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.

(Buzzfeed)   The original assault weapon ban would have never passed if it wasn't for a former union president from the "left coast"   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 219
    More: Interesting, Ronald Reagan, assault weapons ban, assault weapons, New Hampshire Union Leader  
•       •       •

1870 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jan 2013 at 11:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 10:59:15 AM  
Jared Lee Loughner used an extended 31-round magazine during the Arizona shooting. He only was tackled after he paused to reload.

www.tc.umn.edu
www.tc.umn.edu

Thirty-one rounds, one volley of shots, six dead, thirteen wounded. Magazines above 10 rounds were banned under the old AWB bill and will be under the new bill.
 
2013-01-03 12:02:09 PM  
In other news, the souless, heartless Republicans of the 80s are not as bad as the Republicans of today.
 
2013-01-03 12:06:01 PM  

Lumpmoose: Jared Lee Loughner used an extended 31-round magazine during the Arizona shooting. He only was tackled after he paused to reload.

[www.tc.umn.edu image 242x355]
[www.tc.umn.edu image 850x630]

Thirty-one rounds, one volley of shots, six dead, thirteen wounded. Magazines above 10 rounds were banned under the old AWB bill and will be under the new bill.


Paused? He dropped the magazine and someone grabbed it. If he had smaller easier to handle magazines... Then what?

And Reagan made a mistake supporting the ban. Big whoop. History proved the ban ineffective and flawed.
 
2013-01-03 12:06:11 PM  
You libs will never understand, it's HARD to take out classrooms full of first-graders without rapid-fire semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.
 
2013-01-03 12:07:14 PM  

Mrbogey: derrrpppppp


I expect no less from you!
 
2013-01-03 12:07:32 PM  

Mrbogey: Lumpmoose: Jared Lee Loughner used an extended 31-round magazine during the Arizona shooting. He only was tackled after he paused to reload.

[www.tc.umn.edu image 242x355]
[www.tc.umn.edu image 850x630]

Thirty-one rounds, one volley of shots, six dead, thirteen wounded. Magazines above 10 rounds were banned under the old AWB bill and will be under the new bill.

Paused? He dropped the magazine and someone grabbed it. If he had smaller easier to handle magazines... Then what?

And Reagan made a mistake supporting the ban. Big whoop. History proved the ban ineffective and flawed.


As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed into law legislation written as a direct response to a fear of legally armed black men.
 
2013-01-03 12:08:17 PM  
Damn. The left has been vilifying Saint Reagan for years....I'm not sure I should take seriously a group that flip flops as often as they do.
 
2013-01-03 12:08:49 PM  

Dimensio: Mrbogey: Lumpmoose: Jared Lee Loughner used an extended 31-round magazine during the Arizona shooting. He only was tackled after he paused to reload.

[www.tc.umn.edu image 242x355]
[www.tc.umn.edu image 850x630]

Thirty-one rounds, one volley of shots, six dead, thirteen wounded. Magazines above 10 rounds were banned under the old AWB bill and will be under the new bill.

Paused? He dropped the magazine and someone grabbed it. If he had smaller easier to handle magazines... Then what?

And Reagan made a mistake supporting the ban. Big whoop. History proved the ban ineffective and flawed.

As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed into law legislation written as a direct response to a fear of legally armed black men.


He negotiated with Iranian terrorists, funded illegal death squads, raised taxes 11 times, and failed to protect our Marines in Lebanon. Which is why he's loved by Republicans.
 
2013-01-03 12:08:50 PM  

Lumpmoose: Jared Lee Loughner used an extended 31-round magazine during the Arizona shooting. He only was tackled after he paused to reload.

[www.tc.umn.edu image 242x355]
[www.tc.umn.edu image 850x630]

Thirty-one rounds, one volley of shots, six dead, thirteen wounded. Magazines above 10 rounds were banned under the old AWB bill and will be under the new bill.


While that may be a meaningful data point in an argument for banning only "extended capacity" magazines, it does not serve as data demonstrating that banning handgrips on rifles is justified.
 
2013-01-03 12:10:40 PM  

Dimensio: Lumpmoose: Jared Lee Loughner used an extended 31-round magazine during the Arizona shooting. He only was tackled after he paused to reload.

[www.tc.umn.edu image 242x355]
[www.tc.umn.edu image 850x630]

Thirty-one rounds, one volley of shots, six dead, thirteen wounded. Magazines above 10 rounds were banned under the old AWB bill and will be under the new bill.

While that may be a meaningful data point in an argument for banning only "extended capacity" magazines, it does not serve as data demonstrating that banning handgrips on rifles is justified.


It's probably not. Speed-of-fire should replace it. "Decorations" only is silly.
 
2013-01-03 12:11:45 PM  

ghare: You libs will never understand, it's HARD to take out classrooms full of first-graders without rapid-fire semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.


Isn't it the libs saying it'd be hard to kill 6 year olds without semiauto hi cap rifles. they seem to think banning them would have saved those dead kids lives.
 
2013-01-03 12:11:45 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: In other news, the souless, heartless Republicans of the 80s are not as bad as the Republicans of today.


That realization is scarier then a darken room full of clowns.
 
2013-01-03 12:14:27 PM  

Dimensio: Lumpmoose: Jared Lee Loughner used an extended 31-round magazine during the Arizona shooting. He only was tackled after he paused to reload.

[www.tc.umn.edu image 242x355]
[www.tc.umn.edu image 850x630]

Thirty-one rounds, one volley of shots, six dead, thirteen wounded. Magazines above 10 rounds were banned under the old AWB bill and will be under the new bill.

While that may be a meaningful data point in an argument for banning only "extended capacity" magazines, it does not serve as data demonstrating that banning handgrips on rifles is justified.


I agree. Keep the hand grips (and everything that was only stupid cosmetic changes, that did nothing to the rifle's function), but make the magazine size smaller. Simple.

/You don't need a 30 round magazine unless you're fighting off a zombie hoard!
 
2013-01-03 12:18:29 PM  
Is the collateral damage that may come from having a population with access to arms a appropriate level of sacrifice for that same population to have access to arms for self defense, whether it be against other people or the government?

The writers of the Constitution believed that the ability for self defense outweighed the collateral damage by such a large margin, that they made it the second amendment. A similar argument that would be made about the first would be: Is the collateral damage of allowing the KKK to spew vile and racist things an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will always be able to have the right to free speech. Fourth amendment: Is the collateral damage of allowing people to occasionally get away with crimes an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will not have to fear the government invading their privacy.

And so on. The framers decided that the collateral damages that would occur with these amendments were outweighed by the rights that they wanted to ensure the population would always have. Presumably, the argument follows that Aurora/Newtown/Columbine are unfortunate sacrifices that have to be accepted in order for our right to self defense to exist, the same way that the KKK/Westboro/NeoNazis are unfortunate sacrifices that have to be accepted in order for our right to free speech to exist.

It appears people are deciding that our right to self defense should isn't as valuable as preventing these sacrifices. That is certainly an argument that can be made, but it is not the argument that the framers made, and I personally believe it is a rather knee jerk reaction to an incredibly tragic but even more incredibly rare series of events.
 
2013-01-03 12:18:50 PM  
Don't you blaspheme in here! Don't you blaspheme in here!
 
2013-01-03 12:20:32 PM  

Mrbogey: ghare: You libs will never understand, it's HARD to take out classrooms full of first-graders without rapid-fire semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Isn't it the libs saying it'd be hard to kill 6 year olds without semiauto hi cap rifles. they seem to think banning them would have saved those dead kids lives.


Yes, yes, sweetie, you AREN'T a person with an obvious mental problem that should prevent you from owning guns. Really. I don't think you're the kind of person who would shoot unarmed 6-year-olds to prove his manhood. Really.
 
2013-01-03 12:22:22 PM  
We've already covered that there is NO difference between magazine sizes, and they do not matter at all. This is why they cannot be regulated at all, because it's crucial.
 
2013-01-03 12:23:14 PM  

MattStafford: The writers of the Constitution believed that the ability for self defense outweighed the collateral damage by such a large margin, that they made it the second amendment. A similar argument that would be made about the first would be: Is the collateral damage of allowing the KKK to spew vile and racist things an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will always be able to have the right to free speech. Fourth amendment: Is the collateral damage of allowing people to occasionally get away with crimes an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will not have to fear the government invading their privacy.


For this argument to make any sense at all, you would have to be arguing that they predicted the vast increase in personal firepower and wrote the amendment accordingly. Since that's silly and stupid, so is your argument.
 
2013-01-03 12:24:23 PM  
Can we stop pretending the last assault weapon ban did anything other than make dumbass liberals feel good about themselves, while accomplishing exactly jack shiat?
 
2013-01-03 12:24:24 PM  

MattStafford: Is the collateral damage that may come from having a population with access to arms a appropriate level of sacrifice for that same population to have access to arms for self defense, whether it be against other people or the government?

The writers of the Constitution believed that the ability for self defense outweighed the collateral damage by such a large margin, that they made it the second amendment. A similar argument that would be made about the first would be: Is the collateral damage of allowing the KKK to spew vile and racist things an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will always be able to have the right to free speech. Fourth amendment: Is the collateral damage of allowing people to occasionally get away with crimes an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will not have to fear the government invading their privacy.

And so on. The framers decided that the collateral damages that would occur with these amendments were outweighed by the rights that they wanted to ensure the population would always have. Presumably, the argument follows that Aurora/Newtown/Columbine are unfortunate sacrifices that have to be accepted in order for our right to self defense to exist, the same way that the KKK/Westboro/NeoNazis are unfortunate sacrifices that have to be accepted in order for our right to free speech to exist.

It appears people are deciding that our right to self defense should isn't as valuable as preventing these sacrifices. That is certainly an argument that can be made, but it is not the argument that the framers made, and I personally believe it is a rather knee jerk reaction to an incredibly tragic but even more incredibly rare series of events.


KKK and anyone else usually have to apply for permits to hold protests. The government is allowed to invade you privacy if they have probable cause. NONE of the the right in the constitution are absolute. And almost no one is talking about taking all the guns away. We are having a discussion about how to help crazy people not shoot the place up. I would like to think the founder would be ok with this. Also at the time of the founders the most a single person could do was fire one highly inaccurate round about every 30 seconds. Times have changes. Get used to it.
 
2013-01-03 12:25:04 PM  

Mrbogey: And Reagan made a mistake supporting the ban. Big whoop. History proved the ban ineffective and flawed.


Which is why we need to learn from history and do it the right way this time.
 
2013-01-03 12:26:19 PM  

MattStafford: Is the collateral damage that may come from having a population with access to arms a appropriate level of sacrifice for that same population to have access to arms for self defense, whether it be against other people or the government?

The writers of the Constitution believed that the ability for self defense outweighed the collateral damage by such a large margin, that they made it the second amendment. A similar argument that would be made about the first would be: Is the collateral damage of allowing the KKK to spew vile and racist things an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will always be able to have the right to free speech. Fourth amendment: Is the collateral damage of allowing people to occasionally get away with crimes an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will not have to fear the government invading their privacy.

And so on. The framers decided that the collateral damages that would occur with these amendments were outweighed by the rights that they wanted to ensure the population would always have. Presumably, the argument follows that Aurora/Newtown/Columbine are unfortunate sacrifices that have to be accepted in order for our right to self defense to exist, the same way that the KKK/Westboro/NeoNazis are unfortunate sacrifices that have to be accepted in order for our right to free speech to exist.

It appears people are deciding that our right to self defense should isn't as valuable as preventing these sacrifices. That is certainly an argument that can be made, but it is not the argument that the framers made, and I personally believe it is a rather knee jerk reaction to an incredibly tragic but even more incredibly rare series of events.


I'm not so sure that 230-year-old documents written by people who believed that only white male property owners had any rights, and had never seen rapid-fire semiautomatic weapons used to massacre 6-year-olds, and in fact specified that firearms are associated with a well-regulated militia, shouldn't be examined with a little more intelligence.

If you want to own such a weapon, you should be subject to the same requirements as those people who own actual machine guns.
 
2013-01-03 12:26:55 PM  

lennavan: Can we stop pretending the last assault weapon ban did anything other than make dumbass liberals feel good about themselves, while accomplishing exactly jack shiat?


Exactly what is your proof that they had no effect?
 
2013-01-03 12:27:04 PM  

sprawl15: MattStafford: The writers of the Constitution believed that the ability for self defense outweighed the collateral damage by such a large margin, that they made it the second amendment. A similar argument that would be made about the first would be: Is the collateral damage of allowing the KKK to spew vile and racist things an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will always be able to have the right to free speech. Fourth amendment: Is the collateral damage of allowing people to occasionally get away with crimes an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will not have to fear the government invading their privacy.

For this argument to make any sense at all, you would have to be arguing that they predicted the vast increase in personal firepower and wrote the amendment accordingly. Since that's silly and stupid, so is your argument.


I seriously doubt the founders believed 1782 to be the height of technological development.
 
2013-01-03 12:27:40 PM  

Dimensio: While that may be a meaningful data point in an argument for banning only "extended capacity" magazines, it does not serve as data demonstrating that banning handgrips on rifles is justified.


The assault weapon ban attempted to ban scary looking guns and guns legislators totally heard about once in a mass shooting. Nothing more. It was full of stupid.
 
2013-01-03 12:27:46 PM  

lennavan: Can we stop pretending the last assault weapon ban did anything other than make dumbass liberals feel good about themselves, while accomplishing exactly jack shiat?


So, if it did nothing, "exactly jack shiat ", why so worried about a new ban then?
 
2013-01-03 12:28:47 PM  

LasersHurt: We've already covered that there is NO difference between magazine sizes, and they do not matter at all. This is why they cannot be regulated at all, because it's crucial.


Practically speaking, a ban on magazine sizes would be pretty farking ineffectual because of grandfathering. That plus the lack of traceability on magazines - and the huge amounts produced and sold before/after the last AWB - means it'd have almost zero actual impact on the use of large magazines.

Ultimately a lot of gun laws in the country suffer problems because of the extant proliferation. You really can't ban anything that is currently legal and have it be an effective law without confiscation.
 
2013-01-03 12:29:54 PM  
In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Question: Should we ban pools? Take away citizens ability to swim because they can't take care of themselves?

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

In 2007, the latest year for which data are available, motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death among 13-19 year-old males and females in the United States.
A total of 3,466 teenagers ages 13-19 died in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. This is 60 percent fewer than in 1975 and 15 percent fewer than in 2008.

Question: Should we stop teenagers from riding in as well as driving cars?

Adjusting for population, the U.S. death rate by firearms -- which includes homicides, suicide and accidents -- was 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009, according to the Coalition for Gun Control. The closest developed country was Finland, with a firearms death rate of 4.47 per 100,000 people in 2008, less than half that of the U.S. rate. In Canada, the rate was 2.5 per 100,000 people in 2009. In the United Kingdom, the 2011 rate was 0.25 per 100,000 people.

I ask every single person advocating for taking this freedom away and etching away at our rights. What is your logic? 10.2 per 100,000. TOTAL. Then look at some of my example statistics above.

I know this is fark, so i will probably be looked at like a moron. But the fact remains; Any stepping stone to gun control is an absolute stepping stone to more governmental control of your personal life. The rates per 100,000 show this is an aboslute non-issue, or it should be. The death rates from firearms in this country has been DECREASING over the last 10 years, and statistics show the AWB had little to no effect. That information was found from the FBI's website yesterday courtesy of another farker.

Why does anyone with a sane mind think that further "population control" of law abiding citizens will fix the problems of mental cases and true criminals doing whatever they deem necessary to commit their crimes? Because it is population control in the guise of "saving children".

Now is the time for ANYONE who is passionate about this, to write intelligent letters, call their representatives, and make your voice heard if you have any interest in doing your best to fight this. This is not about republicans or democrats, it is about not being willing to stand for the rights of an individual being taken away in the exchange for the "greater good".
 
2013-01-03 12:32:29 PM  

Mrbogey: sprawl15: MattStafford: The writers of the Constitution believed that the ability for self defense outweighed the collateral damage by such a large margin, that they made it the second amendment. A similar argument that would be made about the first would be: Is the collateral damage of allowing the KKK to spew vile and racist things an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will always be able to have the right to free speech. Fourth amendment: Is the collateral damage of allowing people to occasionally get away with crimes an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will not have to fear the government invading their privacy.

For this argument to make any sense at all, you would have to be arguing that they predicted the vast increase in personal firepower and wrote the amendment accordingly. Since that's silly and stupid, so is your argument.

I seriously doubt the founders believed 1782 to be the height of technological development.


They didn't. Which is why originalism is stupid and why they wrote the Constitution such that it leaves it up to us to decide how to govern rather than them.

They gave us nothing but the tools of governance. Failing to use them intelligently leaves us with a bunch of tools in government.
 
2013-01-03 12:34:47 PM  

ghare: lennavan: Can we stop pretending the last assault weapon ban did anything other than make dumbass liberals feel good about themselves, while accomplishing exactly jack shiat?

Exactly what is your proof that they had no effect?


Google the phrase "post ban assault rifle." The legislation banned specifically named guns. It also listed key features that a gun could not have more than 2 of (or something like that). So manufacturers changed the grip, renamed it and poof they were good to go.

Before the ban, manufacturers made a whole fark load of high capacity magazines and the gun people stocked the fark up. The ban only banned manufacturing and importing of high capacity magazines.

Finally, assault weapons already owned were grandfathered in.

So tell me, what exactly did the assault weapon ban accomplish in your mind?

www.firearmstalk.com

IM SO GLAD WE GOT THAT AR-15 OFF THE STREET
I FEEL SAFER KNOWING PEOPLE ONLY HAVE THE XM15 CAR
 
2013-01-03 12:35:46 PM  

KarmicDisaster: lennavan: Can we stop pretending the last assault weapon ban did anything other than make dumbass liberals feel good about themselves, while accomplishing exactly jack shiat?

So, if it did nothing, "exactly jack shiat ", why so worried about a new ban then?


Because the new ban will also do exactly jack shiat. And Diane Feinstein will go home and pat herself on the back and we'll all pretend like we did something when again we did absolutely nothing.

I want an actual ban, not this window dressing bullshiat.
 
2013-01-03 12:37:49 PM  

phedex: But the fact remains; Any stepping stone to gun control is an absolute stepping stone to more governmental control of your personal life.


Uh, all government laws are government control of your personal life. Aren't you glad it's against the law for me to slash your tires while you're sleeping? THE GOVERNMENT IS CONTROLLING ME OHMYGOD.
 
2013-01-03 12:38:27 PM  

lennavan: So tell me, what exactly did the assault weapon ban accomplish in your mind?

www.firearmstalk.com

IM SO GLAD WE GOT THAT AR-15 OFF THE STREET
I FEEL SAFER KNOWING PEOPLE ONLY HAVE THE XM15 CAR


Of note, the Beltway 'sniper' shootings were during the AWB, and used a Bushmaster XM15.
 
2013-01-03 12:38:37 PM  
lennavan:
[www.firearmstalk.com image 600x371]

IM SO GLAD WE GOT THAT AR-15 OFF THE STREET
I FEEL SAFER KNOWING PEOPLE ONLY HAVE THE XM15 CAR



So, again, if it did nothing but make "those liberals feel better", why so worked up about it? Let them feel better and enjoy your guns then. What is your point?
 
2013-01-03 12:39:27 PM  

sprawl15: LasersHurt: We've already covered that there is NO difference between magazine sizes, and they do not matter at all. This is why they cannot be regulated at all, because it's crucial.

Practically speaking, a ban on magazine sizes would be pretty farking ineffectual because of grandfathering. That plus the lack of traceability on magazines - and the huge amounts produced and sold before/after the last AWB - means it'd have almost zero actual impact on the use of large magazines.

Ultimately a lot of gun laws in the country suffer problems because of the extant proliferation. You really can't ban anything that is currently legal and have it be an effective law without confiscation.


I'm not pro-ban, I'm pro "sensible argument that is not BS," that's all.
 
2013-01-03 12:39:56 PM  

lennavan: phedex: But the fact remains; Any stepping stone to gun control is an absolute stepping stone to more governmental control of your personal life.

Uh, all government laws are government control of your personal life. Aren't you glad it's against the law for me to slash your tires while you're sleeping? THE GOVERNMENT IS CONTROLLING ME OHMYGOD.


And that stops criminals from slashing my tires how? Has the government made knives and stabbing weapons illegal? and if they were illegal, would that mean that no one would ever be able to slash tires again?
 
2013-01-03 12:42:01 PM  

lennavan: phedex: But the fact remains; Any stepping stone to gun control is an absolute stepping stone to more governmental control of your personal life.

Uh, all government laws are government control of your personal life. Aren't you glad it's against the law for me to slash your tires while you're sleeping? THE GOVERNMENT IS CONTROLLING ME OHMYGOD.


I'm more scared of the alternate proposals, giving the government the power to "evaluate" you for mental health and decide who can and who cannot have guns and other things.
 
2013-01-03 12:42:44 PM  
gun nuts?

MORE LIKE FUN NUTS!


FURK YEA I'M A RAMBO YEAAAAA AWHOOOOOO!
 
2013-01-03 12:43:04 PM  

KarmicDisaster: So, again, if it did nothing but make "those liberals feel better", why so worked up about it? Let them feel better and enjoy your guns then. What is your point?


Because I'm a liberal who wants actual relevant change. I don't own any guns. I'd like to see all semi-automatic guns banned entirely with no grandfather clause. Turn it in, destroy it or you're a felon.

How the fark can you be so stupid to miss my point over and over again and think I'm a gun loving nutball?

You can't seriously think this legislation is worth anything at all, can you? Does banning a specific named gun make you feel better at night? You do realize the manufacturer just made a teenie change and renamed it and started selling that instead, right? Of course you don't, because you're stupid.
 
2013-01-03 12:44:15 PM  

sprawl15: For this argument to make any sense at all, you would have to be arguing that they predicted the vast increase in personal firepower and wrote the amendment accordingly. Since that's silly and stupid, so is your argument.


Why would that be the case? The argument is that the framers thought we should have a write to defend ourselves, not that we should have a right to defend ourselves only using muskets.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:29 PM  

phedex: And that stops criminals from slashing my tires how?


So what you are saying is all laws are pointless because criminals are gonna commit crimes whether they are legal or not?

Wow dude, wow. You were right, you are gonna get called a moran. Over and over and over again.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:35 PM  
This is what I love best about the right - they argue against abortion because every life is sacred.....

...until it comes to paying for foodstamps or welfare or a higher minimum wage for an abandoned mother (who should have kept her panties on instead of submitting to her man) who can't afford decent childcare or decent food for her sacred child.

...or until it comes to paying for better teachers for the schools that teach our sacred children.

...or until it comes to investing in cleaner air, pure water or high quality, nutritious, pesticide-free food for our sacred children.

...or until it comes to working or paying to protect these sacred children from the ocassional nutjob wielding firearms with large clips.

...or until it comes to avoiding wars of convenience that are ultimately paid for in the lives and blood of our sacred children.

Sacred babies are sacred for about a minute - then they become mewling, whimpering, degenerate bloodsuckers who are part of the problem, not the solution. The only solution they can provide, as the cheapest life possible, is to further the goals of the extreme right wing. "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, whining baby, and don't complain about your crappy life - God, money and corruptible politicians gave me mine. Fark the rest of you......"

Yeah, a bit off the deep end....apparently I can't see the same thing that gun rights activists see when these kids are killed. I see a problem. Apparently, gun rights activists think there is nothing to see here.....but whatever it was, it can be solved by more guns. Until it costs more money to protect society from the problems caused by the proliferation of guns than it would cost to sensibly reduce guns in society (and I am sure I haven't seen the cost to benefits ratio in favor of more guns established), then nothing will be done.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:09 PM  

LasersHurt: sprawl15: LasersHurt: We've already covered that there is NO difference between magazine sizes, and they do not matter at all. This is why they cannot be regulated at all, because it's crucial.

Practically speaking, a ban on magazine sizes would be pretty farking ineffectual because of grandfathering. That plus the lack of traceability on magazines - and the huge amounts produced and sold before/after the last AWB - means it'd have almost zero actual impact on the use of large magazines.

Ultimately a lot of gun laws in the country suffer problems because of the extant proliferation. You really can't ban anything that is currently legal and have it be an effective law without confiscation.

I'm not pro-ban, I'm pro "sensible argument that is not BS," that's all.



Yeah I know what you mean. I argued with someone about this on Fark probably a year ago. Some guy links me a youtube video of someone reloading a magazine in like 2 seconds and said see how fast it is, it won't matter if you ban them or not, you can still shoot pretty much the same speed. So I said, "great, so it won't matter to you if we ban them or not."
 
2013-01-03 12:48:22 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: KKK and anyone else usually have to apply for permits to hold protests. The government is allowed to invade you privacy if they have probable cause. NONE of the the right in the constitution are absolute. And almost no one is talking about taking all the guns away. We are having a discussion about how to help crazy people not shoot the place up. I would like to think the founder would be ok with this. Also at the time of the founders the most a single person could do was fire one highly inaccurate round about every 30 seconds. Times have changes. Get used to it.


The crux of the argument is irrelevant to the time period, or the weaponry available. Are the sacrifices from having Newtown etc happen worth the self defense provided by allowing the population to have those same weapons. I would argue yes, they are worth it. Although I'm not suggesting that anyone should rebel against the government, just the very possibility of that happening provides a check on the government. If you view the branches of the government as checks and balances on itself, an armed population is the check on the entire government. Remove that check at your own peril.
 
2013-01-03 12:50:45 PM  

KarmicDisaster: lennavan: phedex: But the fact remains; Any stepping stone to gun control is an absolute stepping stone to more governmental control of your personal life.

Uh, all government laws are government control of your personal life. Aren't you glad it's against the law for me to slash your tires while you're sleeping? THE GOVERNMENT IS CONTROLLING ME OHMYGOD.

I'm more scared of the alternate proposals, giving the government the power to "evaluate" you for mental health and decide who can and who cannot have guns and other things.


And that is exactly why rational people SHOULD be worried about this issue. Things a gun control advocate should think about how these sort of controls could affect your life.

What potentially dangerous things do I do every day that could kill people. Driving over the speed limit? How about a bill to mandate no cars over 65mph. And mental workups on drivers every two years. And background checks.

Do you do woodwork? Have a garage full of tools that could also be used as weapons? maybe we need a bill to have a background check on people who buy axes, hacksaws, and the like.

You could apply these sort of regulations to absolutely anything in the guise of "saving lives". Because substitute the word gun for car, which is absolutely a deadly weapon, and maybe a gun control advocates thought process would change.
 
2013-01-03 12:51:15 PM  

ghare: I'm not so sure that 230-year-old documents written by people who believed that only white male property owners had any rights, and had never seen rapid-fire semiautomatic weapons used to massacre 6-year-olds, and in fact specified that firearms are associated with a well-regulated militia, shouldn't be examined with a little more intelligence.

If you want to own such a weapon, you should be subject to the same requirements as those people who own actual machine guns.


I'm not making the argument that we should follow their beliefs simply because they framed the constitution. I explained their argument, then voiced my agreement with their argument. Joe Schmo down the street could have made the argument, and I'd still agree with it. Is preventing tragedies like Newtown more valuable that our ultimate check on government, and our right to self defense? The founding fathers argued no, and I agree with them.
 
2013-01-03 12:51:35 PM  

MattStafford: sprawl15: For this argument to make any sense at all, you would have to be arguing that they predicted the vast increase in personal firepower and wrote the amendment accordingly. Since that's silly and stupid, so is your argument.

Why would that be the case? The argument is that the framers thought we should have a write to defend ourselves, not that we should have a right to defend ourselves only using muskets.


At the time, there was likely no weapon on the planet they thought people should not be able to own. That's because weapons were largely limited to muskets and cannon - so it's really not outside the realm of the imagination that the Founders intended the 2nd Amendment to mean anyone can own any weapon they desire because the risk to society from those weapons wasn't particularly large.

But if you apply that justification to today, you would say that the 2nd Amendment thus allows people to own weaponized diseases. Or weapon quality nuclear material.

In drawing any line, you're stating that there is a certain point where the weapon you are allowed to own is constitutionally bannable or regulable based solely on its risk to society. And once you agree to that point, your entire line of argument is moot as the discussion is about where to draw the line.
 
2013-01-03 12:52:00 PM  

KarmicDisaster: lennavan:
[www.firearmstalk.com image 600x371]

IM SO GLAD WE GOT THAT AR-15 OFF THE STREET
I FEEL SAFER KNOWING PEOPLE ONLY HAVE THE XM15 CAR


So, again, if it did nothing but make "those liberals feel better", why so worked up about it? Let them feel better and enjoy your guns then. What is your point?


Because it arbitrarily limits the amount and type of object that I like to collect while providing no social good?
 
2013-01-03 12:54:46 PM  

LasersHurt: sprawl15: LasersHurt: We've already covered that there is NO difference between magazine sizes, and they do not matter at all. This is why they cannot be regulated at all, because it's crucial.

Practically speaking, a ban on magazine sizes would be pretty farking ineffectual because of grandfathering. That plus the lack of traceability on magazines - and the huge amounts produced and sold before/after the last AWB - means it'd have almost zero actual impact on the use of large magazines.

Ultimately a lot of gun laws in the country suffer problems because of the extant proliferation. You really can't ban anything that is currently legal and have it be an effective law without confiscation.

I'm not pro-ban, I'm pro "sensible argument that is not BS," that's all.


My point is simply that the vast majority of legislation involving increased regulation on guns or magazines (or ammo, I've seen that floating around a bit) is simply not sensible when you look at the logistics.

Licensing is probably the ideal way to go. I'd love to see a push towards a European style system where belonging to a gun club is a big part of owning a gun as well, as the club would have its own self interest in making sure its members are not crazy assholes who shouldn't be near a gun.
 
2013-01-03 12:56:58 PM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
Displayed 50 of 219 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