Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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 644
    More: Interesting, Sandy Hook, assault rifles, Kalashnikov, Palm City, semi-automatic rifle, John Allen Muhammad, Cerberus Capital Management LP, assault weapons ban  
•       •       •

13577 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:07 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-21 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 01:50:40 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 02:00:40 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: 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.


Not all people are killed by one bullet, but it sure as hell slows them down and make them think twice about continuing their actions.

I don't know if you have heard of these things, but it seems that somebody recently invented a pistol that can shoot six shots without the need to reload. They are relatively new, so I understand why you may not have heard of them.
 
2012-12-21 02:02:09 PM  

chuckufarlie: 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.



You are aware that people can own machine guns legally, correct? If they have enough coin anyway... the guns are 10k plus.... the federal tax stamp is only a few hundy.
 
2012-12-21 02:02:58 PM  

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

....

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.


I'm pretty law abiding but I would disobey unless you amended the constitution and removed the 2nd amendment.

You don't have enough FBI. And everyone they would try to 'visit' would be by definition armed.
 
2012-12-21 02:03:28 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Waaaah, get the name of my toys right. Don't want me to snap and start using them. Waaaah


Of for fark's sake...as gun owner I could care less that you have next to zero knowledge of gun nomenclature. In fact, I'd prefer that you keep getting the name of my toys wrong. Correcting you would be like interrupting your opponent in the middle of making a huge mistake.

If for a second, you stopped calling names and took a look at how attempts to ban specific weapons in the past have been worded, you'll see that this left enormous loopholes. "Colt AR-15" was specifically named. Colt still makes the rifle, but it's not called the "AR-15", and there are many, many other manufacturers that make essentially the same rifle under different brand names. The names do matter, because today, there are no specific rifles sold under the name "AR-15", that's just a generic catch-all. If you want them all gone, which clearly you do, maybe figure out how to actually do that in such a way that there aren't gigantic loopholes left behind.
 
2012-12-21 02:03:44 PM  

chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: 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.

Not all people are killed by one bullet, but it sure as hell slows them down and make them think twice about continuing their actions.

I don't know if you have heard of these things, but it seems that somebody recently invented a pistol that can shoot six shots without the need to reload. They are relatively new, so I understand why you may not have heard of them.


I thought you were the one who was pushing the 2 bullets per minute.. maybe I quoted the wrong person....


2 bullets per min means to the person you just shot, they have 30 seconds to off you before you can fire again...
 
2012-12-21 02:03:59 PM  

mizchief: 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.


slow down, scooter. I never said anything about an executive order. I am talking about Congress creating a new gun control law that has some teeth in it. The last one was pointless.

I hope that you are intelligent enough to realize that neither you nor the military can decide on your own what is, or is not, Constitutional.
 
2012-12-21 02:04:53 PM  

chuckufarlie: 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.


I don't live in fear of the people that legally own the guns. I live in fear of the people that want to harm me or my family, or steal my car or personal belongings. Taking away my gun is NOT going to take away that fear, because those people will still be out there.

Do soldiers carry guns because their opponents are coming after them with pillows? Of course not. They carry weapons because people are trying to kill them. And if you don't think that there are people out there who would break into your house and kill you for the $5 in your pocket, think again.

Are you against capital punishment too? Just curious.
 
2012-12-21 02:05:28 PM  
To Teach and Protect!

img.wonkette.com
 
2012-12-21 02:05:44 PM  
You know who else wanted to Ben the citizenry from gun ownership?

/that's right.
//I went there.
///Charlie Chaplin. That's who.
 
2012-12-21 02:06:57 PM  

Bull Moose 76: You know who else wanted to Ben the citizenry from gun ownership?

/that's right.
//I went there.
///Charlie Chaplin. That's who.


BAN!!! Not Ben BAN!
 
2012-12-21 02:07:57 PM  

mizchief: 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.


LOL, keep telling yourself that Sparky. The military isn't going to desert if even if Obama declares a state of emergency and goes door to door for the guns - Govt employees got their retirement set and ain't farking with it, lol. And it's not like there is any well regulated militia around to take on that military, just fanboys and wannabes who hoard scary looking assault rifles.
 
2012-12-21 02:08:48 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: 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.

Not all people are killed by one bullet, but it sure as hell slows them down and make them think twice about continuing their actions.

I don't know if you have heard of these things, but it seems that somebody recently invented a pistol that can shoot six shots without the need to reload. They are relatively new, so I understand why you may not have heard of them.

I thought you were the one who was pushing the 2 bullets per minute.. maybe I quoted the wrong person....


2 bullets per min means to the person you just shot, they have 30 seconds to off you before you can fire again...


What happened that turned you into a whimpering coward? Why do you live in constant fear for your life while at the same time, you do not give a rat's ass about the lives of school children? It takes a real man to hide behind a bunch of children because you think somebody is out to kill you.
 
2012-12-21 02:08:50 PM  

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



Taking off our shoes is stupid too.
 
2012-12-21 02:12:09 PM  

chuckufarlie: Mr.BobDobalita: 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.

Not all people are killed by one bullet, but it sure as hell slows them down and make them think twice about continuing their actions.

I don't know if you have heard of these things, but it seems that somebody recently invented a pistol that can shoot six shots without the need to reload. They are relatively new, so I understand why you may not have heard of them.


And those would technically be "auto-loading" as each pull of the trigger loads a new round under the hammer. BAN THEM!!!!!
 
2012-12-21 02:16:10 PM  

Southern100: chuckufarlie: 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.

I don't live in fear of the people that legally own the guns. I live in fear of the people that want to harm me or my family, or steal my car or personal belongings. Taking away my gun is NOT going to take away that fear, because those people will still be out there.

Do soldiers carry guns because their opponents are coming after them with pillows? Of course not. They carry weapons because people are trying to kill them. And if you don't think that there are people out there who would break into your house and kill you for the $5 in your pocket, think again.

Are you against capital punishment too? Just curious.


Whether you live in fear of people who legally own guns or not, you are living in fear. You are paranoid. Paranoia is a mental health issue. Maybe you should consult a mental health professional to assist with your problem.

And you should also turn in all of your guns.

The reason that soldiers carry weapons or what kind of weapons that they carry has nothing to do with you and your guns.

How you make a correlation between gun control and capital punishment is interesting. It may be an indicator of an additional form of mental illness. Or maybe you are just really, really stupid.

OR both.
 
2012-12-21 02:16:13 PM  

chuckufarlie: What happened that turned you into a whimpering coward? Why do you live in constant fear for your life while at the same time, you do not give a rat's ass about the lives of school children? It takes a real man to hide behind a bunch of children because you think somebody is out to kill you.


As I said earlier in this thread, hundreds of school children are killed every year by drunk drivers. Are you going equally fight for a nationwide ban on all alcohol products?

If not, why not? IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!
 
Displayed 50 of 644 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report