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  
•       •       •

13567 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 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!
 
2012-12-21 02:16:29 PM  

please: XM855 will ABSOLUTELY go through ANYTHING, and then keep going,....


As I said before, people that don't know what they are talking about shouldn't comment as if they do...
 
2012-12-21 02:17:19 PM  

mbillips: 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.


I disagree. I think it is a practical solution.

Start with:
Ban all long-gun semi-auto's.
Ban anything with more than a 10 round capacity.

Then start a conversation about revolvers and semi-auto handguns.

Don't do a confiscation, just pass a ban on making, selling or buying these things. You'd need to hammer out some details about inheritance. Maybe make a new class of licensing for them for folks who want them. Ask for at least two references. Something like New Zealand's laws.

Then sit back and let time do it's work. I'm not entirely worried about the guy who has 5 or 6 of these things stockpiled for his own personal use. He's probably not the fellow I'm worried about.
 
2012-12-21 02:17:22 PM  

GanjSmokr: 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!!!!!


no, just rifles that use magazines or clips. Then we can limit the size of the magazine in a pistol and then slow them down.
 
2012-12-21 02:17:54 PM  

chuckufarlie:
The reason that soldiers carry weapons ...


Ok, if you're just going to sink to the realm of personal insults, then you've already lost.
 
2012-12-21 02:18:29 PM  

Outlander Engine: mbillips: 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.

I disagree. I think it is a practical solution.

Start with:
Ban all long-gun semi-auto's.
Ban anything with more than a 10 round capacity.

Then start a conversation about revolvers and semi-auto handguns.

Don't do a confiscation, just pass a ban on making, selling or buying these things. You'd need to hammer out some details about inheritance. Maybe make a new class of licensing for them for folks who want them. Ask for at least two references. Something like New Zealand's laws.

Then sit back and let time do it's work. I'm not entirely worried about the guy who has 5 or 6 of these things stockpiled for his own personal use. He's probably not the fellow I'm worried about.


Why are you not worried about this fellow. That is the perfect description of the mother of the kid who shot up the school last week.
 
2012-12-21 02:19:45 PM  

Southern100: chuckufarlie:
The reason that soldiers carry weapons ...

Ok, if you're just going to sink to the realm of personal insults, then you've already lost.


Insults? You are obviously paranoid. Your comparison of real soldiers and you is really stupid, or crazy. Or both.

It was not an insult. It was an observation.
 
2012-12-21 02:20:02 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!!!


See your answers below in bold.

Merriam-Webster definition of "assault rifle"

"any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use"

NRA Glossary (6th and 7th down from the top)

ASSAULT RIFLE

By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

ASSAULT WEAPON
Any weapon used in an assault (see WEAPON).

WEAPON
Webster defines it as "an instrument of offensive or defensive combat." Thus an automobile, baseball bat, bottle, chair, firearm, fist, pen knife or shovel is a "weapon," if so used.


Wikipedia

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.

Last one...

Did I miss anything?
 
2012-12-21 02:20:06 PM  

Southern100: 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!


Yes. I want to ban Gin and red cars. It's not a catch all, but if it saves JUST ONE LIFE its worth it. After all, A CHILD IS DEAD . What are you going to do about it? Ban Red cars and Gin! Ban them!
 
2012-12-21 02:21:45 PM  

Southern100: 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!


Alcohol, except for what YOU cook up out in the woods, is already much more strictly controlled than guns are. That fight is being carried on by some very good people. However, if they need my help, I will give it.
 
2012-12-21 02:22:15 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.


This is the problem. You can't legislate based on every crime committed. You can't stop every violent act from occurring. Laws don't prevent crime, they only give you a way to punish the people after the fact. If you want stop violent acts you have two choices 1) use TSA style lock downs to make it impossible for one person to hurt another 2) allow citizens to protect themselves and those around them.

Option 1 doesn't work and creates a world no one wants to live in, option 2 only works if the citizens have the ability to muster more force than criminal.

The laws we have are the outcome of over a hundred years of debate and compromise, and can use a little tweaking, but most of what has been proposed in the wake of this rare event are either ineffectual (limiting magazine size, number guns owned), or unimplementable (total ban and confiscation)

To say we haven't done "NOT ONE DAMNED THING" is just an useless emotional response that does nothing to keep kids safe.

You can not deny that if there had been someone trained and armed with a weapon at that school, the shooter would have been stopped,
 
2012-12-21 02:22:16 PM  
To the anti-gun crowd: You are using a tragedy to further your own personal agenda, and it is shameful.
 
2012-12-21 02:23:18 PM  

Southern100: 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!


Alcohol is enjoyed by millions and has uses other than killing somebody in a DUI crash.

These assault rifles are built for one reason: to extract money from the insecure, the very segment of the population who doesn't need them. As evidenced every month in the news.
 
2012-12-21 02:23:29 PM  

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


Taking off our shoes is stupid too.


and yet we all do it every time we want to use a commercial airliner.
 
2012-12-21 02:24:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: GanjSmokr: 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!!!!!

no, just rifles that use magazines or clips. Then we can limit the size of the magazine in a pistol and then slow them down.


Are you daft? Virtually every rifle I've ever seen has a magazine. The exception is the over/under .22/.410 I used to hunt rabbits/pheasants with.
 
2012-12-21 02:24:51 PM  

2 grams: Southern100: 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!

Yes. I want to ban Gin and red cars. It's not a catch all, but if it saves JUST ONE LIFE its worth it. After all, A CHILD IS DEAD . What are you going to do about it? Ban Red cars and Gin! Ban them!


I'm behind you on the red car ban. I'll be repainting mine to be "crimson" so it won't be banned. I am, however, against your ban on Gin (or any of the clear liquors) - please ban all types of Canadian blended whiskey instead.  This should give your the same results as banning Gin.
 
2012-12-21 02:26:01 PM  

Outlander Engine:
I disagree. I think it is a practical solution.

Start with:
Ban all long-gun semi-auto's.
Ban anything with more than a 10 round capacity.

Then start a conversation about revolvers and semi-auto handguns.

Don't do a confiscation, just pass a ban on making, selling or buying these things. You'd need to hammer out some details about inheritance. Maybe make a new class of licensing for them for folks who want them. Ask for at least two references. Something like New Zealand's laws.

Then sit back and let time do it's work. I'm not entirely worried about the guy who has 5 or 6 of these things stockpiled for his own personal use. He's probably not the fellow I'm worried about.


1) It's not clear if the Newtown Shooter actually used the Bushmaster in the killings. He also had 2 side arms with him. The side arms are just as deadly as the rifle. Funny, a few years ago the anit gun crowd was screaming about hand guns, and were all for long rifles.

2) Magazine capacity is negliable. It litiarly takes 3 seconds to change an empty magazine. I don't care for large capacity mags either, but I realize they are not the problem.

As far as licensing and 2 references: CT already has that requirement. So much for that. eh?
 
2012-12-21 02:26:07 PM  

chuckufarlie: I disagree. I think it is a practical solution.

Start with:
Ban all long-gun semi-auto's.
Ban anything with more than a 10 round capacity.

Then start a conversation about revolvers and semi-auto handguns.

Don't do a confiscation, just pass a ban on making, selling or buying these things. You'd need to hammer out some details about inheritance. Maybe make a new class of licensing for them for folks who want them. Ask for at least two references. Something like New Zealand's laws.

Then sit back and let time do it's work. I'm not entirely worried about the guy who has 5 or 6 of these things stockpiled for his own personal use. He's probably not the fellow I'm worried about.

Why are you not worried about this fellow. That is the perfect description of the mother of the kid who shot up the school last week.


Because for one, with a law like that in effect his mother wouldn't have bought that rifle because it wouldn't have been readily available.

And two, because statistically he's an outlier. The perfect storm of a trained, crazy person, whose mother provided him with arms and ammunition.
 
2012-12-21 02:26:28 PM  

Cast: To the anti-gun crowd: You are using a tragedy to further your own personal agenda, and it is shameful.


Tragedies like this is exactly why we have an agenda. The time to act is when people's attention is focused.

If all of you gun nutz want to go out in the woods and shoot each other, I have no problem.

When you refuse to budge an inch when children are being killed, I have a problem.

Do you have children? How would you feel if your children were in that school last Friday?
 
2012-12-21 02:27:22 PM  

chuckufarlie: Alcohol, except for what YOU cook up out in the woods, is already much more strictly controlled than guns are.


I bought two bottles of whisky this morning and didn't even need to show an ID.

OUTRAGE!
 
2012-12-21 02:27:54 PM  

hobnail: Are you daft? Virtually every rifle I've ever seen has a magazine. The exception is the over/under .22/.410 I used to hunt rabbits/pheasants with.


he's a troll. just stop responding to him. It'll be interesting to see how much more shrill he gets in his nonsense before he gets bored.

Same with Insatiable Jesus.
 
2012-12-21 02:28:19 PM  

Cast: To the anti-gun crowd: You are using a tragedy to further your own personal agenda, and it is shameful.


You're using it to shame other people. You're history's greatest monster.
 
2012-12-21 02:28:27 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: 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.


Go ask someone in the special forces what the would do in the case of a door-to-door gun ban. You know the guys who specialize in arming and training opposition forces to oppressive governments.

People don't join the military and risk their lives for the meager paycheck, they do it either because they love guns, or love the country and the values it represents.
 
2012-12-21 02:29:27 PM  
I'm scrolling rapidly through this thread and it seems there are some people who are not up on the "facts" of this case.

-His mother had a "lock box" (as was reported) for the guns, presumably a gun safe
-Whether they were in the safe at all times is not known
-He shot his mother using a .22 Marlin rifle
-He shot all the kids using the AR-15
-He shot himself using one of the pistols
 
2012-12-21 02:30:49 PM  

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


Thank you, 2nd amendment.
 
2012-12-21 02:31:04 PM  

Outlander Engine: chuckufarlie: I disagree. I think it is a practical solution.

Start with:
Ban all long-gun semi-auto's.
Ban anything with more than a 10 round capacity.

Then start a conversation about revolvers and semi-auto handguns.

Don't do a confiscation, just pass a ban on making, selling or buying these things. You'd need to hammer out some details about inheritance. Maybe make a new class of licensing for them for folks who want them. Ask for at least two references. Something like New Zealand's laws.

Then sit back and let time do it's work. I'm not entirely worried about the guy who has 5 or 6 of these things stockpiled for his own personal use. He's probably not the fellow I'm worried about.

Why are you not worried about this fellow. That is the perfect description of the mother of the kid who shot up the school last week.

Because for one, with a law like that in effect his mother wouldn't have bought that rifle because it wouldn't have been readily available.

And two, because statistically he's an outlier. The perfect storm of a trained, crazy person, whose mother provided him with arms and ammunition.


His mother already owned the gun and you are against confiscation. Your law would not take guns out of the hands of people like her with children like hers.

You gun nutz are great at applying labels. You call him an outlier and that allows you to dismiss him, The simple fact is that you said that you are not concerned about the very type of person who killed all of those people. Do you not see that allowing people to keep these guns really does not change the threat? There are already lots and lots of crazy people who own weapons that kill lots of people in a hurry. Banning the manufacture of new guns does nothing to lessen that.
 
2012-12-21 02:31:07 PM  

2 grams: Outlander Engine:
I disagree. I think it is a practical solution.

Start with:
Ban all long-gun semi-auto's.
Ban anything with more than a 10 round capacity.

Then start a conversation about revolvers and semi-auto handguns.

Don't do a confiscation, just pass a ban on making, selling or buying these things. You'd need to hammer out some details about inheritance. Maybe make a new class of licensing for them for folks who want them. Ask for at least two references. Something like New Zealand's laws.

Then sit back and let time do it's work. I'm not entirely worried about the guy who has 5 or 6 of these things stockpiled for his own personal use. He's probably not the fellow I'm worried about.

1) It's not clear if the Newtown Shooter actually used the Bushmaster in the killings. He also had 2 side arms with him. The side arms are just as deadly as the rifle. Funny, a few years ago the anit gun crowd was screaming about hand guns, and were all for long rifles.

2) Magazine capacity is negliable. It litiarly takes 3 seconds to change an empty magazine. I don't care for large capacity mags either, but I realize they are not the problem.

As far as licensing and 2 references: CT already has that requirement. So much for that. eh?



The side arms are not really just as deadly, since they force you to pause to reload. Time is of the essence in a spree shooting. That reloading pause is where these shooters have been interrupted in the past. They are also not as accurate against a fleeing target.

And two, What is CT in your vernacular? Have any of these spree killers have one?
 
2012-12-21 02:32:15 PM  

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

Thank you, 2nd amendment.


the 2nd Amendment is totally out of date. It can and should be repealed. Don't act like it cannot be repealed.
 
2012-12-21 02:32:39 PM  

jigger: I'm scrolling rapidly through this thread and it seems there are some people who are not up on the "facts" of this case.

-His mother had a "lock box" (as was reported) for the guns, presumably a gun safe
-Whether they were in the safe at all times is not known
-He shot his mother using a .22 Marlin rifle
-He shot all the kids using the AR-15
-He shot himself using one of the pistols


When did they find out he exclusively used the rifle to kill the children? As of yesterday I read it still was being investigated. Do you have a link?
 
2012-12-21 02:33:51 PM  

chuckufarlie: Cast: To the anti-gun crowd: You are using a tragedy to further your own personal agenda, and it is shameful.

Tragedies like this is exactly why we have an agenda. The time to act is when people's attention is focused.

If all of you gun nutz want to go out in the woods and shoot each other, I have no problem.

When you refuse to budge an inch when children are being killed, I have a problem.

Do you have children? How would you feel if your children were in that school last Friday?


Frankly? I'd want to put a bullet in the guys head, if he hadn't already done so himself.

But I'm sure you would say "Oh, he's just sick, let's put him in an institution so he can get better, and allow him to reflect on what he's done." Make sure you use the whiney voice when you say it, it sounds so much better that way.
 
2012-12-21 02:35:00 PM  

mizchief: Insatiable Jesus: 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.

Go ask someone in the special forces what the would do in the case of a door-to-door gun ban. You know the guys who specialize in arming and training opposition forces to oppressive governments.

People don't join the military and risk their lives for the meager paycheck, they do it either because they love guns, or love the country and the values it represents.


You are aware, I hope, that the majority of people in the military do not use guns as part of their job.

There is nothing oppressive in banning certain types of weapons. It would be oppressive to assign the TSA to our schools just so you can exercise a right that you shouldn't have and would not have
 
2012-12-21 02:35:08 PM  

Cast: To the anti-gun crowd: You are using a tragedy to further your own personal agenda, and it is shameful.


Yea, and it has really hurt their own cause. The number of weapons sold and background checks for permits has soared since then. This always happens, people who support gun ownership but didn't want to spend the time, money etc. are rushing out to buy them before its' too late.
 
2012-12-21 02:35:57 PM  

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


Taking off our shoes is stupid too.

and yet we all do it every time we want to use a commercial airliner.



Apparently I do not have the right to wear shoes.
 
2012-12-21 02:37:19 PM  

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

Thank you, 2nd amendment.

the 2nd Amendment is totally out of date. It can and should be repealed. Don't act like it cannot be repealed.


LOL! It's time for you to come back to reality.
 
2012-12-21 02:37:27 PM  

Southern100: chuckufarlie: Cast: To the anti-gun crowd: You are using a tragedy to further your own personal agenda, and it is shameful.

Tragedies like this is exactly why we have an agenda. The time to act is when people's attention is focused.

If all of you gun nutz want to go out in the woods and shoot each other, I have no problem.

When you refuse to budge an inch when children are being killed, I have a problem.

Do you have children? How would you feel if your children were in that school last Friday?

Frankly? I'd want to put a bullet in the guys head, if he hadn't already done so himself.

But I'm sure you would say "Oh, he's just sick, let's put him in an institution so he can get better, and allow him to reflect on what he's done." Make sure you use the whiney voice when you say it, it sounds so much better that way.


You make some pretty stupid assumptions, scooter.
Let me make the question clearly because obviously you missed it. I did not ask you what you would do or want to do to the person with the gun. What I want to know is this - if your children were the victims of a shooting like the one last week, would you maintain your feelings about gun control?
 
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