Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   It takes a politician with a biatch'n trans-am to stand up to the NRA   (nytimes.com) divider line 239
    More: Cool, Biden, assault weapons ban, National Shooting Sports Foundation, NRA  
•       •       •

5230 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Dec 2012 at 1:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-30 09:01:04 AM  
It takes balls for a man surrounded by men with guns, empowered by men with guns, to tell people they shouldn't have guns.
 
2012-12-30 09:18:08 AM  
 I'm so sick of this. The original ban we had didn't do sh*t. Neither will a future one. The conversation we need to be having is about access to mental health care. There are already 3 million AR-15s out there (just that model alone, according to TFA). It's time to attack the root of the problem instead of the firearm itself.

 It's America, man. We kill more people by 9am than the rest of the world does all day. Unless you change that culture, any bans will be largely useless, and a complete waste of political good will.
 
2012-12-30 09:27:38 AM  
I'm not much of a joiner, but I just re-upped my NRA membership.  Bring it on Uncle Joe.
 
2012-12-30 10:23:04 AM  
*reads comments in this thread, shakes head*
 
2012-12-30 10:45:32 AM  

dickfreckle:  I'm so sick of this. The original ban we had didn't do sh*t. Neither will a future one. The conversation we need to be having is about access to mental health care. There are already 3 million AR-15s out there (just that model alone, according to TFA). It's time to attack the root of the problem instead of the firearm itself.

 It's America, man. We kill more people by 9am than the rest of the world does all day. Unless you change that culture, any bans will be largely useless, and a complete waste of political good will.


Look - any good comprehensive plan SHOULD contain aspects of mental health components and regulating access to certain weapons.
 
2012-12-30 10:49:15 AM  

raerae1980: *reads comments in this thread, shakes head*


Yeah... me too
 
2012-12-30 10:54:35 AM  

raerae1980: *reads comments in this thread, shakes head*


MaudlinMutantMollusk: raerae1980: *reads comments in this thread, shakes head*

Yeah... me too


Remember, I'm a raging libtard coming at this from a pragamatic angle. I simply don't see how bans are effective in an American society already marinated in violence. I'm certainly not opposed to a ban - it can't possibly hurt - I just don't see the use of creating a firestorm in the derposphere for so little, if any gain. Remember, the last time Dems went after guns it bit them in the ass.
 
2012-12-30 11:08:24 AM  
2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From Wiki: In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I did not know this. So, it wasn't until 2008 that it became 'constitutional' for an individual to own guns. And prior to that, you had to be in a well-regulated militia?
 
2012-12-30 11:15:02 AM  

dickfreckle: raerae1980: *reads comments in this thread, shakes head*

MaudlinMutantMollusk: raerae1980: *reads comments in this thread, shakes head*

Yeah... me too

Remember, I'm a raging libtard coming at this from a pragamatic angle. I simply don't see how bans are effective in an American society already marinated in violence. I'm certainly not opposed to a ban - it can't possibly hurt - I just don't see the use of creating a firestorm in the derposphere for so little, if any gain. Remember, the last time Dems went after guns it bit them in the ass.


Speaking for myself, the first few comments just illustrate the breadth and depth of the problem, and all I can do is shake my head in resignation

/I honestly don't believe for a second that anything is ever going to change, and I expect the entire issue will fade away until the next time there's a mass shooting
//what's that definition of insanity again?
 
2012-12-30 11:16:29 AM  
Another question, when the last ban was in effect, how were the gun manufactorers able to get around it? I had heard that they simply re-named the guns, causing the ban to be weaker. Is this true?
 
2012-12-30 12:37:58 PM  

raerae1980: Another question, when the last ban was in effect, how were the gun manufactorers able to get around it? I had heard that they simply re-named the guns, causing the ban to be weaker. Is this true?


To your two questions; the SCOTUS hadn't addressed that aspect prior. It really has nothing to do with previous constitutionality as much as it does with the makeup of the SCOTUS at the time, just like any other decision they make.

To answer the second, the Clinton-era assault weapons ban (AWB) banned outright some firearms by name, then listed certain "features" that, when found in some combination on a single weapon, were banned. Many of these features had little to nothing to do with deployability or other functionality that made any one weapon more "deadly" than any other. For further ridiculousness, all existing examples were grandfathered in, meaning if you had an AR-15 with every banned feature, it was still OK. It was simply feel-good legislation that did absolutely nothing to address violence by guns but made a lot of gun sellers wealthy.
 
2012-12-30 01:36:03 PM  

raerae1980: 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From Wiki: In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I did not know this. So, it wasn't until 2008 that it became 'constitutional' for an individual to own guns. And prior to that, you had to be in a well-regulated militia?


That same court has also ruled that corporations are people, that cities can use public domain to seize private property for private enterprises (that then never happen), and that a narcotics canine sniffing you is not an intrusive search, despite what you may feel about the matter. 

Clearly, this court has never gotten anythingwrong, and their opinion on matters like this is entirely without historical reproach.

/ or do you think the Roberts decision was absolutely correct and has no possibility of ever being overturned?
 
2012-12-30 01:41:04 PM  

dickfreckle: I'm so sick of this. The original ban we had didn't do sh*t. Neither will a future one. The conversation we need to be having is about access to mental health care. There are already 3 million AR-15s out there (just that model alone, according to TFA). It's time to attack the root of the problem instead of the firearm itself.

 It's America, man. We kill more people by 9am than the rest of the world does all day. Unless you change that culture, any bans will be largely useless, and a complete waste of political good will.


This map scares the living fark out of me. I've been trying to spread it around and no one seems to pay attention. Not my pro-gun friends or my anti-gun friends. With the Brady act we are doing a really good job of keeping guns away from felons. We suck at keeping guns away from crazy people.

http://www.demandaplan.org/FatalGaps

As an example Pennsylvania has only reported 1 person too crazy to buy guns to the NICS database. 1 farking person. Wrap your head around that.

You would think this is something that could get bipartisan support. But I can't fathom why no one will pay attention to it.
 
2012-12-30 01:49:41 PM  
The NRA spends 30 years flooding society with easy to access weaponry and then uses that over-saturation of our society by weapons....to justify easy access to more weaponry.

"The guns aren't the problem, you commie gun grabber! We just need MOAR GUNS!"

A wonderful solution for an organization funded by the guys selling the guns.
 
2012-12-30 01:50:10 PM  

raerae1980: 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From Wiki: In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I did not know this. So, it wasn't until 2008 that it became 'constitutional' for an individual to own guns. And prior to that, you had to be in a well-regulated militia?


It's not judicial activism when we do it.
 
2012-12-30 01:51:19 PM  

whistleridge: That same court has also ruled that corporations are people, that cities can use public domain to seize private property for private enterprises (that then never happen),


Whoa, hold on a second there: The conservative wing (plus Kennedy) voted that corporations are people, but it was the *LIBERAL* wing (plus Kennedy) that decided that cities can seize private property to give to another private

Not the "same court". In essence, it was the same judge, Anthony Kennedy, making the decisions.
 
2012-12-30 01:53:50 PM  
Fifteen comments, and not a single "Biatchin' Camaro" reference? Fark, I am disappoint.
 
2012-12-30 01:54:57 PM  

BMulligan: Fifteen comments, and not a single "Biatchin' Camaro" reference? Fark, I am disappoint.


Camaro? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Know your memes, dude!
 
2012-12-30 01:59:27 PM  
Its not the guns its the people!

Lets look at this. The dude that shot up newtown was a weird kid who didnt fit in well with others and his mom controlled his life. Until then he didnt do anything illegal or otherwise allow a venue for the law to intervene in his life. He then grabbed his moms guns, killed her, and then went to the school to kill a bunch of kids.

So how do we fix this? For starters, the kid was not someone we legally could have stopped until he picked up the gun and shot his mother. That is the first problem. The second is that he had easy access to an assault weapon catered to all out war, and to ammunition to shoot it.

So if we cant pin point people who are going to snap and go on a killing spree, and we cant treat them, the only option is gun control. You stupid asshats.
 
2012-12-30 01:59:51 PM  

Infernalist: The NRA spends 30 years flooding society with easy to access weaponry and then uses that over-saturation of our society by weapons....to justify easy access to more weaponry.

"The guns aren't the problem, you commie gun grabber! We just need MOAR GUNS!"

A wonderful solution for an organization funded by the guys selling the guns.


NRA has been around for 142 years, and it's mission has *ALWAYS* been to promote marksmanship. You can't promote marksmanship if you don't promote gun ownership.

Oh, and the NRA isn't funded by the gun manufacturers. It has over 4 million dues-paying members. If they all pay the equivalent of $20 average in yearly dues (a single year membership is more, but you get a break if you buy multi-year or life membership), that's $80 million dollars in revenue just from dues alone, not counting extra donations, or cash from from things like memorabilia (hats, shirts, etc.).

In fact, the NRA is at times at odds with the gun manufacturers. The NRA was pretty pissed at Smith and Wesson when they signed a deal with the Clinton Administration back in 2000, and sales of Smith and Wesson guns dropped by 40% due to the ensuing boycott. It was bad enough that the owners of S&W sold the company, and the new owners repudiated the agreement, and S&W was welcomed back into the fold.

It is the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) that is the lobbying/industry group for firearms manufacturers.

The NRA is a *USERS* group.
 
2012-12-30 02:01:39 PM  

MFAWG: BMulligan: Fifteen comments, and not a single "Biatchin' Camaro" reference? Fark, I am disappoint.

Camaro? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Know your memes, dude!


It's like a mash up. Dead Milkmen meet Joe Biden.
 
2012-12-30 02:02:35 PM  

Jaws_Victim: The second is that he had easy access to an assault weapon catered to all out war, and to ammunition to shoot it.


Unpossible! Connecticut law bans assault weapons!

Obviously, it was a legal to own, non-assault weapon. Otherwise, his mother couldn't have legally purchased it.
 
2012-12-30 02:03:34 PM  

raerae1980: I did not know this. So, it wasn't until 2008 that it became 'constitutional' for an individual to own guns. And prior to that, you had to be in a well-regulated militia?


Prior to that, there was no legal standard.

Gun banners got too cocky and thought they'd push their flawed interpretation too widely so the court smacked them down.

whistleridge: That same court has also ruled that corporations are people


No, that's prior rulings. The Citizens United ruling decided the applicability of campaign restrictions on corporations violated their 1st Amendment rights.

whistleridge: that cities can use public domain to seize private property for private enterprises (that then never happen), and that a narcotics canine sniffing you is not an intrusive search, despite what you may feel about the matter.


That's the Rehnquist Court. Though there probably would be no change in the Kelo case as the ones who decided in favor of Kelo were the liberal ones who Obama replaced with like-minded ones.
 
2012-12-30 02:05:13 PM  
"This is somebody who's bombastic and really does think that anybody who disagrees with him is not only wrong but crazy," David Keene, the N.R.A. president, said in an interview. "That's his style."

Pot, Kettle, etc.

Even my hunters-for-more-than-40-years uncles are getting irritated at the NRA, and that includes the ones who work in Detroit.
 
2012-12-30 02:08:11 PM  

Bontesla: Look - any good comprehensive plan SHOULD contain aspects of mental health components and regulating access to certain weapons.


What weapons do you refer to?
 
2012-12-30 02:10:19 PM  

MFAWG: raerae1980: 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From Wiki: In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I did not know this. So, it wasn't until 2008 that it became 'constitutional' for an individual to own guns. And prior to that, you had to be in a well-regulated militia?

It's not judicial activism when we do it.


In heller v dc, the court used the rules of grammar to explain the 2nd.
The case was a challenge to laws that were only a few decades old.

The 2nd was intended as an individual right.

The argument to the contrary is actually an argument against the constitutionality of a standing army.

So stop it.
 
2012-12-30 02:11:47 PM  

Infernalist: The NRA spends 30 years flooding society with easy to access weaponry and then uses that over-saturation of our society by weapons....to justify easy access to more weaponry.

"The guns aren't the problem, you commie gun grabber! We just need MOAR GUNS!"

A wonderful solution for an organization funded by the guys selling the guns.


And the people continue to flood society with mentally ill emotionally impulsive children who are not or cannot be taught not to harm others out of desperation, malice, or greed. If you want to enact incredibly expensive authoritarian long term control over the public, figure out a way to make men temporarily infertile, administer it to all male citizens at the age of 14 and allow it to be reversed only after a mental health screening and paternal capability test.

Yes, I'm being rather facetious. However, breeding is not a right and most violence problems stem from one of two things: people with mental instability and people who never had "don't be a dick to other people" firmly entrenched in their ethical standards.
 
2012-12-30 02:13:01 PM  
theaxemen.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-30 02:16:01 PM  
If you registered for selective services, you are part of a militia?
 
2012-12-30 02:18:21 PM  

BGates: Bontesla: Look - any good comprehensive plan SHOULD contain aspects of mental health components and regulating access to certain weapons.

What weapons do you refer to?


Any firearm with a detachable magazine or an internal magazine capacity greater than six rounds.
Pistols should be first to go.
 
2012-12-30 02:19:25 PM  

Jaws_Victim: So if we cant pin point people who are going to snap and go on a killing spree, and we cant treat them, the only option is gun control. You stupid asshats.


Yeah, that completely stopped killing sprees in the UK where they tried it.

That was sarcasm, btw.

Truth of the matter is that really, aside from a complete ban on all guns, something not constitutionally possible in the US, you can't stop mass shootings. People bent on that sort of thing will merely substitute other guns, and perhaps more effective ones: At short range the 12 gauge shotgun is the most lethal gun you can commonly own. A 12 gauge slug is almost the same diameter as a 20mm cannon (technically 18.5mm). Using buckshot, it's like a burst from a submachine gun: 000 buck is 9mm in diameter, and a typical shotgun shell will hold 6 of them.

Even if you could completely get rid of guns, which is impossible both from a cultural and a legal standpoint in the US, people who are bent on this sort of thing will find other methods. Killing sprees with axes are common enough in countries where firearms are unavailable, for example.

So the question is what good will gun control actually *DO*? Other nations with gun control stricter than the United States have shooting sprees. In fact, of the top 5 shooting sprees by numbers of deaths, only one of them occurred in the US, and that was number 4. The worse one happened in Norway, which already *HAS* pretty much all the gun control that has been discussed for the US.

So what would be the point? To harass legal gun owners in the US? To try to incrementally make gun ownership more of a hassle so fewer people own them? Certainly, it's not to stop mass shootings, because even in countries that completely outlaw handgun and "assault weapon" ownership, you still have deadly spree killings with firearms.
 
2012-12-30 02:20:48 PM  

BGates: If you registered for selective services, you are part of a militia?


Even if you didn't. All males age 18 to 45 are part of the militia, by US law.
 
2012-12-30 02:23:59 PM  

Loaded Six String: However, breeding is not a right


Actually, yes it is. It *HAS* to be, if abortion is a right: Abortion is the right to *NOT* breed. If you have the right to *NOT* breed, then you certainly must have the right *TO* breed. Just like if you have the right to chose your own religion, you have the right to chose to be an atheist.
 
2012-12-30 02:24:11 PM  

Jaws_Victim: So if we cant pin point people who are going to snap and go on a killing spree, and we cant treat them, the only option is gun control. You stupid asshats.



By all means, take my rights away because some people have mental disorders.
 
2012-12-30 02:25:00 PM  

dittybopper: BGates: If you registered for selective services, you are part of a militia?

Even if you didn't. All males age 18 to 45 are part of the militia, by US law.


Well, at least we can grab grandpa's guns.
 
2012-12-30 02:25:16 PM  

dickfreckle: I'm certainly not opposed to a ban - it can't possibly hurt -


it makes me a criminal when i wasn't one before. and i have serious reservations about the conditions of the "grandfather" part. i was background checked and waited several days to pick up my guns. why do i have to do that now plus pay for it. fark that. i have never pointed a gun at a person. loaded or otherwise, never.
 
2012-12-30 02:25:28 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Any firearm with a detachable magazine or an internal magazine capacity greater than six rounds.
Pistols should be first to go.



How about no?  Does no work for you?
 
2012-12-30 02:29:41 PM  

s2s2s2: MFAWG: raerae1980: 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From Wiki: In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I did not know this. So, it wasn't until 2008 that it became 'constitutional' for an individual to own guns. And prior to that, you had to be in a well-regulated militia?

It's not judicial activism when we do it.

In heller v dc, the court used the rules of grammar to explain the 2nd.
The case was a challenge to laws that were only a few decades old.

The 2nd was intended as an individual right.

The argument to the contrary is actually an argument against the constitutionality of a standing army.

So stop it.


Not familiar with the Miller case, I take it? Granted, the language in Miller asserting that the right to bear arms is a collective right was dicta and not a holding, but it reflected an understanding of the text which had been mostly unchallenged (Justices Story and Taney notwithstanding) for over a century. Even Chief Justice Burger, a conservative hero, considered the matter settled.
 
2012-12-30 02:30:24 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: BGates: Bontesla: Look - any good comprehensive plan SHOULD contain aspects of mental health components and regulating access to certain weapons.

What weapons do you refer to?

Any firearm with a detachable magazine or an internal magazine capacity greater than six rounds.
Pistols should be first to go.


Why are you so scared of firearms?

I have a bolt action rifle in .338 win mag. It has a detachable magazine wich holds 3 whole rounds. That rifle should be banned?
 
2012-12-30 02:30:33 PM  

s2s2s2: In heller v dc, the court used the rules of grammar to explain the 2nd.
The case was a challenge to laws that were only a few decades old.
The 2nd was intended as an individual right.
The argument to the contrary is actually an argument against the constitutionality of a standing army.
So stop it.


No, you stop it.
Congress can regulate both the militia and their arms: Those are constitutionally specified powers of Congress.

Article 1 Section 8, Constitution of the United States of America.
The Congress shall have Power...

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


/You Fark Constitutional Scholar(TM).
 
2012-12-30 02:32:21 PM  

The_Sponge: demaL-demaL-yeH: Any firearm with a detachable magazine or an internal magazine capacity greater than six rounds.
Pistols should be first to go.


How about no?  Does no work for you?


Do you have a macro set up to post this in every thread?
 
2012-12-30 02:32:53 PM  

The_Sponge: demaL-demaL-yeH: Any firearm with a detachable magazine or an internal magazine capacity greater than six rounds.
Pistols should be first to go.


How about no?  Does no work for you?


Nope.
 
2012-12-30 02:33:46 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: The_Sponge: demaL-demaL-yeH: Any firearm with a detachable magazine or an internal magazine capacity greater than six rounds.
Pistols should be first to go.


How about no?  Does no work for you?

Nope.


Well that's a shame.
 
2012-12-30 02:33:56 PM  

dittybopper: Loaded Six String: However, breeding is not a right

Actually, yes it is. It *HAS* to be, if abortion is a right: Abortion is the right to *NOT* breed. If you have the right to *NOT* breed, then you certainly must have the right *TO* breed. Just like if you have the right to chose your own religion, you have the right to chose to be an atheist.


Well shiat. You knocked down my farcical house of cards. Oh well, there's other less intrusive things which can be done anyways.
 
2012-12-30 02:34:29 PM  

BMulligan: The_Sponge: demaL-demaL-yeH: Any firearm with a detachable magazine or an internal magazine capacity greater than six rounds.
Pistols should be first to go.


How about no?  Does no work for you?

Do you have a macro set up to post this in every thread?



It's my typical response when somebody suggests a stupid gun regulation.....quick and easy.
 
2012-12-30 02:36:12 PM  

dittybopper: Jaws_Victim: So if we cant pin point people who are going to snap and go on a killing spree, and we cant treat them, the only option is gun control. You stupid asshats.

Yeah, that completely stopped killing sprees in the UK where they tried it.

That was sarcasm, btw.

Truth of the matter is that really, aside from a complete ban on all guns, something not constitutionally possible in the US, you can't stop mass shootings. People bent on that sort of thing will merely substitute other guns, and perhaps more effective ones: At short range the 12 gauge shotgun is the most lethal gun you can commonly own. A 12 gauge slug is almost the same diameter as a 20mm cannon (technically 18.5mm). Using buckshot, it's like a burst from a submachine gun: 000 buck is 9mm in diameter, and a typical shotgun shell will hold 6 of them.

Even if you could completely get rid of guns, which is impossible both from a cultural and a legal standpoint in the US, people who are bent on this sort of thing will find other methods. Killing sprees with axes are common enough in countries where firearms are unavailable, for example.

So the question is what good will gun control actually *DO*? Other nations with gun control stricter than the United States have shooting sprees. In fact, of the top 5 shooting sprees by numbers of deaths, only one of them occurred in the US, and that was number 4. The worse one happened in Norway, which already *HAS* pretty much all the gun control that has been discussed for the US.

So what would be the point? To harass legal gun owners in the US? To try to incrementally make gun ownership more of a hassle so fewer people own them? Certainly, it's not to stop mass shootings, because even in countries that completely outlaw handgun and "assault weapon" ownership, you still have deadly spree killings with firearms.


How many mass shootings a year do those countries have? If it's less than one (hell, even if it IS one) per year, they're doing better than us.
 
2012-12-30 02:36:24 PM  

BGates: demaL-demaL-yeH: BGates: Bontesla: Look - any good comprehensive plan SHOULD contain aspects of mental health components and regulating access to certain weapons.

What weapons do you refer to?

Any firearm with a detachable magazine or an internal magazine capacity greater than six rounds.
Pistols should be first to go.

Why are you so scared of firearms?

I have a bolt action rifle in .338 win mag. It has a detachable magazine wich holds 3 whole rounds. That rifle should be banned?


I don't see why it should be. Do you?
Canuckistan managed to ensure that detachable magazines were limited, verifiably, to the legal maximum capacity, so I'm open to constructive suggestions along those lines.
 
2012-12-30 02:37:05 PM  

Bontesla: dickfreckle:  I'm so sick of this. The original ban we had didn't do sh*t. Neither will a future one. The conversation we need to be having is about access to mental health care. There are already 3 million AR-15s out there (just that model alone, according to TFA). It's time to attack the root of the problem instead of the firearm itself.

 It's America, man. We kill more people by 9am than the rest of the world does all day. Unless you change that culture, any bans will be largely useless, and a complete waste of political good will.

Look - any good comprehensive plan SHOULD contain aspects of mental health components and regulating access to certain weapons.


I can't help but wonder how much of the "No, it's not the guns, what we need is better mental health care!" ranting is actually just desperate deflection on the part of closeted gun nuts. The right wing in this country has demonstrated since the Reagan administration how opposed they are to spending public money on mental health issues. Yelling "We don't need A, we need B!" is immediately followed by ". . . but we're not going to fund B, either."

Here's an idea. Let's cut the number of non-hunting firearms in this country by 99%, limit the number of handguns to one per person, require psychological screening and safety training for all firearms ownership, AND increase public funding for mental health. (No, I didn't think so.)
 
2012-12-30 02:37:13 PM  

dickfreckle: The conversation we need to be having is about access to mental health care.


Why? Mental illness appears to show no relationship with gun violence.

The_Sponge: Jaws_Victim: So if we cant pin point people who are going to snap and go on a killing spree, and we cant treat them, the only option is gun control. You stupid asshats.


By all means, take my rights away because some people have mental disorders.


There are many many things you can't do because enough people are irresponsible that society has decided that no one should be allowed to do them. Meth, heroine, etc. Can't drive with a BA level of 0.08, which is only a couple of drinks (on average, for most people). You can't freely yell "Fire" in a crowded area without there actually being a fire (or other threat, really). You can't own a rocket launcher. There are speed limits to how fast you can drive. I could go on. And yes, I fully recognize there are other factors that go into why those things are not legally protected behaviors or choices, but that is irrelevant.
 
2012-12-30 02:38:04 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: so I'm open to constructive suggestions along those lines.



Move to Canada, eh?
 
Displayed 50 of 239 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report