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  
•       •       •

13576 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 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 02:22:16 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 02:29:27 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 02:35:57 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?
 
2012-12-21 02:37:53 PM  

mizchief: hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns

Would depend on your house. My parents have a really long hall way (about 20 yards) the leads from the front and back doors to where the bed rooms are. Best way to defend against an intruder would be to post up behind a door frame where you have a stack of 2'x4's that could help stop bullets the intruder fires back, and then take him out at range, vs. getting up close and personal where the bad guy is most likely carrying a pistol and has a better chance of hitting you.


You are the reason that people think of gun owners as nutty. Your masturbation fantasy is pretty specific. What color socks is the bad guy wearing? What does he look like when you shoot him? Please tell.
 
2012-12-21 02:38:15 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]



Somebody needs to teach that girl about trigger discipline. Of course, nobody would give a gun to an untraind child, right?
 
2012-12-21 02:39:09 PM  

The Southern Dandy: 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.


Are you under the impression that Amendments, or portions of the Constitution, cannot be changed or repealed?

Are you under the impression that all of you gun nutz are somehow a well regulated militia?
 
2012-12-21 02:39:39 PM  

FightDirector: Not legal for civilian use, though, as it postdates the 1986 registration cutoff. So for practical purposes when putting it into this discussion, it doesn't really "exist".

(Also, if we're being pedantic, it's not really a "Mini-14" in the same way an AR-15 isn't really an M16 or M4. There's performance differences, and they matter.)


Actually, you are incorrect: They are plenty of AC-556's in the NFA registry. Even a cursory knowledge of them could have told you this was possible: They were most famously used in the TV show "The A-Team" which premiered in 1983, a full 3 years before the 1986 Hughes Amendment cut-off.

You, Sir, are a fail on that one.
 
2012-12-21 02:41:02 PM  

Rich Cream: 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.


I do not think that anybody was the right to wear shoes.

Here is an idea, go talk to a friend who has actually flown on a commercial airliner in the last few years. Have them explain to you how the process works with taking off your shoes.
 
2012-12-21 02:42:04 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.


OK. Go ahead. Get it repealed. I'll wait.

Until such time as you can manage that, though, it's still US law, and it must be obeyed.
 
2012-12-21 02:42:37 PM  
God, this is getting annoying now.

How about this - we keep the "accepted" definition of assault rifle the way it is now. Barrel less than 16"? Fires more than one shot with every pull of the trigger? Assault rifle. Registered as such, and either restricted heavily or outright outlawed to everyone but LEOs and military.

Now, about the other bits - collapsible stocks, foregrips, so on and so forth. A lot of that stuff (A LOT OF IT) is aftermarket. Even when the actual manufacturers introduce new AR-15 variants (and that's exactly what they do, because innovation there is damn near dead), they use stuff from people like Magpul. Legislative-wise, I don't know what can be done. The best solution I can come up with is to make it like a car, perhaps in line with the proposed ideas about licensing firearms like cars. By that I mean this - you yank the cat off of a car, you don't necessarily make it illegal to drive the car. You just can't do so on public roads. Perhaps make it so that some of these accessories are only legal on guns that are used in target competitions only. Outside of that, the only other way I know of is to actually pressure those companies to voluntarily restrict sales of those accessories to the general public, either through jacking up the price or simply just not sending them out to every Tom, Dick and Harry gun store.

Of course, getting that last sentence to work would probably require changing the culture - something I've advocated repeatedly. The NRA needs a workover, obviously. The gun manufacturers also need to look in the mirror. Even the media needs to reconsider things, even though I think their role is comparatively miniscule. One of the things I'm hoping for is that, after this weekend or perhaps even the turn of the year, this doomsday/survival/prepper bullshiat flames right the hell out. That stuff alone is probably responsible for increased proliferation more than anything else in recent years.
 
2012-12-21 02:43:01 PM  

chuckufarlie: Are you under the impression that Amendments, or portions of the Constitution, cannot be changed or repealed?


Nope, but until such time as they are repealed, they are the law, and must be obeyed.
 
2012-12-21 02:43:02 PM  

Molavian: 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!


You are a perfect example of why paranoid people live in constant fear. You are way too stupid to understand the point so you just make asinine statements that prove how stupid you are.
 
2012-12-21 02:43:12 PM  

chuckufarlie: The Southern Dandy: 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.

Are you under the impression that Amendments, or portions of the Constitution, cannot be changed or repealed?

Are you under the impression that all of you gun nutz are somehow a well regulated militia?


I'm under the impression knowledge that it takes 2/3 of the congress and two thirds of the states to repeal an amendment, and if you think that you could get anything over 1/5 of the congress, or 1/10 of the states to vote to repeal ANY amendment in the Bill of Rights, you're living in a fantasy world.
 
2012-12-21 02:43:19 PM  

chuckufarlie: Rich Cream: 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.

I do not think that anybody was the right to wear shoes.

Here is an idea, go talk to a friend who has actually flown on a commercial airliner in the last few years. Have them explain to you how the process works with taking off your shoes.


Do you think that making people take off their shoes has actually enhanced security?
 
2012-12-21 02:43:58 PM  

The Southern Dandy: I'm under the impression knowledge that it takes 2/3 of the congress and two thirds of the states to repeal an amendment, and if you think that you could get anything over 1/5 of the congress, or 1/10 of the states to vote to repeal ANY amendment in the Bill of Rights, you're living in a fantasy world.


Come back and see us 3 or 4 massacres from now.
 
2012-12-21 02:44:03 PM  

dittybopper: 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.

OK. Go ahead. Get it repealed. I'll wait.

Until such time as you can manage that, though, it's still US law, and it must be obeyed.


I never said that it should not be, moron.
 
2012-12-21 02:45:05 PM  

GanjSmokr: chuckufarlie: Rich Cream: 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.

I do not think that anybody was the right to wear shoes.

Here is an idea, go talk to a friend who has actually flown on a commercial airliner in the last few years. Have them explain to you how the process works with taking off your shoes.

Do you think that making people take off their shoes has actually enhanced security?


again, another idiot who completely missed the point. Why is it that so many idiots are also gun nuts?
 
2012-12-21 02:45:10 PM  

Outlander Engine: 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?


CT stands for Conneticut. CT has tough gun laws. The laws being proposed (reference checks, licensing, trigger locks, background checks,ban on gun shows. etc) were all in effect in CT.

I disagree with you on the reloading (unless it's Barney Fife trying to put bullets into a revolver) Snapping in a new clip and drawing the bolt is not a significant factor. Where do you come up with the statement that during reloading is when many of these shooters are shot?

I agree that a long rifle is generally more accurate than a hand gun, but a spree killer isn't really taking the time to aim down the sites, is he? Someone shooting widly can do just as much damage with a hand gun than with a rifle. And in close quarters, the hand gun would nave an advantage.
 
2012-12-21 02:45:51 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: The Southern Dandy: I'm under the impression knowledge that it takes 2/3 of the congress and two thirds of the states to repeal an amendment, and if you think that you could get anything over 1/5 of the congress, or 1/10 of the states to vote to repeal ANY amendment in the Bill of Rights, you're living in a fantasy world.

Come back and see us 3 or 4 massacres from now.


Bet!

What do you wager?
 
2012-12-21 02:46:00 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.


I'll bet all da money it cannot be repealed. You don't have the votes you think you do.
 
2012-12-21 02:46:52 PM  

mizchief: Artisan Sandwich: mizchief: hobnail: Question for the gun enthusiasts here. TFA mentions that the AR-15 is popular for home defense. Why is this?

Personally I'd rather have a lightweight 20 gauge-- more chance of hitting the target, and less likely to penetrate my neighbors' houses.

Just wondering.


/not a nut, either pro- or anti- guns

Would depend on your house. My parents have a really long hall way (about 20 yards) the leads from the front and back doors to where the bed rooms are. Best way to defend against an intruder would be to post up behind a door frame where you have a stack of 2'x4's that could help stop bullets the intruder fires back, and then take him out at range, vs. getting up close and personal where the bad guy is most likely carrying a pistol and has a better chance of hitting you.

You are the reason that people think of gun owners as nutty. Your masturbation fantasy is pretty specific. What color socks is the bad guy wearing? What does he look like when you shoot him? Please tell.

Someone asked for an example of how an AR-15 would be good for home defense so I gave one. Simple as that. It's not my fault if it gave you a chubby.


You could stop that paranoid vision of yours with a bolt action single shot rifle. You do not need to have thirty rounds screaming down the hall all at once.
 
2012-12-21 02:47:25 PM  
Americans will never, ever, ever, never-ever, never, NEVER, ever, NEVER, NEVER EVER

repeal ANY of the Bill of Rights.


EVER!
 
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