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.

(NPR)   Assault rifles are crucial for defending gun companies against dwindling profits   (npr.org) divider line 895
    More: Obvious, NRA, assault rifles, account of profits, National Shooting Sports Foundation, spree killers, gun culture, shooting sports, gun owners  
•       •       •

3775 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Dec 2012 at 1:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



895 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 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-21 10:16:51 AM
The main argument I see against "Assault Weapons" bans is that "it's cosmetic," etc. "Oh my god, Pistol Grip? That means my grandmother would be illegal lololololol"

Look, either these are important features of the gun, OR you don't need them because they don't do anything. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say "it LOOKS like military weaponry, but none of that does anything and is all for show."
 
2012-12-21 10:27:31 AM
I don't agree with banning assault rifles because I don't think it's going to make anyone safer and I would hate for the gun nuts to be right about Obama but anyone who feels they need an assault rifle or anything other than a handgun for home defense or a rifle for hunting is farking pathetic. But it shouldn't be illegal.
 
2012-12-21 10:37:35 AM
Why is it illegal to own a rocket launcher?  Why is it illegal for most people to own fully automatic machine guns?  The reason is they can do a huge amount of damage in a small amount of time; in short, they're too dangerous to be in general use.

The same argument applies to semi-automatic military grade weapons.  Any weapon which can make an assailant invulnerable to anyone but a SWAT team is too dangerous, period.  There's absolutely no reason that the general population needs to have access to large numbers of military weapons, wether they're grenade launchers, or rocket launchers, or any other military-grade guns and rifles.
 
2012-12-21 10:42:36 AM

czei: Why is it illegal to own a rocket launcher?  Why is it illegal for most people to own fully automatic machine guns?  The reason is they can do a huge amount of damage in a small amount of time; in short, they're too dangerous to be in general use.

The same argument applies to semi-automatic military grade weapons.  Any weapon which can make an assailant invulnerable to anyone but a SWAT team is too dangerous, period.  There's absolutely no reason that the general population needs to have access to large numbers of military weapons, wether they're grenade launchers, or rocket launchers, or any other military-grade guns and rifles.


But here's the rub:  The 2nd amendment isn't very specific.  It says the right to bear arms.  A pocket knife could be classified as an arm, as could a nuclear bomb.  The question is where to draw the line.  When the 2nd amendment was authored, not in their wildest dreams could they conceive of the sorts of weaponry that mankind now produces.  One possible take on it would be to only allow arms that were available at the time it was written.
 
2012-12-21 10:44:14 AM
Scarborough said this morning a Republican leader he's known twenty years said he couldn't comment on gun policy until after the NRA's presser today.

And I can't remember any Republican office holder saying anything but "Now is not the time..."

I guess we'll see if they have anything to say after the NRA.
 
2012-12-21 10:53:05 AM

czei: The same argument applies to semi-automatic military grade weapons.  Any weapon which can make an assailant invulnerable to anyone but a SWAT team is too dangerous, period.  There's absolutely no reason that the general population needs to have access to large numbers of military weapons, wether they're grenade launchers, or rocket launchers, or any other military-grade guns and rifles.


The obvious argument being of course, that the 2nd Amendment was written for the express purpose of making the State accountable to the people. So if the government got out of line, the people have a provision that ensured that they would have the right to bear the arms necessary to fight against their tyranny.

Obviously this made sense when everyone involved were armed with muskets and is a completely farking retarded concept now. But that's what the second amendment was all about and it's a concept that the gun nuts still believe, that if we had to, we could actually fight our own armed forces. Despite the fact that the people who have the most masturbatory fantasies about rising against government tyranny are mostly republicans who were the first to grab their ankles when Bush put the hammer down.

So yeah, if Bill Gates can afford to buy a stealth bomber, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to. And good luck with it.
 
2012-12-21 11:05:40 AM
Lapierre's surprising solution: more guns.
 
2012-12-21 11:07:47 AM
Protestor!
 
2012-12-21 11:07:48 AM

LasersHurt: The main argument I see against "Assault Weapons" bans is that "it's cosmetic," etc. "Oh my god, Pistol Grip? That means my grandmother would be illegal lololololol"

Look, either these are important features of the gun, OR you don't need them because they don't do anything. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say "it LOOKS like military weaponry, but none of that does anything and is all for show."


Can you please start using proper terminology? Or at least know what you're talking about?

Here is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
 
2012-12-21 11:09:52 AM
No surprise but Lapierre is a real piece of sh*t.
 
2012-12-21 11:17:53 AM

duffblue: LasersHurt: The main argument I see against "Assault Weapons" bans is that "it's cosmetic," etc. "Oh my god, Pistol Grip? That means my grandmother would be illegal lololololol"

Look, either these are important features of the gun, OR you don't need them because they don't do anything. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say "it LOOKS like military weaponry, but none of that does anything and is all for show."

Can you please start using proper terminology? Or at least know what you're talking about?

Here is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban


The term "Pistol Grip" is right in TFA you linked to.  Lighten Francis.   I understood his point very clearly.
 
2012-12-21 11:18:45 AM
Just watched the opening minutes of the NRA press conference. Man these people really do operate in an echo chamber.
Take-away from Newtown shooting: gun-free zones are the problem. Solution: more guns at schools.
Seems like a misstep to me. The faithful will eat it up (as always), but I don't think it's going to help win anyone over, at a crucial time when public opinion seems to be swaying against them for the first time in decades.
I guess, at least they decided to have it on a Friday.
 
2012-12-21 11:23:09 AM

tallguywithglasseson: Seems like a misstep to me. The faithful will eat it up (as always), but I don't think it's going to help win anyone over, at a crucial time when public opinion seems to be swaying against them for the first time in decades.


Funny thing the other day. I'm generally in favor of gun rights but I'm not 'out there' crazy and favor reasonable gun control. A coworker is generally pretty anti-gun, but after the shooting she read that some states were considering arming teachers, and said she'd be okay with it if the teachers were trained and responsible. She asked me my opinion and I told her I thought it was reckless and irresponsible, that you can't introduce a gun to a situation without creating some risk, and the relative rareness of school shootings meant the risk would likely outweigh the benefits. That the NRA is supporting that position possibly explains why many gun owners have nothing to do with the NRA.
 
2012-12-21 11:33:15 AM

duffblue: LasersHurt: The main argument I see against "Assault Weapons" bans is that "it's cosmetic," etc. "Oh my god, Pistol Grip? That means my grandmother would be illegal lololololol"

Look, either these are important features of the gun, OR you don't need them because they don't do anything. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say "it LOOKS like military weaponry, but none of that does anything and is all for show."

Can you please start using proper terminology? Or at least know what you're talking about?

Here is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban


I understand what I am talking about fine, but didn't take the time to carefully describe EVERY characteristic that was used in the old legislation. So sue me.

I'm not saying that "assault weapons" is a good term, or that a few simple descriptors are a great way of identifying problems. I am just saying "quit biatching and help make an accurate definition."
 
2012-12-21 11:52:29 AM

tallguywithglasseson: Just watched the opening minutes of the NRA press conference. Man these people really do operate in an echo chamber.
Take-away from Newtown shooting: gun-free zones are the problem. Solution: more guns at schools.
Seems like a misstep to me. The faithful will eat it up (as always), but I don't think it's going to help win anyone over, at a crucial time when public opinion seems to be swaying against them for the first time in decades.
I guess, at least they decided to have it on a Friday.


I swear when he was talking about the next shooter planning his slaughter it sounded like a call to action.

He did call out the press for the misuse of nomenclature but the rest was just awful.
 
2012-12-21 11:53:46 AM

itsdan: Funny thing the other day. I'm generally in favor of gun rights but I'm not 'out there' crazy and favor reasonable gun control. A coworker is generally pretty anti-gun, but after the shooting she read that some states were considering arming teachers, and said she'd be okay with it if the teachers were trained and responsible. She asked me my opinion and I told her I thought it was reckless and irresponsible, that you can't introduce a gun to a situation without creating some risk, and the relative rareness of school shootings meant the risk would likely outweigh the benefits. That the NRA is supporting that position possibly explains why many gun owners have nothing to do with the NRA


My thoughts as well.

Seems like a weird time for them to be throwing red meat to their hardliner base.

Like I said, must be quite the echo chamber there. Maybe they figure since school shootings are a boon for gun sales, the overall public reaction is in their favor.
 
2012-12-21 12:00:24 PM
The NRA is PeTA for Gun Nuts.  I don't see how any sane gun owner can not be in favor of common sense laws.

Oh, wait, it's that "sane" part isn't it?
 
2012-12-21 12:08:44 PM

Ennuipoet: The NRA is PeTA for Gun Nuts.  I don't see how any sane gun owner can not be in favor of common sense laws.

Oh, wait, it's that "sane" part isn't it?


The crux of it is insanity:

1) a gun owner (just by owning a gun) is somehow protecting America
2) the government is the enemy
3) if the Government wanted to arrest you for something, you can prevent them with your guns
4) having a gun makes you more of a man
5) a high school education and technical knowledge of guns makes you a better authority on gun control issues than  let's say someone with 30 years experienced in law enforcement or an academic background in criminal studies

These are not all guns, just the most vocal ones.  These are all paranoid and irrational ideas and I didn't even get into the feelings of sexual inadequacy.
 
2012-12-21 12:28:51 PM
Stolen from FightDirector   2012-12-19

Short answer without too much technical jargon:
An assault weapon is a term without an actual definition. An Assault Rifle is a shoulder-fired rifle in an intermediate caliber (that is, smaller than a large bullet but bigger than a small-caliber round like a .22) that is capable of firing more than 1 bullet per pull of the trigger - most commonly three-round bursts or "fully automatic" fire (that is, hold down the trigger and the gun will fire until it is empty).


The firearm in question 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:

img17.imageshack.us


The image below 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. It usually has wooden furniture, and looks like this:

img11.imageshack.us


They are, functionally, the SAME 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. The AR-15 is classified as an "assault weapon", and the Mini-14 isn't. THAT'S why the term "assault weapon" has no meaning.

As for the solutions? Get rid of big magazines of 11+ rounds? With either firearm, it takes all of 2 seconds to change magazines, and you're "back in business". This is not a solution.

Get rid of bullets the size both guns shoot (0.223 inches) or larger? Welp, that's about the smallest round you can hunt with. It's actually too small to reliably kill deer; more of a round to deal with coyotes and such. Which means to get rid of guns based on bullet size completely destroys the hunting industry. Oh, and the smallest round you want for self-defense is a 0.380-inch (the .380 ACP) round - a less powerful but technically "bigger" round. So if we're going off of bullet size, there's no more reliable self-defense for women, or for people like me who have crippling injuries and are physically incapable of fleeing from an attacker.

Look, what I'm trying to say here is that there is NOT an "easy solution of banning guns", or even specific guns. There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban 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.
 
2012-12-21 12:32:03 PM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-21 12:33:41 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban 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.


That sounds absurd. A rifle that can fire a relatively large amount of rounds as fast as one can pull the trigger in a stabilized format is not similar to a handgun that can fire (admittedly, in some cases as many rounds) without shoulder stabilization or a long barrel at a similar FPS.

It just sort of makes the assumption that we couldn't go "there are worthy exceptions, and other types of guns not affected, described thus:"

Your point seems to be "It's a delicate and nuanced issue... and there is no way we could ever handle a delicate and nuanced issue."
 
2012-12-21 12:34:15 PM

LasersHurt: duffblue: LasersHurt: The main argument I see against "Assault Weapons" bans is that "it's cosmetic," etc. "Oh my god, Pistol Grip? That means my grandmother would be illegal lololololol"

Look, either these are important features of the gun, OR you don't need them because they don't do anything. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say "it LOOKS like military weaponry, but none of that does anything and is all for show."

Can you please start using proper terminology? Or at least know what you're talking about?

Here is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

I understand what I am talking about fine, but didn't take the time to carefully describe EVERY characteristic that was used in the old legislation. So sue me.

I'm not saying that "assault weapons" is a good term, or that a few simple descriptors are a great way of identifying problems. I am just saying "quit biatching and help make an accurate definition."


I think the people who want new gun regulations should be the ones to say which gun features they specifically object to. "They look dangerous" is not a rational basis for legislation. If they were pink and had Hello Kitty logos on them, it wouldn't solve the problem you're trying to address. Frankly, I think the problem could be best helped by giving people better access to mental health care, but that's just my take on the situation.
 
2012-12-21 12:34:39 PM

nekom: When the 2nd amendment was authored, not in their wildest dreams could they conceive of the sorts of weaponry that mankind now produces. One possible take on it would be to only allow arms that were available at the time it was written.



Really?  Should we limit the First Amendment to pens, paper, printing presses, and your own voice?
 
2012-12-21 12:34:40 PM

LasersHurt: Your point seems to be "It's a delicate and nuanced issue... and there is no way we could ever handle a delicate and nuanced issue."


Thats because it's a ham fisted troll.
 
2012-12-21 12:37:08 PM

Ennuipoet: I don't see how any sane gun owner can not be in favor of common sense laws.



Banning so-called "assault weapons" and magazines that hold over ten rounds is not common sense...especially since they are already in the marketplace.

/Hate it when gun grabbers throw out the old "common sense" line.
 
2012-12-21 12:40:19 PM

The_Sponge: nekom: When the 2nd amendment was authored, not in their wildest dreams could they conceive of the sorts of weaponry that mankind now produces. One possible take on it would be to only allow arms that were available at the time it was written.


Really?  Should we limit the First Amendment to pens, paper, printing presses, and your own voice?


The first amendment is limited in many ways.  If you use your voice to cause harm to others there may be legal repercussions. *shrug*
 
2012-12-21 12:41:21 PM

The_Sponge: Banning so-called "assault weapons" and magazines that hold over ten rounds is not common sense...especially since they are already in the marketplace.


So is heroin.

/bang bang shoot shoot
 
2012-12-21 12:42:33 PM

snowjack: "They look dangerous" is not a rational basis for legislation.


That's not the basis for the legislation, that's your oversimplified understanding of it.

quickdraw: LasersHurt: Your point seems to be "It's a delicate and nuanced issue... and there is no way we could ever handle a delicate and nuanced issue."

Thats because it's a ham fisted troll.


I'm a sucker for ham.
 
2012-12-21 12:44:22 PM

quickdraw: The first amendment is limited in many ways. If you use your voice to cause harm to others there may be legal repercussions. *shrug*



Fair enough...and if I use any of my firearms to harm others, I'm sent to prison.  How does that justify banning semi-autos?
 
2012-12-21 12:45:21 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: As for the solutions? Get rid of big magazines of 11+ rounds? With either firearm, it takes all of 2 seconds to change magazines, and you're "back in business". This is not a solution.


Get rid of magazines entirely.  Shotguns and bolt action rifles only.  No weapons that automatically chamber another round without manual action.

Hunters can still hunt and people can still protect their homes.  But the latest gun-living nutjob that decides to shoot up a public building can't fire 100 rounds in a small amount of time if his practical rate of fire is that much slower.
 
2012-12-21 12:45:41 PM

LasersHurt: Your point seems to be "It's a delicate and nuanced issue... and there is no way we could ever handle a delicate and nuanced issue."


It's the government.  No they can't handle a delicate and nuanced issue.
 
2012-12-21 12:46:18 PM

LasersHurt: The Stealth Hippopotamus: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban 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.

That sounds absurd. A rifle that can fire a relatively large amount of rounds as fast as one can pull the trigger in a stabilized format is not similar to a handgun that can fire (admittedly, in some cases as many rounds) without shoulder stabilization or a long barrel at a similar FPS.

It just sort of makes the assumption that we couldn't go "there are worthy exceptions, and other types of guns not affected, described thus:"

Your point seems to be "It's a delicate and nuanced issue... and there is no way we could ever handle a delicate and nuanced issue."


So far I haven't seen anyone make any gun regulation proposals that I thought contributed anything meaningful to the conversation. SH's post above explained quite clearly why banning "assault weapons" was silly. How about if you propose a rational regulations that would have made a real difference in the Sandy Hook case?
 
2012-12-21 12:51:01 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: As for the solutions? Get rid of big magazines of 11+ rounds? With either firearm, it takes all of 2 seconds to change magazines, and you're "back in business". This is not a solution.


Jared Loughner's rampage ended not because of the 3 or 4 (at least) people with guns in the vicinity, but because he had to stop and reload.
 
2012-12-21 12:52:07 PM

snowjack: LasersHurt: The Stealth Hippopotamus: There is quite literally no way to word a gun ban 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.

That sounds absurd. A rifle that can fire a relatively large amount of rounds as fast as one can pull the trigger in a stabilized format is not similar to a handgun that can fire (admittedly, in some cases as many rounds) without shoulder stabilization or a long barrel at a similar FPS.

It just sort of makes the assumption that we couldn't go "there are worthy exceptions, and other types of guns not affected, described thus:"

Your point seems to be "It's a delicate and nuanced issue... and there is no way we could ever handle a delicate and nuanced issue."

So far I haven't seen anyone make any gun regulation proposals that I thought contributed anything meaningful to the conversation. SH's post above explained quite clearly why banning "assault weapons" was silly. How about if you propose a rational regulations that would have made a real difference in the Sandy Hook case?


This thread is about banning assault rifles. My point is that quibbling with the terms is ignoring the INTENT of the law. Do you agree with the intent? That some weapons are clearly modelled after military weapons, are particularly deadly, and could be regulated to help prevent future tragedy?

For what it's worth, I don't actually support straight up banning the weapons. I support treating some classes of weapons more strictly, though, similar to what we do for those who want Full Auto weaponry (though the details would need to be sussed out, not proposing that i have them all). Prohibition doesn't do very much by itself, but those restrictions have lead to Full Auto weapons being used in a tiny number of crimes over the years.
 
2012-12-21 12:53:00 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: The Stealth Hippopotamus: As for the solutions? Get rid of big magazines of 11+ rounds? With either firearm, it takes all of 2 seconds to change magazines, and you're "back in business". This is not a solution.

Get rid of magazines entirely.  Shotguns and bolt action rifles only.  No weapons that automatically chamber another round without manual action.


So, ban all currently available pistols? I'll have to turn my Grandpa's Browning BAR deer rifle in to the authorities? Go on.
 
2012-12-21 12:55:33 PM

snowjack: SH's post above explained quite clearly why banning "assault weapons" was silly


The Stealth Hippopotamus: Stolen from FightDirector 2012-12-19


I really wish I could take credit for it.  But ask anyone, I dont right that good.

Grammer and I arnt on specking terms.
 
2012-12-21 12:58:23 PM

LasersHurt: This thread is about banning assault rifles. My point is that quibbling with the terms is ignoring the INTENT of the law. Do you agree with the intent? That some weapons are clearly modelled after military weapons, are particularly deadly, and could be regulated to help prevent future tragedy?


Laws are made of terms. You have to come up with meaningful terms to have meaningful intent. I do not agree that "assault weapons" as defined in the ban that expired in 2004 are "particularly deadly." They are no more and no less deadly than any other firearm with rapidly changeable clips. And I think everyone's grieving and looking for a quick solution to a problem that doesn't have one.
 
2012-12-21 01:00:32 PM

snowjack: LasersHurt: This thread is about banning assault rifles. My point is that quibbling with the terms is ignoring the INTENT of the law. Do you agree with the intent? That some weapons are clearly modelled after military weapons, are particularly deadly, and could be regulated to help prevent future tragedy?

Laws are made of terms. You have to come up with meaningful terms to have meaningful intent. I do not agree that "assault weapons" as defined in the ban that expired in 2004 are "particularly deadly." They are no more and no less deadly than any other firearm with rapidly changeable clips. And I think everyone's grieving and looking for a quick solution to a problem that doesn't have one.


... And I am saying if you think the terms are wrong, but support the INTENT, you can help. If you do not support the intent, then argue that.
 
2012-12-21 01:02:03 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: snowjack: SH's post above explained quite clearly why banning "assault weapons" was silly

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Stolen from FightDirector 2012-12-19


I really wish I could take credit for it.  But ask anyone, I dont right that good.

Grammer and I arnt on specking terms.


All the same, thanks for posting it. Maybe someone learned something.
 
2012-12-21 01:02:52 PM

The_Sponge: nekom: When the 2nd amendment was authored, not in their wildest dreams could they conceive of the sorts of weaponry that mankind now produces. One possible take on it would be to only allow arms that were available at the time it was written.


Really?  Should we limit the First Amendment to pens, paper, printing presses, and your own voice?


The analogy doesn't work because the nature of 2nd amendment relates to the ownership and acquisition of firearms.  The medium would be the transaction itself (store purchase, personal sale, inheritance).   If the weapon was the medium the Amendment would be about the right to use the weapon, which it isn't.

The analogy to limiting First Amendment to let's say rules about blogging, would be limiting 2nd Amendment regarding online purchases.

It has already been Constitutionally upheld that you can limit the sale of weapons like machine guns.  It is only logical to assume that anything more powerful than a musket would be subject to varying degrees of control.
 
2012-12-21 01:05:03 PM

mrshowrules: 5) a high school education and technical knowledge of guns makes you a better authority on gun control issues than  let's say someone with 30 years experienced in law enforcement or an academic background in criminal studies


I've seen a similar argument bandied about numerous times by Fox News and gun nuts.  It goes something like people that don't know the difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an AR15 are not qualified to have an opinion on gun control, which is an absurd argument.  It would seem equally absurd to the same people if one were to posit that they aren't qualified to have an opinion on marijuana if they don't know the difference between a vaporizer and a bong.
 
2012-12-21 01:07:55 PM

usernameguy: Jared Loughner's rampage ended not because of the 3 or 4 (at least) people with guns in the vicinity, but because he had to stop and reload


He was stopped because three guys tackled him.  He had already reloaded once.   Yes they used the reload as an opening but it could have just as easily been something else.   So what mag size do you think is suitable?  5? 10?  Is 5 died people ok?!  Because that is what we are talking about when it comes to limiting mag size.  We have stopped trying to stop the shooting and are now trying to limit the damage.  So, how many dead people are ok?
 
2012-12-21 01:08:42 PM

snowjack: So, ban all currently available pistols?


Yup.  Buy a bigger car if you want to compensate for your penis.
 
2012-12-21 01:09:04 PM

snowjack: LasersHurt: This thread is about banning assault rifles. My point is that quibbling with the terms is ignoring the INTENT of the law. Do you agree with the intent? That some weapons are clearly modelled after military weapons, are particularly deadly, and could be regulated to help prevent future tragedy?

Laws are made of terms. You have to come up with meaningful terms to have meaningful intent. I do not agree that "assault weapons" as defined in the ban that expired in 2004 are "particularly deadly." They are no more and no less deadly than any other firearm with rapidly changeable clips. And I think everyone's grieving and looking for a quick solution to a problem that doesn't have one.


This is from Feinstein's site:

A summary of key provisions in the updated bill:

Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
exempting more than 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes; and
exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
 
2012-12-21 01:09:41 PM
What an AWB proponent might look like:

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

"GOP, I am disappoint"
 
2012-12-21 01:12:35 PM

snowjack: LasersHurt: This thread is about banning assault rifles. My point is that quibbling with the terms is ignoring the INTENT of the law. Do you agree with the intent? That some weapons are clearly modelled after military weapons, are particularly deadly, and could be regulated to help prevent future tragedy?

Laws are made of terms. You have to come up with meaningful terms to have meaningful intent. I do not agree that "assault weapons" as defined in the ban that expired in 2004 are "particularly deadly." They are no more and no less deadly than any other firearm with rapidly changeable clips. And I think everyone's grieving and looking for a quick solution to a problem that doesn't have one.


I think you ban the sale of any weapon over a certain capacity or that is capable of being quickly reloaded.  Wasn't that hard.
 
2012-12-21 01:15:57 PM

The_Sponge: nekom: When the 2nd amendment was authored, not in their wildest dreams could they conceive of the sorts of weaponry that mankind now produces. One possible take on it would be to only allow arms that were available at the time it was written.


Really?  Should we limit the First Amendment to pens, paper, printing presses, and your own voice?


That is the worst farking analogy I've read all day but the day is young.

I like guns. I go shooting with my step-grandfather who was an engineer in WWII. By all accounts, someone his age shouldn't be shooting a firearm but he can. I have my Walther PPK because that's what James Bond uses. We have fun with guns.

But it would be an asset to you gun nuts if you dropped the pretense that the 2nd Amendment is there to ensure that you can fark up the government if they get out of line. Just drop that shiat, it's getting sad. You want guns 75% to protect you and your family and 25% to have fun shooting shiat and praying that you get to kill someone legally.

Who are we kidding, it's more like 25% /75%. But either way, knock off the militia shiat.
 
2012-12-21 01:19:59 PM

LasersHurt: snowjack: LasersHurt: This thread is about banning assault rifles. My point is that quibbling with the terms is ignoring the INTENT of the law. Do you agree with the intent? That some weapons are clearly modelled after military weapons, are particularly deadly, and could be regulated to help prevent future tragedy?

Laws are made of terms. You have to come up with meaningful terms to have meaningful intent. I do not agree that "assault weapons" as defined in the ban that expired in 2004 are "particularly deadly." They are no more and no less deadly than any other firearm with rapidly changeable clips. And I think everyone's grieving and looking for a quick solution to a problem that doesn't have one.

... And I am saying if you think the terms are wrong, but support the INTENT, you can help. If you do not support the intent, then argue that.


If you can clearly explain what INTENT you're talking about, then I will be able to tell you whether I support it.
 
2012-12-21 01:21:06 PM

mrshowrules: These are not all guns, just the most vocal ones. These are all paranoid and irrational ideas and I didn't even get into the feelings of sexual inadequacy.


I know, you can't even TALK about doing anything without someone calling you a "gun grabber".  Hell, I don't want to outlaw guns, I just want us to talk about gun issues without someone accusing me of wanting to put every God Fearing Republican Patriot in a United Nations Concentration Camp.

And yes, there are millions of high capacity magazines out there, but continuing to pump MORE of them into the market is clearly not "sane".
 
2012-12-21 01:24:46 PM

Mugato: That is the worst farking analogy I've read all day but the day is young.



At least it's better than the idiots who claim that we only have a right to black powder rifles.
 
Displayed 50 of 895 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report