I think we've had shooters with as many as, what, four? And Lanza had his pick of whatever was the most destructive of his mom's supply, and while nobody's been clear on how many guns exactly she had on hand, we can be pretty safe in assuming it's a hell of a lot more than five.


Ok, lets say you can only carry one gun at a time, of course the psycho killer would have just picked one of the guns he stole from his mother whom he just murdered since he is so concerned with the law. Without banning all guns, limiting the number of how many you can own makes no sense.
 
2012-12-21 01:16:26 PM

mbillips:
Read what I wrote. "Assault weapon" is used to describe a semi-auto version of an assault rifle.


Fair point on the distinction, which I missed. However, that doesn't mean I agree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Yes, I realize wiki isn't perfect, but they make a very valid point. There is no clear and consistent definition. As such, I limit the discussion to keeping the same definition as assault rifle. They're too close and can be easily confused - which is what politicians want to do.
 
2012-12-21 01:17:01 PM

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.


Really? He is insincere when the gunfappers insist on their efforts at unteaching a term that the entire world already means. The vast majority of people don't give shiats about whether or not it is select fire.

And your whole scheme of trying to divert attention away by pointing out, over and again, that this technically isn't an assault rifle really doesn't mean shiat as nobody is shooting up schools or malls with full autos. You just make yourselves look like the petulant, insecure little whiners that most gun rights advocates are.
 
2012-12-21 01:17:13 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.


You, personally, have already been shown several times that this statement is completely false yet you still choose to try to make people believe it.

Words have meanings. Those meanings don't change just because you are too stupid or willfully ignorant to understand those meanings.

Keep shouting about how "everyone in the world" agrees with you... reality will continue to prove you wrong.
 
2012-12-21 01:17:47 PM

Sgt.Zim: 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.


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.



That's not true. You could ban all semi-automatic weapons, or make an exception for fixed-magazine semi-autos that chamber 10 or fewer rounds (including most semi-auto deer rifles, a Mauser C96 Broomhandle, plus all revolvers, pumps, bolt-actions, double-barrels, derringers and single-shots). That would probably even withstand Supreme Court muster, in the same way they've upheld the 1937 restrictions on sawed-off shotguns and full-auto guns. This would allow guns to be available for home defense and hunting, but with less firepower.

I'm not saying it's a practicable solution, because of the aforementioned confiscation issue. I'd personally have to turn in the favorite parts of my collection (Nooooooo, not the Luger!). But it would actually fundamentally change the sort of firepower available to deranged nut jobs if it WERE practicable. You'd play hell to kill 26 people with a pump shotgun and a couple revolvers.

If anything actually passes, it'll be a useless sop like the 1994 "assault weapons" "ban," that created the aesthetic idiocy of the thumbhole stock, and protected us all from all from being bayoneted. Even that "ban," if it had been kept in place for long enough, would have had an effect once all the grandfathered 30-round mags and 50-round drums wore out.
 
2012-12-21 01:19:20 PM

Insatiable Jesus: 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.

Really? He is insincere when the gunfappers insist on their efforts at unteaching a term that the entire world already means. The vast majority of people don't give shiats about whether or not it is select fire.

And your whole scheme of trying to divert attention away by pointing out, over and again, that this technically isn't an assault rifle really doesn't mean shiat as nobody is shooting up schools or malls with full autos. You just make yourselves look like the petulant, insecure little whiners that most gun rights advocates are.


Do you seriously not understand that anyone who is considering a restriction or limitation of a Constitutional right should be highly-educated on the subject and actually use proper terminology. Do you also not understand the psychology of using terminology designed to evoke emotional responses in order to drive action?
 
2012-12-21 01:19:51 PM
Ok. Looking at the posts can we agree on the following terms

Assault Rifle
An Assault Rifle is a military weapon that has either a burst mode or a full automatic mode. Currently in the US it is illegal to own one with out special permits and other restrictions

Assault Weapon
An Assault Weapon is a cosmetically enhanced semi-automatic rifle. Semi-Automatic firearms are legal for citizens of the US to own with limited paperwork.
 
2012-12-21 01:21:51 PM
Gun control, my arse!

cdn.ientry.com
blog.objet.com
 
2012-12-21 01:21:57 PM

MagicPlasticTreeFrog: CygnusDarius: Fark it, I'll make my own guns.

[englishrussia.com image 520x390]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

[englishrussia.com image 800x600]

/From link

Jesus christ, I forgot that Chechnya was the real life fallout 3. Cool stuff.


I'm guessing these weapons would be very illegal in the US, since they've been constructed from the ground up, and well-likely not registered.
 
2012-12-21 01:22:36 PM

FightDirector: LasersHurt: FightDirector: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban [...] in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns.

What the fark is this shiat?

There's two points being made there, so the reduction you've made is intellectually dishonest.

The first point:
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)

This is the point being made by the Mini-14 comparison earlier. Everyone's up in arms about "assault weapons". Well, the Mini-14, which is not an assault weapon by even California's standards, does EVERYTHING the AR-15 does. It just looks different. Any wording you can come up with that would ban an AR-15 based on anything but performance would make a pointless law, because it wouldn't affect the Mini.

Which brings us to the second point:
or word one in such a way that will not become a *de facto* ban on ALL guns.

So say we ban guns based on performance. The important parts of performance *tend* to be 1) Rate of Fire, 2) bullet size, 3) magazine capacity.

1) Rate of Fire. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm that fires 1 shot per pull of the trigger (4-5 rounds per second if you don't care about hitting anything, more realistically 2 rounds per second to 1 round per 2 seconds if you do care). EVERY modern firearm in the world matches or exceeds this rate of fire, save for bolt-action firearms; which aren't an option for self-defense purposes, which SCOTUS has already said is a legit and protected reason to own firearms.. A double-action revolver can equal this rate of fire. So if you ban based on RoF, you've essentially enacted a *de facto* ban on all firearms that can be rationally used for self-defense. Not acceptable.

2) Bullet size. Without getting too deeply into technical jargon, the .223 used in the AR-15 is a tiny, TINY bullet. It's not big enou ...


It isn't bullet size, it is ballistic performance, a combination of bullet mass and velocity, that we should use to measure a bullets power and therefore potential danger to human life. I 1" diameter bullet travelling at 1 foot per hour isn't very dangerous but a .223" bullet travelling at 3100 feet per second is.
 
2012-12-21 01:22:53 PM

Gosling: Dimensio: Are you saying that she would not have purchased a functionally equivalent firearm had "Bushmaster" brand rifles been prohibited?

She was a doomsday prepper. She would probably have bought ALL the guns if she had the chance, and all the other weapons up to and including Kung Lao's razor hat.

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 have never read of a shooting that involved dozens of guns. I think the reason is that people only have 2 arms/hands and so carrying "dozens" of guns is somewhat impractical.

Most people collect guns the same reason people collect other items. They're interesting, each is a bit different (different to shoot ect..), each has a unique history.
 
2012-12-21 01:23:41 PM

CujoQuarrel: Ok. Looking at the posts can we agree on the following terms

Assault Rifle
An Assault Rifle is a military weapon that has either a burst mode or a full automatic mode. Currently in the US it is illegal to own one with out special permits and other restrictions

Assault Weapon
An Assault Weapon is a cosmetically enhanced semi-automatic rifle. Semi-Automatic firearms are legal for citizens of the US to own with limited paperwork.


No. I cannot agree to those definitions. Too easy to confuse the two as one would naturally expect the assault weapon and assault rifle terms to be interchangeable.

I would agree that we should use clear definitions such as:

Assault rifle (or assault weapon): A firearm capable of selective fire (safe, single shot, burst/full auto), generally having a detachable magazine.
Semi-automatic rifle: A firearm incapable of selective fire. It may or may not have a detachable magazine, scope, or resemble a military weapon.
 
2012-12-21 01:23:53 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.


Oh, look. It's this whiny biatch again.
 
2012-12-21 01:23:53 PM
Oh, and another way to reduce gun violence in general is legalize pot, and at least think about legalizing coke, as Portugal has.
 
2012-12-21 01:26:50 PM

Insatiable Jesus: 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.

Really? He is insincere when the gunfappers insist on their efforts at unteaching a term that the entire world already means. The vast majority of people don't give shiats about whether or not it is select fire.

And your whole scheme of trying to divert attention away by pointing out, over and again, that this technically isn't an assault rifle really doesn't mean shiat as nobody is shooting up schools or malls with full autos. You just make yourselves look like the petulant, insecure little whiners that most gun rights advocates are.


You've got it backwards, friend.
 
2012-12-21 01:27:33 PM

ronaprhys: Do you also not understand the psychology of using terminology designed to evoke emotional responses in order to drive action?



Yes, I learned that from watching Fox News. Enjoy.

If we applied the proper term to semi-auto assault rifles, they would be called Masculinity Enhancements.
 
2012-12-21 01:29:21 PM
bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-21 01:30:58 PM

Insatiable Jesus: ronaprhys: Do you also not understand the psychology of using terminology designed to evoke emotional responses in order to drive action?


Yes, I learned that from watching Fox News. Enjoy.

If we applied the proper term to semi-auto assault rifles, they would be called Masculinity Enhancements.


And you've now just removed any doubt that you're a troll unwilling to engage in a meaningful discussion.

Like I said earlier, bring back the days of quality trolls - Czar, Bongo, and the like. As infuriating as those twits were, they were at least amusing when you got them wound up.
 
2012-12-21 01:33:44 PM

ronaprhys: CujoQuarrel: Ok. Looking at the posts can we agree on the following terms

Assault Rifle
An Assault Rifle is a military weapon that has either a burst mode or a full automatic mode. Currently in the US it is illegal to own one with out special permits and other restrictions

Assault Weapon
An Assault Weapon is a cosmetically enhanced semi-automatic rifle. Semi-Automatic firearms are legal for citizens of the US to own with limited paperwork.

No. I cannot agree to those definitions. Too easy to confuse the two as one would naturally expect the assault weapon and assault rifle terms to be interchangeable.

I would agree that we should use clear definitions such as:

Assault rifle (or assault weapon): A firearm capable of selective fire (safe, single shot, burst/full auto), generally having a detachable magazine.
Semi-automatic rifle: A firearm incapable of selective fire. It may or may not have a detachable magazine, scope, or resemble a military weapon.



So here it stands, we cannot remove the unsafe guns from the streets because the NRA has started a pissing contest about what is or is not an assault rifle or is it an assault weapon or a boom boom fire stick.


Instead of arguing about what is or is not an assault thingee, just ban all guns that have a magazine or a clip. Then confiscate the ones already out there.

And the pissing contest would be over.
 
2012-12-21 01:34:17 PM

ronaprhys: CujoQuarrel: Ok. Looking at the posts can we agree on the following terms

Assault Rifle
An Assault Rifle is a military weapon that has either a burst mode or a full automatic mode. Currently in the US it is illegal to own one with out special permits and other restrictions

Assault Weapon
An Assault Weapon is a cosmetically enhanced semi-automatic rifle. Semi-Automatic firearms are legal for citizens of the US to own with limited paperwork.

No. I cannot agree to those definitions. Too easy to confuse the two as one would naturally expect the assault weapon and assault rifle terms to be interchangeable.

I would agree that we should use clear definitions such as:

Assault rifle (or assault weapon): A firearm capable of selective fire (safe, single shot, burst/full auto), generally having a detachable magazine.
Semi-automatic rifle: A firearm incapable of selective fire. It may or may not have a detachable magazine, scope, or resemble a military weapon.


ronaprhys: CujoQuarrel: Ok. Looking at the posts can we agree on the following terms

Assault Rifle
An Assault Rifle is a military weapon that has either a burst mode or a full automatic mode. Currently in the US it is illegal to own one with out special permits and other restrictions

Assault Weapon
An Assault Weapon is a cosmetically enhanced semi-automatic rifle. Semi-Automatic firearms are legal for citizens of the US to own with limited paperwork.

No. I cannot agree to those definitions. Too easy to confuse the two as one would naturally expect the assault weapon and assault rifle terms to be interchangeable.

I would agree that we should use clear definitions such as:

Assault rifle (or assault weapon): A firearm capable of selective fire (safe, single shot, burst/full auto), generally having a detachable magazine.
Semi-automatic rifle: A firearm incapable of selective fire. It may or may not have a detachable magazine, scope, or resemble a military weapon.


I was trying to clarify the terms as they were being used in the above arguments.

Personally I think that only the terms 'Assault Rifle' and 'Semi-Automatic Rifle' should be used.

The 'Assault Weapon' term was created to label 'Semi-Automatic Rifles' in such a way that the common public would confuse them with full auto military rifles.
The words 'Assault Weapon' really doesn't mean anything.
 
2012-12-21 01:34:18 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.



So why is this rifle more dangerous than my ruger 10/22?
 
2012-12-21 01:35:35 PM

Insatiable Jesus: 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.

Really? He is insincere when the gunfappers insist on their efforts at unteaching a term that the entire world already means. The vast majority of people don't give shiats about whether or not it is select fire.

And your whole scheme of trying to divert attention away by pointing out, over and again, that this technically isn't an assault rifle really doesn't mean shiat as nobody is shooting up schools or malls with full autos. You just make yourselves look like the petulant, insecure little whiners that most gun rights advocates are.


The rifle I pictured is a .22
 
2012-12-21 01:38:43 PM

chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]


Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.
 
2012-12-21 01:39:47 PM

Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.


Having children molested and groped is "getting somewhere"?
 
2012-12-21 01:41:19 PM

Mr.BobDobalita: Insatiable Jesus: 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.

Really? He is insincere when the gunfappers insist on their efforts at unteaching a term that the entire world already means. The vast majority of people don't give shiats about whether or not it is select fire.

And your whole scheme of trying to divert attention away by pointing out, over and again, that this technically isn't an assault rifle really doesn't mean shiat as nobody is shooting up schools or malls with full autos. You just make yourselves look like the petulant, insecure little whiners that most gun rights advocates are.

The rifle I pictured is a .22


the idea that we should ban guns based upon some made up term and a hazy definition is just what the gun nutz want. They can twist and turn that definition to satisfy their own needs.

Instead of addressing the mechanism that sends the bullets down the barrel, we should address the rate of fire possible with those guns. About two a minute should be enough for anybody.

Anybody that does not want to shoot a lot of people in a hurry.
 
2012-12-21 01:42:50 PM

chuckufarlie:
So here it stands, we cannot remove the unsafe guns from the streets because the NRA has started a pissing contest about what is or is not an assault rifle or is it an assault weapon or a boom boom fire stick.


Instead of arguing about what is or is not an assault thingee, just ban all guns that have a magazine or a clip. Then confiscate the ones already out there.

And the pissing contest would be over.


That is a wonderful strawman and a complete failure. Agreeing to common and easily understood terms is the starting point for any rational debate.

By the way, I think you mean detachable magazine as all firearms that aren't single fire have a magazine, pistols included.
 
2012-12-21 01:42:57 PM

clane: 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.net image 500x326][www.badstockart.com image 337x508]


But which one do mall ninjas and mass shooters always seem to use?

and who are you calling a coward?  I'm willing to disarm my self and rely solely on the abilities of my body to defend myself should the need arise, to further a societal good-even though that decision could one day cost me my life.  You are the one hiding under the bed with a loaded Glock waiting for the boogeyman
 
2012-12-21 01:44:57 PM

chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]


Security Theater != Gun Control.

Besides, they didn't use guns to take over the planes - they used BOX CUTTERS. Ban box cutters!

And it was easy for them to say "Hey, see, we're doing something!". Even if that "something" doesn't do one damn bit of good except cause millions of people an inconvenience. People are STILL getting guns and knives and even SWORDS on planes (you know, those swords that are designed to look like walking canes that you can buy for $20 at any flea market).
 
2012-12-21 01:46:58 PM

Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.


Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.
 
2012-12-21 01:47:01 PM

GanjSmokr: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Having children molested and groped is "getting somewhere"?


It would cause a boom in Home Schooling, that's for sure.
 
2012-12-21 01:49:10 PM

Magorn: clane: 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.net image 500x326][www.badstockart.com image 337x508]

But which one do mall ninjas and mass shooters always seem to use?

and who are you calling a coward?  I'm willing to disarm my self and rely solely on the abilities of my body to defend myself should the need arise, to further a societal good-even though that decision could one day cost me my life.  You are the one hiding under the bed with a loaded Glock waiting for the boogeyman


The question isn't what you posted - the question should properly be, "if we were to infringe upon the rights of the people, how would we go about doing it in a way that meaningfully reduces the homicide rate" and not "let's look at statistical outliers".

By the way, I'm glad that you're willing to subject yourself to that restriction on your abilities. Are you willing to make my wife an easier target for a rapist by your restrictions? Or anyone else who might be at a significant physical disadvantage to the common criminals? Like the elderly? Like women? Children? The fact is that firearms are a way to balance that disparity in force and banning them wholesale does nothing more than bring back the rule of physical power - one that young men are the most likely to win.
 
2012-12-21 01:49:13 PM

chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]


Cause comparing apples and oranges is fun. weeee.
 
2012-12-21 01:49:19 PM
Since gun advocates are so concerned with the definition of assault rifle, we should make it simple. Ban any auto-loading weapon.
 
2012-12-21 01:49:31 PM

chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.


Yeah, because *law abiding citizens* are the problem here.
 
2012-12-21 01:49:55 PM

Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.


I federal officer molesting our kids every day no, a full time local sheriff's deputy or a trained teacher, principal, etc. would work out much better.

If we don't want guns, then at least give them a tazer, or pepper spray or something. I've yet to see a full timeline of events, but would have to think that if any one of the 6 adults killed had a way to incapacitate the shooter we could have saved some lives.
 
2012-12-21 01:50:40 PM

Southern100: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Security Theater != Gun Control.

Besides, they didn't use guns to take over the planes - they used BOX CUTTERS. Ban box cutters!

And it was easy for them to say "Hey, see, we're doing something!". Even if that "something" doesn't do one damn bit of good except cause millions of people an inconvenience. People are STILL getting guns and knives and even SWORDS on planes (you know, those swords that are designed to look like walking canes that you can buy for $20 at any flea market).


But we are doing nothing at all about the people who are killing our children. NOT ONE DAMNED THING. Why? Because a bunch of poorly educated, juvenile people will not turn over their toys.

Now we have morons suggesting that we put the TSA at our schools. You have decided that it is better to live in fear of the people who own the guns than to do something to get the guns off the streets.

Do you really want to live in fear? That is what is being suggested.
 
2012-12-21 01:50:40 PM

chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: Insatiable Jesus: 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.

Really? He is insincere when the gunfappers insist on their efforts at unteaching a term that the entire world already means. The vast majority of people don't give shiats about whether or not it is select fire.

And your whole scheme of trying to divert attention away by pointing out, over and again, that this technically isn't an assault rifle really doesn't mean shiat as nobody is shooting up schools or malls with full autos. You just make yourselves look like the petulant, insecure little whiners that most gun rights advocates are.

The rifle I pictured is a .22

the idea that we should ban guns based upon some made up term and a hazy definition is just what the gun nutz want. They can twist and turn that definition to satisfy their own needs.

Instead of addressing the mechanism that sends the bullets down the barrel, we should address the rate of fire possible with those guns. About two a minute should be enough for anybody.

Anybody that does not want to shoot a lot of people in a hurry.


a .22 is the calibar of choice amongst gangsters for assinations.

As far as rate of fire, semi automatics are very popular in hunting as it allows the hunter to get an additional shot off if the first misses.

I'm not so sure bear hunters would appreciate the 2 shot per minute rule either (then again we could ban bear hunting too).

And lastly, guns are not just for hunting. They exisit to protect myself, ny home and familly and per the Us Constituion be able to support a milita.
 
2012-12-21 01:50:44 PM

chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.


No one is under any obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. There may be penalties and a long and drawn out battle to get that law overturned, but it happens with consistency. See Heller, McDonald, etc.
 
2012-12-21 01:51:53 PM

Southern100: chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.

Yeah, because *law abiding citizens* are the problem here.


No, law abiding citizens have not been the problem here. Maybe you should pay attention.
 
2012-12-21 01:52:31 PM

Gosling: You're not getting out of this one without at least some type of legislation being introduced. .


lol wut? Are you his mom? Did he do something (other than being a gun owner) to deserve punishment? Who is trying to get out of what?

Jeezus farking christ.
 
2012-12-21 01:52:31 PM

GanjSmokr: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Having children molested and groped is "getting somewhere"?


LoL... no, not the children... but you bring up a point... the kids DO need to be searched as well.... if you're after air tight security.
 
2012-12-21 01:53:31 PM

DoctorOfLove: Oh, and another way to reduce gun violence in general is legalize pot, and at least think about legalizing coke, as Portugal has.


The only legitimate schizophrenic I have intimately known actually got crazier on pot. Last I checked there was no definitive study on whether marijauna reduced major mental health problem or exacerbated them. I agree that more pot would slow the normals, but the topic du jour seems more aimed at the crazies.
 
2012-12-21 01:54:56 PM

Ablejack: Since gun advocates are so concerned with the definition of assault rifle, we should make it simple. Ban any auto-loading weapon.


Hear, Hear!
 
2012-12-21 01:56:22 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Ablejack: Since gun advocates are so concerned with the definition of assault rifle, we should make it simple. Ban any auto-loading weapon.

Hear, Hear!



Why? What is your rationale? Are there not law abiding people that defend their own lives? Do you think 1 bullet kills home invaders instantly? Me thinks you watch too many movies.
 
2012-12-21 01:56:23 PM

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.

No one is under any obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. There may be penalties and a long and drawn out battle to get that law overturned, but it happens with consistency. See Heller, McDonald, etc.


The idea that a well regulated militia means that any idiot who wants to can own any gun that he wants is completely wrong. The Constitution says nothing about the type of gun that you can own. The SCOTUS has made that decision and the court changes. So do the rulings coming out of the SCOTUS.

Problem solved, you can still own a gun, just not ones designed to do nothing but kill people. The Constitution has not defied and more of our children will have a chance to grow to be adults.
 
2012-12-21 01:56:49 PM

chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: [bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com image 400x205]

Regulation of guns doesn't work unless you ban them all. Banning them all is an impossibility because there are too many and people have capability to make their own. Regulations don't work unless you have a way to ENFORCE them... LIKE the TSA.

If they had the TSA at all schools, then we would actually be getting somewhere.

Then what? Do we assign them to malls as well? Then maybe we could assign them to cinemas. Maybe churches would be a good idea. Eventually we would end up with the TSA checking on people entering any room or building that can hold more than 30 people.

We can ban all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. We can also make it illegal to own one and have all law abiding citizens turn them in. After all, the members of the NRA are all law abiding citizens, aren't they?

Anybody who makes his own gun would have to register it and if it is illegal, he could not own it.

Or are you telling me that gun owners would disobey the law of the land? That would be cause for the FBI to go visit them.


The Constitution is the law of the land which all military personnel are sworn to protect against enemies foreign and domestic. If you don't like what is in the Constitution the change it, there is a well established procedure for doing so, and we've done it many times.

Using an executive order or some other means to circumvent the constitution would be an act of tyranny that would trigger military action against the tyrant.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report