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  
•       •       •

13570 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 03:11:28 PM  

mizchief: chuckufarlie: 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.

It's not a paranoid vision, its a hypothetical situation. I have no idea what types of attacks I might face, and I surly can't imagine every scenario others may face in their own homes or places of business and neither can you. I didn't say I needed a 30rd clip for that, but don't think a bolt action rifle would be very versatile in any situation other than a single shot.


It is paranoia. You have an unreasonable fear that somebody is going to try to kill you. That is the very definition of paranoia. You can try to call it a hypothetical situation, but that is not even close to being accurate. It is paranoia, plain and simple. You live in constant fear for your live. You tell us not to worry about school children getting killed but you are worried about being killed yourself. That is cowardly.

I have lived in a city that is considered very dangerous, and it is. I lived in Detroit. I never carried a gun. I was never afraid. I was cautious but I was not a coward like you are. I went where I wanted to go, when I wanted to go there. I was not afraid.

And yet, I survived without a scratch. I did not live in fear.

I feel sorry for you. A little bit of you dies every day. Do you know who Hemingway was? Among other things, he said" "The coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one". I am not brave but you are certainly dying a thousand deaths.
 
2012-12-21 03:14:38 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: And if you tell me would be able to punish them AFTER the crime, you need to get biatch slapped.. That sort of thinking does nothing to help the victims.

One could say that about *ALL* crimes.

Yet we aren't willing to repeal the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. As far as we know, she did everything she could to control access to them, and she lived in a state with the some of the most stringent gun laws, and Connecticut even has a law that allows the police to take your guns from you without any kind of a court order if they think you might be a danger to somebody or yourself.

Think about that one: The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to guns in Connecticut.

So I really fail to see what, short of an out-right ban *AND* confiscation, which is facially unconstitutional, what law would have made a difference here.

You tell *US* what would have worked.


It is not unconstitutional to ban all rifles that use magazines or clips. Nor is it unconstitutional to confiscate that sort of weapon.

And banning that type of weapon and confiscating the one on the streets is exactly what would work. You cannot kill people with guns that you do not have.
 
2012-12-21 03:15:32 PM  

ronaprhys: At this point, I think goal should be to see how shrill we can get his protests and cries for attention.


Oh boy, this could be *EPIC* if we play it right.
 
2012-12-21 03:16:11 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: 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.

First, this is Fark. It is spelled "moran" here. Get with the program.

Secondly, you are under the mistaken impression that the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment modifies the operative clause:

chuckufarlie 2012-12-21 02:39:09 PM
...
Are you under the impression that all of you gun nutz are somehow a well regulated militia?

As a matter of settled US law, we don't have to be in an organized militia. And in fact, that's been settled law since at *LEAST* 1939.


There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?
 
2012-12-21 03:16:37 PM  

dittybopper: ronaprhys: At this point, I think goal should be to see how shrill we can get his protests and cries for attention.

Oh boy, this could be *EPIC* if we play it right.


It could, but I don't think I'm skilled enough to get him truly going. I don't have Czar-like skills. Hell, if we could get Pocket Ninja here and on the case, it'd be great.
 
2012-12-21 03:17:07 PM  

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

Calm down son. You're frothing.

There are NOT "lots and lots of crazy people" owning guns. Unless your definition of crazy is anyone who disagrees with you.

I don't dismiss the threat of insane people like Adam Lanza. I thought you asked me why I my proposed law would cover him, and I told you. Under such a law, he wouldn't have had ready access to that rifle. Pass that ban, and only dedicated folks with the money will have those weapons. And those aren't really the folks we are worried about.

Also, he is an outlier. It is an appropriate label.

Ready access of these weapons by crazy people is what we should be discussing, and that is what banning semi-auto long guns would do.


But hey, you go ahead agitating for your confiscation. Ignore the reality of why it worked in Australia, but would never work here. I won't get up in arms over it. I just think it will fail. Like the dug war. Like prohibition...

Paranoia is a symptom of mental illness, People who live in constant fear that somebody is going to try to kill them are paranoid. That would make lots of gun owners crazy.

Banning weapons without confiscating them does not take them out of the hands of crazy people, as last week demonstrates.

There was nothing in your proposed law that would have taken the gun away from him. Maybe you should go find out the details of his case and then get back to us.

Dedicate people with money? Do you mean like his mother? She had lots of money. She had the money and the dedication to get that rifle.

You want to regulate "ready access". How do you do that? Are you going to go into people's homes to insure that they are following the law? Any law that attempts to regulate "ready access" is really worthless. You are just hoping that people will follow the law with no way to know if they are and no way to punish them.

And if you tell me would be able to p ...


Ahh ... no.
Never argue with a fool. Folks can't tell the difference.

Good luck with that sparky. I'd work on your reading comprehension if I were you.
 
2012-12-21 03:17:24 PM  

chuckufarlie: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: And if you tell me would be able to punish them AFTER the crime, you need to get biatch slapped.. That sort of thinking does nothing to help the victims.

One could say that about *ALL* crimes.

Yet we aren't willing to repeal the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. As far as we know, she did everything she could to control access to them, and she lived in a state with the some of the most stringent gun laws, and Connecticut even has a law that allows the police to take your guns from you without any kind of a court order if they think you might be a danger to somebody or yourself.

Think about that one: The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to guns in Connecticut.

So I really fail to see what, short of an out-right ban *AND* confiscation, which is facially unconstitutional, what law would have made a difference here.

You tell *US* what would have worked.

It is not unconstitutional to ban all rifles that use magazines or clips. Nor is it unconstitutional to confiscate that sort of weapon.

And banning that type of weapon and confiscating the one on the streets is exactly what would work. You cannot kill people with guns that you do not have.


Yes it is - that's the decision that Heller gave us. Do you even understand the words that you're using?
 
2012-12-21 03:18:42 PM  

Outlander Engine: 2 grams: 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.

It looks like you are quoting CT state law for concealed carry. Although I can't find anything about references there either. Anyway, This would be an intermediate license similar to ones issued under the NFA. It would be for owning semi-auto long arms with large capacity clips. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Also, I didn't say "many". ...


These people are NOT bringing pistols to a rifle fight. What they are doing is bringing rifles to SCHOOLS.

Do you see a difference?
 
2012-12-21 03:20:28 PM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: And if you tell me would be able to punish them AFTER the crime, you need to get biatch slapped.. That sort of thinking does nothing to help the victims.

One could say that about *ALL* crimes.

Yet we aren't willing to repeal the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. As far as we know, she did everything she could to control access to them, and she lived in a state with the some of the most stringent gun laws, and Connecticut even has a law that allows the police to take your guns from you without any kind of a court order if they think you might be a danger to somebody or yourself.

Think about that one: The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to guns in Connecticut.

So I really fail to see what, short of an out-right ban *AND* confiscation, which is facially unconstitutional, what law would have made a difference here.

You tell *US* what would have worked.

It is not unconstitutional to ban all rifles that use magazines or clips. Nor is it unconstitutional to confiscate that sort of weapon.

And banning that type of weapon and confiscating the one on the streets is exactly what would work. You cannot kill people with guns that you do not have.

Yes it is - that's the decision that Heller gave us. Do you even understand the words that you're using?


How many times do I have to point out to you idiots that a decision by any court can be reversed? Do you not understand that simple FACT? Seriously, if you are really that stupid, you are too stupid to be allowed to own guns.
 
2012-12-21 03:21:21 PM  

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

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

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

[i1.wp.com image 850x209]

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


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

[blogs.suntimes.com image 850x250]

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

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


There are functional differences in the 'cosmetic package'. Lighter and shorter make the 'bad gun' easier to conceal and use in close quarters. So, no those are not just 'cosmetic changes'. Yes, you can make a 'good gun' into a 'bad gun', but there is no need to sell 'bad guns' ready to use for combat situations. You can buy gasoline, but you can't buy premade gasoline bombs designed to blow shiat up.
 
2012-12-21 03:23:30 PM  

chuckufarlie: It is not unconstitutional to ban all rifles that use magazines or clips. Nor is it unconstitutional to confiscate that sort of weapon.


Actually, yes it would be, because that would ban *ALL* rifles except single shot ones. I think you meant to say "all rifles that use removable magazines", but even that would fail:

The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster.

Replace "handgun" with "rifle with removable magazine" and you see it would fail, as they are immensely popular.

And banning that type of weapon and confiscating the one on the streets is exactly what would work. You cannot kill people with guns that you do not have.


We'll just make more: Guns are a 600 year old technology that for most of their history have been made with tools and materials inferior to what you can find at your local Lowes or Home Depot.
 
2012-12-21 03:23:53 PM  

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

Calm down son. You're frothing.

There are NOT "lots and lots of crazy people" owning guns. Unless your definition of crazy is anyone who disagrees with you.

I don't dismiss the threat of insane people like Adam Lanza. I thought you asked me why I my proposed law would cover him, and I told you. Under such a law, he wouldn't have had ready access to that rifle. Pass that ban, and only dedicated folks with the money will have those weapons. And those aren't really the folks we are worried about.

Also, he is an outlier. It is an appropriate label.

Ready access of these weapons by crazy people is what we should be discussing, and that is what banning semi-auto long guns would do.


But hey, you go ahead agitating for your confiscation. Ignore the reality of why it worked in Australia, but would never work here. I won't get up in arms over it. I just think it will fail. Like the dug war. Like prohibition...

Paranoia is a symptom of mental illness, People who live in constant fear that somebody is going to try to kill them are paranoid. That would make lots of gun owners crazy.

Banning weapons without confiscating them does not take them out of the hands of crazy people, as last week demonstrates.

There was nothing in your proposed law that would have taken the gun away from him. Maybe you should go find out the details of his case and then get back to us.

Dedicate people with money? Do you mean like his mother? She had lots of money. She had the money and the dedication to get that rifle.

You want to regulate "ready access". How do you do that? Are you going to go into people's homes to insure that they are following the law? Any law that attempts to regulate "ready access" is really worthless. You are just hoping that people will follow the law with no way to know if they are and no way to punish them.

And if you tell me woul ...


You want to settle for a law that has no bite. What is the point? Why would you waste your time trying pass a law that does nothing to actually address the problem?

Why would you demean a person who is believes that we need a law that does solve the problem?

What you are proposing is akin to masturbation - it makes you feel good but it is not productive.
 
2012-12-21 03:24:55 PM  

chuckufarlie: How many times do I have to point out to you idiots that a decision by any court can be reversed? Do you not understand that simple FACT? Seriously, if you are really that stupid, you are too stupid to be allowed to own guns.


Well, maybe you just don't understand the law and how it works. I think it's because you're too busy yelling and frothing at the mouth. Seriously - have you taken your meds lately? Honestly, you fail at understanding our legal system, anything that approaches science or statistics, and basically you've brought nothing to the debate.

Hint: Heller reversed the exact sort of laws you're calling for. That means it's been clearly determined that they're unconstitutional. Now, in order get around that you're going to have to actual work to prove your case.

Which you are singularly incapable of doing. Because you are a failure.
 
2012-12-21 03:26:24 PM  

chuckufarlie: You want to settle for a law that has no bite. What is the point? Why would you waste your time trying pass a law that does nothing to actually address the problem?

Why would you demean a person who is believes that we need a law that does solve the problem?

What you are proposing is akin to masturbation - it makes you feel good but it is not productive.


So you're saying your basically impotent if your masturbation doesn't produce anything? That explains this entire thread, actually.
 
2012-12-21 03:26:54 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: It is not unconstitutional to ban all rifles that use magazines or clips. Nor is it unconstitutional to confiscate that sort of weapon.

Actually, yes it would be, because that would ban *ALL* rifles except single shot ones. I think you meant to say "all rifles that use removable magazines", but even that would fail:

The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster.

Replace "handgun" with "rifle with removable magazine" and you see it would fail, as they are immensely popular.

And banning that type of weapon and confiscating the one on the streets is exactly what would work. You cannot kill people with guns that you do not have.

We'll just make more: Guns are a 600 year old technology that for most of their history have been made with tools and materials inferior to what you can find at your local Lowes or Home Depot.


That statement just proves once again just how stupid you are. For most of that time, guns were simple muzzle loaders. You are not smart enough to manufacture a modern automatic weapon. And if anybody is smart enough, they would be breaking the law. I thought that gun nutz are all law abiding citizens.
 
2012-12-21 03:28:42 PM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: You want to settle for a law that has no bite. What is the point? Why would you waste your time trying pass a law that does nothing to actually address the problem?

Why would you demean a person who is believes that we need a law that does solve the problem?

What you are proposing is akin to masturbation - it makes you feel good but it is not productive.

So you're saying your basically impotent if your masturbation doesn't produce anything? That explains this entire thread, actually.


Add masturbation to that long list of things that you do not understand. And I never said that it would mean that you are impotent. Maybe you should just add anything to do with sex to that list of things that you do not understand.
 
2012-12-21 03:28:54 PM  

chuckufarlie: That statement just proves once again just how stupid you are. For most of that time, guns were simple muzzle loaders. You are not smart enough to manufacture a modern automatic weapon. And if anybody is smart enough, they would be breaking the law. I thought that gun nutz are all law abiding citizens.


Did you just advocate thought-crime? You did, didn't you.

You are so damned cute. Here's a video that explains every fallacy you've brought up.
 
2012-12-21 03:29:21 PM  

chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?


Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?
 
2012-12-21 03:30:08 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: 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?


No, they just get to used untrained children for target practice.
 
2012-12-21 03:30:11 PM  

chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: You want to settle for a law that has no bite. What is the point? Why would you waste your time trying pass a law that does nothing to actually address the problem?

Why would you demean a person who is believes that we need a law that does solve the problem?

What you are proposing is akin to masturbation - it makes you feel good but it is not productive.

So you're saying your basically impotent if your masturbation doesn't produce anything? That explains this entire thread, actually.

Add masturbation to that long list of things that you do not understand. And I never said that it would mean that you are impotent. Maybe you should just add anything to do with sex to that list of things that you do not understand.


You are just so cute when you try to argue. Have you ever actually lost an argument with an eggplant? The lack of basic understanding that you display for, well, anything is amazing. Machining is easy.

Enjoy your totalitarian regime.
 
2012-12-21 03:30:22 PM  
Making guns illegal does not save lives. If it did, Chicago would be safe. If your objective is to save lives, consider something effective and meaningful.
 
2012-12-21 03:31:31 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?


Free speech? Not if he disagrees with you. The First Amendment is completely outdated and needs repealed, according to him.
 
2012-12-21 03:31:40 PM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: How many times do I have to point out to you idiots that a decision by any court can be reversed? Do you not understand that simple FACT? Seriously, if you are really that stupid, you are too stupid to be allowed to own guns.

Well, maybe you just don't understand the law and how it works. I think it's because you're too busy yelling and frothing at the mouth. Seriously - have you taken your meds lately? Honestly, you fail at understanding our legal system, anything that approaches science or statistics, and basically you've brought nothing to the debate.

Hint: Heller reversed the exact sort of laws you're calling for. That means it's been clearly determined that they're unconstitutional. Now, in order get around that you're going to have to actual work to prove your case.

Which you are singularly incapable of doing. Because you are a failure.


Something that is CONSIDERED Constitutional one day is often not CONSIDERED to be Constitutional a week later. The make up of the SCOTUS changes over time. That means that what is or is not Constitutional also changes.

You really have no idea how this country functions, do you??
 
2012-12-21 03:32:47 PM  

Bull Moose 76: Making guns illegal does not save lives. If it did, Chicago would be safe. If your objective is to save lives, consider something effective and meaningful.


Making guns illegal in Chicago means that people go outside of Chicago to get a gun. If the guns are confiscated and no longer produced that option is not available.
 
2012-12-21 03:34:23 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?


You and your gun nutz think that abortion is still on the table. Why is gun control any different.

And no, slavery is not still on the table. You can put that dream away.
 
2012-12-21 03:34:47 PM  

chuckufarlie: Something that is CONSIDERED Constitutional one day is often not CONSIDERED to be Constitutional a week later. The make up of the SCOTUS changes over time. That means that what is or is not Constitutional also changes.

You really have no idea how this country functions, do you??


Well, that's demonstrably false (the constant changing of what is and isn't Constitutional). Did you fail history class, too? I mean, along with failing Civics and American Government? Please, by all means keep this up. It's an amusing trail of discovery here. Who would've thought that someone who could actually get onto the internets could be so uneducated.
 
2012-12-21 03:35:25 PM  
Start investment fund that buys up all the ammo and ships it overseas.
 
2012-12-21 03:35:32 PM  

ronaprhys: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

Free speech? Not if he disagrees with you. The First Amendment is completely outdated and needs repealed, according to him.


I never said anything about the 1st Amendment. Apparently you are just extremely stupid. People like you should remain quiet.
 
2012-12-21 03:35:48 PM  

chuckufarlie: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

You and your gun nutz think that abortion is still on the table. Why is gun control any different.

And no, slavery is not still on the table. You can put that dream away.


So there is such a thing as settled law? Are you contradicting yourself this quickly?

How does such cognitive dissonance not make your head asplode?
 
2012-12-21 03:36:34 PM  

chuckufarlie: Bull Moose 76: Making guns illegal does not save lives. If it did, Chicago would be safe. If your objective is to save lives, consider something effective and meaningful.

Making guns illegal in Chicago means that people go outside of Chicago to get a gun. If the guns are confiscated and no longer produced that option is not available.


Except for the 300 million guns currently in the US today. The constitution declares that the citizenry has the right to own those. Govt can't take them.

Confiscation is not a rational option, any more than shutting down AP because the govt does not like what is they are saying.
 
2012-12-21 03:36:38 PM  

chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

Free speech? Not if he disagrees with you. The First Amendment is completely outdated and needs repealed, according to him.

I never said anything about the 1st Amendment. Apparently you are just extremely stupid. People like you should remain quiet.


The 1A says I don't have to. NEENER NEENER YOU HAVE A TINY PEENER!!!
 
2012-12-21 03:37:51 PM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: Something that is CONSIDERED Constitutional one day is often not CONSIDERED to be Constitutional a week later. The make up of the SCOTUS changes over time. That means that what is or is not Constitutional also changes.

You really have no idea how this country functions, do you??

Well, that's demonstrably false (the constant changing of what is and isn't Constitutional). Did you fail history class, too? I mean, along with failing Civics and American Government? Please, by all means keep this up. It's an amusing trail of discovery here. Who would've thought that someone who could actually get onto the internets could be so uneducated.


Ever hear of prohibition? What about the people fighting against abortion? Prohibition was considered Constitutional and then it wasn't. Abortion is Constitutional and yet people are still fighting against it.
 
2012-12-21 03:38:41 PM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

Free speech? Not if he disagrees with you. The First Amendment is completely outdated and needs repealed, according to him.

I never said anything about the 1st Amendment. Apparently you are just extremely stupid. People like you should remain quiet.

The 1A says I don't have to. NEENER NEENER YOU HAVE A TINY PEENER!!!


thank you for proving that you really are as stupid as I thought.
 
2012-12-21 03:39:48 PM  
I Godwin'ed this thread like 2 hrs ago, and it has gotten even worse since then.

Trolls are trolling Trolls to precipitate more Trolling.
 
2012-12-21 03:39:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: You and your gun nutz think that abortion is still on the table


You DO know gun rights are a whole 'nother thing compared abortion, right?

Besides, a good chunk of the pro-gun people are the libertarian types who support peoples' rights to both.
 
2012-12-21 03:40:25 PM  

chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: Something that is CONSIDERED Constitutional one day is often not CONSIDERED to be Constitutional a week later. The make up of the SCOTUS changes over time. That means that what is or is not Constitutional also changes.

You really have no idea how this country functions, do you??

Well, that's demonstrably false (the constant changing of what is and isn't Constitutional). Did you fail history class, too? I mean, along with failing Civics and American Government? Please, by all means keep this up. It's an amusing trail of discovery here. Who would've thought that someone who could actually get onto the internets could be so uneducated.

Ever hear of prohibition? What about the people fighting against abortion? Prohibition was considered Constitutional and then it wasn't. Abortion is Constitutional and yet people are still fighting against it.


Ahhh - young grasshopper, you fail at life again. Those matters have been settled. Prohibition will not be coming back. Dead issue. Repealed. Failed. Abortion is a failed rallying point. Not going away.

Same with the Heller and the Second Amendment. Simply put, it's settled. You'd think you'd be smart enough to figure that out.
 
2012-12-21 03:41:01 PM  

Bull Moose 76: chuckufarlie: Bull Moose 76: Making guns illegal does not save lives. If it did, Chicago would be safe. If your objective is to save lives, consider something effective and meaningful.

Making guns illegal in Chicago means that people go outside of Chicago to get a gun. If the guns are confiscated and no longer produced that option is not available.

Except for the 300 million guns currently in the US today. The constitution declares that the citizenry has the right to own those. Govt can't take them.

Confiscation is not a rational option, any more than shutting down AP because the govt does not like what is they are saying.


No, the Constitution says nothing about the type of guns that people can own. In fact, if it had made that distinction, you would own nothing but muzzle loaders.

It is rational. It is the only thing that will actually solve the problem.

I realize that you do not believe that there is a problem. You think that shooting school children is just part of what makes America free.
 
2012-12-21 03:41:56 PM  

chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: There is no such thing as settled law in the USA. When are you going to get that through your thick head?

Oh, so slavery is still on the table? That's what you are saying, right?

Free speech? Not if he disagrees with you. The First Amendment is completely outdated and needs repealed, according to him.

I never said anything about the 1st Amendment. Apparently you are just extremely stupid. People like you should remain quiet.

The 1A says I don't have to. NEENER NEENER YOU HAVE A TINY PEENER!!!

thank you for proving that you really are as stupid as I thought.


Hey - go back to the MADD-like rationalizations you were using earlier. Those were much better than what you're doing now. Seriously.
 
2012-12-21 03:42:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: Bull Moose 76: chuckufarlie: Bull Moose 76: Making guns illegal does not save lives. If it did, Chicago would be safe. If your objective is to save lives, consider something effective and meaningful.

Making guns illegal in Chicago means that people go outside of Chicago to get a gun. If the guns are confiscated and no longer produced that option is not available.

Except for the 300 million guns currently in the US today. The constitution declares that the citizenry has the right to own those. Govt can't take them.

Confiscation is not a rational option, any more than shutting down AP because the govt does not like what is they are saying.

No, the Constitution says nothing about the type of guns that people can own. In fact, if it had made that distinction, you would own nothing but muzzle loaders.

It is rational. It is the only thing that will actually solve the problem.

I realize that you do not believe that there is a problem. You think that shooting school children is just part of what makes America free.


Lies, lies, and more lies!!! YAY!!!

I love it. Bravo - keep it up! Needs a bit more frothing, though. Not angry enough. Not enough appeal to emotion.
 
2012-12-21 03:43:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: That statement just proves once again just how stupid you are. For most of that time, guns were simple muzzle loaders. You are not smart enough to manufacture a modern automatic weapon. And if anybody is smart enough, they would be breaking the law. I thought that gun nutz are all law abiding citizens.


HAH!

A submachine gun is no more complicated than a muzzleloader.

Oh, and I'm familiar with muzzleloaders, having been born with a flintlock in my hand:

img144.imageshack.us

In fact, my father has built both muzzleloaders and modern guns, so I can attest that they really aren't that much different from a complexity or difficulty standpoint.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that even if it meant we were stuck with something like cap and ball revolvers, or even a brace of single shot pistols, that would still place those who have guns in a much better position than those who don't.

Really, you could still have mass shootings. Criminally Insane Fred buys several cap and ball revolvers (which are legal even in the United Kingdom, which bans modern handguns), loads them all up beforehand, and does a "Texas Reload", dropping the empty gun for a loaded one.

Or, he just buys extra cylinders for his Remington-style revolver, and preloads them, and swaps them out like you would a magazine.

You just really don't have a clue, do you?
 
2012-12-21 03:44:27 PM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: Something that is CONSIDERED Constitutional one day is often not CONSIDERED to be Constitutional a week later. The make up of the SCOTUS changes over time. That means that what is or is not Constitutional also changes.

You really have no idea how this country functions, do you??

Well, that's demonstrably false (the constant changing of what is and isn't Constitutional). Did you fail history class, too? I mean, along with failing Civics and American Government? Please, by all means keep this up. It's an amusing trail of discovery here. Who would've thought that someone who could actually get onto the internets could be so uneducated.

Ever hear of prohibition? What about the people fighting against abortion? Prohibition was considered Constitutional and then it wasn't. Abortion is Constitutional and yet people are still fighting against it.

Ahhh - young grasshopper, you fail at life again. Those matters have been settled. Prohibition will not be coming back. Dead issue. Repealed. Failed. Abortion is a failed rallying point. Not going away.

Same with the Heller and the Second Amendment. Simply put, it's settled. You'd think you'd be smart enough to figure that out.


OMG, you truly are stupid. Of course prohibition is gone. The point is that there was a Amendment that made prohibition the law of the land. Several years later, an Amendment was adopted that repealed prohibition and that initial Amendment.

What is or is not Constitutional is not chiseled in stone. The concept changes with a change in thinking of our society. The simple proof of this is that there is a process in place to change the Constitution.
 
2012-12-21 03:47:18 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: That statement just proves once again just how stupid you are. For most of that time, guns were simple muzzle loaders. You are not smart enough to manufacture a modern automatic weapon. And if anybody is smart enough, they would be breaking the law. I thought that gun nutz are all law abiding citizens.

HAH!

A submachine gun is no more complicated than a muzzleloader.

Oh, and I'm familiar with muzzleloaders, having been born with a flintlock in my hand:

[img144.imageshack.us image 320x240]

In fact, my father has built both muzzleloaders and modern guns, so I can attest that they really aren't that much different from a complexity or difficulty standpoint.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that even if it meant we were stuck with something like cap and ball revolvers, or even a brace of single shot pistols, that would still place those who have guns in a much better position than those who don't.

Really, you could still have mass shootings. Criminally Insane Fred buys several cap and ball revolvers (which are legal even in the United Kingdom, which bans modern handguns), loads them all up beforehand, and does a "Texas Reload", dropping the empty gun for a loaded one.

Or, he just buys extra cylinders for his Remington-style revolver, and preloads them, and swaps them out like you would a magazine.

You just really don't have a clue, do you?



You people really do live in a fantasyland, don't you? No wonder you keep snapping and shooting up public places.
 
2012-12-21 03:47:32 PM  
HEADLINE FAIL SUBBY

YAY ANOTHER GUN NUT THREAD!


can't wait for the Gun Nut Farker to end up in the news...

"FARKERS FAMILY KILLED IN GUN NUT EXTRAVAGANZA: FAIL TAG FOR FARKERS PRO GUN POSTS"
 
2012-12-21 03:47:39 PM  

chuckufarlie: OMG, you truly are stupid. Of course prohibition is gone. The point is that there was a Amendment that made prohibition the law of the land. Several years later, an Amendment was adopted that repealed prohibition and that initial Amendment.

What is or is not Constitutional is not chiseled in stone. The concept changes with a change in thinking of our society. The simple proof of this is that there is a process in place to change the Constitution.


But you said that no matter in US law was settled. However, you've now said that prohibition and slavery are settled. How can nothing be settled but some things are settled. Do you even read what you're typing?

Would you like a course on how easy is it machine metal into a firearm next?
 
2012-12-21 03:49:25 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: You people really do live in a fantasyland, don't you? No wonder you keep snapping and shooting up public places.


Another challenger enters the court!

Please, sir - please educate us such that we can aspire to be as advanced as you are. Please show us the error of our ways such that if we'd just do as you instruct, all rivers would flow with milk and honey.

Teach me, for I am unworthy.
 
2012-12-21 03:49:34 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: HEADLINE FAIL SUBBY

YAY ANOTHER GUN NUT THREAD!

can't wait for the Gun Nut Farker to end up in the news...

"FARKERS FAMILY KILLED IN GUN NUT EXTRAVAGANZA: FAIL TAG FOR FARKERS PRO GUN POSTS"


You sound more deranged than the gun nuts you're making fun of.
 
2012-12-21 03:50:36 PM  

Outlander Engine: I just think it will fail. Like the dug war. Like prohibition.


I think the problem is that, when it comes to gun control, no one has a definition for failure.
Every law is followed by new incidents and the renewed argument that another feature ban is needed.

More violence should be proof that the previous approach failed.
We've got a people problem and arguing about the appearances of things won't fix that.

/Its as if they'd tackle a drunk driving problem by arguing over the size of a cars tires.
/Or maybe its the number of tires, or the fuel mileage, or the loudness of the stereo...
 
2012-12-21 03:51:08 PM  

dittybopper: chuckufarlie: That statement just proves once again just how stupid you are. For most of that time, guns were simple muzzle loaders. You are not smart enough to manufacture a modern automatic weapon. And if anybody is smart enough, they would be breaking the law. I thought that gun nutz are all law abiding citizens.

HAH!

A submachine gun is no more complicated than a muzzleloader.

Oh, and I'm familiar with muzzleloaders, having been born with a flintlock in my hand:

[img144.imageshack.us image 320x240]

In fact, my father has built both muzzleloaders and modern guns, so I can attest that they really aren't that much different from a complexity or difficulty standpoint.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that even if it meant we were stuck with something like cap and ball revolvers, or even a brace of single shot pistols, that would still place those who have guns in a much better position than those who don't.

Really, you could still have mass shootings. Criminally Insane Fred buys several cap and ball revolvers (which are legal even in the United Kingdom, which bans modern handguns), loads them all up beforehand, and does a "Texas Reload", dropping the empty gun for a loaded one.

Or, he just buys extra cylinders for his Remington-style revolver, and preloads them, and swaps them out like you would a magazine.

You just really don't have a clue, do you?


Oh, I have better than a clue. I have something that you will never have, a functioning brain. Of course people could walk around with lots of muzzle loaders or pistols. Using that type of a weapon to shoot down a lot of people would slow the shooter down. It would take just a little bit of time to drop one gun and grab another or to replace the cylinder. In that amount of time, people could get away or somebody could rush the shooter. The shooter might kill five or six people, but not twenty-six.

Is that a perfect solution? No. It is a compromise that allows paranoid cowards the option to arm themselves against that imagined threat and it allows people to go hunting.

And that is the point, by banning and confiscating rifles that use magazines or clips, you can still protect yourself and you can still go hunting. And it makes it a lot harder to kill a lot of people in a short period of time.

Do you have a problem with making it harder to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?
 
2012-12-21 03:51:25 PM  
i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-21 03:51:28 PM  

way south: Outlander Engine: I just think it will fail. Like the dug war. Like prohibition.

I think the problem is that, when it comes to gun control, no one has a definition for failure.
Every law is followed by new incidents and the renewed argument that another feature ban is needed.

More violence should be proof that the previous approach failed.
We've got a people problem and arguing about the appearances of things won't fix that.

/Its as if they'd tackle a drunk driving problem by arguing over the size of a cars tires.
/Or maybe its the number of tires, or the fuel mileage, or the loudness of the stereo...


That problem is easy to fix. Ban parking lots at bars.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report