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.

(New York Daily News)   NRA: "Israel only stopped school shootings by putting armed security guards in their schools." Israel: "Yeah, about that"   (nydailynews.com) divider line 241
    More: Obvious, NRA, school shootings, Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel, northern israel, Jewish state, corporals, gun ownership, Israeli citizen  
•       •       •

23845 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 8:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-24 11:29:52 AM

Pentaxian: Would you happen to know what the ammo restrictions are in Israel? One article I read said 50 rounds per year and the other said 50 rounds for life. Which one is it? Also the only type of gun you can get is a pistol, right?


I only know that you can't buy ammo unless you have a permit for a weapon, I don't know how much, but I'd imagine that it's limited...
 
2012-12-24 11:32:52 AM

The Green Manalishi: Flappyhead: The Green Manalishi:
There are too many gun owners - not a majority, but too many - who rely on guns to fill some void in themselves. The Red Dawn fantasies, the guys who can't wait to use their guns "for real." Most of them would shiat their pants if they ever had to look down the business end. Once again, this doesn't describe the majority of gun owners, but there are too many irresponsible ones for my taste.

The ones that get me the most are the owners who "need" to own certain types of firearms. You don't need a handgun with a fifteen round clip, you need to hit the firing range more so one shot does all you require(if that ever happens). You don't need a semi-auto rifle modeled after the AR-15(or an AR-15 for that matter) when a simple hunting rifle will do the same job and again, the target range is your freind. And anybody saying their automatic shotgun with the drum barrel is anything but a penis extension is a damn liar. You didn't buy it because you have safety concerns, you bought it because it gave you wood. It's not a large group, but it's vocal enough to drag the conversation down into semantics and rhetoric.

Absolutely. No one needs an AR-15 for home defense, or to overthrow tyrants or water the tree of liberty. They "need" it because they are enthusiasts and hobbyists, and get off on having a house full of guns and showing off to their friends.


The founders of this country would disagree with you. They believed it was necessary for civilians to be armed.  They believed that "well regulated" civilian militias were necessary for the security of a free state. And they did not mean regulated by the federal government. The hope was that it would prevent the need to ever have to overthrow a tyrannical government.
 
2012-12-24 11:35:32 AM

fluffy2097: Every citizen of Israel is a trained member of the Israeli Defense Force.


Most are not active members, and the percentage of citizens who ever served in the army is about 50%.

/you're forgetting arabs
//and haredi
///and masorati women
////and immigrants who arrived after the age of about 25
//not to mention that if you're not in an infantry unit or special forces, your "combat training" is pretty brief
 
2012-12-24 11:35:58 AM

ursomniac: justinsmith354: liam76: The whole 'shall not be infringed' speaks to owners, not sellers. If you want to sell dangerous weapons you shoul have to record what you are selling, who you are selling to and make stre the person you are selling two gets thumbs up from the ATF.

replace "ATF" with FBI and you just described what happens every time a gun store sells a firearm.

And what about gun shows?


Have you ever been to a gun show? 99.9% of booths at a real "Gun Show" are actual vendors, stores, or dealers who require you to fill out the same proper paperwork and submit a background check on site, just like you would if you were in their store. If a private individual wants to pay money for the booth, and sell previously owned firearms at one, then yes...that's their right to do so. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, nor am I ignorant of the problems surrounding the issue. I just don't think the way it's portrayed is very accurate.

The kind of people who attend a "gun show" and the type of people that sell at them aren't the type of people planning a mass killing. IMHO.
 
2012-12-24 11:37:18 AM
Guys.  It's Christmas eve and there's a naked Alessandra Ambrosio in TFA's sidebar.  Do you really need to continue arguing about guns?
 
2012-12-24 11:37:52 AM

Abox: ElBarto79: [cdn.ricochet.com image 800x382]

I've seen numerous people posting this picture on Facebook and my first thought each time was "you know, she's not trying to protect those kids from their own citizens, she's trying to protect them from terrorists." It's a fundamentally different situation and shouldn't be seen as a model for us to follow in our own borders where our people *should* be able to walk around without fear of being shot.

I like how the gun rests on her ass.


Nothing like those warrior women, eh?

/definitely have to say it's her legs
//her legs, and right where her legs meet her back... actually that whole area... that and above it
///and as a bonus, more mentally stable than the average schoolteacher sleeping with her students because she couldn't find a man that meets her standards, so she's trying to train one
 
2012-12-24 11:40:06 AM

Bad_Mojo:
1. Require background checks & a reasonable waiting period at the initial purchase of the gun.
2. Close any loopholes with personal sales and require all transactions be done through a licensed dealer along with a background check and a waiting period.
3. Require that the person be certified through a training course to be administered during the waiting period. No certification means no gun purchase. The only exception being gun store owners buying stock or collectable guns such as black powder rifles and pistols.
4. Require recertification each year. Have the instructors trained to spot possible issues and set up a board to review the recommendations of the instructors so that there is no bias against an individual and the decision on whether to recertify an individuall is not in 1 person's hands.
5. Failure to be certified requires the gun owner to surrender all weapons until he/she is able to be recertified.
6. Make the costs of certification and the follow up classes affordable for the average person.



I can't find any real problems/holes with this list and have posited something similar over the years when discussing this issue. The problem is far too many people see any type of regulation as "Gubment comin' fer mah guns!" and won't listen to what is actually being proposed. As I said earlier, there is a LOT of middle ground for both sides to meet in and I think that the Left would be fairly open to allowing access to guns provided it was regulated properly(although there is no way they'll ever come down off assault weapons but I think we can agree on that one). There's a lot of knee-jerking that needs to be overcome and the sooner we get the lobbyists from both sides out of the room the better.
 
2012-12-24 11:40:15 AM

DrD'isInfotainment: What the NRA believes all security guards in schools look like
[lifeinsurancebyjeff.com image 390x281]
What an actual security guard in a school tends to look like
[www.hudsonlee.com image 677x474]


Which is why I wouldn't hire rent-a-cops, I'd use real cops and make sure they went through a training program first. No fatties who can't pass up a donut need apply.

"There is no comparison between maniacs with psychological problems opening fire at random to kill innocent people and trained terrorists trying to murder Israeli children," said Reuven Berko, a retired Israeli Army colonel and senior police officer.

As an aside, I wonder how many phone calls to Israel that the Daily News made before they tracked this guy down?

No matter, the principle is the same. Indeed most Israelis would argue that terrorists are maniacs with psychological problems.
 
2012-12-24 11:40:48 AM

badhatharry: The founders of this country would disagree with you. They believed it was necessary for civilians to be armed. They believed that "well regulated" civilian militias were necessary for the security of a free state. And they did not mean regulated by the federal government. The hope was that it would prevent the need to ever have to overthrow a tyrannical government.


They also believed that black people only counted as 3/5th of a human. Good thing we never changed our stance on that, who knows what tragedy would have befallen our country!
 
2012-12-24 11:45:12 AM

justinsmith354:
The kind of people who attend a "gun show" and the type of people that sell at them aren't the type of people planning a mass killing. IMHO.


But sometimes their friends are. Three of the four guns used by Harris and Klebold in the Columbine shooting were bought by their friend at a local gun show.
Straw purchases like that is one of the biggest sources of guns used in crimes in the US.
 
2012-12-24 11:46:26 AM

badhatharry: The founders of this country would disagree with you. They believed it was necessary for civilians to be armed.  They believed that "well regulated" civilian militias were necessary for the security of a free state. And they did not mean regulated by the federal government.


Really? So I just imagined Art.I, section 8, cl. 16, then?

The hope was that it would prevent the need to ever have to overthrow a tyrannical government.

I, I see. You're one of those. Never mind.
 
2012-12-24 11:48:47 AM

born_yesterday: badhatharry: The founders of this country would disagree with you. They believed it was necessary for civilians to be armed. They believed that "well regulated" civilian militias were necessary for the security of a free state. And they did not mean regulated by the federal government. The hope was that it would prevent the need to ever have to overthrow a tyrannical government.

They also believed that black people only counted as 3/5th of a human. Good thing we never changed our stance on that, who knows what tragedy would have befallen our country!


Yes, but do you know why? Because the northern states didn't want southern states using slaves to be counted as full citizens only for the purposes of representation in Congress. It would have given slave states more power than northern states in Congress. It actually helped lead to the end of slavery.
 
2012-12-24 12:01:07 PM

badhatharry: Yes, but do you know why? Because the northern states didn't want southern states using slaves to be counted as full citizens only for the purposes of representation in Congress. It would have given slave states more power than northern states in Congress. It actually helped lead to the end of slavery.


Not only that, but it would have given them the ability to inflate their representation just by importing more slaves. They wouldn't even have to keep them, just buy them en masse from Africa just before the census and then sell them back off en masse afterward. Since the slaves weren't allowed to vote, the only possible consequence would be importing too many slaves to keep under control and having a revolt.

/slavery is returning because too many people refuse to recognize anything deeper than the surface appearance
//if they even care about the actual appearance, instead of the imaginary one they build in their minds
 
2012-12-24 12:06:54 PM

Mambo Bananapatch: Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution. - Supreme Court, 1857

See? People, societies, and ideas -- and Constitutions -- evolve, according to the times. At least, if they are not unintelligent and want to survive.

Course, I'm just an unmitigated tool, so what do I know.


OT, but there are many people on the far-right that would still agree with that (just not openly).

/ we're a very young society, and obviously have a lot of issues to work out
// I just hope we wind up in a good place eventually....
 
2012-12-24 12:07:03 PM

badhatharry: born_yesterday: badhatharry: The founders of this country would disagree with you. They believed it was necessary for civilians to be armed. They believed that "well regulated" civilian militias were necessary for the security of a free state. And they did not mean regulated by the federal government. The hope was that it would prevent the need to ever have to overthrow a tyrannical government.

They also believed that black people only counted as 3/5th of a human. Good thing we never changed our stance on that, who knows what tragedy would have befallen our country!

Yes, but do you know why? Because the northern states didn't want southern states using slaves to be counted as full citizens only for the purposes of representation in Congress. It would have given slave states more power than northern states in Congress. It actually helped lead to the end of slavery.


Actually, I did know why, but I was hoping you didn't and would come back with something derpier. :)

/Merry Christmas!
 
2012-12-24 12:08:07 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: If the pro-gun crowd had a brain cell to spare, they would argue for better access to mental healthcare; particularly for individuals like Adam Lanza, whose latent psychological problems may have been addressed - and thus a massacre averted - had he had someone to look out for his mental well-being. Taking this position would not only address the disease instead of the symptom, it would argue the position they're arguing anyway, and they wouldn't look like such infantile psychopaths in the process.


I actually have heard some gun owners arguing for this. In general, I think we need to treat mental-health problems better in our culture. We need to treat it like any other medical problem. If you have cancer you see an oncologist, if you have a knee problem you see an orthopedic surgeon. Nobody looks at you funny for those. If your brain isn't working right you should be able to go see a counselor and/or a psychiatrist in the same way, without it being any big deal. Treatment also needs to be covered by insurance in the same way that physical illness is. (That's been the law where I live--Massachusetts--for some while; I don't recall offhand if it got incorporated into the recent health-care laws or not.)

As regards mental health and firearms, the $64,000 questions:

--Contrary to popular belief, the overwhelming majority of people who have mental-health issues are not prone to violence. (And, by the way, that belief--that "mentally people are all potentially violent"--is part of the stigma we should be fighting.) How do you separate out those who are? What's the threshold for judging someone as dangerous? The current threshold is, "Have you ever been committed by a court order to a mental-health institution?" Obviously, that's a pretty high bar. Most people who want to go out and commit mass-murder aren't going to tell their shrink, unless they really do feel a compulsion to commit an act of violence and retain enough sanity to want to be stopped.

--How do you do this without creating a national database of everyone who's sought out mental health treatment? If it turns out you can't do it without creating such a database, how do you prevent such a database from being abused? How do you keep, e.g., someone's potential future employer from accessing it, and denying someone a job? Can it be used by your ex-spouse to deny visitation to your kids?

--How do you avoid creating a situation in which fear of losing the right to self-defense is not a perverse incentive to keep people from seeking help? Hell, if you have a national mental-health database, potential appearance in such a database will prevent some people from seeking help even if they don't own and want nothing to do with guns, for (IMO legitimate) fear that the database will be abused. Already, some people pay for therapy and meds out-of-pocket because they don't want to appear on insurance-company records as having sought mental-health treatment.

--Who's more dangerous: someone whose wife died a dozen years ago, throwing him into clinical depression, for which he sought counseling and treatment with SSRIs and therapy, and has since gotten better and no longer needs meds, or someone with, say, undiagnosed bipolar disorder who's never sought treatment? Which one is likely to show up in a mental-health background check?

--We all know at least one person about whom we say or think, "Man, I'm glad that guy doesn't own/have access to guns." How do you avoid creating a situation where one person's inexpert word that you're not a suitable person to own firearms doesn't get someone's guns confiscated?

--If you have, or have had, a mental-health issue, is the ban on owning firearms a lifetime disqualifier? Because that's the only kind of DQ that exists in law right now. If it's not a lifetime DQ, what's the process for getting your firearms rights reinstated?
 
2012-12-24 12:09:02 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Any bets on how long until LaPierre is laughed out of his job?


He's gotten the discussion away from new gun legislation, so he'll probably get a nice bonus.
 
2012-12-24 12:11:53 PM

BronyMedic: RevCarter: Your MP's are unarmed?

The joke is that people don't realize that you have to be an on-duty MP to carry on a military base. Everyone's armed to them.


So...do we need to arm our on-base military to protect them from future shootings?
 
2012-12-24 12:28:09 PM

rufus-t-firefly: BronyMedic: RevCarter: Your MP's are unarmed?

The joke is that people don't realize that you have to be an on-duty MP to carry on a military base. Everyone's armed to them.

So...do we need to arm our on-base military to protect them from future shootings?


I have lived on or near military bases my entire adult life. I have yet to see an MA/MP or gate guard not actively carrying and without a virtual arsenal of larger guns and body armor in their trunk.

Even the Spanish military here, not known for over aggression, have assault rifles within arms reach at the gate. I don't know what all this "guns aren't available to us on base" thing is about.
 
2012-12-24 12:29:04 PM

The Green Manalishi: Flappyhead: The Green Manalishi:
There are too many gun owners - not a majority, but too many - who rely on guns to fill some void in themselves. The Red Dawn fantasies, the guys who can't wait to use their guns "for real." Most of them would shiat their pants if they ever had to look down the business end. Once again, this doesn't describe the majority of gun owners, but there are too many irresponsible ones for my taste.

The ones that get me the most are the owners who "need" to own certain types of firearms. You don't need a handgun with a fifteen round clip, you need to hit the firing range more so one shot does all you require(if that ever happens). You don't need a semi-auto rifle modeled after the AR-15(or an AR-15 for that matter) when a simple hunting rifle will do the same job and again, the target range is your freind. And anybody saying their automatic shotgun with the drum barrel is anything but a penis extension is a damn liar. You didn't buy it because you have safety concerns, you bought it because it gave you wood. It's not a large group, but it's vocal enough to drag the conversation down into semantics and rhetoric.

Absolutely. No one needs an AR-15 for home defense, or to overthrow tyrants or water the tree of liberty. They "need" it because they are enthusiasts and hobbyists, and get off on having a house full of guns and showing off to their friends.


Yep, that's why you see the posts of all the guns arranged on the bedspread like dollies.

It's not rational at all, there are deep emotional, lizard brain reasons why getting a lot of guns feels good. It's about status and dominance and maybe somewhat sexual - but there's also some part of it that relieves an anxiety. Maybe modern society is too crowded or too complex, maybe the male rite of passage is missing.

You can hear it in all the gun use fantasies - how the world is going to "come for them" and they gotta be ready.
 
2012-12-24 12:34:41 PM
[jewsdidthis.jpg]

/oblig
 
2012-12-24 12:36:32 PM

nucular_option: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7501666/81477700#c81477700" target="_blank">Shadowknight</a>:</b> <i>Columbine had armed security guards.

Virginia Tech had it's own police department.

Fort Hood was a farking military base.

Tell me again how more guns will solve things.</i>

The Columbine guards did not handle the improvised grenades very well...
VT's police were a ways away and not in the building...
Ft. Hood's security was contract security and a ways away...

To "solve things" you need friendly guns close by at every turn. An armed society is a polite society. Don't bring a Calculus book to a gunfight.


This has to be one of the dumbest, most insane comments I've ever read. You need to really put down the Soldier of Fortune magazines and remove your mouth from Lapierre crank and head on over to Afghanistan. People there are armed all over the place and since I was there, there's violence everywhere.

Oh, and Somalia too....they're armed to the teeth and that "polite society" is a failed state.
Maybe you'd like that polite paradise called Sudan....there, kids are armed (like you want them to be here) and look at that utopia.

/You are just farking stupid
 
2012-12-24 12:47:15 PM

nucular_option: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7501666/81477700#c81477700" target="_blank">Shadowknight</a>:</b> <i>Columbine had armed security guards.

Virginia Tech had it's own police department.

Fort Hood was a farking military base.

Tell me again how more guns will solve things.</i>

The Columbine guards did not handle the improvised grenades very well...
VT's police were a ways away and not in the building...
Ft. Hood's security was contract security and a ways away...

To "solve things" you need friendly guns close by at every turn. An armed society is a polite society. Don't bring a Calculus book to a gunfight.


Most people were killed with guns, and most of the killers' explosives failed to detonate.
 
2012-12-24 12:53:16 PM

justinsmith354: liam76: The whole 'shall not be infringed' speaks to owners, not sellers. If you want to sell dangerous weapons you shoul have to record what you are selling, who you are selling to and make stre the person you are selling two gets thumbs up from the ATF.

replace "ATF" with FBI and you just described what happens every time a gun store sells a firearm.



Gun stores only have to contact the FBI (sorry my mistake) when they are selling handguns.

I am saying they have to do more than contact them, they shoudl have to pass on the type and serial number on the gun. I am also saying if any "non-dealer" sells a firearm they have to do the same thing. I think the punishment for not doing that should be a felony.

That is very different from what we do now.
 
2012-12-24 12:57:16 PM

Farkage: Flappyhead: Poot beer: I think there are three very important words in the 2nd Amendment.

/well regulated militia
//well regulated
//regulated


The problem is you're assuming most NRA supporters can read.

And naturally, you're assuming that the word 'regulated" means what you think it does. Try looking into the context of when the Bill of Rights was written. Go ahead, do a little homework!
And I'll leave this here with you, since apparently you have trouble with comprehension...


That's the single dumbest argument ever attempted. In the context of the "times", only white men and not blacks, women, or native Americans, were considered worthy of the protection granted by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was fully ratified 221 yrs ago. Making the argument that the document can only be defined by freezing it in time is ludicrous. Borkian in its hilarity.
 
2012-12-24 12:58:16 PM

Bad_Mojo: I am a gun owner & not a member of the NRA. I own several guns but do not hunt. My son and I spend a lot of time at our local range and enjoy the bonding that results from our outings.

I don't have an issue with reasonable gun control with the key word here being reasonable. The left's meaning of resonable seems to be ban all guns. The right's meaning of reasonable seems to be no laws at all. There has to be a middle ground.

1. Require background checks & a reasonable waiting period at the initial purchase of the gun.
2. Close any loopholes with personal sales and require all transactions be done through a licensed dealer along with a background check and a waiting period.
3. Require that the person be certified through a training course to be administered during the waiting period. No certification means no gun purchase. The only exception being gun store owners buying stock or collectable guns such as black powder rifles and pistols.
4. Require recertification each year. Have the instructors trained to spot possible issues and set up a board to review the recommendations of the instructors so that there is no bias against an individual and the decision on whether to recertify an individuall is not in 1 person's hands.
5. Failure to be certified requires the gun owner to surrender all weapons until he/she is able to be recertified.
6. Make the costs of certification and the follow up classes affordable for the average person.



The only two things I would add is a mental health screening when you apply for a firearms certification and one each time you recertify. And a ban on any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. I don't care about the cosmetics of the gun, unlike most people who are pushing for the assault weapons ban, I think the only part of the ban that should remain is the high capacity magazine part.

Now a lot of people on the right think that this is too much, and would even say that the regulations that you suggested is a violation of their rights, and is somehow an attempt at an outright ban on guns. From my experience most people on the left do not want to ban guns, but want some common sense measure in place that prevent certain types of weapons from hitting the streets and unstable people from legally being able to own guns.
 
2012-12-24 12:59:11 PM

noitsnot:
It's not rational at all, there are deep emotional, lizard brain reasons why getting a lot of guns feels good. It's about status and dominance and maybe somewhat sexual - but there's also some part of it that relieves an anxiety. Maybe modern society is too crowded or too complex, maybe the male rite of passage is missing.

You can hear it in all the gun use fantasies - how the world is going to "come for them" and they gotta be ready.


Rational response: If you extend the timeline long enough, the likelihood of a potentially violent confrontation with a male between the ages of 16-30 who missed his societal rite of passage approaches 100%. Likewise with periods of lapse of rule of law, governmental services, and delivery of consumer goods. Periods of time in which young males with a violent streak and something to prove may try and capitalize through violence without perceivable consequence.

But of course this time it's going to be different. Or something.
 
2012-12-24 01:03:17 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: noitsnot:
It's not rational at all, there are deep emotional, lizard brain reasons why getting a lot of guns feels good. It's about status and dominance and maybe somewhat sexual - but there's also some part of it that relieves an anxiety. Maybe modern society is too crowded or too complex, maybe the male rite of passage is missing.

You can hear it in all the gun use fantasies - how the world is going to "come for them" and they gotta be ready.

Rational response: If you extend the timeline long enough, the likelihood of a potentially violent confrontation with a male between the ages of 16-30 who missed his societal rite of passage approaches 100%. Likewise with periods of lapse of rule of law, governmental services, and delivery of consumer goods. Periods of time in which young males with a violent streak and something to prove may try and capitalize through violence without perceivable consequence.

But of course this time it's going to be different. Or something.


Could you explain this further?

It's been a long time since I had an Anthro Class.
 
2012-12-24 01:03:59 PM
The NRA should just go ahead and adopt this as their slogan already:
"AK-47, the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively, got to kill every motherfarker in the room; accept no substitutes."
 
2012-12-24 01:07:21 PM
The worst attack on an Israeli school was in 1974, when terrorists from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine took 115 people hostage in a school in Maalot in northern Israel. Twenty-five people were killed as Israeli commandos stormed the building, 22 of them children.
www.yesmalot.co.il

Inaccurate group name is inaccurate, if this image of the rescue of a survivor of the Ma'alot Massacre is any indication.
 
2012-12-24 01:08:14 PM

Flappyhead: Bad_Mojo:
1. Require background checks & a reasonable waiting period at the initial purchase of the gun.
2. Close any loopholes with personal sales and require all transactions be done through a licensed dealer along with a background check and a waiting period.
3. Require that the person be certified through a training course to be administered during the waiting period. No certification means no gun purchase. The only exception being gun store owners buying stock or collectable guns such as black powder rifles and pistols.
4. Require recertification each year. Have the instructors trained to spot possible issues and set up a board to review the recommendations of the instructors so that there is no bias against an individual and the decision on whether to recertify an individuall is not in 1 person's hands.
5. Failure to be certified requires the gun owner to surrender all weapons until he/she is able to be recertified.
6. Make the costs of certification and the follow up classes affordable for the average person.

I can't find any real problems/holes with this list and have posited something similar over the years when discussing this issue. The problem is far too many people see any type of regulation as "Gubment comin' fer mah guns!" and won't listen to what is actually being proposed. As I said earlier, there is a LOT of middle ground for both sides to meet in and I think that the Left would be fairly open to allowing access to guns provided it was regulated properly(although there is no way they'll ever come down off assault weapons but I think we can agree on that one). There's a lot of knee-jerking that needs to be overcome and the sooner we get the lobbyists from both sides out of the room the better.


The largest problem I see if that the means of certification could easily be used to remove a person's right to own a firearm. In many 'at will' states and localities it often more of a case of who you know and payoff as to if the local law enforcement will grant you a right to carry. These localities claim they allow carry or possession, but in practice it is really a ban on everyone but the rich and well connected. If there were Federal standards that had to adhered to and tough to change so it would survive knee jerk reactions, I personally would not be in total objection to it.

I also think yearly is a bit too often for re-certification. Perhaps every 2 or 3 years would be a good target.
 
2012-12-24 01:10:37 PM

Utard_Free: The NRA should just go ahead and adopt this as their slogan already:
"AK-47, the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively, got to kill every motherfarker in the room; accept no substitutes."


And use "Trigger Happy" as their theme song.
 
2012-12-24 01:13:37 PM

fluffy2097: Pentaxian: Would you happen to know what the ammo restrictions are in Israel? One article I read said 50 rounds per year and the other said 50 rounds for life. Which one is it? Also the only type of gun you can get is a pistol, right?

Every citizen of Israel is a trained member of the Israeli Defense Force.

They use rifles.

Here are some Israeli college girls.
[patdollard.com image 600x449]


They don't get to keep their weapons, and their ammunition is TIGHTLY controlled and logged.

The only way you can own a gun as a private citizen in Israel is if the government deems you have a need for them - i.e. you work for an Armed Security/PM Corp, or you live in a settlement where you would need one for protection and hunting. Israel only has less than 300,000 legal firearms.
 
2012-12-24 01:18:04 PM

Flappyhead: Utard_Free: The NRA should just go ahead and adopt this as their slogan already:
"AK-47, the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively, got to kill every motherfarker in the room; accept no substitutes."

And use "Trigger Happy" as their theme song.


"Trigger Happy"

Got an AK-47, well you know it makes me feel alright
Got an Uzi by my pillow, helps me sleep a little better at night
There's no feeling any greter
Than to shoot first and ask questions later
Now I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

Well, you can't take my guns away, I got a constitutional right
Yeah, I gotta be ready if the Commies attack us tonight
I'll blow their brains out with my Smith and Wesson
That ought to teach them all a darn good lesson
Now I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

(Oh yeah, I'm)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh baby, I'm)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh I'm so)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
Better watch out, punk, or I'm gonna have to blow you away

Oh, I accidently shot daddy last night in the den
I mistook him in the dark for a drug-crazed Nazi again
Now why'd you have to get so mad?
It was just a lousy flesh wound, Dad
You know, I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

Oh, I still haven't figured out the safety on my rifle yet
Little Fluffy took a round, better take him to the vet
I filled that kitty cat so full of lead
We'll have to use him for a pencil instead
Well, I'm so trigger happy, trigger happy every day

(Oh yeah, I'm)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh baby, I'm)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh I'm so)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
Better watch out, punk, or I'm gonna have to blow you away

Come on and grab your ammo
What have you got to lose?
We'll all get liquored up
And shoot at anything that moves

Got a brand new semi-automatic weapon with a laser sight
Oh, I'm prayin' somebody tries to break in here tonight
I always keep a Magnum in my trunk
You better ask yourself, do you feel lucky, punk?
Because I'm trigger happy, trigger happy every day

(Oh yeah, I'm)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh baby, I'm)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
(Oh I'm so)trigger, trigger happy
Yes I'm trigger, trigger happy
Better watch out, punk, or I'm gonna have to blow you away
 
2012-12-24 01:26:16 PM

Shadowknight: rufus-t-firefly: BronyMedic: RevCarter: Your MP's are unarmed?

The joke is that people don't realize that you have to be an on-duty MP to carry on a military base. Everyone's armed to them.

So...do we need to arm our on-base military to protect them from future shootings?

I have lived on or near military bases my entire adult life. I have yet to see an MA/MP or gate guard not actively carrying and without a virtual arsenal of larger guns and body armor in their trunk.

Even the Spanish military here, not known for over aggression, have assault rifles within arms reach at the gate. I don't know what all this "guns aren't available to us on base" thing is about.


Yes they have them at the gate but the rest of the base is relatively Mp free.
What do you think it is like on base? MP's every ten feet?
 
2012-12-24 01:32:08 PM
Such shootings are very rare in Israel and have been associated with terror attacks, not crazed gunmen, they said.

Well, you see, those mass shootings are different. Totally different situations. Nothing similar about them at all.
 
2012-12-24 01:33:14 PM
"It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion," he added.


WHAT?!?
fark you
 
2012-12-24 01:33:25 PM

BronyMedic: fluffy2097: Pentaxian: Would you happen to know what the ammo restrictions are in Israel? One article I read said 50 rounds per year and the other said 50 rounds for life. Which one is it? Also the only type of gun you can get is a pistol, right?

Every citizen of Israel is a trained member of the Israeli Defense Force.

They use rifles.

Here are some Israeli college girls.
[patdollard.com image 600x449]

They don't get to keep their weapons, and their ammunition is TIGHTLY controlled and logged.

The only way you can own a gun as a private citizen in Israel is if the government deems you have a need for them - i.e. you work for an Armed Security/PM Corp, or you live in a settlement where you would need one for protection and hunting. Israel only has less than 300,000 legal firearms.


Why are people still argueing that Israel lets citizens freely carry guns and buy them without restiriction. The Israeli government spokesman shot that talking point down in the article.

FTA
"Israeli citizens are not allowed to carry guns unless they are serving in the army or working in security-related jobs that require them to use a weapon," said Berko.

Despite having a standing army of more than 100,000 and police and security guards carrying guns on the street, Israel has strict firearms licensing and supervision.

Licenses must be renewed regularly and cannot be issued to people with a history of mental problems or a criminal background.


Can we stop with this now.
 
2012-12-24 01:38:26 PM

Farkage: Flappyhead: Poot beer: I think there are three very important words in the 2nd Amendment.

/well regulated militia
//well regulated
//regulated


The problem is you're assuming most NRA supporters can read.

And naturally, you're assuming that the word 'regulated" means what you think it does. Try looking into the context of when the Bill of Rights was written. Go ahead, do a little homework!
And I'll leave this here with you, since apparently you have trouble with comprehension...

"Well regulated" back when the Bill of Rights was written meant "In it's proper working order" These days people like you try to redefine it as "Strictly controlled". It's not the same thing no matter how much you try to pretend it is. And why would the Founding Fathers make it a right strictly controlled by the government when they just fought a war to get us away from a very oppressive government and guarantee we will never be forced to endure oppression again?

Here are a few more that you'll just end up ignoring anyway (since things like facts and history trouble you so much):
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future ...


All well in and good, but do you think the Founders envisioned automatic weapons, chemical weapons or nuclear weapons?

If so or if not, would you agree that as long as the automatic, chemical or nuclear weapon is in good working order, then you should be able to possess it?
 
2012-12-24 01:52:35 PM

Farkage: Flappyhead: Poot beer: I think there are three very important words in the 2nd Amendment.

/well regulated militia
//well regulated
//regulated


The problem is you're assuming most NRA supporters can read.

And naturally, you're assuming that the word 'regulated" means what you think it does. Try looking into the context of when the Bill of Rights was written. Go ahead, do a little homework!
And I'll leave this here with you, since apparently you have trouble with comprehension...

"Well regulated" back when the Bill of Rights was written meant "In it's proper working order"


+20 dead kids would seem to indicate that something is not working as intended.
By the by, which militia did Lanza, the batman or the VA tech shooters belong to?
 
2012-12-24 01:53:55 PM

ElBarto79: [cdn.ricochet.com image 800x382]

I've seen numerous people posting this picture on Facebook and my first thought each time was "you know, she's not trying to protect those kids from their own citizens, she's trying to protect them from terrorists." It's a fundamentally different situation and shouldn't be seen as a model for us to follow in our own borders where our people *should* be able to walk around without fear of being shot.


As a total aside, that woman, and all the teachers protecting them from terrorists, are completely amazing. I would love to meet them and shake their hands.

/I'm surprised teachers in other countries don't use that option, especially places like Afghanistan or Iraq where they have female students.
//If I were in those places, I'm not sure I'd have the easiest time  not grabbing a gun to walk the kids to school with.
 
2012-12-24 02:10:08 PM

wingnut396: .The largest problem I see if that the means of certification could easily be used to remove a person's right to own a firearm. In many 'at will' states and localities it often more of a case of who you know and payoff as to if the local law enforcement will grant you a right to carry. These localities claim they allow carry or possession, but in practice it is really a ban on everyone but the rich and well connected. If there were Federal standards that had to adhered to and tough to change so it would survive knee jerk reactions, I personally would not be in total objection to it.
..


Absolutely the certification would have to be run at a Federal level. I know it's the last thing the Red States want but one of the biggest problems with the gun issue right now is the varying state to state laws. Yes the "states rights" crowd will soil their panties but honestly what's proposed in that list is hardly restrictive to even moderately responsible gun owners.
 
2012-12-24 02:28:26 PM

Flappyhead: wingnut396: .The largest problem I see if that the means of certification could easily be used to remove a person's right to own a firearm. In many 'at will' states and localities it often more of a case of who you know and payoff as to if the local law enforcement will grant you a right to carry. These localities claim they allow carry or possession, but in practice it is really a ban on everyone but the rich and well connected. If there were Federal standards that had to adhered to and tough to change so it would survive knee jerk reactions, I personally would not be in total objection to it.
..

Absolutely the certification would have to be run at a Federal level. I know it's the last thing the Red States want but one of the biggest problems with the gun issue right now is the varying state to state laws. Yes the "states rights" crowd will soil their panties but honestly what's proposed in that list is hardly restrictive to even moderately responsible gun owners.


As a libtard with latent gun-grabber tendencies, I'm very much in favor of considerable local control over firearm regulation. I think it's ridiculous to presume that the same approach will work in Wyoming as in Detroit. I think it's also consistent with the framers' intent as expressed in the well-regulated militia clause.
 
2012-12-24 02:53:06 PM
TFA: "What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years,"

Bollocks. Israel doesn't waste time or money on security theater. If armed guards weren't an integral and necessary element of this "overall anti-terror" policy, there wouldn't be armed guards at every single school in the country.


TFA: "There is no comparison between maniacs with psychological problems opening fire at random to kill innocent people and trained terrorists trying to murder Israeli children,"

You mean, other than the fact that both barge into a school and start shooting indiscriminately at children and unarmed staff?

There may be "no comparison" as far as the perpetrators' underlying motivation, but as far as the method of execution (no pun intended) and tactics necessary to defend against them in real time, the two are one and the same.
 
2012-12-24 02:55:31 PM

Prince George: Isn't the only difference between a terrorist and a homicidal maniac that someone with a political agenda brainwashed the terrorist to do it where as the nut-jobs brainwash themselves?


If you really think that, then there's not much point explaining to you why you're wrong.
 
2012-12-24 03:04:24 PM

Confabulat: Can these idiots get anything right? I mean other than blaming 20-year-old movies and video games.


Well blaming those is a slight improvement from 'rock and roll' and 'Satan' from 25 years ago.
 
2012-12-24 03:07:06 PM

Farkage: Flappyhead: Poot beer: I think there are three very important words in the 2nd Amendment.

/well regulated militia
//well regulated
//regulated


The problem is you're assuming most NRA supporters can read.

And naturally, you're assuming that the word 'regulated" means what you think it does. Try looking into the context of when the Bill of Rights was written. Go ahead, do a little homework!
And I'll leave this here with you, since apparently you have trouble with comprehension...

"Well regulated" back when the Bill of Rights was written meant "In it's proper working order" These days people like you try to redefine it as "Strictly controlled". It's not the same thing no matter how much you try to pretend it is. And why would the Founding Fathers make it a right strictly controlled by the government when they just fought a war to get us away from a very oppressive government and guarantee we will never be forced to endure oppression again?

Here are a few more that you'll just end up ignoring anyway (since things like facts and history trouble you so much):
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... - George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. - Richard Henry Lee 1788

And last but not least:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Now, since you're a unmitigated tool that refuses to actually think about what the Founding Fathers meant, please explain all of the above in your "people aren't allowed to have arms unless they are in a militia strictly controlled by the government" mindset.


Every citation above is for people -- as in local community, municipality or state. There is no individual right to own arms. If you can't play well with other people and/or aren't able to handle a gun (e.g. as part of a militia) then no gun for you.

Speaking of founding fathers: The NRA was founded by ex-Civil War veterans (Union) to ensure there would be trained riflemen ready for the next draft. The fact that since the 1970's the NRA has become a shill for the gun manufacturing industry and wanna-be Dirty Harrys is a perversion of its original intent.
 
2012-12-24 03:10:23 PM
Simplified version.
Are there armed guards in Israeli schools? Yes.
Are there school shoots in Israeli schools? No.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
 
2012-12-24 03:14:29 PM

Carlip: Simplified version.
Are there armed guards in Israeli schools? Yes.
Are there school shoots in Israeli schools? No.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.


Foreevery complex problem there is a solution that is simple, straightforward, and stupid.
 
2012-12-24 03:15:35 PM

spmkk: TFA: "What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years,"

Bollocks. Israel doesn't waste time or money on security theater. If armed guards weren't an integral and necessary element of this "overall anti-terror" policy, there wouldn't be armed guards at every single school in the country.


TFA: "There is no comparison between maniacs with psychological problems opening fire at random to kill innocent people and trained terrorists trying to murder Israeli children,"

You mean, other than the fact that both barge into a school and start shooting indiscriminately at children and unarmed staff?

There may be "no comparison" as far as the perpetrators' underlying motivation, but as far as the method of execution (no pun intended) and tactics necessary to defend against them in real time, the two are one and the same.


Terrorists don't "barge into" anywhere and start shooting indiscriminately; and the tactics necessary to defend against a terrorist attack absolutely ARE different from what you need to do to defend against a random shooter. And especially in Israel.

Terrorists are motivated by political agendas; they select their targets carefully and with an eye to maximum exposure of the deaths, maximum carnage, and maximum shock value. They also want to seem as if they had no other option when choosing their target, and they want some type of symbolic link between the act and the target. Protecting a school from a terrorist attack can be as simple as changing its name from "Ben-Gurion Memorial Elementary School" to something more innocuous. It can also be as invisible as closing the school on a particularly significant date, like the anniversary of a local terrorist's death or another famous attack.

Psychotic shooters pick targets based on personal, internal motivations, The target is significant to THEM, but there's usually no way to know why, except in hindsight. Defending against these people means finding them long before they pick up a gun and start shooting; but failing that, it means creating a series of barriers between them and potential targets--difficult to do, because the number of targets is so large.

Terrorists can be defended against by use of street-level intelligence, arrests of suspected activists, confiscation of weapons, and other legal means. Psychotics cannot be so restrained. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea. I kind of doubt it, based on  your prior comments, but maybe.
 
Displayed 50 of 241 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report