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 Daily Caller)   NRA has compiled a list of every organization, journalist, actor, and corporation who funds the "anti-second amendment movement". What could possibly go wrong?   (dailycaller.com) divider line 1051
    More: Interesting, funds, hate, Sara Lee, journalists, 57th Street, parkways  
•       •       •

21104 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2013 at 6:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1051 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-06 03:02:38 PM
It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-01-06 03:05:50 PM
Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.
 
2013-01-06 03:06:10 PM
Pam Dawber, Peter Bonerz and Sandy "Funny Face" Duncan are on their knees thanking God right now.
 
2013-01-06 03:07:20 PM
I didn't even know there was an anti-2nd Amendment movement.
 
2013-01-06 03:11:46 PM
The list:

American Firearms Association

lol wut?
 
2013-01-06 03:14:29 PM

Vodka Zombie: I didn't even know there was an anti-2nd Amendment movement.


For every basic human right, there's a movement opposed to it.
 
2013-01-06 03:25:13 PM
It's not at all surprising to see Peter Bogdonovich on that list.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-06 03:31:35 PM
Can I have a map with crosshairs over the anti-gun groups?
 
2013-01-06 03:39:30 PM
It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.
 
2013-01-06 03:39:32 PM
Kansas City Chiefs

Yeah, I can't imagine why they would be on that list.

/sarcasm
//Most NFL teams do use the shotgun though.
 
2013-01-06 03:40:42 PM

ZAZ: Can I have a map with crosshairs over the anti-gun groups?


Surveyor's marks. They're surveyor's marks.
 
2013-01-06 03:41:03 PM

St_Francis_P: ZAZ: Can I have a map with crosshairs over the anti-gun groups?

Surveyor's marks. They're surveyor's marks.


I see I'm not needed here.
 
2013-01-06 03:51:49 PM
Some of the celebrities & notables on the list are dead, so why weren't their names removed. It makes me question how accurate this list is.

Jackie Cooper died in 2011.
Nora Ephron died in 2012
Coretta Scott King died in 2006
Sydney Pollack died in 2008
Ruth Warrick died in 2005
James Whitmore died in 2009
Andy Williams died in 2012
 
2013-01-06 03:59:52 PM
It's no more scary than posting lists of legal gun owners, subby.
 
2013-01-06 04:05:54 PM
The pro gun paranoia is already palpable in this thread
 
2013-01-06 04:07:40 PM

Peter von Nostrand: The pro gun paranoia is already palpable in this thread


They didn't give this the "Scary" tag, did they?
 
2013-01-06 04:09:57 PM
That's a big list --- must be a lot of people in there. Obviously all of America is wrong.
 
2013-01-06 04:10:16 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Some of the celebrities & notables on the list are dead, so why weren't their names removed. It makes me question how accurate this list is.

Jackie Cooper died in 2011.
Nora Ephron died in 2012
Coretta Scott King died in 2006
Sydney Pollack died in 2008
Ruth Warrick died in 2005
James Whitmore died in 2009
Andy Williams died in 2012


Doubletap Rule?
 
2013-01-06 04:16:42 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Some of the celebrities & notables on the list are dead, so why weren't their names removed. It makes me question how accurate this list is.

Jackie Cooper died in 2011.
Nora Ephron died in 2012
Coretta Scott King died in 2006
Sydney Pollack died in 2008
Ruth Warrick died in 2005
James Whitmore died in 2009
Andy Williams died in 2012


Their anti-gun sentiment is so strong it stretches beyond the grave.
 
2013-01-06 04:17:10 PM

edmo: That's a big list --- must be a lot of people in there. Obviously all of America is wrong.


Based on this list, it seems to me that the only people in the US that have a problem with guns is everyone.
 
2013-01-06 04:49:02 PM
Why is this scary?
 
2013-01-06 04:56:48 PM
Vinny Testaverde - NFL player

I'm against Testaverde holding a firearm, personally.  He couldn't shoot a meatball off of a Christmas tree.
 
2013-01-06 05:00:10 PM
"Anti Second Amendment people were so wrong to publish the names and addresses of gun owners that we are going to do the exact same thing, but its okay when we do it, because we're the NRA."
 
2013-01-06 05:03:08 PM
fark the negativity. Lets talk about people that are down with guns. Like Alton motherfarking Brown

savethegun.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-06 05:07:06 PM

Sleeping Monkey: "Anti Second Amendment people were so wrong to publish the names and addresses of gun owners that we are going to do the exact same thing, but its okay when we do it, because we're the NRA."


"publishing the names of public people and organizations is the exact same thing as publishing the addresses of private citizens (many of whom are cops, and are now threatened by criminals [look it up. Im on my phone and not doing your homework]) because I'm sleeping Monkey and I have no ability to reason"
 
2013-01-06 05:26:29 PM
I'm sure that this in no way lumps together anyone and everyone who supports any form of gun control into the "anti-2nd-amendment movement."

That would just be terrible.
 
2013-01-06 05:29:16 PM

LasersHurt: I'm sure that this in no way lumps together anyone and everyone who supports any form of gun control into the "anti-2nd-amendment movement."

That would just be terrible.


You're right... it doesn't. Just like the way anybody that wants to own a gun can be accurately described as a "gun nut".
 
2013-01-06 05:33:16 PM

Mrbogey: Vodka Zombie: I didn't even know there was an anti-2nd Amendment movement.

For every basic human right, there's a movement opposed to it.


So that's why the Confederacy existed.
 
2013-01-06 05:41:17 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: You're right... it doesn't. Just like the way anybody that wants to own a gun can be accurately described as a "gun nut".


I think most NRA members can accurately be described as "gun nuts." But they're a very small percentage of gun owners.
 
2013-01-06 05:41:40 PM

Mrbogey: Vodka Zombie: I didn't even know there was an anti-2nd Amendment movement.

For every basic human right, there's a movement opposed to it.


Heh.. If I was mistaken you're comparing gun ownership to a basic human right akin to freedom or equality. Oh wait, you are.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

Okay, carry on
 
2013-01-06 05:41:49 PM

2wolves: Mrbogey: Vodka Zombie: I didn't even know there was an anti-2nd Amendment movement.

For every basic human right, there's a movement opposed to it.

So that's why the Confederacy existed.


Ba-ZING!
 
2013-01-06 05:45:04 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Some of the celebrities & notables on the list are dead, so why weren't their names removed. It makes me question how accurate this list is.

Jackie Cooper died in 2011.
Nora Ephron died in 2012
Coretta Scott King died in 2006
Sydney Pollack died in 2008
Ruth Warrick died in 2005
James Whitmore died in 2009
Andy Williams died in 2012


It's already started!


Frank N Stein: fark the negativity. Lets talk about people that are down with guns. Like Alton motherfarking Brown

[savethegun.files.wordpress.com image 300x473]


At least he admits it only has one purpose.
 
2013-01-06 05:47:43 PM

fusillade762: Bathia_Mapes: Some of the celebrities & notables on the list are dead, so why weren't their names removed. It makes me question how accurate this list is.

Jackie Cooper died in 2011.
Nora Ephron died in 2012
Coretta Scott King died in 2006
Sydney Pollack died in 2008
Ruth Warrick died in 2005
James Whitmore died in 2009
Andy Williams died in 2012

It's already started!


Frank N Stein: fark the negativity. Lets talk about people that are down with guns. Like Alton motherfarking Brown

[savethegun.files.wordpress.com image 300x473]

At least he admits it only has one purpose.


Shooting things? Well duh, that's what guns are made for.

/oh wait, you meant that it's a murder machine.
//time to call te police on Mr Brown, looks like he murdered someone.
 
2013-01-06 05:51:32 PM
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." And the more I hear from the NRA, and the "cold dead hands" types, the more I lean toward keeping those folks away from guns.
 
2013-01-06 06:08:26 PM

2wolves: Mrbogey: Vodka Zombie: I didn't even know there was an anti-2nd Amendment movement.

For every basic human right, there's a movement opposed to it.

So that's why the Confederacy existed.


Whatever, we have better food.
 
2013-01-06 06:13:01 PM

NFA: The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates manufacturers, so they do their best to defend their rights.


ftfy
 
2013-01-06 06:31:36 PM

violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.


Probably because its a property right (not a civil liberty) and duplicating resources that the NRA already deploys wouldn't be very effective as an organizational strategy?
 
2013-01-06 06:35:03 PM

Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.


Says someone who lives in Boston (allegedly)  as opposed to um, Phoenix and never had a gun pulled on her.
 
2013-01-06 06:49:24 PM
Having been robbed at gunpoint once, I'm cool with gun control because it's too easy for crooks and nuts to get guns.
 
2013-01-06 06:51:08 PM
Oh fark, the LOPCATGOPATA is going to double
 
2013-01-06 06:53:14 PM

AirForceVet: Having been robbed at gunpoint once, I'm cool with gun control because it's too easy for crooks and nuts to get guns.


Right... we should totally make it illegal for crooks to have guns.

That'll definitely help.
 
2013-01-06 06:53:15 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Some of the celebrities & notables on the list are dead, so why weren't their names removed. It makes me question how accurate this list is.

Jackie Cooper died in 2011.
Nora Ephron died in 2012
Coretta Scott King died in 2006
Sydney Pollack died in 2008
Ruth Warrick died in 2005
James Whitmore died in 2009
Andy Williams died in 2012


I see what you did there.
 
2013-01-06 06:54:43 PM
When your list of "opponents" includes the American Medical Association, American Bar Association, and American Psychological Association, and we haven't even gotten out of the "A" letters, you may seriously need to re-think your position.
 
2013-01-06 06:55:42 PM
Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.
 
2013-01-06 06:56:16 PM
Our militia isn't regulated well enough.
 
2013-01-06 06:56:52 PM
...we are watching you.

Not an implied threat at all. Penis.
 
2013-01-06 06:57:18 PM
Nothing will happen with this list. The NRA members who read it will talk tough and maybe rage jack it, but none of the people on the list are in any danger.

People who hem and haw over things like the "anti-second Amendment" movement are basically the real life equivalent of the Chicken Hawk from the Foghorn Leghorn cartoons. All the list will do is feed their Red Dawn fantasy.
 
2013-01-06 06:57:22 PM

Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.


That's likely good news if you're a woman.
 
2013-01-06 06:58:32 PM
Oh yay another thread where we can accuse gun nuts of being pants pissers and gun control freaks of being rabid human rights violators.
 
2013-01-06 06:59:51 PM

NFA: Submitter, why is this scary? The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group. Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.


Their JOB is to put fear into the minds of impressionable people who will write them checks.

And those people are mostly ignorant paranoids, who are itching to be the next George Zimmerman, John Hinckley, or Adam Lanza.
 
2013-01-06 06:59:56 PM

Somacandra: violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.

Probably because its a property right (not a civil liberty) and duplicating resources that the NRA already deploys wouldn't be very effective as an organizational strategy?


Civil Liberty:

Freedom from arbitrary governmental interference (as with the right of free speech) specifically by denial of governmental power and in the United States especially as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
 
2013-01-06 07:00:09 PM

NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.


I honestly believe the NRA stopped fighting for the 2nd Amendment years ago, and became nothing but a front for manufacturers. That's when I quit funding them. Let Colt, S&W, and so one pay for their lobbying. They sure as heck don't need my money.

I honestly find it hilarious and scary, the NRA has some people so snowed that the 2nd Amendment would disappear in few years without them.
 
2013-01-06 07:00:25 PM
NRA members are all well mannered law abiding citizens. There is no apprecible risk to their opponents.
 
2013-01-06 07:01:12 PM

Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.


Do you know what the scary word semi-automatic means? It means that the gun fires one bullet at a time. OH NOES!
 
2013-01-06 07:01:27 PM

MorePeasPlease: Bathia_Mapes: Some of the celebrities & notables on the list are dead, so why weren't their names removed. It makes me question how accurate this list is.

Jackie Cooper died in 2011.
Nora Ephron died in 2012
Coretta Scott King died in 2006
Sydney Pollack died in 2008
Ruth Warrick died in 2005
James Whitmore died in 2009
Andy Williams died in 2012

I see what you did there.


I don't.

/What does this random collection of letters mean?
 
2013-01-06 07:01:45 PM

Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.


My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.
 
2013-01-06 07:01:54 PM

jaytkay: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary? The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group. Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.

Their JOB is to put fear into the minds of impressionable people who will write them checks.

And those people are mostly ignorant paranoids, who are itching to be the next George Zimmerman, John Hinckley, or Adam Lanza.


Laf Out Loud

7/10
 
2013-01-06 07:02:15 PM
Being on an anti-NRA list would be a boost to any celebrity or organization. As one person once put it, it's like getting hate mail from Hitler.
 
2013-01-06 07:03:17 PM

NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.


I wonder how pro-gun they really are, as the last presidential election the NRA endorsed the candidate who signed into law an assault weapons ban. One can only wonder the reasoning behind endorsing said candidate, over the one who has signed laws expanding gun rights...
 
2013-01-06 07:04:01 PM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this tactic and if there is you should probably stop singling out the NRA for doing it... Since it's a fairly common tactic employed by all sides left, right, and center.
 
2013-01-06 07:04:42 PM
Prohibition has worked sooooo well, let's extend it to guns too.

/Now that so-called-facists-progressives have shown their cards
//I will never register another firearm.
 
2013-01-06 07:05:05 PM
This isn't fair. I want to respond to more than half the comments. Please green-light more pro/anti gun topics.

Oh, the list:
It does not say why names were added to the list.
It does not rank them by threat level.
It does not indicate the duration of their opposition, nor the date it was first detected.
It does not indicate whether their opposition was once, many, or ongoing.
. . .

This is a disgraceful enemies list. For help, visit the Nixon Library.
 
2013-01-06 07:05:28 PM

zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.


"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"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

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt

"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

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"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 right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton
 
2013-01-06 07:05:49 PM

Kome: When your list of "opponents" includes the American Medical Association, American Bar Association, and American Psychological Association, and we haven't even gotten out of the "A" letters, you may seriously need to re-think your position.


When those "A" letter organizations are against the Bill of Rights, they may need to seriously re-think their position.
 
2013-01-06 07:06:19 PM

david_gaithersburg: I will never register another firearm.


I take it you'll also take to driving without a valid license...
 
2013-01-06 07:06:23 PM

inglixthemad: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.

I honestly believe the NRA stopped fighting for the 2nd Amendment years ago, and became nothing but a front for manufacturers. That's when I quit funding them. Let Colt, S&W, and so one pay for their lobbying. They sure as heck don't need my money.

I honestly find it hilarious and scary, the NRA has some people so snowed that the 2nd Amendment would disappear in few years without them.


You, sir, may keep your guns.

/sanity test
 
2013-01-06 07:06:34 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Pam Dawber, Peter Bonerz and Sandy "Funny Face" Duncan are on their knees thanking God right now.



Are you saying they rolled over in their graves?
 
2013-01-06 07:06:56 PM

Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.


No I'm not!?!?!?! Bushmaster told me I'm a manly man, and I'm tough, and rugged!!!!!
images.huffingtonpost.com
 
2013-01-06 07:08:55 PM

WhyteRaven74: david_gaithersburg: I will never register another firearm.

I take it you'll also take to driving without a valid license...


.
I take it you are not familiar with inalienable rights.
 
2013-01-06 07:08:59 PM
Cuisine excuses slavery?
 
2013-01-06 07:09:28 PM
Liberal logic:

Obama wants to create a list of all the guns and their owners: SUPER SMART! Nothing to worry about!

The NRA created a list of people that are opposed to gun freedom: OMGS THEY BE MAKING LISTS UP IN THIS BIATCH! DONT THEY KNOW LISTS BE EVIL?
 
2013-01-06 07:09:32 PM

NutWrench: It's no more scary than posting lists of legal gun owners, subby.


This must be the short list. Levi Strauss and Sprint are missing, probably hundreds of others.
 
2013-01-06 07:11:43 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: The list:

American Firearms Association

lol wut?


Seems the AFA has a dual role. (eyeroll).
 
2013-01-06 07:11:52 PM

david_gaithersburg: I take it you are not familiar with inalienable rights.


The ability to move about from place to place upon the public ways is an inalienable right.

halB: The NRA created a list of people that are opposed to gun freedom:


An organization that nominally has the same interest as the NRA is opposed to gun freedom? Really?
 
2013-01-06 07:12:09 PM
:sigh:
Looks like I've got a whole lotta boycottin' ta do. Better eat another Jesus brand™ chicken sammich.
 
2013-01-06 07:12:09 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Some of the celebrities & notables on the list are dead, so why weren't their names removed. It makes me question how accurate this list is.

Jackie Cooper died in 2011.
Nora Ephron died in 2012
Coretta Scott King died in 2006
Sydney Pollack died in 2008
Ruth Warrick died in 2005
James Whitmore died in 2009
Andy Williams died in 2012


i291.photobucket.com

Cross them off, then!
 
2013-01-06 07:12:33 PM

david_gaithersburg: I take it you are not familiar with inalienable rights.


You sound real smart. Tell us about inalienable rights and the US Constitution.

In detail, please.
 
2013-01-06 07:12:39 PM

Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.


THIS

LOL
 
2013-01-06 07:12:40 PM
Offer up a repeal amendment for the 2nd or quit your bellyaching. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, That means you don't get to infringe,
 
2013-01-06 07:12:55 PM
They're surveyor marks.
 
2013-01-06 07:12:56 PM
Push a group hard enough and they'll push back. This group just happens to be extremely well armed. Our push back isn't going to be like the candyass responses of others.
 
2013-01-06 07:12:58 PM
"Are you now, or have you ever been a member of an anti-gun group?"
 
2013-01-06 07:13:04 PM

Silly Jesus: Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.

Do you know what the scary word semi-automatic means? It means that the gun fires one bullet at a time. OH NOES!


I always find the disingenuous hee-hawing over words like "semi automatic" and "assault rifle" hilarious. Yes, a semi-automatic "assault rifle" is much more dangerous than a traditional long gun for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: the amount of barrel rise with the smaller caliber high-velocity round when firing quickly, the ease, speed of and time between reloading, and the grip style.

If you took your grandpa's hunting rifle and made it semi-automatic it wouldn't be much more dangerous because the barrel rise degrade the accuracy so much. For reference, see the problems with the M14 and why most of them had a pin inserted to prevent them from being fired fully-automatic.... even by trained soldiers in a war zone. The reason the M16 was able to shoulder its way in to the military so soon after the introduction of the M14 was that it was simply more lethal to human beings over the ranges that human beings most commonly kill each other.. That's true of the AR15 civilian model as well.
 
2013-01-06 07:13:41 PM

halB: Obama wants to create a list of all the guns and their owners: SUPER SMART! Nothing to worry about!


He does?
 
2013-01-06 07:13:47 PM

Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington


Cool quotes, got any from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, or do you just have this founding-fathers johnson?
 
2013-01-06 07:14:58 PM
"Oh noes, people know I own guns? Maybe I should start keeping that shiat locked up."


Personally I'd rather just let the crybabies have their toys and start working on some decent mental health care reform.
 
2013-01-06 07:15:17 PM

Glancing Blow: Cool quotes, got any from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, or do you just have this founding-fathers johnson?


Don't worry, he ignores everything they said about people doing as they please when it comes to things he doesn't like.
 
2013-01-06 07:15:23 PM

jaytkay: david_gaithersburg: I take it you are not familiar with inalienable rights.

You sound real smart. Tell us about inalienable rights and the US Constitution.

In detail, please.


.
Sure. I'll host a course for you at $2,500 per seat once you line up 30 participants.
 
2013-01-06 07:15:56 PM
Isn't that the same group that got upset when a newspaper published gun permit holders' information?

Isn't the same group that endorsed a Presidential candidate who pushed for gun bans?

Why do we believe them?
 
2013-01-06 07:16:04 PM

Old enough to know better: "Oh noes, people know I own guns? Maybe I should start keeping that shiat locked up."


Personally I'd rather just let the crybabies have their toys and start working on some decent mental health care reform.


Sure would have helped if Reagan hadn't dumped them all on the streets.
 
2013-01-06 07:16:53 PM
Anybody else notice Michel (AKA BURT MOTHERFARKING GUMMER) Gross in there?
Yes, the last half of his career he has been known for playing a character that stockpiles guns and repeatedly uses them to save people...
And he's actually anti-gun.
Hypocrisy at its finest, right up there with Matt (AKA JASON BOURNE) Damon and Michael (AKA MY ARMED GUARD JUST GOT ARRESTED IN NEW YORK FOR VIOLATING GUN LAWS) Moore - both of which are also on that list.
 
2013-01-06 07:16:59 PM

Glancing Blow: Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington


Cool quotes, got any from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, or do you just have this founding-fathers johnson?


sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-01-06 07:17:14 PM

Sleeping Monkey: "Anti Second Amendment people were so wrong to publish the names and addresses of gun owners that we are going to do the exact same thing, but its okay when we do it, because we're the NRA."


you seem butthurt, libtardo von gungrabber
 
2013-01-06 07:17:29 PM

Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.


Internet toughguy..he calls people names...wow, what a stud....
 
2013-01-06 07:18:35 PM

david_gaithersburg: WhyteRaven74: david_gaithersburg: I will never register another firearm.

I take it you'll also take to driving without a valid license...

.
I take it you are not familiar with inalienable rights.


I take it you're not familiar with the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
 
2013-01-06 07:19:16 PM

jaytkay: halB: Obama wants to create a list of all the guns and their owners: SUPER SMART! Nothing to worry about!

He does?


.
Yes, try reading the news, and pay attention.
 
2013-01-06 07:19:35 PM

Glancing Blow: Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington


Cool quotes, got any from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, or do you just have this founding-fathers johnson?


I only keep him un-ignored for "WTF" and humor value.
 
2013-01-06 07:19:51 PM

david_gaithersburg: Glancing Blow: Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

So you also have cool quotes of people quoting people from the 18th century.

Cool quotes, got any from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, or do you just have this founding-fathers johnson?

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

 
2013-01-06 07:20:26 PM

Vodka Zombie: I didn't even know there was an anti-2nd Amendment movement.


There isn't.

Hope that cleared things up.
 
2013-01-06 07:20:41 PM

WhyteRaven74: Glancing Blow: Cool quotes, got any from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, or do you just have this founding-fathers johnson?

Don't worry, he ignores everything they said about people doing as they please when it comes to things he doesn't like.


Really? Do tell.
 
2013-01-06 07:20:45 PM

had98c: Oh yay another thread where we can accuse gun nuts of being pants pissers and gun control freaks of being rabid human rights violators.


Yes. I, too, am thrilled to my very core.
i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-06 07:21:30 PM
Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"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

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over

etc.


Behold, at the upper right hand corner of this very post you will see four digits. That represents the year. Newsflash: this is 2013. Ever heard of an anachronism? The Constitution could do with a few more amendments.
 
2013-01-06 07:22:22 PM

buckler: Glancing Blow: Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington


Cool quotes, got any from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, or do you just have this founding-fathers johnson?

I only keep him un-ignored for "WTF" and humor value.


I'm always happy to meet a fan.
 
2013-01-06 07:22:33 PM

This About That: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." And the more I hear from the NRA, and the "cold dead hands" types, the more I lean toward keeping those folks away from guns.


The second amendment is due to the abusive nature of governments. I'd rather keep guns away from idiots like you who don't understand this basic fact.
 
2013-01-06 07:22:51 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Mrbogey: Vodka Zombie: I didn't even know there was an anti-2nd Amendment movement.

For every basic human right, there's a movement opposed to it.

Heh.. If I was mistaken you're comparing gun ownership to a basic human right akin to freedom or equality. Oh wait, you are.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

Okay, carry on


Excellent.
 
2013-01-06 07:22:54 PM

david_gaithersburg: Glancing Blow: Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington


Cool quotes, got any from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, or do you just have this founding-fathers johnson?

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]


And how did that work out for him?
 
2013-01-06 07:23:11 PM

farkplug: Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"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

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over

etc.

Behold, at the upper right hand corner of this very post you will see four digits. That represents the year. Newsflash: this is 2013. Ever heard of an anachronism? The Constitution could do with a few more amendments.


What amendment would you propose?
 
2013-01-06 07:24:00 PM

ThatGuyOverThere: Anybody else notice Michel (AKA BURT MOTHERFARKING GUMMER) Gross in there?
Yes, the last half of his career he has been known for playing a character that stockpiles guns and repeatedly uses them to save people...
And he's actually anti-gun.
Hypocrisy at its finest, right up there with Matt (AKA JASON BOURNE) Damon and Michael (AKA MY ARMED GUARD JUST GOT ARRESTED IN NEW YORK FOR VIOLATING GUN LAWS) Moore - both of which are also on that list.


And that Bastard Tony Hopkins, portraying Hannibal Lechter. Why, he's never eaten even one, single person!
 
2013-01-06 07:24:08 PM
This is no different than gay rights activists noting those who oppose their own agenda. (Boy Scouts of America, Chic-Fil-A, Family research Council, etc, etc.)

It's exactly the same actually.
 
2013-01-06 07:24:46 PM
Holy sweet Jeebus the comments after that article are terrifying. Above all others the one where the poster says that "It's OK to lose a few individuals in these situations to save the much bigger whole". I think Newtown might disagree. Unless the common thought is that it's important enough for unstable people to have access to ridiculous amounts of firepower that children need to die?

Is there ANYBODY out there that is both pro-gun and is sane enough to think there's room for improvement? All I've seen so far is the extreme: anybody that wants a gun has the Constitutionally guaranteed right to get one, no questions asked (or training required).

Surely there's got to a modicum of common sense. Somewhere? Please?
 
2013-01-06 07:24:52 PM
Wait, I didn't make the list? I must try harder.
 
2013-01-06 07:25:26 PM

david_gaithersburg: I'll host a course for you at $2,500 per seat once you line up 30 participants.


Clowns are MAX about $500 a show around here.

And that's only if you get divorce-dad paying the bill out of guilt.
 
2013-01-06 07:26:04 PM
So the Nutty Raving Assholes assume that everyone who advocates gun control wants to take away all guns??

Not surprising, coming from the group that has gone out of its way to ensure that those bent on killing others have easy access to assault weapons.
 
2013-01-06 07:26:25 PM
This comments section is a bona-fide watch list. Thanks fark!

/"Someone just shot up another school. I wonder what their Fark handle is?"
 
2013-01-06 07:26:40 PM

tblax: david_gaithersburg: Glancing Blow: Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington


Cool quotes, got any from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, or do you just have this founding-fathers johnson?

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

And how did that work out for him?


.
Perfectly, one of the worst presidents in history for dragging us into Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, etc.
 
2013-01-06 07:26:55 PM

Sleeping Monkey: "Anti Second Amendment people were so wrong to publish the names and addresses of gun owners that we are going to do the exact same thing, but its okay when we do it, because we're the NRA."


No, it's different: One is publishing the names of people who had to ask permission from the government to own a handgun, something that they shouldn't have to do because it's an enumerated constitutional right.

The other is publishing the names of people who have actively shown their support opposing that right, and people who are in the public eye already to boot, so they have a much lowered expectation of privacy.
 
2013-01-06 07:27:27 PM

Lorelle: So the Nutty Raving Assholes assume that everyone who advocates gun control wants to take away all guns??

Not surprising, coming from the group that has gone out of its way to ensure that those bent on killing others have easy access to assault weapons.


The people at both of the extreme ends of this discussion make a lot of preposterous assumptions about each other.
 
2013-01-06 07:27:37 PM
Ted Nugent's music sucks too.
 
2013-01-06 07:28:09 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.

No I'm not!?!?!?! Bushmaster told me I'm a manly man, and I'm tough, and rugged!!!!!


The funny thing is that anyone would consider the AR15 manly.

FN-FAL or GTFO.
 
2013-01-06 07:28:39 PM

jaytkay: And those people are mostly ignorant paranoids, who are itching to be the next George Zimmerman, John Hinckley, or Adam Lanza.


That's a very common assumption that's quite wrong.
 
2013-01-06 07:29:07 PM
Right wingers claim that guns in private hands are needed to oust a possible tyrant; but when tyranny comes to America, it will be to the thunderous applause of Fox Izvestia and the same right wingers who claim to be defending a citizen militia.

The reason I can't get behind an "assault weapons" ban is quite different. There's no way short of an outright ban on all private possession of firearms that such things as Newtown could be prevented entirely. Given how the War on Civil LibertiesDrugs has been used by those self-same would-be tyrants that the right wingers claim to worry about, we can well predict what the outcome would be.

There are reasonable steps that can be taken. Background checks for private sales. Limits on how many guns can be purchased -- if you're equipping a citizen militia, each of your militiamen can get his own weapon. Bust the goddamn straw purchasers in Arizona and STFU about Fast and Furious. Ramp down the paramilitarization of law enforcement, and end the War on Civil LibertiesDrugs -- preserving that citizen militia means keeping guns out of the hands of that tyrant. ("[George III] has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures." -- T. J.)

I worry not for the Second Amendment, but for the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth.
 
2013-01-06 07:29:11 PM
Getting struck by big scary gun lightning sure is scary!
 
2013-01-06 07:29:25 PM

Shae123: Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.

Internet toughguy..he calls people names...wow, what a stud....


More studly than needing a gun to feel like a man.
 
2013-01-06 07:29:30 PM
Oppression....how do it work?

/was in the Army for 10 years, seen it first hand.

No thanks, I'll keep all of my guns, bullets, hoarded food, water, and precious civil rights.

/Have that exact Bushmaster in the pic above. Very nice weapon, but I think it's broke it hasn't shot any kids yet.

Maybe I need to oil it with the soul of an unbaptized baby?
 
2013-01-06 07:29:38 PM

XveryYpettyZ: If you took your grandpa's hunting rifle and made it semi-automatic it wouldn't be much more dangerous because the barrel rise degrade the accuracy so much.


Actually, my great-grandfather's hunting rifle *WAS* a semi-automatic. Remington Model 8. Introduced in 1906. His shotgun was a semi-auto too: Browning Auto-5, introduced in 1905.
 
2013-01-06 07:29:39 PM

NutWrench: It's no more scary than posting lists of legal gun owners, subby.


Exactly the point. If it's not okay to publish a list of registered gun owners, why would this be okay?

/I love shooting and support others' rights to have guns
//but the NRA will never get my money
 
2013-01-06 07:29:53 PM
Silly Jesus: farkplug: Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

...

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over

etc.
- - -
Behold, at the upper right hand corner of this very post you will see four digits. That represents the year. Newsflash: this is 2013. Ever heard of an anachronism? The Constitution could do with a few more amendments.

What amendment would you propose?


AmendmentS. There could be hundreds. And it'd be kinda sweet if a woman used her pretty little head and contributed to the mix this time, don't you think? (remember... 2013!!!! cue scary ghost music)
 
2013-01-06 07:29:55 PM

jso2897: And that Bastard Tony Hopkins, portraying Hannibal Lechter. Why, he's never eaten even one, single person!


Be that as it may, if they are so opposed to guns, maybe they should take the moral high ground and stop accepting money to glorify them. Michael Moore is the exception here, although he is a life-member to the NRA, so I'm a little confused by him.
 
2013-01-06 07:31:45 PM

ThatGuyOverThere: Anybody else notice Michel (AKA BURT MOTHERFARKING GUMMER) Gross in there?
Yes, the last half of his career he has been known for playing a character that stockpiles guns and repeatedly uses them to save people...
And he's actually anti-gun.
Hypocrisy at its finest, right up there with Matt (AKA JASON BOURNE) Damon and Michael (AKA MY ARMED GUARD JUST GOT ARRESTED IN NEW YORK FOR VIOLATING GUN LAWS) Moore - both of which are also on that list.


Sylvester Stallone is on the list as well. That motherfu(ker's made a living off of guns and entertainment.
 
2013-01-06 07:31:49 PM
There is going to be so much butthurt when no new laws are passed, especially that abortion of an overreach that Feinstein proposed. It's so far out that it doesn't have a chance. May as well steel yourself for it, guys.
 
2013-01-06 07:32:19 PM

computerguyUT: Oppression....how do it work?

/was in the Army for 10 years, seen it first hand.

No thanks, I'll keep all of my guns, bullets, hoarded food, water, and precious civil rights.

/Have that exact Bushmaster in the pic above. Very nice weapon, but I think it's broke it hasn't shot any kids yet.

Maybe I need to oil it with the soul of an unbaptized baby?


What the hell are you talking about?

You need to use the blood of forsaken children as lube. No wonder your shiat is broke.
 
2013-01-06 07:32:37 PM
...Jesus.

Question: How many of these people are actually anti-gun or just merely anti-idiot with gun?
 
2013-01-06 07:33:58 PM

dittybopper: XveryYpettyZ: If you took your grandpa's hunting rifle and made it semi-automatic it wouldn't be much more dangerous because the barrel rise degrade the accuracy so much.

Actually, my great-grandfather's hunting rifle *WAS* a semi-automatic. Remington Model 8. Introduced in 1906. His shotgun was a semi-auto too: Browning Auto-5, introduced in 1905.


Lets not forget that my 1942-stamped M1 was probably owned by somebody's grandpa - it's 70yrs old. The man I bought it from is old enough to be my father and he said his father had kept it in a safe for 40yrs - longer than I've been alive.
 
2013-01-06 07:34:39 PM
David Canary - Actor

Might want to update that one, Bob.


Celebtards against simple white folk such as myself owning guns is no news. I won't go down the list like I usually do and point out which guys on the list use a gun IN EVERY SINGLE farkING MOVIE they make.

Steve Booscheemy is a appointment though :/
 
2013-01-06 07:35:10 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: This is no different than gay rights activists noting those who oppose their own agenda. (Boy Scouts of America, Chic-Fil-A, Family research Council, etc, etc.)

It's exactly the same actually.


^ Came here to say this. There's no difference. Various "progressive" organizations have no qualms about posting lists of their political enemies. This is no different.
 
2013-01-06 07:35:13 PM

AirForceVet: Having been robbed at gunpoint once, I'm cool with gun control because it's too easy for crooks and nuts to get guns.


Having been shot at more than once, you are a pussy.
 
2013-01-06 07:35:26 PM
Hallmark Cards is a gun control-loving corporation. This is probably because they do not make sympathy cards for accidental shootings and mass murders.

Perhaps the NRA can lobby them to start making their greeting cards more sympathetic to Second Amendment fans. Here are a few helpful tips on greeting cards that support the Second Amendment.

Congratulations on exercising your Second Amendment rights. Sorry to hear about your gun cleaning accident. I hope you are up and walking soon!

Condoleances on the death of your two year old. I guess you're sorry you didn't teach your five year old all about guns and gun safety now, stupid!

Sorry to hear your lovely teenage daughter blew her brains out because she was depressed and bulemic. At least she had the good taste to do it with a fine American-made, hand-tooled handgun!

Sorry about the tragedy at your school. Guns don't kill people. True, many guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing a very large number of people in a very short period of time, but really it's not the gun that kills the people. It's the ammo in the gun clips with rounds of 30 or more bullets that kill people. Remember to buy ammo as part of your back to kindergarten gear! Now 30% to 70% off at WallyMart!
 
2013-01-06 07:35:29 PM

HeadLever: Kome: When your list of "opponents" includes the American Medical Association, American Bar Association, and American Psychological Association, and we haven't even gotten out of the "A" letters, you may seriously need to re-think your position.

When those "A" letter organizations are against the Bill of Rights, they may need to seriously re-think their position.


"Strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." -Thomas Jefferson

In other words, maybe we need to change it. We've certainly ignored it several times. And more times than not for more specious reasons than over 100,000 gun injuries and fatalities each year, and almost always at the behest of conservative Republicans. The Bill of Rights should not ever be used to handcuff us in pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - which has been used as a justification numerous times over the course of the War on Terror for the curtailment of several more valuable and crucial liberties, freedoms, and rights.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think any single legislative act will do much of anything, whether it's more regulation or an outright ban. I genuinely don't see it doing any thing. However, that is because we have allowed ourselves to let the problem escalate to the point where there are almost as many guns as citizens in the US allowing for incredibly easy access to firearms for nearly anyone at nearly any point. But considering it's a course of action that we have no tried before in an attempt to address a serious issue of violence in our country, I fail to see any legitimate objection to some more regulation or even bans of certain weapons or firearm accessories.
 
2013-01-06 07:35:38 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard:
I worry not for the Second Amendment, but for the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth.


Well said.
 
2013-01-06 07:36:36 PM

ThatGuyOverThere: Anybody else notice Michel (AKA BURT MOTHERFARKING GUMMER) Gross in there?
Yes, the last half of his career he has been known for playing a character that stockpiles guns and repeatedly uses them to save people...
And he's actually anti-gun.
Hypocrisy at its finest, right up there with Matt (AKA JASON BOURNE) Damon and Michael (AKA MY ARMED GUARD JUST GOT ARRESTED IN NEW YORK FOR VIOLATING GUN LAWS) Moore - both of which are also on that list.


And how many death threats has Micheal Moore recieved? And in this poltical climate can you look me in the eye and tell me that someone crazy enough wouldn't try to shoot him because he's a libural?
 
2013-01-06 07:36:40 PM
Stallone is on that list? What a farkin' hypocritical asshole.
 
2013-01-06 07:36:44 PM

buckler: Sure would have helped if Reagan hadn't dumped them all on the streets.


He hasn't been president in 25 YEARS. What explanation is there for the next Presidents not doing anything?
 
2013-01-06 07:36:50 PM

Vodka Zombie: I didn't even know there was an anti-2nd Amendment movement.


If you slight the NRA then they're gonna get you. It progressed beyond the Second Amendment a long time ago.
 
2013-01-06 07:37:10 PM
Maybe they should consider posting their addresses as well and arranging them on a handy google map.

Would that be more appropriate?
 
2013-01-06 07:37:10 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Some of the celebrities & notables on the list are dead, so why weren't their names removed. It makes me question how accurate this list is.

Jackie Cooper died in 2011.
Nora Ephron died in 2012
Coretta Scott King died in 2006
Sydney Pollack died in 2008
Ruth Warrick died in 2005
James Whitmore died in 2009
Andy Williams died in 2012


That's the Chicago way.
 
2013-01-06 07:38:44 PM

ThatGuyOverThere: maybe they should take the moral high ground and stop accepting money to glorify them


You know... Burt Gummer is like a parody of a gun owner, right?
 
2013-01-06 07:38:58 PM

ThatGuyOverThere: jso2897: And that Bastard Tony Hopkins, portraying Hannibal Lechter. Why, he's never eaten even one, single person!

Be that as it may, if they are so opposed to guns, maybe they should take the moral high ground and stop accepting money to glorify them. Michael Moore is the exception here, although he is a life-member to the NRA, so I'm a little confused by him.


Well, maybe they aren't as opposed to guns as you think they are. As I mentioned earlier, the people who are passionate about this debate tend to vastly exaggerate the views of their opposition. But I don't know, or care, and pretty much stay out of the debate for that reason. I'm just here to try a lighten things up a little.
I have views about gun control, but I'm not passionate about them, and don't feel like getting screamed at by both "sides", which is what usually happens when you have a moderate opinion on a highly controversial subject.
 
2013-01-06 07:39:06 PM

Frank N Stein: Sleeping Monkey: "Anti Second Amendment people were so wrong to publish the names and addresses of gun owners that we are going to do the exact same thing, but its okay when we do it, because we're the NRA."

"publishing the names of public people and organizations is the exact same thing as publishing the addresses of private citizens (many of whom are cops, and are now threatened by criminals [look it up. Im on my phone and not doing your homework]) because I'm sleeping Monkey and I have no ability to reason"


It was already public information
 
2013-01-06 07:39:14 PM

thisisarepeat: AirForceVet: Having been robbed at gunpoint once, I'm cool with gun control because it's too easy for crooks and nuts to get guns.

Having been shot at more than once, you are a pussy.


Having watched both my parents get shot to death by a mugger when I was a child and then raised by the family valet in a socially, economically, and physically isolated environment, you are superstitious and cowardly.
 
2013-01-06 07:39:29 PM

pedrop357: buckler: Sure would have helped if Reagan hadn't dumped them all on the streets.

He hasn't been president in 25 YEARS. What explanation is there for the next Presidents not doing anything?


I wish I had an answer. I'm guessing political inertia.
 
2013-01-06 07:39:31 PM

2wolves: Cuisine excuses slavery?


Have you ever had a Babes Chicken Fried Steak?
 
2013-01-06 07:39:48 PM

ThatGuyOverThere: Lets not forget that my 1942-stamped M1 was probably owned by somebody's grandpa - it's 70yrs old. The man I bought it from is old enough to be my father and he said his father had kept it in a safe for 40yrs - longer than I've been alive.


Let's not forget that Obama has vowed take that gun away from you. UN soldiers are probably knocking on your door as I write this. Godspeed!
 
2013-01-06 07:39:49 PM
Original Article Date: 03/01/2012

WTF Subby?
 
2013-01-06 07:39:57 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Right wingers claim that guns in private hands are needed to oust a possible tyrant; but when tyranny comes to America, it will be to the thunderous applause of Fox Izvestia and the same right wingers who claim to be defending a citizen militia.


Tyranny exist in many forms and will not come in one swift stroke. Ask Randy Weaver about that.
 
2013-01-06 07:39:58 PM

buckler: Sock Ruh Tease: The list:

American Firearms Association

lol wut?

Seems the AFA has a dual role. (eyeroll).


Does the AFA even exist? A quick google search doesn't show any working webpages for the AFA
 
2013-01-06 07:40:24 PM

Silly Jesus: I only keep him un-ignored for "WTF" and humor value.

I'm always happy to meet a fan.


There's a difference between being laughed with and laughed at.
 
2013-01-06 07:40:39 PM
Well how come there aren't any members of Congress listed? Oh, I see, that's a separate list - never mind.
 
2013-01-06 07:40:52 PM

thatboyoverthere: ...Hypocrisy at its finest, right up there with Matt (AKA JASON BOURNE) Damon and Michael (AKA MY ARMED GUARD JUST GOT ARRESTED IN NEW YORK FOR VIOLATING GUN LAWS) Moore - both of which are also on that list.

And how many death threats has Micheal Moore recieved? And in this poltical climate can you look me in the eye and tell me that someone crazy enough wouldn't try to shoot him because he's a libural?


Until his bodyguard got arrested for violating gun law, I don't think most of us knew he had an armed guard. If somebody really wanted to kill him, they probably would try it, with or without a guard.
 
2013-01-06 07:41:01 PM

david_gaithersburg: Glancing Blow: Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington


Cool quotes, got any from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, or do you just have this founding-fathers johnson?

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]


Oh Snap.
 
2013-01-06 07:41:03 PM

thisisarepeat: AirForceVet: Having been robbed at gunpoint once, I'm cool with gun control because it's too easy for crooks and nuts to get guns.

Having been shot at more than once, you are a pussy.


How did getting shot at more than once make him a pussy? If that was going to do it, I'd think once would be enough.
 
2013-01-06 07:41:12 PM

Vodka Zombie: I didn't even know there was an anti-2nd Amendment movement.


It's made up of a lot of people who have, or would have in the past, found have found themselves the target of various anti-1st amendment groups such as groups claiming to be anti-communist, anti-pornography, anti-birth control (even the discussion of methods), etc.

Some rights are more equal than others apparently.
 
2013-01-06 07:41:13 PM

Confabulat: Shae123: Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.

Internet toughguy..he calls people names...wow, what a stud....

More studly than needing a gun to feel like a man.


You think?
 
2013-01-06 07:41:14 PM

Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.


Because so many people die to so called "assault rifles." 323 rifle murders in 2011 vs 6220 handgun murders. Many of the rifles most likely weren't even "assault rifles."

Get rid of $125 Saturday Night Special pistols in the ghetto, and the murder rate with guns will keep dropping...not that it isn't drastically dropping every year anyway.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Link

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-06 07:41:23 PM
I would love to see a nation-wide debate on gun control wherein reasonable, intelligent, and open-minded people, on both sides of the issue, take the time to actually listen and respond thoughtfully to the other side's arguments.

A friend and I actually did this and once we realized what the other was saying, and had clarifications when needed, realized that he, a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms, and I, a firm advocate for keeping guns out of the hands of people who misuse them, both actually want the same thing.

I think very few people are against taking guns away from responsible private citizens. We all should be against guns in the possession of felons, gang-members, the insane, and criminals. I don't know what the solution is, other than stiffer penalties for illegal possession and/or use of a gun. If, for example, every felon caught in possession of a gun, every criminal using a gun to commit a crime, were given a mandatory life sentence, with no hope for parole, and no exceptions, our gun control problem would be straightened out in a few years. Of course, that would put a strain on our already strained prison system, so probably isn't feasible. I don't know where the solution lies, but guns must be kept out of the hands of certain elements of our population.
 
2013-01-06 07:41:38 PM
i788.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-06 07:41:39 PM

penfold314: buckler: Sock Ruh Tease: The list:

American Firearms Association

lol wut?

Seems the AFA has a dual role. (eyeroll).

Does the AFA even exist? A quick google search doesn't show any working webpages for the AFA


There ya go.
 
2013-01-06 07:41:42 PM

NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.


False dichotomy.

If there weren't the modern NRA there is no reason to believe we couldn't have another group (others do in fact exist) defend gun rights without all the NRA bullshiat.
 
2013-01-06 07:41:50 PM

Anderson's Pooper: NRA members are all well mannered law abiding citizens. There is no apprecible risk to their opponents.


msnbcmedia.msn.com
o'rly?
 
2013-01-06 07:42:22 PM
This is the dumbest issue yet. How is it possible for the discourse in this nation to get more stupid year after year for eternity? I mean, that should be impossible, right? How long until we go back to throwing our poop at each other? Soon, I hope. This slow descent into retardation is worse than a Chinese water torture.
 
2013-01-06 07:42:44 PM

jso2897: thisisarepeat: AirForceVet: Having been robbed at gunpoint once, I'm cool with gun control because it's too easy for crooks and nuts to get guns.

Having been shot at more than once, you are a pussy.

How did getting shot at more than once make him a pussy? If that was going to do it, I'd think once would be enough.


It was a demonstration of his flawed logic,

grammar nazi
 
2013-01-06 07:43:26 PM
I was straddling the fence on this issue until I saw Chaka Khan's name on that list.

I loves me some Chaka Khan.
 
2013-01-06 07:43:49 PM
So what?

It's public domain.

Anyone can look this stuff up.

Why do you find this uncomfortable?
 
2013-01-06 07:44:22 PM

violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.


Missed that.

Truly amazing and way beyond sad.
 
2013-01-06 07:44:45 PM
I would just like to take this moment to thank the NRA from saving me the trouble of researching and compiling a list of persons and organizations I can support.
 
2013-01-06 07:44:50 PM
Pillar #3 of Republicans - Hypocrisy.

Wah wah when others do it, but then we're going to do the same exact thing. Amazing how pathetic these people are.

"Do as we say, not as we do." - Idiots everywhere.
 
2013-01-06 07:45:01 PM

NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group..


Incorrect. The NRA is a pro gun manufacturers lobby. If they were pro guns, they'd be supporting the 2nd Amendment's requirement to be in a well regulated militia to use a gun.
 
2013-01-06 07:45:07 PM
it's time people take the NRA seriously
and realize that the only answer to guns is guns,

then blow away everybody at the NRA annual picnic
with automatic weapons.
 
2013-01-06 07:45:15 PM
You can fully support the second amendment and still not want your crazy redneck neighbor to own an AK-47 for "squirrel hunting"

Also, in case you haven't noticed, fighting the US government with guns rarely works out well. Just sayin'.
 
2013-01-06 07:45:25 PM
As a gun owner (I currently own 3 guns) who supports both the Second Amendment AND keeping guns out of the hands of nuts, flakes, and other assorted lunatics, I'm vehemently anti-NRA.

/we're not all crazy, fear mongering idiots
//Feinstein and her ilk should be removed from office for violating their oath, though
 
2013-01-06 07:45:36 PM

Kome: Having watched both my parents get shot to death by a mugger when I was a child and then raised by the family valet in a socially, economically, and physically isolated environment, you are superstitious and cowardly.


If Thomas Wayne had been armed we wouldn't have had any problems in Aurora.
 
2013-01-06 07:46:07 PM

JosephFinn: If they were pro guns, they'd be supporting the 2nd Amendment's requirement to be in a well regulated militia to use a gun.


Where is that requirement?
 
2013-01-06 07:46:44 PM

LazerFish: Also, in case you haven't noticed, fighting the US government with guns rarely works out well. Just sayin'.


It's worked pretty well in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
 
2013-01-06 07:48:18 PM

mrEdude: it's time people take the NRA seriously
and realize that the only answer to guns is guns,

then blow away everybody at the NRA annual picnic
with automatic weapons.


But it's the 'gun nuts' who are bloodthirsty?
 
2013-01-06 07:48:22 PM

Kome: In other words, maybe we need to change it. We've certainly ignored it several times.


I am not against change. I will, however, oppose those those that will arbitrarily and capriciously limit my enumerated rights.
 
2013-01-06 07:48:23 PM
Why isnt the NRA on that list? They backed the only anti-gun candidate who has passed anti second amendment legislation.
 
2013-01-06 07:48:24 PM

viscountalpha: This About That: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." And the more I hear from the NRA, and the "cold dead hands" types, the more I lean toward keeping those folks away from guns.

The second amendment is due to the abusive nature of governments. I'd rather keep guns away from idiots like you who don't understand this basic fact.


Well, you can't have my gun. Listen, genius, a "well regulated militia" was needed at the time the nation was founded inorder to provide for the defense of the country. In modern times, the "well regulated militia" exists in the armed forces of the United States, not the gun manufacturing lobby or the delusional minds of pseudo-tough guys with guns who like to talk about armed insurrection against the government. You may be surprised to hear that I, too, oppose taking away my right to own a gun. I keep a gun because of the nuts and criminals who also have guns.

There are too many guns and too many gun sellers to do away with, or even effectively regulate, guns. Like lawyers, guns are necessary because guns exist.

Hunters nowadays hunt for "sport". Defense of the nation is handled by the armed forces. Guns for "home protection" more often injure the owner or his kids than some "intruder". Guns make their owners feel like superheros when they are really fools. So stop telling me about the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment. It isn't so.
 
2013-01-06 07:49:14 PM

LazerFish: You can fully support the second amendment and still not want your crazy redneck neighbor to own an AK-47 for "squirrel hunting"

Also, in case you haven't noticed, fighting the US government with guns rarely works out well. Just sayin'.


And i presume that you're a qualified, board-certified psychiatrist with years of experience to be able to diagnose your "red neck neighbor" as being crazy?
 
2013-01-06 07:49:24 PM

LazerFish: Also, in case you haven't noticed, fighting the US government with guns rarely works out well.


Worked fine for Randy Weaver.
 
2013-01-06 07:49:43 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Some of the celebrities & notables on the list are dead, so why weren't their names removed. It makes me question how accurate this list is.

Jackie Cooper died in 2011.
Nora Ephron died in 2012
Coretta Scott King died in 2006
Sydney Pollack died in 2008
Ruth Warrick died in 2005
James Whitmore died in 2009
Andy Williams died in 2012


Zombies who require extra bullets?
 
2013-01-06 07:49:52 PM

Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"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

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt

"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

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"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 right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton


You should google those quotes before you copy pasta them from pro gun sites. There are a few fakes.
 
2013-01-06 07:51:14 PM

This About That: viscountalpha: This About That: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." And the more I hear from the NRA, and the "cold dead hands" types, the more I lean toward keeping those folks away from guns.

The second amendment is due to the abusive nature of governments. I'd rather keep guns away from idiots like you who don't understand this basic fact.

Well, you can't have my gun. Listen, genius, a "well regulated militia" was needed at the time the nation was founded inorder to provide for the defense of the country. In modern times, the "well regulated militia" exists in the armed forces of the United States, not the gun manufacturing lobby or the delusional minds of pseudo-tough guys with guns who like to talk about armed insurrection against the government. You may be surprised to hear that I, too, oppose taking away my right to own a gun. I keep a gun because of the nuts and criminals who also have guns.

There are too many guns and too many gun sellers to do away with, or even effectively regulate, guns. Like lawyers, guns are necessary because guns exist.

Hunters nowadays hunt for "sport". Defense of the nation is handled by the armed forces. Guns for "home protection" more often injure the owner or his kids than some "intruder". Guns make their owners feel like superheros when they are really fools. So stop telling me about the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment. It isn't so.


Except your entire interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is both factually void and incorrect, and not based on any merit or understanding of either the existing laws of the US or the supporting data for the interpretation of the 2A.

Sorry.
 
2013-01-06 07:51:30 PM

Silly Jesus: Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.

Do you know what the scary word semi-automatic means? It means that the gun fires one bullet at a time. OH NOES!


This.

That said, if you feel threatened because someone fired you for being gay or might not allow you to marry, you're a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.

/it's all about limiting one's ability to fulfill their legal desires
//that's why Confab's is a losing argument

We have laws against killing people. Apparently laws are not the issue, as they don't stop sick people from doing sick things. Maybe keeping the guns out of the hands of psycho's....nah, that requires actual effort. Unpossible!
 
2013-01-06 07:52:23 PM

HeadLever: Kome: In other words, maybe we need to change it. We've certainly ignored it several times.

I am not against change. I will, however, oppose those those that will arbitrarily and capriciously limit my enumerated rights.


And if the reasoning is neither arbitrary or capricious, but would still limit your enumerated rights, what then?
 
2013-01-06 07:53:45 PM

violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.


THIS
 
2013-01-06 07:53:55 PM
I suppose publishing an enemies list is at least something new. Going forward, I wonder if they'll publish an updated list after every mass shooting, or just the ones where children are the targets.
 
2013-01-06 07:56:12 PM

Kome: And if the reasoning is neither arbitrary or capricious, but would still limit your enumerated rights, what then?


There are certain things that can limit these rights. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

However, things like thumbhole stocks and barrel shrouds have no impact on the function of these 'scary looking weapons' are basically arbitrary or capricious regarding the issue at hand.
 
2013-01-06 07:56:14 PM
I saw "Black Mental Health Alliance" on the list, but totally read it as "Black Metal Health Alliance".
And there was a moment of awesome confusion.
 
2013-01-06 07:56:43 PM

Kome: thisisarepeat: AirForceVet: Having been robbed at gunpoint once, I'm cool with gun control because it's too easy for crooks and nuts to get guns.

Having been shot at more than once, you are a pussy.

Having watched both my parents get shot to death by a mugger when I was a child and then raised by the family valet in a socially, economically, and physically isolated environment, you are superstitious and cowardly.


Batman?
 
BHK
2013-01-06 07:56:48 PM

pedrop357: buckler: Sure would have helped if Reagan hadn't dumped them all on the streets.

He hasn't been president in 25 YEARS. What explanation is there for the next Presidents not doing anything?


Exactly. "Dumping them on the streets" implies that they had been taken off the streets at some point by someone. Why didn't someone do it again? Why didn't all those whiners who complain about Reagan go and help those unfortunates who were dumped on the streets get help? There are many foundations which help the mentally ill which are stretched to the limit yet do amazing work. Cut them a check if you are so concerned, or go volunteer. I have taken in a few people myself, when my girlfriend was one of those people. Reagan probably did them a favor by taking them out of the state-run institutions which were absolutely inhumane in many cases.
 
2013-01-06 07:56:55 PM

farkplug: AmendmentS. There could be hundreds. And it'd be kinda sweet if a woman used her pretty little head and contributed to the mix this time, don't you think? (remember... 2013!!!! cue scary ghost music)


This reminds me of a scene from Heinleins's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

One female (most were men, but women made up for it in silliness) had a long list she wanted made
permanent laws-about private matters. No more plural marriage of any sort. No divorces. No
"fornication"-had to look that one up. No drinks stronger than 4% beer. Church services only on
Saturdays and all else to stop that day. (Air and temperature and pressure engineering, lady? Phones and
capsules?) A long list of drugs to be prohibited and a shorter list dispensed only by licensed physicians.
(What is a "licensed physician"? Healer I go to has a sign reading "practical doctor"-makes book on
side, which is why I go to him. Look, lady, aren't any medical schools in Luna!) (Then, I mean.) She even
wanted to make gambling illegal. If a Loonie couldn't roll double or nothing, he would go to a shop that
would, even if dice were loaded.
Thing that got me was not her list of things she hated, since she was obviously crazy as a Cyborg,
but fact that always somebody agreed with her prohibitions. Must be a yearning deep in human heart to
stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws-always for other fellow. A murky part of us,
something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because
not one of those people said: "Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should
stop." Nyet,tovarishchee , was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them "for their
own good"-not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it.
...
Signing of Declaration of Independence went as Prof said it would.
...
Well, take that woman who hated everything. She was there with list; read it aloud and
moved to have it incorporated into Declaration "so that the peoples of Terra will know that we are
civilized and fit to take our places in the councils of mankind!"
Prof not only let her get away with it; he encouraged her, letting her talk when other people wanted
to-then blandly put her proposal to a vote when hadn't even been seconded. (Congress operated by
rules they had wrangled over for days. Prof was familiar with rules but followed them only as suited him.)
She was voted down in a shout, and left.
 
2013-01-06 07:57:09 PM

Cyrusv10: violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.

THIS


Yea, they're too busy protecting the rights of those neo-NAZI's to march in places like Waukegan, Illinois.
 
2013-01-06 07:57:10 PM

buckler: Silly Jesus: I only keep him un-ignored for "WTF" and humor value.

I'm always happy to meet a fan.

There's a difference between being laughed with and laughed at.


Aww, now my feelings are hurt because I hold your view of me in incredibly high regard.
 
2013-01-06 07:57:37 PM
Seems that half the list are various Christian and Jewish groups.

It would seem the God of Abraham is against guns despite the innate ramblings of many a gun nut.
 
2013-01-06 07:58:29 PM
Nice to see the NRA whitewashing Mitt Romney implementing the Massachusetts' assault weapons ban that was put in place so if the Federal ban expired, which it did, those weapons would still be banned in Mass, and of course Ronald Reagan's support of the Brady Bill.
 
2013-01-06 07:58:45 PM

Cyrusv10: violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.

THIS


Though they've changed their tune a little in the past, their previous explanation of why they didn't defend the 2nd amendment was absolutely absurd. If they had simply said that they don't because other national and local groups do a much better job, I could have accepted that.

I still donate to them as I think they do plenty of good.
 
2013-01-06 07:58:58 PM

HeadLever: Kome: And if the reasoning is neither arbitrary or capricious, but would still limit your enumerated rights, what then?

There are certain things that can limit these rights. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

However, things like thumbhole stocks and barrel shrouds have no impact on the function of these 'scary looking weapons' are basically arbitrary or capricious regarding the issue at hand.


Can you think of an example of something that you would consider neither arbitrary nor capricious that would limit the enumerated right to bear arms?

DoctorCal: Kome: thisisarepeat: AirForceVet: Having been robbed at gunpoint once, I'm cool with gun control because it's too easy for crooks and nuts to get guns.

Having been shot at more than once, you are a pussy.

Having watched both my parents get shot to death by a mugger when I was a child and then raised by the family valet in a socially, economically, and physically isolated environment, you are superstitious and cowardly.

Batman?


Pretty much going for humor value there. I really don't like the whole "yea, well my experience is this, therefore..." approach. Even if I have found myself doing it on occasion when I'm Farking while drinking.
 
2013-01-06 07:59:00 PM

dennysgod: Seems that half the list are various Christian and Jewish groups.

It would seem the God of Abraham is against guns despite the innate ramblings of many a gun nut.


MOAR BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
 
2013-01-06 07:59:21 PM

theMightyRegeya: NutWrench: It's no more scary than posting lists of legal gun owners, subby.

Exactly the point. If it's not okay to publish a list of registered gun owners, why would this be okay?


I can see a distinct and large difference between listing the names of public organizations and publishing the addresses of private citizens.

I am really surprised people are trying to equate the two.
 
2013-01-06 07:59:29 PM

Elmo Jones: Anderson's Pooper: NRA members are all well mannered law abiding citizens. There is no apprecible risk to their opponents.

[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 380x285]
o'rly?


He's only a threat if you are a fenced animal, or if you are an underage girl, in which case he might rape you.
 
2013-01-06 07:59:49 PM

Silly Jesus: buckler: Silly Jesus: I only keep him un-ignored for "WTF" and humor value.

I'm always happy to meet a fan.

There's a difference between being laughed with and laughed at.

Aww, now my feelings are hurt because I hold your view of me in incredibly high regard.


Such a lovely defense mechanism. You roll with that.
 
2013-01-06 07:59:55 PM
The Constitution is not a suicide pact
 
2013-01-06 08:00:03 PM
I read in the papers, 30--round clips have sold a 3--year supply in 8 days.

Red China probably has 50 million AK-47 30--round banana clips on hand surplus, plus factories which can make millions more.

In addition to that, a $15 mag now goes for $60 in gun shows, something I am sure every back--alley factory in China knows, and is tooling up for right now.

And in addition to all that, don't forget what is possible with a 3D printer.

Yes indeed people, if you thought the War on Drugs was great big fun, just wait until the War on Guns takes effect.
 
2013-01-06 08:00:38 PM

This About That: In modern times, the "well regulated militia" exists in the armed forces of the United States,


Nope. That'd be the "standing armies" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures....
 
2013-01-06 08:00:38 PM

Kome: When your list of "opponents" includes the American Medical Association, American Bar Association, and American Psychological Association, and we haven't even gotten out of the "A" letters, you may seriously need to re-think your position.


Came here to say this. Seriously, I saw no one on that list that isn't pretty well-known for being all-around good guys (at least, in terms of names I recognized). I fail to see how this helps anti-regulation folks in  any way.

/Let's face it, they aren't pro-gun, they're just anti-regulation.
 
2013-01-06 08:01:02 PM

Molavian: Civil Liberty:


Attempting to redefine property rights as civil liberties by fiat doesn't work. See: the whole Anglo-American legal tradition. There is a very large difference between 1) Freedom of the Press and 2) everyone gets a free printing press.
 
2013-01-06 08:01:05 PM

BHK: Exactly. "Dumping them on the streets" implies that they had been taken off the streets at some point by someone. Why didn't someone do it again? Why didn't all those whiners who complain about Reagan go and help those unfortunates who were dumped on the streets get help? There are many foundations which help the mentally ill which are stretched to the limit yet do amazing work. Cut them a check if you are so concerned, or go volunteer. I have taken in a few people myself, when my girlfriend was one of those people. Reagan probably did them a favor by taking them out of the state-run institutions which were absolutely inhumane in many cases.


Not only that, but stopping federal funding in some areas didn't mean that no one could do anything anymore. It just meant they had to find other ways to fund it, which could have come from some of the tax cuts people got.
Any state that wanted to was free to raise taxes and cover any federal shortfalls. That they didn't shows just how important it was for everyone, left and right, dem and rep,
 
2013-01-06 08:01:43 PM

Kome: Can you think of an example of something that you would consider neither arbitrary nor capricious that would limit the enumerated right to bear arms?


Sure. Indiscriminate weapons. Bombs, mines, rockets, grenades, and to a point - automatic weapons.
 
2013-01-06 08:01:44 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: theMightyRegeya: NutWrench: It's no more scary than posting lists of legal gun owners, subby.

Exactly the point. If it's not okay to publish a list of registered gun owners, why would this be okay?

I can see a distinct and large difference between listing the names of public organizations and publishing the addresses of private citizens.

I am really surprised people are trying to equate the two.


All the information that has been provided so far is freely accessible to the public, for both types of lists. So they are equally legal, and to be fair, equally inane and pointless.
 
2013-01-06 08:02:02 PM

Kome: When your list of "opponents" includes the American Medical Association, American Bar Association, and American Psychological Association, and we haven't even gotten out of the "A" letters, you may seriously need to re-think your position.


THIS. Lots of smart, book learnin' types on that list.
 
2013-01-06 08:02:25 PM
ZAZ

Can I have a map with crosshairs over the anti-gun groups?

Because democrat bulls-eyes are peaceful bullseyes
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-06 08:02:31 PM

Glancing Blow: Cyrusv10: violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.

THIS

Yea, they're too busy protecting the rights of those neo-NAZI's to march in places like Waukegan, Illinois.


Didn't you mean Skokie, Il.
Link
 
2013-01-06 08:02:45 PM

HeadLever: Kome: Can you think of an example of something that you would consider neither arbitrary nor capricious that would limit the enumerated right to bear arms?

Sure. Indiscriminate weapons. Bombs, mines, rockets, grenades, and to a point - automatic weapons.


Those limits have been in place for probably longer than you or I have been alive. I meant specifically limit your enumerated rights as they currently stand.
 
2013-01-06 08:02:47 PM

Kome: ThrobblefootSpectre: theMightyRegeya: NutWrench: It's no more scary than posting lists of legal gun owners, subby.

Exactly the point. If it's not okay to publish a list of registered gun owners, why would this be okay?

I can see a distinct and large difference between listing the names of public organizations and publishing the addresses of private citizens.

I am really surprised people are trying to equate the two.

All the information that has been provided so far is freely accessible to the public, for both types of lists. So they are equally legal, and to be fair, equally inane and pointless.


Yet the permit holders seem to be getting much more pissy.
 
2013-01-06 08:02:52 PM
Now I know which organizations to support. Those on the list.
The NRA shills for manufacturers. They don't give a damn about gun safety.
 
2013-01-06 08:02:56 PM

NutWrench: It's no more scary than posting lists of legal gun owners, subby.


Well, except anti-gun people aren't likely to try to shoot their political opponents. Given the sheer number of kooks in the NRA (reason I am not a member), the people on that list have a little bit of a right to be concerned.
 
2013-01-06 08:03:24 PM

Kit Fister: This About That: viscountalpha: This About That: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." And the more I hear from the NRA, and the "cold dead hands" types, the more I lean toward keeping those folks away from guns.

The second amendment is due to the abusive nature of governments. I'd rather keep guns away from idiots like you who don't understand this basic fact.

Well, you can't have my gun. Listen, genius, a "well regulated militia" was needed at the time the nation was founded inorder to provide for the defense of the country. In modern times, the "well regulated militia" exists in the armed forces of the United States, not the gun manufacturing lobby or the delusional minds of pseudo-tough guys with guns who like to talk about armed insurrection against the government. You may be surprised to hear that I, too, oppose taking away my right to own a gun. I keep a gun because of the nuts and criminals who also have guns.

There are too many guns and too many gun sellers to do away with, or even effectively regulate, guns. Like lawyers, guns are necessary because guns exist.

Hunters nowadays hunt for "sport". Defense of the nation is handled by the armed forces. Guns for "home protection" more often injure the owner or his kids than some "intruder". Guns make their owners feel like superheros when they are really fools. So stop telling me about the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment. It isn't so.

Except your entire interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is both factually void and incorrect, and not based on any merit or understanding of either the existing laws of the US or the supporting data for the interpretation of the 2A.

Sorry.


This is a lot like arguing over who's religion is best, isn't it?
 
2013-01-06 08:03:57 PM

Kome: Farking while drinking


It's the only way to fly.
 
2013-01-06 08:04:07 PM

HeadLever: Sure. Indiscriminate weapons. Bombs, mines, rockets, grenades, and to a point - automatic weapons.


I'll support drawing the line at 25mm machine guns, nothing larger.
 
2013-01-06 08:04:37 PM

Somacandra: 1) Freedom of the Press and 2) everyone gets a free printing press.


The only difference is the initiative to exercise said rights. Since both are individual rights, they can be applied to anyone who wishes to exercise the right - within reason. Some choose to, some not.
 
2013-01-06 08:04:49 PM
At least we now know who's for it and who's against.
 
2013-01-06 08:05:09 PM

buckler: Silly Jesus: buckler: Silly Jesus: I only keep him un-ignored for "WTF" and humor value.

I'm always happy to meet a fan.

There's a difference between being laughed with and laughed at.

Aww, now my feelings are hurt because I hold your view of me in incredibly high regard.

Such a lovely defense mechanism. You roll with that.


Oooh, I get a psychoanalysis too?
 
2013-01-06 08:05:24 PM

Lorelle: So the Nutty Raving Assholes assume that everyone who advocates gun control wants to take away all guns??

Not surprising, coming from the group that has gone out of its way to ensure that those bent on killing others have easy access to assault weapons.


Yeah, that's the only scary thing about this: That suddenly "I think we ought to look a little more closely at gun regulations" has become "DESTROY THE 2D AMENDMENT!!!" in the minds of so many people. A lot of them right here on Fark.
 
2013-01-06 08:06:08 PM

Vodka Zombie: I didn't even know there was an anti-2nd Amendment movement.


Any attempt to limit any American's access to guns is "anti-2nd Amendment" in the NRA's vocabulary.

I have a college friend who is big into guns (he trains police officers in marksmanship and firearm safety).  For years he's referred to gun control efforts as "hoplophobia."

It's not that different from people on one side or other of the abortion controversy referring to the other side as "anti-choice" or "pro-abortion."
 
2013-01-06 08:06:26 PM

Silly Jesus: buckler: Silly Jesus: buckler: Silly Jesus: I only keep him un-ignored for "WTF" and humor value.

I'm always happy to meet a fan.

There's a difference between being laughed with and laughed at.

Aww, now my feelings are hurt because I hold your view of me in incredibly high regard.

Such a lovely defense mechanism. You roll with that.

Oooh, I get a psychoanalysis too?


One free with every fundie post.
 
2013-01-06 08:07:06 PM

Frank N Stein: fark the negativity. Lets talk about people that are down with guns. Like Alton motherfarking Brown

[savethegun.files.wordpress.com image 300x473]


24.media.tumblr.com
Kyle and Eric Menendez are noted gun lovers.

image.guardian.co.uk
Phil Spector gives a thumb's up sign for the right to bear arms.
 
2013-01-06 08:07:51 PM

Kit Fister: LazerFish: You can fully support the second amendment and still not want your crazy redneck neighbor to own an AK-47 for "squirrel hunting"

Also, in case you haven't noticed, fighting the US government with guns rarely works out well. Just sayin'.

And i presume that you're a qualified, board-certified psychiatrist with years of experience to be able to diagnose your "red neck neighbor" as being crazy?

He hunts squirrels with an AK. Ive seen it. He killed a few of my dogs when i was a kid because they were "on his property scaring deer". So yes, at least in my case I can safely say he is crazy.

 
2013-01-06 08:07:58 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: theMightyRegeya: NutWrench: It's no more scary than posting lists of legal gun owners, subby.

Exactly the point. If it's not okay to publish a list of registered gun owners, why would this be okay?

I can see a distinct and large difference between listing the names of public organizations and publishing the addresses of private citizens.

I am really surprised people are trying to equate the two.


That's because you're not very smart. The addresses of the citizens are public record, and therefore not private. It is exactly the same. What you are experiencing and demonstrating is textbook coginitive dissonance.
 
2013-01-06 08:08:15 PM
I'm Canadian, and left on the political spectrum, but I don't understand why so many of the issues in the US are so polarized. Despite my political leanings, I don't think the NRA expects everyone to own a gun, and I don't think those on the other side want all private gun ownership banned.

Maybe gun ownership wouldn't be such a big issue if your leaders addressed the question of why people go on shooting sprees, and tried to do something about that.
 
2013-01-06 08:08:39 PM

This About That: lawyers, guns a

...

i471.photobucket.com

...nd money...Dad, get me out of this!
 
2013-01-06 08:09:12 PM

buckler: Silly Jesus: buckler: Silly Jesus: buckler: Silly Jesus: I only keep him un-ignored for "WTF" and humor value.

I'm always happy to meet a fan.

There's a difference between being laughed with and laughed at.

Aww, now my feelings are hurt because I hold your view of me in incredibly high regard.

Such a lovely defense mechanism. You roll with that.

Oooh, I get a psychoanalysis too?

One free with every fundie post.


Haha, it's wonderful that you think I'm a fundie. And I was starting to like you. Oh well.
 
2013-01-06 08:09:33 PM

XveryYpettyZ: Silly Jesus: Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.

Do you know what the scary word semi-automatic means? It means that the gun fires one bullet at a time. OH NOES!

I always find the disingenuous hee-hawing over words like "semi automatic" and "assault rifle" hilarious. Yes, a semi-automatic "assault rifle" is much more dangerous than a traditional long gun for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: the amount of barrel rise with the smaller caliber high-velocity round when firing quickly, the ease, speed of and time between reloading, and the grip style.

If you took your grandpa's hunting rifle and made it semi-automatic it wouldn't be much more dangerous because the barrel rise degrade the accuracy so much. For reference, see the problems with the M14 and why most of them had a pin inserted to prevent them from being fired fully-automatic.... even by trained soldiers in a war zone. The reason the M16 was able to shoulder its way in to the military so soon after the introduction of the M14 was that it was simply more lethal to human beings over the ranges that human beings most commonly kill each other.. That's true of the AR15 civilian model as well.


Actually, the reason they Adopted the M-16 was because they were closing the Springfield Armory and wanted to give a contract to Colt.
 
2013-01-06 08:09:48 PM
Nothing.
 
2013-01-06 08:09:58 PM

fredklein: This About That: In modern times, the "well regulated militia" exists in the armed forces of the United States,

Nope. That'd be the "standing armies" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence:


Umm, the redcoats are the US Army?

You conservatives are real smart-like, yep, I tell you what.
 
2013-01-06 08:10:06 PM

bim1154: Glancing Blow: Cyrusv10: violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.

THIS

Yea, they're too busy protecting the rights of those neo-NAZI's to march in places like Waukegan, Illinois.

Didn't you mean Skokie, Il.
Link


Yes, you're right. It was around the time that I first joined the ACLU and it cost them dearly with their (some now X-)Jewish members.
 
2013-01-06 08:10:29 PM
i.imgur.com
====
i.imgur.com
==

Turds like to complain, but notice how they never actually address the succinct legal and policy reasons the ACLU gives for its views on the 2nd Amendment. Also note that the NRA's own list includes the ACLU merely for daring to take a collective rather than an individualist position on gun ownership--as advocated by the SCOTUS in the 1939 Miller case. This apparently is called "hating guns." Among all the other reasons cited, this is how the NRA gives fodder to its critics. By acting as if everyone else must either agree or be blacklisted.
 
2013-01-06 08:10:40 PM
FTFL:

National Association of Police Organizations
National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers
National Education Association
National Association of Elementary School Principals*



Hmm, if those guys think your plan to make sure the fourth hour chemistry teacher is strapped is a bit nuts, you might want to take a look at your policies.
 
2013-01-06 08:10:55 PM

zenobia: inglixthemad: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.

I honestly believe the NRA stopped fighting for the 2nd Amendment years ago, and became nothing but a front for manufacturers. That's when I quit funding them. Let Colt, S&W, and so one pay for their lobbying. They sure as heck don't need my money.

I honestly find it hilarious and scary, the NRA has some people so snowed that the 2nd Amendment would disappear in few years without them.

You, sir, may keep your guns.

/sanity test


Do you want irony? I am currently working for a defense contractor in a concealed carry state.

That's right: no private weapons allowed on the property.
 
2013-01-06 08:12:08 PM

Kome: Those limits have been in place for probably longer than you or I have been alive. I meant specifically limit your enumerated rights as they currently stand.


When discussing specifically the 2nd, not much. I would be amenable to making sure that the law stays up to speed with respect to the indiscriminate nature of weapons. Banning semi-autos? No. Banning extended magazines. Not really as this is a minor thing with respect to how quickly someone can reload.
 
2013-01-06 08:12:09 PM

Kome: All the information that has been provided so far is freely accessible to the public, for both types of lists. So they are equally legal, and to be fair, equally inane and pointless.


True...to an extent. But I also had a problem with an anti-illegal-immigration group publishing the names and addresses of illegals (from publicly available arrest records) in the midwest a while back. Most liberals were insanely outraged over it. I am consistent. Most liberals are not. Not even close.

In other words, I wish we (liberals) could make up our minds if mining personal data, and then publishing (or selling) it is acceptable or not. Seems like a very slippery slope many liberals are defending out of political convenience lately.
 
2013-01-06 08:13:59 PM

HeadLever: The only difference is the initiative to exercise said rights.


The actual difference is over whether an material item exists. You can have all the initiative you want and that doesn't create anything material. Conflating the actual with the potential means that all distinctions collapse. I can add all the zeros I want to my bank account balance and it while true it makes me no richer.
 
2013-01-06 08:14:29 PM

justtray: hat's because you're not very smart. The addresses of the citizens are public record, and therefore not private. It is exactly the same. What you are experiencing and demonstrating is textbook coginitive dissonance.


Nope it's because I am consistent, rather than cowardly and two faced like most liberals. See my above post.
 
2013-01-06 08:14:40 PM
Lynyrd Skynyrd, 1976
 
2013-01-06 08:14:56 PM
imageshack.us
 
2013-01-06 08:15:00 PM

inglixthemad: Do you want irony? I am currently working for a defense contractor in a concealed carry state....That's right: no private weapons allowed on the property.


That tells you where it really counts.
 
2013-01-06 08:15:15 PM

Silly Jesus: Haha, it's wonderful that you think I'm a fundie. And I was starting to like you. Oh well.


You know what? You're right. I should treat other people more respectfully, no matter how much I disagree with them, and realize that other peoples' opinions are just as valid as my own.
 
2013-01-06 08:15:22 PM
NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.

Bullshiat. If that were the case, why did they financially back Mitt Romney, a man who signed gun control legislation?
 
2013-01-06 08:16:27 PM

Clutch2013: ...Jesus.

Question: How many of these people are actually anti-gun or just merely anti-idiot with gun?


Put me in the anti-idiot with a gun category. The problem I have faced when trying to express this opinion is that I generally get driven away as an anti-freedom gun hater. I am in the freaking army. I deal with weapons on a daily basis and understand that they need to be treated as potentially deadly things if used improperly. Apparently that makes me a communist and a socialist and a fascist which I think is impossible to be all three simultaneously. There is never any sane conversation because both sides refuse to even open a dialogue that is not just a derpfest from the beginning. It is frustrating and sad.
 
2013-01-06 08:16:36 PM

Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? .


The NRA is about fear-mongering and supporting the GOP. They had their chances to start a conversation. They had their chance to redefine gun control. They failed.
 
2013-01-06 08:16:44 PM

Insatiable Jesus: [imageshack.us image 466x625]


Yea, well I just confused the mods by marking that as funny.
 
2013-01-06 08:17:01 PM

OnlyM3: ZAZ

Can I have a map with crosshairs over the anti-gun groups?
Because democrat bulls-eyes are peaceful bullseyes
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 484x418]


well duh those are clearly archery targets...
 
2013-01-06 08:17:03 PM

Somacandra: Turds like to complain, but notice how they never actually address the succinct legal and policy reasons the ACLU gives for its views on the 2nd Amendment.


Sure they do. The SCotUS has determined that it is an individual right via Heller. That is the reason of difference of opinion.
 
2013-01-06 08:17:52 PM

halB: Liberal logic:

Obama wants to create a list of all the guns and their owners: SUPER SMART! Nothing to worry about!

The NRA created a list of people that are opposed to gun freedom: OMGS THEY BE MAKING LISTS UP IN THIS BIATCH! DONT THEY KNOW LISTS BE EVIL?


This is what gun nuts actually think "liberal logic" is.
 
2013-01-06 08:18:31 PM
Hallmark Cards.

Cover: Sorry I missed you
Inside: Next time I will use a scope

Does that qualify me for a business class window seat?
 
2013-01-06 08:18:50 PM
I think the fear here is that a Jared Loughner, an Adam Lanza, or some other firearms enthusiast will take this as a target list.
 
2013-01-06 08:19:25 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Offer up a repeal amendment for the 2nd or quit your bellyaching. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, That means you don't get to infringe,


Funny how you didn't quote the whole thing.
 
2013-01-06 08:19:44 PM
USEFUL AND INFORMATIVE QUOTE:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." -----ADOILF HITLER.
 
2013-01-06 08:19:48 PM

Amberleia: I would love to see a nation-wide debate on gun control wherein reasonable, intelligent, and open-minded people, on both sides of the issue, take the time to actually listen and respond thoughtfully to the other side's arguments.

A friend and I actually did this and once we realized what the other was saying, and had clarifications when needed, realized that he, a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms, and I, a firm advocate for keeping guns out of the hands of people who misuse them, both actually want the same thing.

I think very few people are against taking guns away from responsible private citizens. We all should be against guns in the possession of felons, gang-members, the insane, and criminals. I don't know what the solution is, other than stiffer penalties for illegal possession and/or use of a gun. If, for example, every felon caught in possession of a gun, every criminal using a gun to commit a crime, were given a mandatory life sentence, with no hope for parole, and no exceptions, our gun control problem would be straightened out in a few years. Of course, that would put a strain on our already strained prison system, so probably isn't feasible. I don't know where the solution lies, but guns must be kept out of the hands of certain elements of our population.


A co-worker and I had the EXACT same conversation. That includes neither one of us could come up with a solution that didn't cause a bunch of other problems.
 
2013-01-06 08:20:16 PM

Frank N Stein: fark the negativity. Lets talk about people that are down with guns.


Here here!!

Let's talk about the heroes who promote American conservative values!

upload.wikimedia.org
www.historyguy.com
www.truthdig.com
static.globalgrind.com
 
2013-01-06 08:20:42 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Kome: All the information that has been provided so far is freely accessible to the public, for both types of lists. So they are equally legal, and to be fair, equally inane and pointless.

True...to an extent. But I also had a problem with an anti-illegal-immigration group publishing the names and addresses of illegals (from publicly available arrest records) in the midwest a while back. Most liberals were insanely outraged over it. I am consistent. Most liberals are not. Not even close.

In other words, I wish we (liberals) could make up our minds if mining personal data, and then publishing (or selling) it is acceptable or not. Seems like a very slippery slope many liberals are defending out of political convenience lately.


To be fair, most people are not consistent. It isn't something that any individual or group is particularly known for.
 
2013-01-06 08:21:55 PM
Not to worried about all this.

I won't be handing my guns over.

Because when they take them my hands will be cold.
 
2013-01-06 08:21:56 PM

rustypouch: I wonder how pro-gun they really are, as the last presidential election the NRA endorsed the candidate who signed into law an assault weapons ban


No he didn't. The "Ban" he signed as governor of MA affirmed that the state would adhere to federal AWB of 94-04. Dont let facts get in the way of your wargarbl.

Amberleia: I would love to see a nation-wide debate on gun control wherein reasonable, intelligent, and open-minded people, on both sides of the issue, take the time to actually listen and respond thoughtfully to the other side's arguments.

A friend and I actually did this and once we realized what the other was saying, and had clarifications when needed, realized that he, a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms, and I, a firm advocate for keeping guns out of the hands of people who misuse them, both actually want the same thing.

I think very few people are against taking guns away from responsible private citizens. We all should be against guns in the possession of felons, gang-members, the insane, and criminals. I don't know what the solution is, other than stiffer penalties for illegal possession and/or use of a gun. If, for example, every felon caught in possession of a gun, every criminal using a gun to commit a crime, were given a mandatory life sentence, with no hope for parole, and no exceptions, our gun control problem would be straightened out in a few years. Of course, that would put a strain on our already strained prison system, so probably isn't feasible. I don't know where the solution lies, but guns must be kept out of the hands of certain elements of our population.


Have you listened to official NRA comments on the current gun climate? There's already thousands of gun laws in effect in the states and in cases of places like Chicago and Camden, people simply choose not to follow them. In restricting access to firearms for law abiding citizens who have a right to protect themselves you make them targets for the criminal element. What we ought to do is have a rational conversation about how drug control isn't working and that nonviolent drug offenders should be let go, allowing us to crack down on violent individuals.
 
2013-01-06 08:22:13 PM
Oops! Should have spelled it "ADOLPH;" hard to type straight with ten Heinekens in yer belly.
 
2013-01-06 08:22:21 PM
several openly racist groups on the list, (No white people allowed) and many homosexual groups
 
2013-01-06 08:22:23 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Some of the celebrities & notables on the list are dead, so why weren't their names removed. It makes me question how accurate this list is.

Jackie Cooper died in 2011.
Nora Ephron died in 2012
Coretta Scott King died in 2006
Sydney Pollack died in 2008
Ruth Warrick died in 2005
James Whitmore died in 2009
Andy Williams died in 2012


In many instances, these organizations lent their name in support of specific campaigns to pass anti-gun legislation such as the March 1995 HCI "Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws."

It was right there in the article.
 
2013-01-06 08:22:49 PM

missiv: Phil Spector gives a thumb's up sign for the right to bear arms.


Yet he had an NYC concealed carry permit while 'little people' cannot. I always wonder where things like that fit into gun control groups support of may issue systems as safer and more reasonable than shall issue.
 
2013-01-06 08:23:14 PM

Somacandra: There is a very large difference between 1) Freedom of the Press and 2) everyone gets a free printing press


No one ever said that's what the 2nd amendment says. Everyone can own a gun if they want, or not, if they don't want one. Your logic fails.

/ Plus, with the internet, everyone DOES have a free printing press
 
2013-01-06 08:23:35 PM

buckler: Kome: ThrobblefootSpectre: theMightyRegeya: NutWrench: It's no more scary than posting lists of legal gun owners, subby.

Exactly the point. If it's not okay to publish a list of registered gun owners, why would this be okay?

I can see a distinct and large difference between listing the names of public organizations and publishing the addresses of private citizens.

I am really surprised people are trying to equate the two.

All the information that has been provided so far is freely accessible to the public, for both types of lists. So they are equally legal, and to be fair, equally inane and pointless.

Yet the permit holders seem to be getting much more pissy.


Because there is a slight difference between "Here's a list of people who spoke out against me" and "here are the home addresses of the people who legally bought and registered a thing I don't like".

The permit holders never chose to be a part of the 2A political fight.
 
2013-01-06 08:23:53 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: justtray: hat's because you're not very smart. The addresses of the citizens are public record, and therefore not private. It is exactly the same. What you are experiencing and demonstrating is textbook coginitive dissonance.

Nope it's because I am consistent, rather than cowardly and two faced like most liberals. See my above post.


Now projection. You truly have an amazing mind. I am in awe.

Imaginary, anecdotal liberals were outraged over posting names of illegal immigrants? (who were presumably deported since that's the only way they could be on a public record) Sounds legit.
 
2013-01-06 08:24:18 PM

twiztedjustin: David Canary - Actor

Might want to update that one, Bob.


Celebtards against simple white folk such as myself owning guns is no news. I won't go down the list like I usually do and point out which guys on the list use a gun IN EVERY SINGLE farkING MOVIE they make.



"Simple white folk"?  Seriously?  Are you false-flagging or something?
 
2013-01-06 08:25:01 PM

JosephFinn: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group..

Incorrect. The NRA is a pro gun manufacturers lobby. If they were pro guns, they'd be supporting the 2nd Amendment's requirement to be in a well regulated militia to use a gun.


Except, of course, they convinced the SCOTUS to separate the "well-regulated militia" part from the "right to keep and bear arms" part of the 2nd Amendment.
 
2013-01-06 08:25:09 PM

randomjsa: There is absolutely nothing wrong with this tactic and if there is you should probably stop singling out the NRA for doing it... Since it's a fairly common tactic employed by all sides left, right, and center.


Someone at the NRA must have read Rules for Radicals.....
 
2013-01-06 08:26:47 PM

jso2897: I have views about gun control, but I'm not passionate about them, and don't feel like getting screamed at by both "sides", which is what usually happens when you have a moderate opinion on a highly controversial subject.


I feel your pain.  In pretty much every Fark thread about religion, actually.
 
2013-01-06 08:27:40 PM
I think the NRA has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.
 
2013-01-06 08:28:44 PM

Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"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

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our state ...


Nice collection but when you take history into account the times were different in those days. It is kind of out of context today. No matter how many guns we have today we are not taking over our government. Just ain't gonna happen. A bit of napalm and foosh!

/not against guns
//have a few of my own
 
2013-01-06 08:28:51 PM

Kome: To be fair, most people are not consistent. It isn't something that any individual or group is particularly known for.


As long as we now agree that data mining for all your personal transactions and private activities/hobbies is fair game.
 
2013-01-06 08:29:05 PM

OHDUDENESS: david_gaithersburg: Glancing Blow: Silly Jesus: zenobia: Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.

My guess is that subby was amazed -- as am I -- at how many organizations and people of impeccable credentials are on The Big List. I'd like to see a list of pro-assault weapon organizations to compare the educational and sanity levels.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington


Cool quotes, got any from the 19th, 20th, or 21st century, or do you just have this founding-fathers johnson?

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

Oh Snap.


Did that really happen? I can't find anything believable.
 
2013-01-06 08:29:23 PM
Amberleia: A friend and I actually did this and once we realized what the other was saying, and had clarifications when needed, realized that he, a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms, and I, a firm advocate for keeping guns out of the hands of people who misuse them, both actually want the same thing.

I think very few people are against taking guns away from responsible private citizens. We all should be against guns in the possession of felons, gang-members, the insane, and criminals. I don't know what the solution is, other than stiffer penalties for illegal possession and/or use of a gun. If, for example, every felon caught in possession of a gun, every criminal using a gun to commit a crime, were given a mandatory life sentence, with no hope for parole, and no exceptions, our gun control problem would be straightened out in a few years. Of course, that would put a strain on our already strained prison system, so probably isn't feasible. I don't know where the solution lies, but guns must be kept out of the hands of certain elements of our population.


This is Fark.  I don't think you're allowed to talk like that here.
 
2013-01-06 08:29:30 PM
USEFUL AND INFORMATIVE QUOTE:

"You'll shoot your eye out." -----Ralphie's Mom
 
2013-01-06 08:29:36 PM

stoli n coke: Nothing will happen with this list. The NRA members who read it will talk tough and maybe rage jack it, but none of the people on the list are in any danger.

People who hem and haw over things like the "anti-second Amendment" movement are basically the real life equivalent of the Chicken Hawk from the Foghorn Leghorn cartoons. All the list will do is feed their Red Dawn fantasy.


People won't support/donate to those groups?
 
2013-01-06 08:30:11 PM
Good for the NRA to make their enemies list public.

Bad for the people who get killed by the NRA's insane members

Good for normal people when the NRA is sued into oblivion
 
2013-01-06 08:30:37 PM

Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.


This is the best post on the subject I have ever seen.
 
2013-01-06 08:31:04 PM

ciberido: jso2897: I have views about gun control, but I'm not passionate about them, and don't feel like getting screamed at by both "sides", which is what usually happens when you have a moderate opinion on a highly controversial subject.

I feel your pain.  In pretty much every Fark thread about religion, actually.


Then why participate in them?
 
2013-01-06 08:32:13 PM

lexslamman: I think the NRA has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.


I think the democrat party has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Basically you're a farking idiot. The NRA protects our 2nd amendment. Maybe you don't care about your rights, but I and the NRA do.
 
2013-01-06 08:33:10 PM

Somacandra: The actual difference is over whether an material item exists. You can have all the initiative you want and that doesn't create anything material.


With enough initiative, you can create or buy the material means. That is the least of the worry.
 
2013-01-06 08:33:57 PM

jaytkay: Frank N Stein: fark the negativity. Lets talk about people that are down with guns.

Here here!!

Let's talk about the heroes who promote American conservative values!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x254]
[www.historyguy.com image 220x326]
[www.truthdig.com image 220x266]
[static.globalgrind.com image 220x275]


Oh god the trolling. Its beautiful. Take a bow man, you earned it. You are the front runner for troll of the year man. Two anti government nutjobs, a plain old nutjob and a honest to god damn Norwegian. Dude, 9.9/10. I'm thinking of favoriting you if you come up with any more gems like this.
 
2013-01-06 08:34:34 PM

jaytkay: Good for the NRA to make their enemies list public.

Bad for the people who get killed by the NRA's insane members

Good for normal people when the NRA is sued into oblivion


Like the 500 people who were killed in Chicago by Obama's insane followers?
 
KIA
2013-01-06 08:34:39 PM
Murder - illegal
Premeditated murder - illegal
Multiple malicious homicide - illegal x number of victims
Attempted homicide - illegal x number of people endangered
Attempted malicious wounding - illegal x number of people shot at
Malicious wounding - illegal x number of people wounded
Assault - illegal x number of people put in fear
Battery - illegal x number of people struck
Theft - illegal
Breaking and entering - illegal
Use of a firearm in a crime - illegal
Violation of Operation Exile (mandatory 5 years hard time for gun violations) - illegal - btw, take a look at some of the testimony from Columbine survivor's family in suppoer of Project Exile here: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=832

News reports suggest that 17 federal laws were violated at Columbine. There were probably at least as many violated at Newtown so once again the question is raised: do you really expect drug dealers and criminals to follow even more laws? Do you expect crazy people to have any comprehension of the laws or regard for them? Of course not, because you're not a crazy person.

So, don't give crazy people or criminals guns. Dandy. Done.
 
2013-01-06 08:34:39 PM
This sort of double standard is the foundation of liberal logic. These are the same assholes that told me "If I hit my wife, I would've killed her" isn't considered a valid legal defense.

Example:
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-06 08:35:10 PM
I don't believe in gun control. I think illegal immigrant terrorist felons should be allowed to buy fully automatic weapons with silencers and armor piercing bullets with no background checks out of the back of any car. Because THAT'S what the founding fathers intended as proven by the fwd email I received
 
2013-01-06 08:35:28 PM

Glancing Blow: bim1154: Glancing Blow: Cyrusv10: violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.

THIS

Yea, they're too busy protecting the rights of those neo-NAZI's to march in places like Waukegan, Illinois.

Didn't you mean Skokie, Il.
Link

Yes, you're right. It was around the time that I first joined the ACLU and it cost them dearly with their (some now X-)Jewish members.


I was working in that area at that time. Had a lot of Jewish customers that who, at that time, were Holocaust survivors. I know if the neos would have marched, there were Jews ready to whoop some nazi ass. Later on the head of that neo-nazi group got convicted of diddling little boys... can't remember those details.
 
2013-01-06 08:37:07 PM

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 304x135]
====
[ACLU.jpg]
==

Turds like to complain, but notice how they never actually address the succinct legal and policy reasons the ACLU gives for its views on the 2nd Amendment. Also note that the NRA's own list includes the ACLU merely for daring to take a collective rather than an individualist position on gun ownership--as advocated by the SCOTUS in the 1939 Miller case. This apparently is called "hating guns." Among all the other reasons cited, this is how the NRA gives fodder to its critics. By acting as if everyone else must either agree or be blacklisted.


It can seem confusing if you begin with the assumption that the NRA is an organization focused on "protecting the 2nd Amendment". But it makes a lot more sense if you understand the NRA to be nothing more than another fund raising branch of the GOP, and this is just another campaign to get money from members.
 
2013-01-06 08:37:37 PM
i487.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-06 08:37:46 PM

tblax: And how did that work out for him?


Other than the car ride how was your visit to Texas?
 
2013-01-06 08:38:42 PM

topcon: Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.

Because so many people die to so called "assault rifles." 323 rifle murders in 2011 vs 6220 handgun murders. Many of the rifles most likely weren't even "assault rifles."

Get rid of $125 Saturday Night Special pistols in the ghetto, and the murder rate with guns will keep dropping...not that it isn't drastically dropping every year anyway.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Link

[i.imgur.com image 850x397]

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]


shtfplan.com
www.cdc.gov

Also, a good vid on the subject:

Choose Your Own Crime Stats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

The data confirms the blindingly obvious:

1) crime is concentrated in urban centers of more than 250,000 people. The US has almost 200 such places.

2)overall violent crime rate in the US is actually rather low, roughly half per capita the rate in England and Wales and falling

3) murder rate is VERY high

4) guns have been legal during both the rise and fall of crime rates, and quite likely don't impact those rates to the degree either side would have you believe

The overwhelming majority of the US violence is gang related, specifically drug-gang related. Decriminalize or even legalize drugs and there won't be anything worth killing over any longer. The US is actually a very safe country, and if government were made to recognize a person's right to ingest whatever chemical they wish because they own their body, this simply wouldn't be an issue.
 
2013-01-06 08:38:51 PM

Watubi: I don't believe in gun control. I think illegal immigrant terrorist felons should be allowed to buy fully automatic weapons with silencers and armor piercing bullets with no background checks out of the back of any car. Because THAT'S what the founding fathers intended as proven by the fwd email I received


Actually they would have to go through Obama and Holder to get that kind of thing. Every other FFL would have to do a NICS and would be denied.
 
2013-01-06 08:39:29 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: In other words, I wish we (liberals) could make up our minds if mining personal data, and then publishing (or selling) it is acceptable or not. Seems like a very slippery slope many liberals are defending out of political convenience lately.


What is this "we," kemosabe?

I hate to break it to you, but you're not a liberal.
 
2013-01-06 08:39:57 PM
I guess you could put the leadership of the NRA to that list, because no one has done more help to get new gun control laws put into place them those guy. Then again they also endorsed the even bigger gun control guy in the election because he had the right letter after the name.
 
2013-01-06 08:41:50 PM
Nice list of dumbasses you got there.
 
2013-01-06 08:42:10 PM

david_gaithersburg: Perfectly, one of the worst presidents in history for dragging us into Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, etc.


Staring down the Russians in Cuba. I guess that little matter doesn't count.

I'll give you the Pigs fiasco but you have to give back the Johnson Viet war. Then we can walk away even.

Deal?
 
2013-01-06 08:42:27 PM
they can add my name too.
 
2013-01-06 08:42:28 PM

TommyymmoT: [i487.photobucket.com image 466x625]


I bet your neighbor with an AR and a tiny penis (I won't ask how you know) won't come help you and your tiny penis from being murdered.

Must be a big man posting a pic about people you have no idea about.
 
2013-01-06 08:44:14 PM

KIA: Murder - illegal
Premeditated murder - illegal
Multiple malicious homicide - illegal x number of victims
Attempted homicide - illegal x number of people endangered
Attempted malicious wounding - illegal x number of people shot at
Malicious wounding - illegal x number of people wounded
Assault - illegal x number of people put in fear
Battery - illegal x number of people struck
Theft - illegal
Breaking and entering - illegal
Use of a firearm in a crime - illegal
Violation of Operation Exile (mandatory 5 years hard time for gun violations) - illegal - btw, take a look at some of the testimony from Columbine survivor's family in suppoer of Project Exile here: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=832

News reports suggest that 17 federal laws were violated at Columbine. There were probably at least as many violated at Newtown so once again the question is raised: do you really expect drug dealers and criminals to follow even more laws? Do you expect crazy people to have any comprehension of the laws or regard for them? Of course not, because you're not a crazy person.

So, don't give crazy people or criminals guns. Dandy. Done.


It sounds like you're saying don't have laws, since criminals won't obey them. Do you really not see how stupid AND invalid your argument is? It ignores the basic premise of laws acting as deterents.
 
2013-01-06 08:45:48 PM
They get one demonstrability wrong and they get sued for Bible?
 
2013-01-06 08:45:56 PM

TommyymmoT: [i487.photobucket.com image 466x625]


DRINK!
 
2013-01-06 08:48:05 PM

BGates: lexslamman: I think the NRA has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I think the democrat party has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Basically you're a farking idiot. The NRA protects our 2nd amendment.


You can tell by how they financially backed the Presidential candidate who signed a gun control bill.
 
2013-01-06 08:48:41 PM

justtray: It sounds like you're saying don't have laws, since criminals won't obey them. Do you really not see how stupid AND invalid your argument is?


Way to stick your foot directly in your mouth.

Sounds(to the intelligent and rational at any rate) that he's saying to not keep making new useless laws.

That concept, and the one you put forth are entirely different. Do you really not see how stupid and invalid you are?

Your intelligence and rationality are on par with the psycho's who kill people.
 
2013-01-06 08:49:32 PM
So what?
 
2013-01-06 08:49:40 PM

BGates: TommyymmoT: [i487.photobucket.com image 466x625]

I bet your neighbor with an AR and a tiny penis (I won't ask how you know) won't come help you and your tiny penis from being murdered.

Must be a big man posting a pic about people you have no idea about.


Probably not, because he's a small penis coward, as that guy's pic states.. What's your point exactly? Are you under the delusion that people with AR-15s are stopping crimes for people (or even themselves)? Lol.
 
2013-01-06 08:50:26 PM
Stallone is on that list? What a hypocritical two-faced jackass.
 
2013-01-06 08:51:12 PM
Thanks! That gives me a lot of choices for donations.
 
2013-01-06 08:51:14 PM

Ow My Balls: Kome: When your list of "opponents" includes the American Medical Association, American Bar Association, and American Psychological Association, and we haven't even gotten out of the "A" letters, you may seriously need to re-think your position.

THIS. Lots of smart, book learnin' types on that list.


smart book learning types... that are... um... what? going to throw a textbook at a home invader. honey, duck, i'm going to toss a copy of the anatomy book at the bad guy.

thunk.

he's still coming at us... ah!!!
 
2013-01-06 08:51:48 PM
I'm not anti gun, but I'm probably anti gun nut. Gun nuts dont make sense to me. They're crazy. It would be so much more satisfying to kill someone or something with your bare hands while watching their very being disappear from their eyes from fewer than inches away. You can inhale their last breath and taste their mortality. Then you finally ensure that laughter is the very last sound they hear. Guns are for pussies.
 
2013-01-06 08:52:00 PM

RevMercutio: BGates: lexslamman: I think the NRA has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I think the democrat party has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Basically you're a farking idiot. The NRA protects our 2nd amendment.

You can tell by how they financially backed the Presidential candidate who signed a gun control bill.


So you're saying it was a choice of the lesser of two evils?
 
2013-01-06 08:52:05 PM

omeganuepsilon: justtray: It sounds like you're saying don't have laws, since criminals won't obey them. Do you really not see how stupid AND invalid your argument is?

Way to stick your foot directly in your mouth.

Sounds(to the intelligent and rational at any rate) that he's saying to not keep making new useless laws.

That concept, and the one you put forth are entirely different. Do you really not see how stupid and invalid you are?

Your intelligence and rationality are on par with the psycho's who kill people.


Ah, baseless ad hominem. I explained his point. It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths, across the world, so the argument that laws against guns are useless is also factually false.

It wasn't me who stuck his foot in his mouth. Your anger at my logical rebuttal tells me all I need to know about your psyche however.
 
2013-01-06 08:52:24 PM

BGates: jaytkay: Good for the NRA to make their enemies list public.

Bad for the people who get killed by the NRA's insane members

Good for normal people when the NRA is sued into oblivion

Like the 500 people who were killed in Chicago by Obama's insane followers?


How many of those people were on a published hit list distributed to armed paranoid bedwetters?
 
2013-01-06 08:53:06 PM

NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.


Then please explain to me why outing the opponents to gun-control last week was the end of the world to the NRA.
 
2013-01-06 08:54:40 PM

ciberido: I hate to break it to you, but you're not a liberal.


Heh, and by what criteria do you reach that conclusion. My advocacy for civil rights, including for gays and all minorities? My outspoken support for reducing the budget and role of the military? My two votes for Obama?

I think what you mean is that I am unusual, for a liberal, in not holding ridiculous and glaring double standards.

I suppose, to you, someone who criticizes something about America isn't a real American either, right?
 
2013-01-06 08:54:49 PM

John Buck 41: Stallone is on that list? What a hypocritical two-faced jackass.


And Al Gore flew on a plane so global warming isn't real. Wake up sheeple. A plane!
 
2013-01-06 08:55:01 PM
Every time a "Sandy Hook" shows up, it causes lots of negativity towards gun rights. Why not add Jared Loughner, the DC Sniper, or John Hinkley to the list as well? Those guys are much more damaging to gun rights. They'd go a long way by pointing out their own apples.

/Of course, that would viewed as cannibalism.
 
2013-01-06 08:56:11 PM

Theaetetus: It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.


I think it's an analogy to McCarthyism.

Oddly both sides are suffering under the same type of tarring: if you would like any curbs at all on guns, then you are a liberal boogeyman out to steal guns and trash the 2nd Amendment or if you don't want any control on guns, then you are some kind of unreasonable whacko who believes they will need to enter an armed conflict with their own government.

Neither of which is true of either group.
 
2013-01-06 08:56:24 PM
It's nice when you have the high ground of Founding Fathers agreement. It means that I'm not the one with the unamerican view.
 
2013-01-06 08:57:05 PM

Gunny Walker: Every time a "Sandy Hook" shows up, it causes lots of negativity towards gun rights. Why not add Jared Loughner, the DC Sniper, or John Hinkley to the list as well? Those guys are much more damaging to gun rights. They'd go a long way by pointing out their own apples.

/Of course, that would viewed as cannibalism.



Sounds like Grandpa missed his Citrical today.
 
2013-01-06 08:57:08 PM
we the nra need to make a list of every employer that opposes carry-at/to-work.
 
2013-01-06 08:58:27 PM

violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.


Sigh.

Who do (the vocal majority of) people on both sides of this debate persist in reducing the discussion to all or nothing? There is a middle ground that respects all the amendments, and civil liberty.
 
2013-01-06 08:59:21 PM

Alphakronik: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.

Then please explain to me why outing the opponents to gun-control last week was the end of the world to the NRA.


It's the difference bewteen making a list of groups that support planned parenthood and a list of names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions.
 
2013-01-06 08:59:34 PM

Kome: ciberido: jso2897: I have views about gun control, but I'm not passionate about them, and don't feel like getting screamed at by both "sides", which is what usually happens when you have a moderate opinion on a highly controversial subject.

I feel your pain.  In pretty much every Fark thread about religion, actually.

Then why participate in them?


Mainly for the same reasons I'm in any Fark thread.  Partly for entertainment, partly to learn, partly because I think the "middle ground" needs to be represented.  And there's always the chance that one or two people reading the thread will think I made a good point or at least said something amusing.

I also have a few goals (if you want to call them that) specific to religion threads:

1. As a gay-friendly Christian I encounter in almost every thread about religion or homosexuality the assumption that "Christian = homophobe" and "gay rights = atheism."  It's guaranteed that someone will say something that at least implies as much.  So it becomes my "duty" (if you will) to counter that misconception.

2. Along similar lines, in a lot of threads there's going to be someone who says, "Where's the Christian outrage about X" or "Where are all the Christians who don't support X?" where X is some bad thing.  And unless somebody actually pipes up and says, "Yes, actually, I'm a Christian who doesn't support X" the poster (plus some other less-clear--thinking people reading the thread) will think that the silence proves that poster's point.

3. In the interest of fairness I also find myself defending Islam a lot.  It's not my religion, but it gets slammed by all the Farkers who also hate Christianity AS WELL AS a lot of the Farkers who defend / support /promote Christianity.  There aren't a lot of Muslim Farkers, so I do what I can to help out my fellow Abrahamists.

4. Lastly, and least importantly, people say a lot of stupid nonsense about Buddhism in Fark threads, such as how it's "more a philosophy than a religion" or that it is "the only religion that doesn't have X" for some X which exists in all religions, including Buddhism.  I have nothing against Buddhism, but I dislike all the myths about it Farkers seem to love.
 
2013-01-06 09:00:58 PM

BGates: TommyymmoT: [i487.photobucket.com image 466x625]

I bet your neighbor with an AR and a tiny penis (I won't ask how you know) won't come help you and your tiny penis from being murdered.

Must be a big man posting a pic about people you have no idea about.


Unlike you, I don't live in fear. and if somebody actually did break into my house, I don't need some asshole trying to live his greatest wet dream coming to "help" me, I'll be just fine.
AR-15s are not particularly useful in such a situation.
 
2013-01-06 09:00:58 PM
img442.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-06 09:01:00 PM

BGates: jaytkay: Good for the NRA to make their enemies list public.

Bad for the people who get killed by the NRA's insane members

Good for normal people when the NRA is sued into oblivion

Like the 500 people who were killed in Chicago by Obama's insane followers?


You'll have to provide some sort of citation for this claim or I think most of us will just assume you're making stuff up.
 
2013-01-06 09:01:35 PM

justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths


Citation needed.
 
2013-01-06 09:03:15 PM

Alphakronik: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.

Then please explain to me why outing the opponents to gun-control last week was the end of the world to the NRA.


Because while private citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy, public figures do not. Public figures expose themselves by their actions that, taken publicly, constitute an attempt to influence opinion. A person holding a CCW permit does not do that with any eye on influencing the public.

It's also a question of ethics. That the press have the legal right to publish something does not mean that they should publish it. By doing so, by putting themselves out into the public eye with what was clearly an act with political implications, they opened themselves up to criticism.

But you knew all that, didn't you? You were just playing dumb. I can't wait until the response to this where we get Act II of your playing coy routine.
 
2013-01-06 09:04:53 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.


Its simple physics man. If you keep making the guns smaller and smaller then eventually the bullets wont even break the skin.
 
2013-01-06 09:05:17 PM

Alphakronik: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.

Then please explain to me why outing the opponents to gun-control last week was the end of the world to the NRA.


1) While I have no doubt that, given the opportunity, a fair number of NRA supporters wouldn't hesitate to do so, it should be noted that this list consists of organizations and celebrity individuals whose addresses are already difficult to obtain (if not impossible). The idiots running the newspaper last week obtained and posted names and addresses of people with valid gun permits for little reason other than making a political point that probably didn't need any more reinforcing. And regardless of how you may feel about it, doing so did indeed expose those people to a higher risk of burglary, theft, and harassment (among other things).

2) Damn you for making me come anywhere close to taking the side of the idiots running the NRA.
 
2013-01-06 09:06:18 PM

Giltric: RevMercutio: BGates: lexslamman: I think the NRA has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I think the democrat party has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Basically you're a farking idiot. The NRA protects our 2nd amendment.

You can tell by how they financially backed the Presidential candidate who signed a gun control bill.

So you're saying it was a choice of the lesser of two evils?


I'm saying one candidate specifically said he wouldn't take your guns away and another one had already done so while in power. The NRA financially backed the gungrabber.
 
2013-01-06 09:08:25 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: ciberido: I hate to break it to you, but you're not a liberal.

Heh, and by what criteria do you reach that conclusion. My advocacy for civil rights, including for gays and all minorities? My outspoken support for reducing the budget and role of the military? My two votes for Obama?


The homophobia, racism, machismo, and conservative viewpoints you've expressed in other Fark threads.  Though to be fair, you've also been know to show compassion and fair-mindedness, and to sometimes make lucid and rational arguments and back them up with solid data.

You understand, of course, that I can only go by what you've posted on Fark, and any real-world actions (such as who you voted for in an election) can carry no weight for this.
 
2013-01-06 09:09:22 PM
img42.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-06 09:11:43 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.


No matter what I cite, you will say either, "we're different," "but violent crime," or "but Heller."

But I will anyway, brb.
 
2013-01-06 09:12:38 PM

Silly Jesus: Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.

Do you know what the scary word semi-automatic means? It means that the gun fires one bullet at a time. OH NOES!


Do you know what the word semi-automatic means?

I'm pretty sure that since only one object can occupy any given point in space at any given time, that all bullets come out one at a time - the difference is in how many can come out in a given span of time, how many come out before you have to squeeze the trigger again, and how many times you can squeeze the trigger in a given span of time.
 
2013-01-06 09:13:33 PM

dogfather_jr: Holy sweet Jeebus the comments after that article are terrifying. Above all others the one where the poster says that "It's OK to lose a few individuals in these situations to save the much bigger whole". I think Newtown might disagree. Unless the common thought is that it's important enough for unstable people to have access to ridiculous amounts of firepower that children need to die?

Is there ANYBODY out there that is both pro-gun and is sane enough to think there's room for improvement? All I've seen so far is the extreme: anybody that wants a gun has the Constitutionally guaranteed right to get one, no questions asked (or training required).

Surely there's got to a modicum of common sense. Somewhere? Please?


Ok so what we need is better mental health screening and better training with fire arms, as studies show those with better training and understanding are less likely to use firearms in an irresponsible way. My solution... mandatory military service. If you get washed out by metal health screenings you can't purchase a firearm as a civilian. Everyone else gets trained in proper maintenance and operation of several styles of firearms.
 
2013-01-06 09:13:58 PM

Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]


Yeah, that makes sense, because he's pretty much the first president ever to have an armed security detail.
The rest of them didn't have it because they're brave and stuff, and besides, who would want to kill a president?
 
2013-01-06 09:14:11 PM

saturn badger: Hallmark Cards.

Cover: Sorry I missed you
Inside: Next time I will use a scope

Does that qualify me for a business class window seat?


I think so. I'll buy one, btw, so I guess I'm sitting next to you.
 
2013-01-06 09:15:34 PM

pedrop357: JosephFinn: If they were pro guns, they'd be supporting the 2nd Amendment's requirement to be in a well regulated militia to use a gun.

Where is that requirement?


In the 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.
 
2013-01-06 09:16:19 PM

inglixthemad: Do you want irony? I am currently working for a defense contractor in a concealed carry state.

That's right: no private weapons allowed on the property.


Not really irony if the contract you are working on is conducted on federal property. Federal trumps state.

/just assuming you are
 
2013-01-06 09:16:28 PM

Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]


Sez the internet tough guy posting under a fake name. One who prolly voted for a gun grabber in November.
 
2013-01-06 09:16:49 PM
Did they post addresses or telephone numbers? Personal information?

No?

Oh. Nothing to see here, then. Move along.
 
2013-01-06 09:17:05 PM

o5iiawah: Have you listened to official NRA comments on the current gun climate? There's already thousands of gun laws in effect in the states and in cases of places like Chicago and Camden, people simply choose not to follow them. In restricting access to firearms for law abiding citizens who have a right to protect themselves you make them targets for the criminal element. What we ought to do is have a rational conversation about how drug control isn't working and that nonviolent drug offenders should be let go, allowing us to crack down on violent individuals.


As you admit, our current gun control laws aren't working. Are you advocating we revoke all gun control, as the criminal element doesn't pay attention to existing laws? How about if the current gun control laws were more rigorously enforced, making the punishment of possession of a gun by felons and criminals more than a slap on the wrist? If we did stop prosecuting non-violent drug offenders, wouldn't that allow for the prosecution of, and stricter penalties for, those who illegally use guns?
 
2013-01-06 09:17:37 PM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: This sort of double standard is the foundation of liberal logic. These are the same assholes that told me "If I hit my wife, I would've killed her" isn't considered a valid legal defense.

Example:
[i.imgur.com image 613x382]
"Brady Campaign" image


*TWEET*

*yellow flag*

Obvious use of false-flag propaganda, fifteen yard penalty, first down, gun banners.
 
2013-01-06 09:17:54 PM

Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]


Not sure if serious or really stupid.
 
2013-01-06 09:17:54 PM
Good. Call these bastards out.
 
2013-01-06 09:18:22 PM

justtray: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.

No matter what I cite, you will say either, "we're different," "but violent crime," or "but Heller."

But I will anyway, brb.


Not saying this just to be a dick...

The "reduction" part of what you said is what I'm questioning. I completely understand there are places in this world with fewer guns and less gun violence. I'm interested in seeing places that have "reduced" the levels of legal gun ownership, or amount of guns per capita, that saw a reduction in gun violence.

Not even saying such a place doesn't exist...n but you said it... so I want to know.
 
2013-01-06 09:18:49 PM
This thread needs to take a Valium.
 
2013-01-06 09:20:32 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.


Citation provided.

RESULTS.At the regional level, we found a positive and statistically significant relationship between rates of household gun ownership and homicide victimization for the entire population, for victims aged 5 to 14 years, and for victims 35 years and older (Table 1 ). These results were attributed primarily to higher gun-related homicide rates in regions with higher rates of firearm ownership; non-gun-related homicide rates were also elevated in regions where there were more guns, but to a lesser extent. Homicide victimization rates for those aged 0 to 4 years and aged 15 to 34 years were higher in regions with higher rates of gun ownership, but the association did not reach statistical significance. Results obtained using survey (GSS) and proxy (FS/S) measures of firearm prevalence were nearly identical. Rates of household handgun ownership were somewhat more likely to be significantly associated with homicide rates than were measures of ownership of all household firearms.

At the state level, multivariate results showed a positive and significant relationship between rates of household gun ownership and homicide victimization, for the entire population and for each age group aged 5 years and older (Table 2 ). As in the regional analyses, state-level results were attributed principally to substantially elevated gun-related homicide rates in states with higher rates of firearm ownership, although corresponding non-gun-related homicide rates were also somewhat elevated. The association between household gun ownership and homicide victimization was strongest for victims 25 years and older.

In the "high gun states," 21 148 individuals were homicide victims, compared with 7266 in the "low gun states" (Table 3 ). For every age group of at least 5 years minimum age, people living in the high-gun states were more than 2.5 times more likely than those in the low-gun states to become homicide victims. These results were largely driven by higher rates of gun-related homicide, although rates of non-gun-related homicide were also somewhat higher in high-gun states. For all age groups, people living in high-gun states were 2.9 times more likely to die in a homicide; they were 4.2 times more likely to die in a gun-related homicide and 1.6 times more likely to die in a non-gun-related homicide.

State firearm ownership rates in Table 3 were determined using our proxy, FS/S, for all 50 states. Direct measures of firearm ownership rates are available from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for 3 of the 6 high-gun states, in which an average of 53% of households contain firearms (range: 51%-55%). The system provides direct estimates of firearm ownership for 2 of the 4 low-gun states, in which 13% of households contain firearms (range: 12%-14%). The corresponding FS/S measures for the 6 high-gun states and the 4 low-gun states are 76% (range: 75%-80%) and 33% (range: 30%-36%), respectively.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/
 
2013-01-06 09:21:01 PM

NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates companies, so they do their best to defend their rights profits.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.



FTFY
 
2013-01-06 09:22:11 PM

JosephFinn: pedrop357: JosephFinn: If they were pro guns, they'd be supporting the 2nd Amendment's requirement to be in a well regulated militia to use a gun.

Where is that requirement?

In the 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.


Actually that has been shown to be an individual right by the Supreme Court
 
2013-01-06 09:22:12 PM

TommyymmoT: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Yeah, that makes sense, because he's pretty much the first president ever to have an armed security detail.
The rest of them didn't have it because they're brave and stuff, and besides, who would want to kill a president?


RevMercutio: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Sez the internet tough guy posting under a fake name. One who prolly voted for a gun grabber in November.


So that guy is allowed to be surrounded by these things, but I'm not? He's important enough that he get's another standard, is that it? Just trying to understand.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-06 09:22:32 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.

No matter what I cite, you will say either, "we're different," "but violent crime," or "but Heller."

But I will anyway, brb.

Not saying this just to be a dick...

The "reduction" part of what you said is what I'm questioning. I completely understand there are places in this world with fewer guns and less gun violence. I'm interested in seeing places that have "reduced" the levels of legal gun ownership, or amount of guns per capita, that saw a reduction in gun violence.

Not even saying such a place doesn't exist...n but you said it... so I want to know.


I didn't even have to use the world-wide proven facts. This was even better.

Also FYI, the UK gun related homicide rate, which has increased ~100% since/around 2005 is still 40 TIMES lower than ours. That's one of my favorite facts.
 
2013-01-06 09:23:00 PM

JosephFinn: pedrop357: JosephFinn: If they were pro guns, they'd be supporting the 2nd Amendment's requirement to be in a well regulated militia to use a gun.

Where is that requirement?

In the 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.


That isn't a requirement... just a statement.

It could easily say... "A banana creme pie being the best dessert there is..."
 
2013-01-06 09:23:24 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.


LOL thanks :)
 
2013-01-06 09:24:17 PM

ciberido: jso2897: I have views about gun control, but I'm not passionate about them, and don't feel like getting screamed at by both "sides", which is what usually happens when you have a moderate opinion on a highly controversial subject.

I feel your pain.  In pretty much every Fark thread about religion, actually.


Add meat eaters vs. vegans/vegetarians threads to your list.
 
2013-01-06 09:24:55 PM

Jarhead_h: TommyymmoT: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Yeah, that makes sense, because he's pretty much the first president ever to have an armed security detail.
The rest of them didn't have it because they're brave and stuff, and besides, who would want to kill a president?

RevMercutio: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Sez the internet tough guy posting under a fake name. One who prolly voted for a gun grabber in November.

So that guy is allowed to be surrounded by these things, but I'm not? He's important enough that he get's another standard, is that it? Just trying to understand.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 611x426]


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-01-06 09:25:26 PM

JSam21: JosephFinn: pedrop357: JosephFinn: If they were pro guns, they'd be supporting the 2nd Amendment's requirement to be in a well regulated militia to use a gun.

Where is that requirement?

In the 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.

Actually that has been shown to be an individual right by the Supreme Court


He doesn't care about that. His stock argument in every one of these threads, no exceptions, is the "militia" argument. It's not that he doesn't know what the Supreme Court decided, he just figures that if he can deny it long enough it'll eventually come around to what he wants it to mean.
 
2013-01-06 09:25:57 PM

Jarhead_h: TommyymmoT: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Yeah, that makes sense, because he's pretty much the first president ever to have an armed security detail.
The rest of them didn't have it because they're brave and stuff, and besides, who would want to kill a president?

RevMercutio: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Sez the internet tough guy posting under a fake name. One who prolly voted for a gun grabber in November.

So that guy is allowed to be surrounded by these things, but I'm not? He's important enough that he get's another standard, is that it? Just trying to understand.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 611x426]


This is one of my favorite stupid arguments. Basic and obvious false equivilence. High profile person, targetted with infinite more death threats, public figure, with a national prescedence of assassination, compared to anonymous, unknown internet person with paranoid personality disorder.
 
2013-01-06 09:26:22 PM

jaytkay: Good for the NRA to make their enemies list public.

Bad for the people who get killed by the NRA's insane members

Good for normal people when the NRA is sued into oblivion


Who was the last NRA member that went on a shooting spree?
 
2013-01-06 09:26:43 PM

orclover: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.

LOL thanks :)


His argument was flawed when he pointed to statistics in other parts of the world. The United States is not the rest of the world. We have a very different culture, and we have 300 million guns. Reducing guns is impossible at this point. And even if it were, most of our issues with homicide is cultural (we are the land of many different cultures all mashed together, nations with the lowest homicide rates are almost all tiny, homogenous nations). Even so, we have a rather low homicide rate of around... 5 per 100,000 people? Your chances of dying by homicide is very, very low.
 
2013-01-06 09:27:49 PM

ciberido: ThrobblefootSpectre: ciberido: I hate to break it to you, but you're not a liberal.

Heh, and by what criteria do you reach that conclusion. My advocacy for civil rights, including for gays and all minorities? My outspoken support for reducing the budget and role of the military? My two votes for Obama?

The homophobia, racism, machismo, and conservative viewpoints you've expressed in other Fark threads.  Though to be fair, you've also been know to show compassion and fair-mindedness, and to sometimes make lucid and rational arguments and back them up with solid data.


You know what?  Forget it.  We've both been on Fark over 8 years.  One slightly-homophobic and one slightly-racist comment that I could have misinterpreted or taken out of context in an 8-year period is not enough for me to label you racist or homophobic.  And I really don't want to argue labels.  I retract what I said earlier.  Let's let it go.
 
2013-01-06 09:28:16 PM

saturn badger: ciberido: jso2897: I have views about gun control, but I'm not passionate about them, and don't feel like getting screamed at by both "sides", which is what usually happens when you have a moderate opinion on a highly controversial subject.

I feel your pain.  In pretty much every Fark thread about religion, actually.

Add meat eaters vs. vegans/vegetarians threads to your list.


Not to mention Mac Vs. Windows Vs. Android Vs. Linux threads. But the sheer vituperation, melodrama, hyperbole and rage of these gun threads pretty much outdoes them all. I'm getting too old for this shiat.
 
2013-01-06 09:28:31 PM
Hey this is like that reporter compiling all gun permit holders in the new york metro area. It's all public information, what's the big deal?
 
2013-01-06 09:28:34 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: JSam21: JosephFinn: pedrop357: JosephFinn: If they were pro guns, they'd be supporting the 2nd Amendment's requirement to be in a well regulated militia to use a gun.

Where is that requirement?

In the 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.

Actually that has been shown to be an individual right by the Supreme Court

He doesn't care about that. His stock argument in every one of these threads, no exceptions, is the "militia" argument. It's not that he doesn't know what the Supreme Court decided, he just figures that if he can deny it long enough it'll eventually come around to what he wants it to mean.


Why? The supreme court passed Heller 4 years ago under an activist conservative, hypocritical supreme court 5-4. When Obama or his predecessor replaces even 1 of the conservative justices, the ruling will be repealed, and when we're using this same argument against you, you will flip your position instantly, so yes, that argument is not very strong at all. I'm sure there's a logical fallacy for hypocritical opportunity.
 
2013-01-06 09:28:49 PM

Fart_Machine: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Not sure if serious or really stupid.


Well let's see.... I'm being insulted for having ONE gun. How many does your idol need exactly?

/disclaimer, I HATE M16/AR's, issued five of them, will NEVER be able to trust my life to one
 
2013-01-06 09:28:55 PM

This About That: viscountalpha: This About That: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." And the more I hear from the NRA, and the "cold dead hands" types, the more I lean toward keeping those folks away from guns.

The second amendment is due to the abusive nature of governments. I'd rather keep guns away from idiots like you who don't understand this basic fact.

Well, you can't have my gun. Listen, genius, a "well regulated militia" was needed at the time the nation was founded inorder to provide for the defense of the country. In modern times, the "well regulated militia" exists in the armed forces of the United States, not the gun manufacturing lobby or the delusional minds of pseudo-tough guys with guns who like to talk about armed insurrection against the government. You may be surprised to hear that I, too, oppose taking away my right to own a gun. I keep a gun because of the nuts and criminals who also have guns.

There are too many guns and too many gun sellers to do away with, or even effectively regulate, guns. Like lawyers, guns are necessary because guns exist.

Hunters nowadays hunt for "sport". Defense of the nation is handled by the armed forces. Guns for "home protection" more often injure the owner or his kids than some "intruder". Guns make their owners feel like superheros when they are really fools. So stop telling me about the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment. It isn't so.


Except that the right to.keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not the militia. Try reading the entire Amendment.
 
2013-01-06 09:29:09 PM

violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.


I asked the head of our state's ACLU chapter about that several years ago...he said the ACLU does not recognize an individual right to own a gun.
 
2013-01-06 09:29:22 PM

RevMercutio: Giltric: RevMercutio: BGates: lexslamman: I think the NRA has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I think the democrat party has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Basically you're a farking idiot. The NRA protects our 2nd amendment.

You can tell by how they financially backed the Presidential candidate who signed a gun control bill.

So you're saying it was a choice of the lesser of two evils?

I'm saying one candidate specifically said he wouldn't take your guns away and another one had already done so while in power. The NRA financially backed the gungrabber.


Yeah, so weird!
 
2013-01-06 09:29:45 PM

justtray: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.

Citation provided.


FTL: "Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide."

I appreciate your effort... but I already knew this.

Curious to see what happened to gun violence rates wen gun ownership was "reduced"... not just "less".
 
2013-01-06 09:30:06 PM

Rockstone: orclover: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.

LOL thanks :)

His argument was flawed when he pointed to statistics in other parts of the world. The United States is not the rest of the world. We have a very different culture, and we have 300 million guns. Reducing guns is impossible at this point. And even if it were, most of our issues with homicide is cultural (we are the land of many different cultures all mashed together, nations with the lowest homicide rates are almost all tiny, homogenous nations). Even so, we have a rather low homicide rate of around... 5 per 100,000 people? Your chances of dying by homicide is very, very low.


Except I provided a source for state by state comparison that shows a statisticall signifcant increase in homicide for higher rates of guns, including those gun friendly states. So yeah, keep being stupid.
 
2013-01-06 09:30:19 PM

Jarhead_h: TommyymmoT: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Yeah, that makes sense, because he's pretty much the first president ever to have an armed security detail.
The rest of them didn't have it because they're brave and stuff, and besides, who would want to kill a president?

RevMercutio: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Sez the internet tough guy posting under a fake name. One who prolly voted for a gun grabber in November.

So that guy is allowed to be surrounded by these things, but I'm not? He's important enough that he get's another standard, is that it? Just trying to understand.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 611x426]


Yes, you complete and utter imbecile.
 
2013-01-06 09:30:25 PM

saturn badger: jaytkay: Good for the NRA to make their enemies list public.

Bad for the people who get killed by the NRA's insane members

Good for normal people when the NRA is sued into oblivion

Who was the last NRA member that went on a shooting spree?


Kurt Cobain?
 
2013-01-06 09:31:11 PM

orclover: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.

LOL thanks :)


Welcome... I larfed.
 
2013-01-06 09:31:23 PM

Rockstone: orclover: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.

LOL thanks :)

His argument was flawed when he pointed to statistics in other parts of the world. The United States is not the rest of the world. We have a very different culture, and we have 300 million guns. Reducing guns is impossible at this point. And even if it were, most of our issues with homicide is cultural (we are the land of many different cultures all mashed together, nations with the lowest homicide rates are almost all tiny, homogenous nations). Even so, we have a rather low homicide rate of around... 5 per 100,000 people? Your chances of dying by homicide is very, very low.


1 in 240 is "very very low?" (from my linked source)

I hope you hit that jackpot and not me.
 
2013-01-06 09:32:03 PM

dogfather_jr: Is there ANYBODY out there that is both pro-gun and is sane enough to think there's room for improvement? All I've seen so far is the extreme: anybody that wants a gun has the Constitutionally guaranteed right to get one, no questions asked (or training required).

Surely there's got to a modicum of common sense. Somewhere? Please?


Me.

I quite like my gun, I quite like to hunt, and I quite like to target shoot - I was even a biathlete back in the day - but I would very much like to see the gun show loophole closed, and high-capacity magazines restricted to being rentable at a range, and then turned in.

I would support the ability securely carry your weapons across state lines, and I would support the use of suppressors.

I would also support the ban of military style semi-automatics in private hands - rent em at the range if you want to play at looking like a freedom fighter. (No, I don't want to go door to door and take away the ones that exist.)

Basically, while I support your asinine 2nd Amendment rights, I also believe that they are no more important than the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Basically rights come with responsibilities and the price of living in a civil society is realizing that sometimes you don't get everything you want.

There really is a middle ground if both sides would quite calling each other names, realize that the NRA nuts are only a small percentage of gun-owners (most gun owners are not nutbars), and that most people who would like to see guns harder to get than a prescription for a mood stabilizer are not all out to steal their guns or repeal the 2nd.
 
2013-01-06 09:33:36 PM

ThatGuyOverThere:

Until his bodyguard got arrested for violating gun law, I don't think most of us knew he (Michael Moore) had an armed guard...


The best thing about the Malevolent Michigan Manatee is that he's biodegradable.
 
2013-01-06 09:34:56 PM
Oddly enough, there's a group doing the almost the same thing for those who accept money from pro-2A sources.
 
2013-01-06 09:35:03 PM

Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]


Cuz you and the president are equally threatened when you step outside.

/ Not that you step outsde much
 
2013-01-06 09:35:40 PM

llachlan: Silly Jesus: Confabulat: Gun control won't work any more than the drug war has succeeded. That said, if you feel threatened because someone might take away your semi-automatic assault rifle, you a giant pussy and are too cowardly to call yourself a man.

Do you know what the scary word semi-automatic means? It means that the gun fires one bullet at a time. OH NOES!

Do you know what the word semi-automatic means?

I'm pretty sure that since only one object can occupy any given point in space at any given time, that all bullets come out one at a time - the difference is in how many can come out in a given span of time, how many come out before you have to squeeze the trigger again, and how many times you can squeeze the trigger in a given span of time.


One bullet per trigger pull... exactly one. Not two, not three, not as many as can while you hold the trigger down.... One.

Revolvers like you see in the cowboy movies are double action and fire at the same rate as semi-automatic pistols/rifles. One per trigger pull. No real delay in time to fire the next round.

Capacity of course depends on the exact model and magazine size (if applicable).
 
2013-01-06 09:36:02 PM

Jarhead_h: TommyymmoT: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Yeah, that makes sense, because he's pretty much the first president ever to have an armed security detail.
The rest of them didn't have it because they're brave and stuff, and besides, who would want to kill a president?

RevMercutio: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Sez the internet tough guy posting under a fake name. One who prolly voted for a gun grabber in November.

So that guy is allowed to be surrounded by these things, but I'm not? He's important enough that he get's another standard, is that it? Just trying to understand.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 611x426]


You know what we need to ban? Those ugly pants.

And with that belt? Who dressed that lady?
 
2013-01-06 09:36:17 PM

llachlan: dogfather_jr: Is there ANYBODY out there that is both pro-gun and is sane enough to think there's room for improvement? All I've seen so far is the extreme: anybody that wants a gun has the Constitutionally guaranteed right to get one, no questions asked (or training required).

Surely there's got to a modicum of common sense. Somewhere? Please?

Me.

I quite like my gun, I quite like to hunt, and I quite like to target shoot - I was even a biathlete back in the day - but I would very much like to see the gun show loophole closed, and high-capacity magazines restricted to being rentable at a range, and then turned in.

I would support the ability securely carry your weapons across state lines, and I would support the use of suppressors.

I would also support the ban of military style semi-automatics in private hands - rent em at the range if you want to play at looking like a freedom fighter. (No, I don't want to go door to door and take away the ones that exist.)

Basically, while I support your asinine 2nd Amendment rights, I also believe that they are no more important than the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Basically rights come with responsibilities and the price of living in a civil society is realizing that sometimes you don't get everything you want.

There really is a middle ground if both sides would quite calling each other names, realize that the NRA nuts are only a small percentage of gun-owners (most gun owners are not nutbars), and that most people who would like to see guns harder to get than a prescription for a mood stabilizer are not all out to steal their guns or repeal the 2nd.


"Military style" semi-automatics are every semi-automatic.
 
2013-01-06 09:37:12 PM

Amberleia: I would love to see a nation-wide debate on gun control wherein reasonable, intelligent, and open-minded people, on both sides of the issue, take the time to actually listen and respond thoughtfully to the other side's arguments.

A friend and I actually did this and once we realized what the other was saying, and had clarifications when needed, realized that he, a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms, and I, a firm advocate for keeping guns out of the hands of people who misuse them, both actually want the same thing.

I think very few people are against taking guns away from responsible private citizens. We all should be against guns in the possession of felons, gang-members, the insane, and criminals. I don't know what the solution is, other than stiffer penalties for illegal possession and/or use of a gun. If, for example, every felon caught in possession of a gun, every criminal using a gun to commit a crime, were given a mandatory life sentence, with no hope for parole, and no exceptions, our gun control problem would be straightened out in a few years. Of course, that would put a strain on our already strained prison system, so probably isn't feasible. I don't know where the solution lies, but guns must be kept out of the hands of certain elements of our population.


i agree with this, but it's really the gun-control crowd that is blocking this from happening. Before rational debate can happen, the gun fearers need to educate themselves on the crime stats as well as the basic operation of the different types of firearms.

The problem is that gun-banners have nothing to lose in these laws so they feel there is no reason to compromise, and gun owners know that any step towards stronger gun control is another step towards the true goal of a full gun ban.

If the government can demonstrate that it can property enforce the current laws on full auto, suppressors, etc, and bring down the cost of permits and the reduce the amount of needless paperwork and regulations so that law abiding citizens can actually afford to obtain the firearms they wish to own, we can start to have a conversation about extending those regulations to other types of weapons.

Walking through any type of logical thinking it's clear that the type of gun, number of guns owned by one person, size of magazines, and amount of stored ammo make little difference in the crime rate nor will they have a sizable impact during the rare mass shootings. Saying that a 10 round mag means that 10 kids get killed instead of 20 is a good enough "do something" measure is insane when you consider that proper reporting of mental health patients to background checks and better security in schools either in the form of armed guards or more practically qualified concealed carry teachers and administrators, can reduce these shootings to 0-3 casualties.

When it comes down to it, there are only 3 solutions to stopping mass killings: 1) completely destroy all forms of objects and chemicals that could injure or kill more than 3 people (think that is the legal definition of a mass shooting) 2) create a total police state where everyone is xrayed and groped anytime there is any sizable gathering of people or 3) proliferate the number of armed citizens that are able to stop mass shooters
option 1 is obvisoly impossible, option 2 is horrific, and option 3 is already happening , the number of violent crimes is dropping rapidly even though the number of gun owners is increasing. While those factors don't have direct causation, there is no evidence that gun bans reduce violent crime.
 
2013-01-06 09:37:28 PM

justtray: Rockstone: orclover: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.

LOL thanks :)

His argument was flawed when he pointed to statistics in other parts of the world. The United States is not the rest of the world. We have a very different culture, and we have 300 million guns. Reducing guns is impossible at this point. And even if it were, most of our issues with homicide is cultural (we are the land of many different cultures all mashed together, nations with the lowest homicide rates are almost all tiny, homogenous nations). Even so, we have a rather low homicide rate of around... 5 per 100,000 people? Your chances of dying by homicide is very, very low.

1 in 240 is "very very low?" (from my linked source)

I hope you hit that jackpot and not me.


What source? What citation?
5/100,000 is 1/20,000
 
2013-01-06 09:37:52 PM

justtray: Adolf Oliver Nipples: JSam21: JosephFinn: pedrop357: JosephFinn: If they were pro guns, they'd be supporting the 2nd Amendment's requirement to be in a well regulated militia to use a gun.

Where is that requirement?

In the 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.

Actually that has been shown to be an individual right by the Supreme Court

He doesn't care about that. His stock argument in every one of these threads, no exceptions, is the "militia" argument. It's not that he doesn't know what the Supreme Court decided, he just figures that if he can deny it long enough it'll eventually come around to what he wants it to mean.

Why? The supreme court passed Heller 4 years ago under an activist conservative, hypocritical supreme court 5-4. When Obama or his predecessor replaces even 1 of the conservative justices, the ruling will be repealed, and when we're using this same argument against you, you will flip your position instantly, so yes, that argument is not very strong at all. I'm sure there's a logical fallacy for hypocritical opportunity.


Is this where we all post our political porn fantasies? Please allow me to quote the ruling in McDonald v. Chicago:

"In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. "

I therefore regret to inform you that the "militia" argument, the "collective-right" argument, or any other similar argument, will never be upheld. No right, none, that has been Incorporated against the states, has ever been overturned. It's done. Finished. There could be 9 Sotomayors on the bench and they cannot change the Second Amendment to mean a collective rather than an individual right.
 
2013-01-06 09:37:57 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: JSam21: JosephFinn: pedrop357: JosephFinn: If they were pro guns, they'd be supporting the 2nd Amendment's requirement to be in a well regulated militia to use a gun.

Where is that requirement?

In the 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.

Actually that has been shown to be an individual right by the Supreme Court

He doesn't care about that. His stock argument in every one of these threads, no exceptions, is the "militia" argument. It's not that he doesn't know what the Supreme Court decided, he just figures that if he can deny it long enough it'll eventually come around to what he wants it to mean.


Unfortunately... so do the people that want abortion laws changed. The thing is this people, stop trying to change what you think people should have or do when their actions or possessions have already been vetted by the highest court.
 
2013-01-06 09:38:12 PM

llachlan: Do you know what the word semi-automatic means?

I'm pretty sure that since only one object can occupy any given point in space at any given time, that all bullets come out one at a time - the difference is in how many can come out in a given span of time, how many come out before you have to squeeze the trigger again, and how many times you can squeeze the trigger in a given span of time.


Kind of like an automatic where the gun takes over the squeezing the trigger part. The physics of the bullet remain the same.
 
2013-01-06 09:38:27 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.

Citation provided.

FTL: "Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide."

I appreciate your effort... but I already knew this.

Curious to see what happened to gun violence rates wen gun ownership was "reduced"... not just "less".


It proves the citation required for what you asked for. Don't move the goalposts now. Admit I provided you a statistically valid source.

ANd further, the casuastion is either that the guns led to higher crime, or that higher crime leads to the guns. Do you really think it's the latter? If so, doesn't that also defeat the argument that guns make you safe?

Face it, more guns mean more death, because that's their sole purpose.
 
2013-01-06 09:38:28 PM

ciberido: The homophobia


No. I support all civil rights for gays. I don't think the law should distinguish between male, female, or gay for any civil right (it goes beyond just marriage). Period.

What you have seen, though, is that I think in many cases people tend to go a little too far in how extra-special gays are. On many issues, if event x happened to a random person, fark says who cares. If event x happens to a gay, fark flips out with righteous indignation. Yes, I call out that double standard when I see it. I understand you are personally biased toward any pro-gay stance. To me gays are meh, shrug, okay you exist, you're a person, just like any other, who cares. So I can see where my indifference to gays either way would be interpreted by you as "homophobic".

To me, I feel I am the one treating them as equals to everyone else. No worse, but also no better. I am, in other words, the unbiased one. Liberal support of civil rights doesn't imply gushing free love and unicorn rainbow hugs. I am simply no-nonsense about liberalism.

ciberido: racism,


No. Or no more than any other human anyway. (Everyone is racist to some lesser or greater extent. It just depends on your personal definition of "racism". I've even been told that it's racist if I mostly find women of my own race attractive. I've been told it's racist to oppose affirmative action quotas, etc)
 
2013-01-06 09:39:44 PM
We already have gun restrictions. Too many in some places if you ask me. This is a good place to start for anyone who wants to know why assalt weapons bans can not work. But you guys want solutions? Ok, here are mine:

*Legalize marijuana for recreational use and tax and regulate it similar to alcohol. This will result in a large decrease in gang related gun violence and border violence. Btw, gang related gun violence is the leading cause of gun violence. Divert the saved money into mental health care.

*We live in a society with guns and we need to start acting like it. Require gun safety classes in all schools. At least 1 in elementary school, 1 in middle school, and 1 in high-school. This will greatly reduce ignorant mishandling. Knowledge is power, right?

*Ban gun free zones in public spaces. Of course private business have the right to ban whatever they want on their property, but gun free zones are extremely dangerous. The vast majority of these massacres have occurred in gun free zones.

Care to comment on these solutions?
 
2013-01-06 09:40:11 PM
Since there still seems to be some confusion regarding the terminology:

This is an "assault weapon". It is a weapon that was used in an assault
www.sunnewsnetwork.ca
 
2013-01-06 09:41:01 PM

llachlan: dogfather_jr: Is there ANYBODY out there that is both pro-gun and is sane enough to think there's room for improvement? All I've seen so far is the extreme: anybody that wants a gun has the Constitutionally guaranteed right to get one, no questions asked (or training required).

Surely there's got to a modicum of common sense. Somewhere? Please?

Me.

I quite like my gun, I quite like to hunt, and I quite like to target shoot - I was even a biathlete back in the day - but I would very much like to see the gun show loophole closed, and high-capacity magazines restricted to being rentable at a range, and then turned in.

I would support the ability securely carry your weapons across state lines, and I would support the use of suppressors.

I would also support the ban of military style semi-automatics in private hands - rent em at the range if you want to play at looking like a freedom fighter. (No, I don't want to go door to door and take away the ones that exist.)

Basically, while I support your asinine 2nd Amendment rights, I also believe that they are no more important than the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Basically rights come with responsibilities and the price of living in a civil society is realizing that sometimes you don't get everything you want.

There really is a middle ground if both sides would quite calling each other names, realize that the NRA nuts are only a small percentage of gun-owners (most gun owners are not nutbars), and that most people who would like to see guns harder to get than a prescription for a mood stabilizer are not all out to steal their guns or repeal the 2nd.


This is awesome. Condensed version:

"There's no need for hyperbole, I like my gun... but if you want to have more gun than I think is appropriate you have a hero complex. Now let's stop name-calling please."
 
2013-01-06 09:41:14 PM

jaytkay: Frank N Stein: fark the negativity. Lets talk about people that are down with guns.

Here here!!

Let's talk about the heroes who promote American conservative values!


Pro tip: one of these kids is not like the others. One of these kids is not the same.
 
2013-01-06 09:42:05 PM

justtray: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.

No matter what I cite, you will say either, "we're different," "but violent crime," or "but Heller."

But I will anyway, brb.


I can help.

Hepburn, L.M. & Hemenway, D. (2004). Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 417-440.

Stolzenberg, L. & D'Alessio, S.J. (2000). Gun Availability and Violent Crime: New Evidence from the National Incident-Based Reporting System. Social Forces, 78(4), 1461-1482.

Andrés, A.R. & Hempstead, K. (2011). Gun control and suicide: The impact of state firearm regulations in the United States, 1995-2004. Health Policy, 101(1), 95-103.

Wiebe, D.J. et al. (2009). Homicide and geographic access to gun dealers in the United States. BMC public health, 9(1), 199.

Sen, B. & Panjamapirom, A. (2012). State background checks for gun purchase and firearm deaths: An exploratory study. Preventive Medicine, 55(4), 346-350.

Leigh, A. & Neill, C. (2010). Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data. American Law and Economics Review, 12(2), 462-508.

Watkins, A.M. & Lizotte, A.J., (2011). Does Household Gun Access Increase the Risk of Attempted Suicide? Evidence From a National Sample of Adolescents. Youth & Society, doi: 10.1177/0044118X11417735

Puneet, N. et al. (2010). Do Guns Provide Safety? At What Cost? Southern Medical Journal, 103(2), 151-153.

Hoskin, A. (2011). Household gun prevalence and rates of violent crime: a test of competing gun theories. Criminal Justice Studies, 24(1), 125-136.

Hemenway, D. (2011). Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 5(6), 502-511.

A lot of those touch on other issues, as well, such as gun control regulations that aren't bans, like a background check. These also address the issue at various levels, by making comparisons over time (i.e. after regulations/bans were put in place and a subsequent reduction in firearms available), by making comparisons at the county level, state level, national level, and international level. The overall picture is pretty consistent.
 
2013-01-06 09:42:10 PM

Maul555: We already have gun restrictions. Too many in some places if you ask me. This is a good place to start for anyone who wants to know why assalt weapons bans can not work. But you guys want solutions? Ok, here are mine:

*Legalize marijuana for recreational use and tax and regulate it similar to alcohol. This will result in a large decrease in gang related gun violence and border violence. Btw, gang related gun violence is the leading cause of gun violence. Divert the saved money into mental health care.

*We live in a society with guns and we need to start acting like it. Require gun safety classes in all schools. At least 1 in elementary school, 1 in middle school, and 1 in high-school. This will greatly reduce ignorant mishandling. Knowledge is power, right?

*Ban gun free zones in public spaces. Of course private business have the right to ban whatever they want on their property, but gun free zones are extremely dangerous. The vast majority of these massacres have occurred in gun free zones.

Care to comment on these solutions?


I agree, especially with the first and second ones. The second one makes so much sense. We have sex ed courses, but not gun education courses?
 
2013-01-06 09:42:45 PM
Sprint hasn't been headquartered in Westwood, KS for over 16 years.
 
2013-01-06 09:45:25 PM

justtray: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.

Citation provided.

RESULTS.At the regional level, we found a positive and statistically significant relationship between rates of household gun ownership and homicide victimization for the entire population, for victims aged 5 to 14 years, and for victims 35 years and older (Table 1 ). These results were attributed primarily to higher gun-related homicide rates in regions with higher rates of firearm ownership; non-gun-related homicide rates were also elevated in regions where there were more guns, but to a lesser extent. Homicide victimization rates for those aged 0 to 4 years and aged 15 to 34 years were higher in regions with higher rates of gun ownership, but the association did not reach statistical significance. Results obtained using survey (GSS) and proxy (FS/S) measures of firearm prevalence were nearly identical. Rates of household handgun ownership were somewhat more likely to be significantly associated with homicide rates than were measures of ownership of all household firearms.

At the state level, multivariate results showed a positive and significant relationship between rates of household gun ownership and homicide victimization, for the entire population and for each age group aged 5 years and older (Table 2 ). As in the regional analyses, state-level results were attributed principally to substantially elevated gun-related homicide rates in states with higher rates of firearm ownership, although corresponding non-gun-related homicide rates were also somewhat elevated. The association between household gun ownership and homicide victimization was strongest for victims 25 years and older.

In the "high gun states," 21 148 individuals were homicide victims, compared with 7266 in the "low gun states" (Table 3 ). For every age group of at least 5 years minimum age, people living in the high-gun states were more than 2.5 times more likel ...


Every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

It's time to ban guns everywhere.
 
2013-01-06 09:46:30 PM
How does an ACLU lawyer count to ten? 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
 
2013-01-06 09:47:38 PM

RevMercutio: Giltric: RevMercutio: BGates: lexslamman: I think the NRA has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I think the democrat party has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Basically you're a farking idiot. The NRA protects our 2nd amendment.

You can tell by how they financially backed the Presidential candidate who signed a gun control bill.

So you're saying it was a choice of the lesser of two evils?

I'm saying one candidate specifically said he wouldn't take your guns away and another one had already done so while in power. The NRA financially backed the gungrabber.



And he already flip flopped not 3 months after the election.....sounds like the NRA made the right choice.

How come Obama doesn't get credit for signing the passage of the Obama tax cuts for the wealthy ...but Romney gets credit for siging a bill passed by the MA state legislature?
 
2013-01-06 09:48:16 PM

TommyymmoT: [i487.photobucket.com image 466x625]


Great pic from someone who trolls anonymously on the internet.
 
2013-01-06 09:50:24 PM
Yawn -- From 2003:

Pops to NY Times
 
2013-01-06 09:50:52 PM

slackux: Every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.


Since 1982, about 550 people have died in mass shootings in the US. On average, about 500 people per week are killed in the US (homicide and suicide) from firearms in incidents that are not mass shootings.
 
2013-01-06 09:51:11 PM
Strange that some places in the US with absurdly high (even mandatory ownership) have little to no gun crime. It is almost like something else besides the mere existence of guns is responsible for the crime.
 
2013-01-06 09:53:07 PM
So, on at least one of these...can anyone supply some proof of Sheryl Crow's anti-gun stance other than that one song lyric about kids killing each other with guns they bought at Walmart?

Also...

Giltric: And he already flip flopped not 3 months after the election.....sounds like the NRA made the right choice.

How come Obama doesn't get credit for signing the passage of the Obama tax cuts for the wealthy ...but Romney gets credit for siging a bill passed by the MA state legislature?


Maybe because, in Romney's case, not only did he sign the thing, but quipped that it wasn't going to make the NRA very happy?
 
2013-01-06 09:53:27 PM

tony41454: At least we now know who's for it and who's against.


Really? That's all you've got to say?

Where's the hate filled, racist name calling and bizarre hatred of a hair type?

/disappointed
 
2013-01-06 09:53:42 PM
All of this while firearm ownership rates increase:
www.justfacts.com
www.justfacts.com
www.justfacts.com
www.justfacts.com
www.justfacts.com
www.justfacts.com
www.justfacts.com
www.justfacts.com
www.justfacts.com

I repeat: All of this while firearm ownership rates increase. But go ahead and keep offering up new gun restrictions... I am sure it will be worth it.
 
2013-01-06 09:53:49 PM

Benjamin Orr: Strange that some places in the US with absurdly high (even mandatory ownership) have little to no gun crime. It is almost like something else besides the mere existence of guns is responsible for the crime.


Except that is almost the exact opposite of reality. Check my list of citations above.
 
2013-01-06 09:53:52 PM

Jarhead_h: So that guy is allowed to be surrounded by these things, but I'm not? He's important enough that he get's another standard, is that it? Just trying to understand.


Are you retarded or something? Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury which we should know about?
 
2013-01-06 09:55:24 PM

theMightyRegeya: So, on at least one of these...can anyone supply some proof of Sheryl Crow's anti-gun stance other than that one song lyric about kids killing each other with guns they bought at Walmart?


In Sheryls defense she probably stole the lyrics from someone else.
 
2013-01-06 09:55:34 PM

justtray: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: Pray 4 Mojo: justtray: It is proven, statistically, that reducing guns lowers gun related deaths

Citation needed.

Citation provided.

FTL: "Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide."

I appreciate your effort... but I already knew this.

Curious to see what happened to gun violence rates wen gun ownership was "reduced"... not just "less".

It proves the citation required for what you asked for. Don't move the goalposts now. Admit I provided you a statistically valid source.

ANd further, the casuastion is either that the guns led to higher crime, or that higher crime leads to the guns. Do you really think it's the latter? If so, doesn't that also defeat the argument that guns make you safe?

Face it, more guns mean more death, because that's their sole purpose.


I'm not "moving the goal posts". You specifically used the word "reduction" which I have never seen evidence of... so I was curious to see the evidence. As for the 'causation' argument. I feel that increased crime increases gun ownership... not the other way around. I also feel that the 'reduction' argument fails based on looking at cities like LA, Chicago, Oakland and DC where guns are virtually illegal and murder rates are still through the roof.

If I could push a magic button that would get rid of guns now and forever... I would consider pushing it. That not being an option... I prefer to be well armed and trained to protect myself in the event that a criminal attempts to deprive me of my life or property.
 
2013-01-06 09:55:39 PM

RevMercutio: Jarhead_h: TommyymmoT: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Yeah, that makes sense, because he's pretty much the first president ever to have an armed security detail.
The rest of them didn't have it because they're brave and stuff, and besides, who would want to kill a president?

RevMercutio: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Sez the internet tough guy posting under a fake name. One who prolly voted for a gun grabber in November.

So that guy is allowed to be surrounded by these things, but I'm not? He's important enough that he get's another standard, is that it? Just trying to understand.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 611x426]

Yes, you complete and utter imbecile.


So what's good enough for him is too good for us lowly proles? Glad we cleared that up.


llachlan: dogfather_jr: I.......
There really is a middle ground if both sides would quite calling each other names, realize that the NRA nuts are only a small percentage of gun-owners (most gun owners are not nutbars), and that most people who would like to see guns harder to get than a prescription for a mood stabilizer are not all out to steal their guns or repeal the 2nd.


Look above you, does it look like your fantasy will ever come true? There's half a dozen people in here posting things equating gun ownership with "inadequacy issues" but they can't handle the redirect. And unfortunately, it's rather difficult to not to assume the worst when the most prominent anti-gun senator in the United States is set to introduce legislation that actually would attempt to steal the guns(how else would you describe a "forced buy-back"). And these boot lickers will cheer the whole thing.

And FYI, Sandy Hook shooter WAS on a prescription, but was denied by the instacheck system three times in one week and STILL got ahold of what he wanted. How much more difficult do you suggest things get? Would four checks have done it? Should he have been arrested in some sort of pre-crime-ish program? What's the magic threshold of government interference in the daily life of an average citizen that makes them safe? If we're not there yet when will we be?

As I've posted, America is SAFER now than it's been for decades, and getting BETTER, not worse.
 
2013-01-06 09:56:55 PM

Kome: Benjamin Orr: Strange that some places in the US with absurdly high (even mandatory ownership) have little to no gun crime. It is almost like something else besides the mere existence of guns is responsible for the crime.

Except that is almost the exact opposite of reality. Check my list of citations above.


Strange that rural communities with an ass ton of guns aren't absolutely drowning in blood.
 
2013-01-06 09:57:39 PM

jso2897: saturn badger: jaytkay: Good for the NRA to make their enemies list public.

Bad for the people who get killed by the NRA's insane members

Good for normal people when the NRA is sued into oblivion

Who was the last NRA member that went on a shooting spree?

Kurt Cobain?


I kept looking for a song called NRA by him that became a hit. Then I could say he didn't see that hit coming.

I guess I'll go stand in the corner the rest of the night.
 
KIA
2013-01-06 09:58:32 PM

justtray: It sounds like you're saying don't have laws, since criminals won't obey them. Do you really not see how stupid AND invalid your argument is? It ignores the basic premise of laws acting as deterents.


It sounds like you a re deliberately mischaracterizing and mis-phrasing my point so you can pretend that everyone else is a cretin too. We have 20,000 deterrent firearm laws. Many are violated in a mass shooting. The perpetrators simply do not care about the laws. You're not going to accomplish any deterrent effect with another.

By the way, attempting to bypass the core argument that crazy people and criminals don't obey laws is extremely juvenile. You're not helping your cause.
 
2013-01-06 09:59:39 PM
All things that I don't completely agree with are scary, and I wish to deprive 325 million other people of their 2nd amendment rights as a result of my own fear, ignorance and cowardice.
 
TWX
2013-01-06 10:00:02 PM

topcon: Confabulat:
Get rid of $125 Saturday Night Special pistols in the ghetto, and the murder rate with guns will keep dropping...not that it isn't drastically dropping every year anyway.


THIS. I strongly believe that firearms, particularly handguns, should have a minimum quality standard. They must include safeties of some sort. They must be able to fire lots of rounds, over a duration of time in small bursts, without being cleaned, and function properly each and every time. They must not jam, misfire, or otherwise threaten the safety of the operator for three cycles of the test duration (ie, test, then clean, then test, then clean, then test).

Yes, this will make firearms more expensive, even high quality firearms, but won't affect the high quality firearms nearly so much as the cheaply made firearms, as most of the high quality firearms are already put through their paces in the research and development phases as those companies making high quality firearms want them to perform perfectly every time. The cheap guns like Jimenez will suffer, because their crap guns won't pass, and they'll have to essentially ramp up quality to the standards of the better guns and they probably will just drop out instead.

A dinner for four at The Melting Pot shouldn't cost more than a firearm.
 
2013-01-06 10:00:25 PM

Benjamin Orr: Kome: Benjamin Orr: Strange that some places in the US with absurdly high (even mandatory ownership) have little to no gun crime. It is almost like something else besides the mere existence of guns is responsible for the crime.

Except that is almost the exact opposite of reality. Check my list of citations above.

Strange that rural communities with an ass ton of guns aren't absolutely drowning in blood.


Strange that I provided a lengthy list of citations, and you have provided nothing, considering you are the one to make an affirmation. Burden of proof is on you, kiddo.
 
2013-01-06 10:00:25 PM

Kome: Benjamin Orr: Strange that some places in the US with absurdly high (even mandatory ownership) have little to no gun crime. It is almost like something else besides the mere existence of guns is responsible for the crime.

Except that is almost the exact opposite of reality. Check my list of citations above.


Also... it is completely disingenuous to proclaim that the existence of guns cause any of those crimes. You can argue that they make attempted suicides more successful... you can argue that they make attempted murder more successful. You cannot claim that these objects exert mind control over people and make them violent.
 
2013-01-06 10:00:38 PM

Giltric: RevMercutio: Giltric: RevMercutio: BGates: lexslamman: I think the NRA has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I think the democrat party has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Basically you're a farking idiot. The NRA protects our 2nd amendment.

You can tell by how they financially backed the Presidential candidate who signed a gun control bill.

So you're saying it was a choice of the lesser of two evils?

I'm saying one candidate specifically said he wouldn't take your guns away and another one had already done so while in power. The NRA financially backed the gungrabber.


And he already flip flopped not 3 months after the election.....sounds like the NRA made the right choice.


Not true. The right choice was not to choose.

We knew Barry would start the gun-grabbing after he didn't have to win another election. Romneybot on the other hand would have used gun control as a bargaining chip for a tax break or something. It was coming either way.
 
2013-01-06 10:00:39 PM
I take it back - about the Valium. That won't cut it. This thread needs a shot of heroin, a doobie, and a handful of Thorazine.
 
2013-01-06 10:00:57 PM

justtray: omeganuepsilon: justtray: It sounds like you're saying don't have laws, since criminals won't obey them. Do you really not see how stupid AND invalid your argument is?

Way to stick your foot directly in your mouth.

Sounds(to the intelligent and rational at any rate) that he's saying to not keep making new useless laws.

That concept, and the one you put forth are entirely different. Do you really not see how stupid and invalid you are?

Your intelligence and rationality are on par with the psycho's who kill people.

Ah, baseless ad hominem.


Yeah, totally baseless.
/sarcasm

Look sparky. If you make such an argument that is, in such a way, blatantly wrong, it is indicative of your actual intelligence.(Or the ever present possibility that you're a troll, in which case you really fooled me, good jorb, as pointless and infantile as that is...you tricked me into thinking you stupid).

Noting that is not a personal attack. Pointing out your obvious fallacy(appeal to ridicule/spite) is just that. Backpedal all you want, and pretend other readers are as dim as you are(or are playing at), but you now know, and knowing is half the battle.

Here's a list of fallacies which may come in handy, in case you want to use some more, or the more unlikely, so you can learn some valid logic/technique(so as to not look like a dolt).
 
2013-01-06 10:01:06 PM
Correction: Firearm ownership rates have slightly declined in recent decades, while the number of firearms continues to go up. Sry I got that 1 little point wrong.
 
2013-01-06 10:01:10 PM

david_gaithersburg: Prohibition has worked sooooo well, let's extend it to guns too.

/Now that so-called-facists-progressives have shown their cards
//I will never register another firearm.


Prohibition of public masturbation has worked pretty well...
 
2013-01-06 10:02:08 PM

Kome: A lot of those touch on other issues, as well, such as gun control regulations that aren't bans, like a background check. These also address the issue at various levels, by making comparisons over time (i.e. after regulations/bans were put in place and a subsequent reduction in firearms available), by making comparisons at the county level, state level, national level, and international level. The overall picture is pretty consistent.


Thanks... will take a look.
 
2013-01-06 10:02:57 PM

Kome:
Strange that I provided a lengthy list of citations, and you have provided nothing, considering you are the one to make an affirmation. Burden of proof is on you, kiddo.


lol... you are a strange one aren't you? I could probably cite some examples that people who either own swimming pools or live close to bodies of water are more likely to drown than those who do not. Are you going to claim that the pools or lakes make people try and drown themselves?

People that don't own exotic animals are also less likely to be eaten by tigers.
 
2013-01-06 10:03:00 PM

jaytkay: [www.truthdig.com image 220x266]


At least this guy appeared to have a rational basis for what he did. Cause Killer rather than Spree Killer.

He didn't like immigration - so he killed the next generation of leaders that he believed would continue the practice. I don't like it, but at least I can comprehend it.

Aurora and Newtown terrify mean for their lack of any comprehendible motive.
 
2013-01-06 10:03:00 PM

Benjamin Orr: Kome: Benjamin Orr: Strange that some places in the US with absurdly high (even mandatory ownership) have little to no gun crime. It is almost like something else besides the mere existence of guns is responsible for the crime.

Except that is almost the exact opposite of reality. Check my list of citations above.

Also... it is completely disingenuous to proclaim that the existence of guns cause any of those crimes. You can argue that they make attempted suicides more successful... you can argue that they make attempted murder more successful. You cannot claim that these objects exert mind control over people and make them violent.


I'm not talking about mind control. I'm talking about results. Also, you may wish to read up on the concept of affordances.
 
2013-01-06 10:04:10 PM

Benjamin Orr: Kome: Benjamin Orr: Strange that some places in the US with absurdly high (even mandatory ownership) have little to no gun crime. It is almost like something else besides the mere existence of guns is responsible for the crime.

Except that is almost the exact opposite of reality. Check my list of citations above.

Strange that rural communities with an ass ton of guns aren't absolutely drowning in blood.


Is that a metric or imperial ass-ton?

Anyway, it's worth noting that the Brady Campaign fought tooth and nail against the implementation of "shall-issue" CCW policies in every state that adopted them. They publicly declared that the streets would run red with blood, what a horrible idea it was, now everybody is less safe. Then crime continued to drop, and all we heard was crickets.

The gun-control lobby, even more so than the NRA, depends upon fear. It is an absolutely essential requirement, because if they hope to overcome statistics they need to appeal to emotion. See also: anti-vaxxers, Truthers, moon-hoaxers, Birthers. They all have the same thing in common.
 
2013-01-06 10:04:53 PM

Benjamin Orr: Kome:
Strange that I provided a lengthy list of citations, and you have provided nothing, considering you are the one to make an affirmation. Burden of proof is on you, kiddo.

lol... you are a strange one aren't you? I could probably cite some examples that people who either own swimming pools or live close to bodies of water are more likely to drown than those who do not. Are you going to claim that the pools or lakes make people try and drown themselves?

People that don't own exotic animals are also less likely to be eaten by tigers.


Please, provide citations from scholarly sources, as I have.
 
2013-01-06 10:05:27 PM

TWX: topcon: Confabulat:
Get rid of $125 Saturday Night Special pistols in the ghetto, and the murder rate with guns will keep dropping...not that it isn't drastically dropping every year anyway.

THIS. I strongly believe that firearms, particularly handguns, should have a minimum quality standard. They must include safeties of some sort. They must be able to fire lots of rounds, over a duration of time in small bursts, without being cleaned, and function properly each and every time. They must not jam, misfire, or otherwise threaten the safety of the operator for three cycles of the test duration (ie, test, then clean, then test, then clean, then test).

Yes, this will make firearms more expensive, even high quality firearms, but won't affect the high quality firearms nearly so much as the cheaply made firearms, as most of the high quality firearms are already put through their paces in the research and development phases as those companies making high quality firearms want them to perform perfectly every time. The cheap guns like Jimenez will suffer, because their crap guns won't pass, and they'll have to essentially ramp up quality to the standards of the better guns and they probably will just drop out instead.

A dinner for four at The Melting Pot shouldn't cost more than a firearm.


That's called a Hi-Point or a Glock.
 
2013-01-06 10:05:41 PM
Yes, damn that American Academy of Pediatrics. They are all about evil aren't they?
 
2013-01-06 10:06:04 PM

furrier: All things that I don't completely agree with are scary, and I wish to deprive 325 million other people of their 2nd amendment rights as a result of my own fear, ignorance and cowardice.


I don't see anyone saying that here.

I don't think you should be allowed to own an ICBM. Or a surface-to-air missile. Or a bazooka. Or a machine gun. Or a high-volume clip.

I have no problem with people having handguns. I have no problem with people having hunting rifles.

I do have a problem with the constant misreading of the 2nd Amendment which we have to endure from gun nuts.

And if you're going to claim that it's a "strict Constitutional" issue, then I'm fine with that, but you get the sort of guns the Founding Fathers were talking about: black powder muzzle-loaders. You can own as many as you want.

/honestly don't understand why the notion of gun control makes about half our population completely irrational.
 
2013-01-06 10:06:58 PM

Dwight_Yeast: I do have a problem with the constant misreading of the 2nd Amendment which we have to endure from gun nuts.


What misreading is that?
 
2013-01-06 10:09:00 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: The gun-control lobby, even more so than the NRA, depends upon fear. It is an absolutely essential requirement, because if they hope to overcome statistics they need to appeal to emotion. See also: anti-vaxxers, Truthers, moon-hoaxers, Birthers. They all have the same thing in common.


Funny you should make that comparison, considering my own research is into why people believe conspiracy theories and reject established scientific conclusions. While no direct link between conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience adherents to being either pro- or anti-gun control has been done that I am aware of (thank you for giving me an idea for a follow-up research study to some prior research I've just completed, though), there has been a decent amount of recent research done linking conspiracy theories and pseudoscience to other core beliefs of political conservatism, or just to political conservatism in general.
 
2013-01-06 10:10:27 PM

Jarhead_h: We knew Barry would start the gun-grabbing after he didn't have to win another election.


Why, because that's the line of bullshiat Wayne LaPierre has been feeding the true believers for the last two years?
 
2013-01-06 10:10:39 PM

Kome: Benjamin Orr: Kome:
Strange that I provided a lengthy list of citations, and you have provided nothing, considering you are the one to make an affirmation. Burden of proof is on you, kiddo.

lol... you are a strange one aren't you? I could probably cite some examples that people who either own swimming pools or live close to bodies of water are more likely to drown than those who do not. Are you going to claim that the pools or lakes make people try and drown themselves?

People that don't own exotic animals are also less likely to be eaten by tigers.

Please, provide citations from scholarly sources, as I have.


Are you going to say that people who are not around tigers are just as likely to be eaten by tigers as an animal trainer?

Please explain Kennesaw, Georgia... since 1982 every home is required by law to have a firearm and ammo. And yet no gun deaths... no blood in the streets.

It is almost like other things have to contribute before guns are used violently.
 
2013-01-06 10:11:16 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Dwight_Yeast: I do have a problem with the constant misreading of the 2nd Amendment which we have to endure from gun nuts.

What misreading is that?


Ignoring the opening clause.
 
2013-01-06 10:11:30 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Jarhead_h: So that guy is allowed to be surrounded by these things, but I'm not? He's important enough that he get's another standard, is that it? Just trying to understand.

Are you retarded or something? Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury which we should know about?


Well, give him a break, it's not like he saw Marine generals with their own security detail.  They wandered around just as exposed as any E-3.
 
2013-01-06 10:12:49 PM

Benjamin Orr: Please explain Kennesaw, Georgia... since 1982 every home is required by law to have a firearm and ammo. And yet no gun deaths... no blood in the streets.


They have a population of 30,100?
 
2013-01-06 10:14:26 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Benjamin Orr: Please explain Kennesaw, Georgia... since 1982 every home is required by law to have a firearm and ammo. And yet no gun deaths... no blood in the streets.

They have a population of 30,100?


So? Everybody has a gun. By his logic it should be death and destruction all around.

Unless there are other factors involved.
 
2013-01-06 10:15:20 PM

violentsalvation: It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.


if it were true, sure. In the case of honest, factual conversation - that is not what what the NRA is doing. Can we just get back to a group that's about responsible gun control and not playing into "OMG THEYRE TAKING OUR GUNS" type shiat?
 
2013-01-06 10:15:23 PM

vygramul: Well, give him a break, it's not like he saw Marine generals with their own security detail. They wandered around just as exposed as any E-3.


The part that annoys me is that at no point has Obama ever said "No one should have a gun." The first time he started talking about gun laws at all (aside from allowing open carry in National Parks) was AFTER Sandy Hook, and what he's said is, "We need to look at the problem of gun violence".

How that translates to "He's a hypocrite for allowing the SS security detail which protects him to be armed" is a mystery to me.
 
2013-01-06 10:16:05 PM

Maul555: We already have gun restrictions. Too many in some places if you ask me. This is a good place to start for anyone who wants to know why assalt weapons bans can not work. But you guys want solutions? Ok, here are mine:

*Legalize marijuana for recreational use and tax and regulate it similar to alcohol. This will result in a large decrease in gang related gun violence and border violence. Btw, gang related gun violence is the leading cause of gun violence. Divert the saved money into mental health care.

*We live in a society with guns and we need to start acting like it. Require gun safety classes in all schools. At least 1 in elementary school, 1 in middle school, and 1 in high-school. This will greatly reduce ignorant mishandling. Knowledge is power, right?

*Ban gun free zones in public spaces. Of course private business have the right to ban whatever they want on their property, but gun free zones are extremely dangerous. The vast majority of these massacres have occurred in gun free zones.

Care to comment on these solutions?


Sure.

I'm ok with the pot one. Makes sense.

Kind of ok with the second but most of the damage is done with mass shootings and not mishandling of fire arms. I was taught how to safely handle them when I was young.

Now the third issue is rough. It happened at the Gifford shooting. One guy was carrying (maybe more) and he didn't pull because (as someone mentioned here in a previous thread) it could turn into a round robin shooting match as no one knew who the bad guy(s) was/were.
 
2013-01-06 10:16:35 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Dwight_Yeast: I do have a problem with the constant misreading of the 2nd Amendment which we have to endure from gun nuts.

What misreading is that?

Ignoring the opening clause.


The reason congress many not take people's guns is because then they can't form militias, and you need a good militia if you want freedom.

That's not the same as saying you must belong to a militia before you can have a gun.  And everything the Founders said or wrote on the subject contradicts the modern gun-control wishful interpretation of the militia clause.

Of course, the limit was meant to apply only to congress, but leave it to the current Court to ignore 200 years of precedent by incorporating the second to the states.  Then again, the current conservatives on the Court are so activist it's appalling.
 
2013-01-06 10:16:40 PM

saturn badger: llachlan: Do you know what the word semi-automatic means?

I'm pretty sure that since only one object can occupy any given point in space at any given time, that all bullets come out one at a time - the difference is in how many can come out in a given span of time, how many come out before you have to squeeze the trigger again, and how many times you can squeeze the trigger in a given span of time.

Kind of like an automatic where the gun takes over the squeezing the trigger part. The physics of the bullet remain the same.


I was sort of going for polite sarcasm. As in all bullets come out one at a time, whether it's a semi-automatic or not.
 
2013-01-06 10:16:58 PM

Maul555: Correction: Firearm ownership rates have slightly declined in recent decades, while the number of firearms continues to go up. Sry I got that 1 little point wrong.


It's a problem for the NRA and the industry. Gun ownership in the U.S. (by household) was 51% back in 1974.
Last year, it was 37% - and it's going down.People are still buying plenty of guns - but a shrinking base can only sustain that market for so long. Anything coming out of the NRA needs to be looked at in that context.
Meanwhile, these terrible events are providing fuel for those who advocate confiscatory firearms laws.
Compromise solutions that attempt to uphold the integrity of the Second Amendment, while subjecting firearms to the same level of regulation as, say, automobiles will not get too much of a hearing in this climate.
I really wonder how this mess is going to pan out, and I'm not optimistic when I see the level of blind, hysterical emotionality in play. We need some sound, sensible, conciliatory dialogue - and what we are getting is people frothing at the mouth and yelling about tiny penises and tyranny, and whatever offensive hyperbole they can think of.
 
2013-01-06 10:17:02 PM

Kome: I fail to see any legitimate objection to some more regulation or even bans of certain weapons or firearm accessories.


Really?

First let me say, I have no problem with background checks, waiting periods, training, and requiring the things to be locked up when not in use so people don't have easy access to them.

Gun prohibition is no more logical than suggesting alcohol prohibition to curb the fatalities caused by drunk drivers. In both cases you would be taking away the legal access and enjoyment of a product to stop an exceedingly small fraction of those that misuse it.
 
2013-01-06 10:17:58 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Dwight_Yeast: I do have a problem with the constant misreading of the 2nd Amendment which we have to endure from gun nuts.

What misreading is that?

Ignoring the opening clause.


Posted by me at 9:37:52 tonight:

Please allow me to quote the ruling in McDonald v. Chicago:

"In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. "

I therefore regret to inform you that the "militia" argument, the "collective-right" argument, or any other similar argument, will never be upheld. No right, none, that has been Incorporated against the states, has ever been overturned. It's done. Finished. There could be 9 Sotomayors on the bench and they cannot change the Second Amendment to mean a collective rather than an individual right.


There is no misreading. It's simply irrelevant. It could say "Creampuffs, being yummy and delicious..." and it still wouldn't matter. It's a done deal.
 
2013-01-06 10:17:58 PM

Dwight_Yeast: /honestly don't understand why the notion of gun control makes about half our population completely irrational.


I agree. Gun control groups and their supporters are surprisingly irrational.
 
2013-01-06 10:18:13 PM

Benjamin Orr: Kome: Benjamin Orr: Kome:
Strange that I provided a lengthy list of citations, and you have provided nothing, considering you are the one to make an affirmation. Burden of proof is on you, kiddo.

lol... you are a strange one aren't you? I could probably cite some examples that people who either own swimming pools or live close to bodies of water are more likely to drown than those who do not. Are you going to claim that the pools or lakes make people try and drown themselves?

People that don't own exotic animals are also less likely to be eaten by tigers.

Please, provide citations from scholarly sources, as I have.

Are you going to say that people who are not around tigers are just as likely to be eaten by tigers as an animal trainer?

Please explain Kennesaw, Georgia... since 1982 every home is required by law to have a firearm and ammo. And yet no gun deaths... no blood in the streets.

It is almost like other things have to contribute before guns are used violently.


Statistical outliers do exist. Your one relatively small city is simply that, a statistical outlier, when compared to the results of county-wide, state-wide, nation-wide, and international comparisons, such as the ones I've cited above, into rate of gun-related deaths to gun prevalence. Just as well, you could probably find one small city somewhere in the US/world where there are zero guns and zero ammo and a relatively high per capita rate of homicide, and it too would be a statistical outlier. Statistics show trends, and are probabilistic. They don't show absolutes. There will always be outliers.
 
2013-01-06 10:18:18 PM

Benjamin Orr: Unless there are other factors involved.


You think, maybe?

He has a point: people who own guns are more likely to be injured/killed be guns. And you're correct as well: people who have a swimming pool are more likely to drown in it. Likewise, people who own a car are more likely to be killed in a car crash.

We regulate cars and swimming pools in our society. Why not guns?
 
2013-01-06 10:19:28 PM

JosephFinn: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group..

Incorrect. The NRA is a pro gun manufacturers lobby. If they were pro guns, they'd be supporting the 2nd Amendment's requirement to be in a well regulated militia to use a gun.


Dude, get with the times. That argument lost, not that it was ever a seriously good argument. I think the current trend is to argue that a person can't effectively arm themselves against a tyrannical government anyway, so it is pointless to have the right to attempt to do so. That's a stupid one too, but at least it isn't so dated.
 
2013-01-06 10:20:26 PM

pedrop357: Dwight_Yeast: /honestly don't understand why the notion of gun control makes about half our population completely irrational.

I agree. Gun control groups and their supporters are surprisingly irrational.


How so?

/knew someone here would be stupid enough to step into that trap.
 
2013-01-06 10:21:14 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Benjamin Orr: Unless there are other factors involved.

You think, maybe?

He has a point: people who own guns are more likely to be injured/killed be guns. And you're correct as well: people who have a swimming pool are more likely to drown in it. Likewise, people who own a car are more likely to be killed in a car crash.

We regulate cars and swimming pools in our society. Why not guns?


We already do.

We also don't ban cars and swimming pools.
 
2013-01-06 10:21:43 PM

Dwight_Yeast: vygramul: Well, give him a break, it's not like he saw Marine generals with their own security detail. They wandered around just as exposed as any E-3.

The part that annoys me is that at no point has Obama ever said "No one should have a gun." The first time he started talking about gun laws at all (aside from allowing open carry in National Parks) was AFTER Sandy Hook, and what he's said is, "We need to look at the problem of gun violence".

How that translates to "He's a hypocrite for allowing the SS security detail which protects him to be armed" is a mystery to me.


I never bought the "OMG!  Obama's coming for our guns!" bullshiat.  But Sandy Hook changed things, and in his speech, I half-expected him to propose something.  Frankly, anything short of a ban on ALL semi-automatic weapons, plus double-action revolvers, wouldn't make one whit of difference in the mass shootings.
 
2013-01-06 10:21:50 PM

Kome: thisisarepeat: AirForceVet: Having been robbed at gunpoint once, I'm cool with gun control because it's too easy for crooks and nuts to get guns.

Having been shot at more than once, you are a pussy.

Having watched both my parents get shot to death by a mugger when I was a child and then raised by the family valet in a socially, economically, and physically isolated environment, you are superstitious and cowardly.


You are batman?
 
2013-01-06 10:22:49 PM

TommyymmoT:


I see what you did there....nothing.

Total touch....see I can call people names too..
 
2013-01-06 10:24:07 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Alphakronik: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.

Then please explain to me why outing the opponents to gun-control last week was the end of the world to the NRA.

Because while private citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy, public figures do not. Public figures expose themselves by their actions that, taken publicly, constitute an attempt to influence opinion. A person holding a CCW permit does not do that with any eye on influencing the public.

It's also a question of ethics. That the press have the legal right to publish something does not mean that they should publish it. By doing so, by putting themselves out into the public eye with what was clearly an act with political implications, they opened themselves up to criticism.

But you knew all that, didn't you? You were just playing dumb. I can't wait until the response to this where we get Act II of your playing coy routine.


I would assume that if you are to bear arms, you are part of a well regulated militia. With that comes the loss of any expectation of privacy.
 
2013-01-06 10:24:21 PM

manimal2878: Kome: I fail to see any legitimate objection to some more regulation or even bans of certain weapons or firearm accessories.

Really?

First let me say, I have no problem with background checks, waiting periods, training, and requiring the things to be locked up when not in use so people don't have easy access to them.

Gun prohibition is no more logical than suggesting alcohol prohibition to curb the fatalities caused by drunk drivers. In both cases you would be taking away the legal access and enjoyment of a product to stop an exceedingly small fraction of those that misuse it.


Background checks, waiting periods, training, and safe storage requirements are the kinds of regulations I am talking about. We do not have anywhere near a consistent body of regulations from state to state, or even county to county. And beyond that, there are certain loopholes in those regulations (e.g. the notorious gun show loophole). Also, I did not say I support gun prohibition, nor will I ever because I do not think that is necessary. Prohibition of certain types of firearms is not the same thing as prohibition of firearms in general.
 
2013-01-06 10:24:44 PM

Dwight_Yeast: We regulate cars and swimming pools in our society. Why not guns?


Cars and swimming pools are not protected by a Constitutional amendment. It's that simple.

Incidentally, the Heller and McDonald decisions did not state that regulations were out of bounds. In fact, they endorsed "reasonable regulation". So now, as a person who wishes to regulate, it is incumbent upon you to convince us that your ideas are right and that they will be found Constitutional. Or, alternatively, you can push for total repeal of the Second Amendment. Those are your options. For the record, when you take the particular approach that you're taking you'll find that you won't convince too many people.
 
2013-01-06 10:24:57 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Dwight_Yeast: I do have a problem with the constant misreading of the 2nd Amendment which we have to endure from gun nuts.

What misreading is that?

Ignoring the opening clause.


We don't ignore it. Myself and many many other gun rights supporters state that the types of firearms useful for the preservation of a well regulated militia, namely military arms, are the ones that the 2nd amendment protects the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear.
Pretty hard to have a well regulated militia that can preserve the security of a free state if the federal government can deny people the right to possess everything but .22 caliber single pistols, or maybe only allow muskets that weigh 50lbs.
 
2013-01-06 10:24:59 PM

Benjamin Orr: Dwight_Yeast: Benjamin Orr: Please explain Kennesaw, Georgia... since 1982 every home is required by law to have a firearm and ammo. And yet no gun deaths... no blood in the streets.

They have a population of 30,100?

So? Everybody has a gun. By his logic it should be death and destruction all around.

Unless there are other factors involved.


To be fair, not everybody in Kennesaw has a gun in their house. The law is, of course, unenforceable, and no attempt was ever made to enforce it (if they did, it would be easily shot down on Constitutional grounds). Still, you are not incorrect in pointing out that the mere presence of guns does not influence crime rates, or cause violence, in and of itself.
 
2013-01-06 10:25:23 PM

Dwight_Yeast: honestly don't understand why the notion of gun control eliminating freedom makes about half our population completely irrational.


Really?
 
2013-01-06 10:25:24 PM

manimal2878: Kome: thisisarepeat: AirForceVet: Having been robbed at gunpoint once, I'm cool with gun control because it's too easy for crooks and nuts to get guns.

Having been shot at more than once, you are a pussy.

Having watched both my parents get shot to death by a mugger when I was a child and then raised by the family valet in a socially, economically, and physically isolated environment, you are superstitious and cowardly.

You are batman?


I will neither confirm nor deny that, but I will note that none of you have ever seen me and Batman in the same room together.
 
2013-01-06 10:26:39 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: There is no misreading. It's simply irrelevant. It could say "Creampuffs, being yummy and delicious..." and it still wouldn't matter. It's a done deal.


So, basically, only the parts of the Constitution you (a general "you") like are important?

And just because the Supremes chose to ignore it recently doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

vygramul: The reason congress many not take people's guns is because then they can't form militias, and you need a good militia if you want freedom.

That's not the same as saying you must belong to a militia before you can have a gun. And everything the Founders said or wrote on the subject contradicts the modern gun-control wishful interpretation of the militia clause.


I really fail to understand the notion that guns="freedom".

I think you have to look at the Second Amendment in the historical context of the time: the Founding Fathers weren't saying, "You have the right to a gun to protect you from the government." They were saying, "You have a right to a firearm so that you can form a militia to protect your state/the country from Indians/The Spanish/The English/etc.

And remember that in the English colonies, powder was held by the government and closely regulated (in part because they didn't want us making our own, because they liked the export revenue back in the UK), so they wanted to make it clear we weren't going to make the same mistake.
 
2013-01-06 10:26:40 PM

Alphakronik: I would assume that if you are to bear arms, you are part of a well regulated militia.


You would assume wrong. I've posted the relevant part of the McDonald decision twice now, including just a few minutes ago. Feel free to scroll up and see why you're wrong.
 
2013-01-06 10:26:54 PM

HeadLever: Dwight_Yeast: honestly don't understand why the notion of gun control eliminating freedom makes about half our population completely irrational.

Really?


Just curious, but you never got back to me when I asked you if you could think of anything that would constitute a limit on your currently enumerated right which you do not consider arbitrary or capricious. Did you just not see the post?
 
2013-01-06 10:27:32 PM

Dwight_Yeast: pedrop357: Dwight_Yeast: /honestly don't understand why the notion of gun control makes about half our population completely irrational.

I agree. Gun control groups and their supporters are surprisingly irrational.

How so?

/knew someone here would be stupid enough to step into that trap.


You mean the constant complaining about scary looking guns or the "we need to do something now" mindset?
 
2013-01-06 10:27:32 PM

Dwight_Yeast: pedrop357: Dwight_Yeast: /honestly don't understand why the notion of gun control makes about half our population completely irrational.

I agree. Gun control groups and their supporters are surprisingly irrational.

How so?

/knew someone here would be stupid enough to step into that trap.


To be fair, there is plenty of irrationality on BOTH sides of this argument.
 
2013-01-06 10:27:54 PM

saturn badger: Maul555: We already have gun restrictions. Too many in some places if you ask me. This is a good place to start for anyone who wants to know why assalt weapons bans can not work. But you guys want solutions? Ok, here are mine:

*Legalize marijuana for recreational use and tax and regulate it similar to alcohol. This will result in a large decrease in gang related gun violence and border violence. Btw, gang related gun violence is the leading cause of gun violence. Divert the saved money into mental health care.

*We live in a society with guns and we need to start acting like it. Require gun safety classes in all schools. At least 1 in elementary school, 1 in middle school, and 1 in high-school. This will greatly reduce ignorant mishandling. Knowledge is power, right?

*Ban gun free zones in public spaces. Of course private business have the right to ban whatever they want on their property, but gun free zones are extremely dangerous. The vast majority of these massacres have occurred in gun free zones.

Care to comment on these solutions?

Sure.

I'm ok with the pot one. Makes sense.

Kind of ok with the second but most of the damage is done with mass shootings and not mishandling of fire arms. I was taught how to safely handle them when I was young.

Now the third issue is rough. It happened at the Gifford shooting. One guy was carrying (maybe more) and he didn't pull because (as someone mentioned here in a previous thread) it could turn into a round robin shooting match as no one knew who the bad guy(s) was/were.


Most of the damage is not even remotely done with mass shootings, and point #3 largely addresses exactly that problem
 
2013-01-06 10:28:31 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Benjamin Orr: Unless there are other factors involved.

You think, maybe?

He has a point: people who own guns are more likely to be injured/killed be guns. And you're correct as well: people who have a swimming pool are more likely to drown in it. Likewise, people who own a car are more likely to be killed in a car crash.

We regulate cars and swimming pools in our society. Why not guns?


I just get tired of people pretending that the guns are the cause and that everything will magically be fixed if we can just make them all magically disappear. I readily admit that they do make suicide and murder easier. They are guns after all.

People just think too simplistically about guns. Nobody seems to want to discuss the social or economic issues that promote violence.

I was unaware that we had no laws concerning guns in the US. I am pretty sure we have many more laws regulating guns than pools, cars and alcohol combined. New ones that will not prevent any future tragedies are just a waste of time.
 
2013-01-06 10:29:20 PM
You guys have lost your collective friggen minds over guns.
 
2013-01-06 10:29:36 PM

Dwight_Yeast: So, basically, only the parts of the Constitution you (a general "you") like are important?

And just because the Supremes chose to ignore it recently doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


No, the parts of the Constitution that have been ruled upon are important.

And since the Supremes are the final word, your interpretation is wrong. You're tilting at the same windmills that the anti-abortion people tilt at, saying that there is no "right to privacy". There is. Why? The Supremes said there was.
 
2013-01-06 10:29:37 PM

Kome: ust curious, but you never got back to me when I asked you if you could think of anything that would constitute a limit on your currently enumerated right which you do not consider arbitrary or capricious. Did you just not see the post?


2013-01-06 08:12:08 PM
 
2013-01-06 10:29:45 PM

OnlyM3: ZAZ

Can I have a map with crosshairs over the anti-gun groups?
Because democrat bulls-eyes are peaceful bullseyes
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 484x418]


i.imgur.com

nubian please, everybody be loving bulleyes.
 
2013-01-06 10:30:16 PM

Dwight_Yeast: I really fail to understand the notion that guns="freedom".


That's for sure.

I think you have to look at the Second Amendment in the historical context of the time: the Founding Fathers weren't saying, "You have the right to a gun to protect you from the government." They were saying, "You have a right to a firearm so that you can form a militia to protect your state/the country from Indians/The Spanish/The English/etc.

What exactly do you base this on, especially the bolded part?
 
2013-01-06 10:30:29 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: We also don't ban cars and swimming pools.


Really, so I can drive a Formula 1 car on the road?

Adolf Oliver Nipples: For the record, when you take the particular approach that you're taking you'll find that you won't convince too many people.


I think you're completely misreading the approach I'm taking. ;)
 
2013-01-06 10:31:49 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Really, so I can drive a Formula 1 car on the road?


Yes. there may be some requirements about the type of tires used, and you will be required to have turn signals, brake lights, headlights, and probably reverse lights. That's about it.
 
2013-01-06 10:32:15 PM

HeadLever: Kome: ust curious, but you never got back to me when I asked you if you could think of anything that would constitute a limit on your currently enumerated right which you do not consider arbitrary or capricious. Did you just not see the post?

2013-01-06 08:12:08 PM


Oh! My apologies. I missed that one.

So you are not in favor of bans. And I'm okay with that. Not my position, personally, but I can understand and respect it. How about other non-banning types of regulations, such as safe storage requirements or closing the gun show loophole?
 
2013-01-06 10:32:38 PM

saturn badger: inglixthemad: Do you want irony? I am currently working for a defense contractor in a concealed carry state.

That's right: no private weapons allowed on the property.

Not really irony if the contract you are working on is conducted on federal property. Federal trumps state.

/just assuming you are


Nope. Private defense contractor.
 
2013-01-06 10:32:42 PM
Anybody else amused that an article that is naming names is published unsigned?
 
2013-01-06 10:33:07 PM

Alphakronik: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Alphakronik: NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.

Then please explain to me why outing the opponents to gun-control last week was the end of the world to the NRA.

Because while private citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy, public figures do not. Public figures expose themselves by their actions that, taken publicly, constitute an attempt to influence opinion. A person holding a CCW permit does not do that with any eye on influencing the public.

It's also a question of ethics. That the press have the legal right to publish something does not mean that they should publish it. By doing so, by putting themselves out into the public eye with what was clearly an act with political implications, they opened themselves up to criticism.

But you knew all that, didn't you? You were just playing dumb. I can't wait until the response to this where we get Act II of your playing coy routine.

I would assume that if you are to bear arms, you are part of a well regulated militia. With that comes the loss of any expectation of privacy.


The militia was every able bodied male over the age of 16, and well regulated meant in proper working order, not locked up. and seriously? no expectation of privacy? lol
 
2013-01-06 10:33:18 PM

vygramul: I never bought the "OMG!  Obama's coming for our guns!" bullshiat.  But Sandy Hook changed things, and in his speech, I half-expected him to propose something.  Frankly, anything short of a ban on ALL semi-automatic weapons, plus double-action revolvers, wouldn't make one whit of difference in the mass shootings.


And lever action rifles since you can fire those really quickly as well. And limit the capacity on bolt action rifles. and probably even single action revolvers since you can get really quick with those.

You would pretty much have to limit everything to single shot capacity and make an extremely aggressive forced confiscation with house to house searches.

So... not likely to happen.

Or we could end the drug war and work on the income disparity that cause most (not all) of the violence.
 
2013-01-06 10:34:43 PM

Kome: manimal2878: Kome: I fail to see any legitimate objection to some more regulation or even bans of certain weapons or firearm accessories.

Really?

First let me say, I have no problem with background checks, waiting periods, training, and requiring the things to be locked up when not in use so people don't have easy access to them.

Gun prohibition is no more logical than suggesting alcohol prohibition to curb the fatalities caused by drunk drivers. In both cases you would be taking away the legal access and enjoyment of a product to stop an exceedingly small fraction of those that misuse it.

Background checks, waiting periods, training, and safe storage requirements are the kinds of regulations I am talking about. We do not have anywhere near a consistent body of regulations from state to state, or even county to county. And beyond that, there are certain loopholes in those regulations (e.g. the notorious gun show loophole). Also, I did not say I support gun prohibition, nor will I ever because I do not think that is necessary. Prohibition of certain types of firearms is not the same thing as prohibition of firearms in general.


An unloaded gun is a useless gun. It is nobody business to tell me how to store my guns. and In case you are wondering, I keep them loaded and near my bed, all year, every year. And no law is going to change that.
 
2013-01-06 10:35:28 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: If I could push a magic button that would get rid of guns now and forever... I would consider pushing it. That not being an option... I prefer to be well armed and trained to protect myself in the event that a criminal attempts to deprive me of my life or property.


I know this is a rhetorical question but what are the chances of you having to defend yourself with a gun? I'll stretch it out here and let the farkers play Armed Citizen. AC was a feature in the NRA mag where they actually used their guns for defense. Even back in the 60s there were at least five or so in that feature. I see less than that now even with the webbers at my back but maybe I visit the wrong news sites.

And safe ownership is generally a safe and/or trigger lock. At the very least is gun and ammo separated.

So how do you handle your gun, so to speak?

/and don't tell me you live in Oakland
//loaded under the mattress is fine with me there
//dad was nra guy. read a lot of those mags. good reviews for guns back then.
 
2013-01-06 10:35:44 PM
members.modernvespa.net

And the second time I can use this in a gun thread:

beldar.blogs.com
 
2013-01-06 10:36:27 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Dwight_Yeast: I do have a problem with the constant misreading of the 2nd Amendment which we have to endure from gun nuts.

What misreading is that?

Ignoring the opening clause.


No worse than people cherry picking from the constitution as a whole when there's a multitude of documentation from the time period where they specifically talk about how removing arms from the populace does nothing but pave the way for any possible tyrants who manage office.

Here are a couple:

"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

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"
Noah Webster

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

And the last of this small small sample of many such quotes:

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
Samuel Adams


etc etc

In context, it's quite clear what was meant.
 
2013-01-06 10:37:33 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Adolf Oliver Nipples: There is no misreading. It's simply irrelevant. It could say "Creampuffs, being yummy and delicious..." and it still wouldn't matter. It's a done deal.

So, basically, only the parts of the Constitution you (a general "you") like are important?

And just because the Supremes chose to ignore it recently doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

vygramul: The reason congress many not take people's guns is because then they can't form militias, and you need a good militia if you want freedom.

That's not the same as saying you must belong to a militia before you can have a gun. And everything the Founders said or wrote on the subject contradicts the modern gun-control wishful interpretation of the militia clause.

I really fail to understand the notion that guns="freedom".

I think you have to look at the Second Amendment in the historical context of the time: the Founding Fathers weren't saying, "You have the right to a gun to protect you from the government." They were saying, "You have a right to a firearm so that you can form a militia to protect your state/the country from Indians/The Spanish/The English/etc.

And remember that in the English colonies, powder was held by the government and closely regulated (in part because they didn't want us making our own, because they liked the export revenue back in the UK), so they wanted to make it clear we weren't going to make the same mistake.


The reasoning of the founding fathers in their own words is available for you to read. They disagree with you.
 
2013-01-06 10:37:37 PM

Benjamin Orr: I just get tired of people pretending that the guns are the cause and that everything will magically be fixed if we can just make them all magically disappear.


Where did I say I wanted that to happen.

This is a constant problem in these threads. Someone on the gun control side of the issue asks a question or proposes something reasonable and everyone on the other side assumes that they want to "take away all guns", in some fashion.

pedrop357: What exactly do you base this on, especially the bolded part?


In these threads there's a constant undercurrent of: "We need whatever guns we want because FREEDOM" and "You can't stage a successful revolution with rocks" (which simply isn't true; ask Gandhi).

Adolf Oliver Nipples: And since the Supremes are the final word, your interpretation is wrong.


Currently wrong. You act as if the Supremes are infallible; history shows they are not. Hell, the current Court is already making noises about wanting to revisit People United!

Kome: Just curious, but you never got back to me when I asked you if you could think of anything that would constitute a limit on your currently enumerated right which you do not consider arbitrary or capricious. Did you just not see the post?


I did miss it and we do already have limits on our enumerated rights. Try shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater or starting a religion which involves human sacrifice.
 
2013-01-06 10:37:39 PM
Can we just agree to stop calling it "the gunshow loophole" and start saying "require all person to person firearm sales to use a FFL like all licensed dealer sales are already required to regardless of the location of the sale"?
 
2013-01-06 10:38:03 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Jarhead_h: We knew Barry would start the gun-grabbing after he didn't have to win another election.

Why, because that's the line of bullshiat Wayne LaPierre has been feeding the true believers for the last two years?


Where do you think he got it?

Washington Post:
Over a barrel? Meet White House gun policy adviser Steve Croley By Jason Horowitz, Published: April 11, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-whit e -house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story_2.htm l

from page 3:
"During his campaign, Obama supported reintroducing the lapsed assault weapon ban, promised to eliminate an amendment requiring the FBI to destroy records of gun buyers' background checks and advocated closing the gun-show loophole....

In the meeting, she said, Obama discussed how records get into the system and what can be done about firearms retailers. Her husband specifically brought up the proposed ban on large magazine clips, and she noted that even former vice president Dick Cheney had suggested that some restrictions on the clips might make sense.

"He just laughed," Sarah Brady said approvingly of the president. Both she and her husband, she emphasized, had absolute confidence that the president was committed to regulation. "
 
2013-01-06 10:38:28 PM

saturn badger: I know this is a rhetorical question but what are the chances of you having to defend yourself with a gun?


Exactly zero. Unless I need to, in which case it's one.

They are approximately the same odds I'll ever need a smoke detector, and much lower than the chances I'll ever need an airbag.
 
2013-01-06 10:39:02 PM
Maul555:
An unloaded gun is a useless gun. It is nobody business to tell me how to store my guns. and In case you are wondering, I keep them loaded and near my bed, all year, every year. And no law is going to change that.

I hope you don't have kids in the house. A childhood friend of mine got his brain splattered against the wall because his father thought like you do. If you never have kids in the house, fine.
 
2013-01-06 10:39:40 PM

omeganuepsilon: No worse than people cherry picking from the constitution as a whole when there's a multitude of documentation from the time period where they specifically talk about how removing arms from the populace does nothing but pave the way for any possible tyrants who manage office.


So your response is that gun ownership is fine because someday you might feel the desire to use them on US soldiers.

How patriotic.
 
2013-01-06 10:40:01 PM

Dwight_Yeast: furrier: All things that I don't completely agree with are scary, and I wish to deprive 325 million other people of their 2nd amendment rights as a result of my own fear, ignorance and cowardice.

I don't see anyone saying that here.

I don't think you should be allowed to own an ICBM. Or a surface-to-air missile. Or a bazooka. Or a machine gun. Or a high-volume clip.

I have no problem with people having handguns. I have no problem with people having hunting rifles.

I do have a problem with the constant misreading of the 2nd Amendment which we have to endure from gun nuts.

And if you're going to claim that it's a "strict Constitutional" issue, then I'm fine with that, but you get the sort of guns the Founding Fathers were talking about: black powder muzzle-loaders. You can own as many as you want.

/honestly don't understand why the notion of gun control makes about half our population completely irrational.


Where were they talking about muzzle loaders?
 
2013-01-06 10:40:35 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: AirForceVet: Having been robbed at gunpoint once, I'm cool with gun control because it's too easy for crooks and nuts to get guns.

Right... we should totally make it illegal for crooks to have guns.

That'll definitely help.


First, If guns were not so common and freely available in our current American society, i.e. you can pluck them off the trees, so to say, crooks and nuts would have a harder time getting them.

Second, as for your simplistic reply, blow me.

/Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.
 
2013-01-06 10:41:28 PM

Kome: How about other non-banning types of regulations, such as safe storage requirements or closing the gun show loophole?


Mental health screenings and maybe a good safety class (something pigging backing a Hunters Ed or CCW, or NRA program) I could possibly support. However, there are pitfalls with that as the gun grabbers have a tendency to make things so onerous that these become impossible feats. I could see the DC or Chicago types charging a couple thousand for these types of programs or making them so difficult that no one could pass them.
 
2013-01-06 10:41:57 PM

Dwight_Yeast: I did miss it and we do already have limits on our enumerated rights. Try shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater or starting a religion which involves human sacrifice.


I was talking to HeadLevel there, in reference to a conversation from several hours before. Apologies if you mistook that as asking that of you. I agree with your position. I was just having a conversation to see at which point he and I disagree.
 
2013-01-06 10:41:59 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Currently wrong. You act as if the Supremes are infallible; history shows they are not. Hell, the current Court is already making noises about wanting to revisit People United!


Forever wrong. Unless, of course, you can show me a single instance of an Incorporated Amendment being reinterpreted to mean something entirely different.

Since you didn't seem to read anything I've posted previously, I'll repost it a third time:
Please allow me to quote the ruling in McDonald v. Chicago:

"In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. "

I therefore regret to inform you that the "militia" argument, the "collective-right" argument, or any other similar argument, will never be upheld. No right, none, that has been Incorporated against the states, has ever been overturned. It's done. Finished. There could be 9 Sotomayors on the bench and they cannot change the Second Amendment to mean a collective rather than an individual right.
 
2013-01-06 10:42:01 PM

omeganuepsilon: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


See, I've always thought that applied well to people who refuse to allow any gun laws whatsoever.

Though perhaps you have to turn it on its head: gun nuts give up their safety to preserve a little perceived liberty, and deserve neither.
 
2013-01-06 10:42:18 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Where did I say I wanted that to happen.

This is a constant problem in these threads. Someone on the gun control side of the issue asks a question or proposes something reasonable and everyone on the other side assumes that they want to "take away all guns", in some fashion.


I am not saying that you do, you jumped into the middle of another conversation that was heading down the road of zomg guns cause all these issues.

I also think you know that there are plenty of people in these threads that actually do want to ban all or most guns.
 
2013-01-06 10:42:39 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: That isn't a requirement... just a statement.

It could easily say... "A banana creme pie being the best dessert there is..."


Adolf Oliver Nipples: There is no misreading. It's simply irrelevant. It could say "Creampuffs, being yummy and delicious..." and it still wouldn't matter. It's a done deal.

We should hang out.
 
2013-01-06 10:43:42 PM
Anyone have a quote from one of the founding fathers with a view that the 2A is a collective right? As some of you probably know, I'm very pro-gun. But this request isn't snarky, I'm genuinely curious
 
2013-01-06 10:44:06 PM

HeadLever: Kome: How about other non-banning types of regulations, such as safe storage requirements or closing the gun show loophole?

Mental health screenings and maybe a good safety class (something pigging backing a Hunters Ed or CCW, or NRA program) I could possibly support. However, there are pitfalls with that as the gun grabbers have a tendency to make things so onerous that these become impossible feats. I could see the DC or Chicago types charging a couple thousand for these types of programs or making them so difficult that no one could pass them.


But if one was put forward, at either a state level or a national level, that didn't include an excess surcharge or unfair difficulty level, you would be in support of it? Or would you think that even though it isn't something you necessarily object to you would still consider it unnecessary?
 
2013-01-06 10:44:29 PM

Jarhead_h: So that guy is allowed to be surrounded by these things, but I'm not?


You will be allowed to hire a security detail.

You can even have some ex-SS agents if you can find some.
 
2013-01-06 10:44:41 PM

Frank N Stein: fark the negativity. Lets talk about people that are down with guns. Like Alton motherfarking Brown
savethegun.files.wordpress.com
[savethegun.files.wordpress.com image 300x473]


Good Eats meets Good Guns

X2 Alton Motherfarking Brown
 
2013-01-06 10:44:43 PM

NFA: Submitter, why is this scary?  The NRA is a pro-gun lobby group.  Their job is to identify and out-politic their opponents.  They are funded by gun advocates manufacturers, so they do their best to defend their rights.  Do I agree with the NRA all the time?  Nope.  I honestly do not believe we would still be allowed to possess guns without the work of the NRA.


FTFY
 
2013-01-06 10:45:08 PM

Dwight_Yeast: omeganuepsilon: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

See, I've always thought that applied well to people who refuse to allow any gun laws whatsoever.

Though perhaps you have to turn it on its head: gun nuts give up their safety to preserve a little perceived liberty, and deserve neither.


There you go again... claiming we don't have any gun laws in the US.

I am beginning to think you are just trolling.
 
2013-01-06 10:46:07 PM

madgonad: Maul555:
An unloaded gun is a useless gun. It is nobody business to tell me how to store my guns. and In case you are wondering, I keep them loaded and near my bed, all year, every year. And no law is going to change that.

I hope you don't have kids in the house. A childhood friend of mine got his brain splattered against the wall because his father thought like you do. If you never have kids in the house, fine.


No kids in the house, and if any do come over I unload them and hide the ammo and clips, and watch them like a hawk. But that almost never happens.
 
2013-01-06 10:46:09 PM

Kome: omeganuepsilon: No worse than people cherry picking from the constitution as a whole when there's a multitude of documentation from the time period where they specifically talk about how removing arms from the populace does nothing but pave the way for any possible tyrants who manage office.

So your response is that gun ownership is fine because someday you might feel the desire to use them on US soldiers.

How patriotic.


You say that as if it's impossible for a government to turn against it's people(a laughable absolute).
Did you skip all history/civics classes or what?
 
2013-01-06 10:46:46 PM

Kome: I was talking to HeadLevel there, in reference to a conversation from several hours before. Apologies if you mistook that as asking that of you. I agree with your position. I was just having a conversation to see at which point he and I disagree.


Ah, I was wondering what I missed. Carry on.

CthulhuCalling: Where were they talking about muzzle loaders?


What do you think the phrase "bear arms" meant in the 1780s? They had no way of knowing what was going to come down the pike -technology-wise- starting in the early decades of the 19th century.

Jarhead_h: Where do you think he got it?

Washington Post:
Over a barrel? Meet White House gun policy adviser Steve Croley By Jason Horowitz, Published: April 11, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-whit e -house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story_2.htm l


So Wayne LaPierre is able to read Washington Post articles from the future? Awesome! It's a shame he still can't actually understand them.
 
2013-01-06 10:47:39 PM

Amusement: Frank N Stein: fark the negativity. Lets talk about people that are down with guns. Like Alton motherfarking Brown

[savethegun.files.wordpress.com image 300x473]

Good Eats meets Good Guns

X2 Alton Motherfarking Brown


That would be an excellent show.
 
2013-01-06 10:47:57 PM

Maul555: . This is a good place to start for anyone who wants to know why assalt weapons bans can not work.


Thanks for that link. Excellent.
 
2013-01-06 10:48:09 PM

madgonad: I hope you don't have kids in the house. A childhood friend of mine got his brain splattered against the wall because his father thought like you do. If you never have kids in the house, fine.


Or maybe you can own one of these
www.gunshopfinder.com
 
2013-01-06 10:48:46 PM

Dwight_Yeast: What do you think the phrase "bear arms" meant in the 1780s? They had no way of knowing what was going to come down the pike -technology-wise- starting in the early decades of the 19th century.


Now I know you are trolling
 
2013-01-06 10:49:57 PM

Benjamin Orr: I am beginning to think you are just trolling.


He and Kome both are trolling, but that doesn't mean they don't Believe their own brand of BS.

Hence all the cherry picking and other fallacies of choice. Denotes an inability to be intellectually honest either way.
 
2013-01-06 10:50:02 PM

Maul555: madgonad: Maul555:
An unloaded gun is a useless gun. It is nobody business to tell me how to store my guns. and In case you are wondering, I keep them loaded and near my bed, all year, every year. And no law is going to change that.

I hope you don't have kids in the house. A childhood friend of mine got his brain splattered against the wall because his father thought like you do. If you never have kids in the house, fine.

No kids in the house, and if any do come over I unload them and hide the ammo and clips, and watch them like a hawk. But that almost never happens.


It sounds like you are completely responsible. I knew there were people like that out there, but I never thought I would find one on Fark, of all places.

/I keep my firearms unloaded and secured
//but I do keep a short aluminum bat behind the lampstand
 
2013-01-06 10:50:25 PM

Maul555: Most of the damage is not even remotely done with mass shootings, and point #3 largely addresses exactly that problem


I'll give you half points here. Mass is not the issue given the totals but you lose the other half for #3 addressing the issue. The one in Portland was a hired armed security guard. I am open to links where armed carriers averted a disaster. And I guess disaster is a relative term in this case. An armed clerk could be seen as such.

But if I carried I would be hard pressed to pull in a public area when there is someone blasting people indiscriminately due the to fact someone else may think I am in cahoots with the shooter.
 
2013-01-06 10:50:40 PM

Benjamin Orr: Dwight_Yeast: What do you think the phrase "bear arms" meant in the 1780s? They had no way of knowing what was going to come down the pike -technology-wise- starting in the early decades of the 19th century.

Now I know you are trolling


Yep. Considering there were already repeating firearms at the time, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that the technology would continue to evolve
 
2013-01-06 10:51:05 PM

Benjamin Orr: I also think you know that there are plenty of people in these threads that actually do want to ban all or most guns.


And I have a suspicion that you may be being trolled. Especially if it's Gat_00

Benjamin Orr: There you go again... claiming we don't have any gun laws in the US.


I didn't say that we don't. But like so many other idiotic things in this country, we are constantly re-fighting the same battles. In this instance -except that it was politically expedient- I can't believe the assault weapons ban was passed with an expiration date. And I can't believe there are so many people here who seem to think that passing it again would be tantamount to "taking away their guns."
 
2013-01-06 10:52:00 PM
I have to wonder about the people who make the small penis jokes about gun owners.
I can't kill an attacker from 25 yards away with my penis. If you can, well, that would be a medical curiosity.
Probably a reality TV show in it for you, too.
 
2013-01-06 10:52:12 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: saturn badger: I know this is a rhetorical question but what are the chances of you having to defend yourself with a gun?

Exactly zero. Unless I need to, in which case it's one.

They are approximately the same odds I'll ever need a smoke detector, and much lower than the chances I'll ever need an airbag.


Yep. All it takes is once.
 
2013-01-06 10:52:17 PM

Kome: But if one was put forward, at either a state level or a national level, that didn't include an excess surcharge or unfair difficulty level, you would be in support of it?


For something like that (that would also protect privacy and not create a registry of actual firearms), I could see myself supporting this.
 
2013-01-06 10:52:27 PM

saturn badger: Pray 4 Mojo: If I could push a magic button that would get rid of guns now and forever... I would consider pushing it. That not being an option... I prefer to be well armed and trained to protect myself in the event that a criminal attempts to deprive me of my life or property.

I know this is a rhetorical question but what are the chances of you having to defend yourself with a gun? I'll stretch it out here and let the farkers play Armed Citizen. AC was a feature in the NRA mag where they actually used their guns for defense. Even back in the 60s there were at least five or so in that feature. I see less than that now even with the webbers at my back but maybe I visit the wrong news sites.

And safe ownership is generally a safe and/or trigger lock. At the very least is gun and ammo separated.

So how do you handle your gun, so to speak?

/and don't tell me you live in Oakland
//loaded under the mattress is fine with me there
//dad was nra guy. read a lot of those mags. good reviews for guns back then.


The chance is 100% I guess... as it's already happened.

I'm in construction and travel for work... the last few years I've been building discount grocery stores. I live and work out of a trailer and typically live in the parking lot of the job. They don;t build these store in "high end" neighborhoods. Last few years I've been in Phoenix, Vegas, Bakersfield, Stockton, Emeryville (Oakland) and I'm now just a bit north of Sacramento. Stockton was by far the worst and where the incident occurred. Go ahead and look up the demographics and crime numbers there.

Not wanting to get all ITG... but I did fire my pistol and am 100% sure that had I not had it, I would have been severely injured or killed.
 
2013-01-06 10:52:54 PM

Nana's Vibrator: It would be so much more satisfying to kill someone or something with your bare hands while watching their very being disappear from their eyes from fewer than inches away. You can inhale their last breath and taste their mortality. Then you finally ensure that laughter is the very last sound they hear. Guns are for pussies.


Hint: it might be you that is crazy
 
2013-01-06 10:53:30 PM

Dwight_Yeast: What do you think the phrase "bear arms" meant in the 1780s? They had no way of knowing what was going to come down the pike -technology-wise- starting in the early decades of the 19th century.


This argument fails on its merits. Do you think the FF anticipated the Internet, telegraph, telephone, high-speed, high-volume printing press or satellites? Should speech arriving at your home derived from any of those sources be protected? It is, the First Amendment clearly covers all of those developments.

Therefore, the Constitution is either every bit the "living document" social progressives claim it to be and it covers unanticipated firearm developments or it shouldn't cover anything more than simple wood-block presses available in the late 18th century. You can't have it both ways. You can try, but hypocrisy is not becoming.
 
2013-01-06 10:54:09 PM

TommyymmoT: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Yeah, that makes sense, because he's pretty much the first president ever to have an armed security detail.
The rest of them didn't have it because they're brave and stuff, and besides, who would want to kill a president?


jaytkay: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Cuz you and the president are equally threatened when you step outside.

/ Not that you step outsde much


Fart_Machine: Jarhead_h: [img42.imageshack.us image 466x625]

Not sure if serious or really stupid.


What are y'all mad at me for? It's not my logic, I'm just applying it. Apparently you didn't get the memo that men that feel the need to have a gun you must have a small penis, so since he's always surrounded by guns, I real feel for the guy. It must be so difficult to go through life with a problem of that magnitude(or rather lack of magnitude).
 
2013-01-06 10:54:34 PM

HeadLever: Kome: But if one was put forward, at either a state level or a national level, that didn't include an excess surcharge or unfair difficulty level, you would be in support of it?

For something like that (that would also protect privacy and not create a registry of actual firearms), I could see myself supporting this.


Ok. If I may ask, why wouldn't you support a registry of actual firearms? We have them for cars.
 
2013-01-06 10:54:42 PM

Frank N Stein: Benjamin Orr: Dwight_Yeast: What do you think the phrase "bear arms" meant in the 1780s? They had no way of knowing what was going to come down the pike -technology-wise- starting in the early decades of the 19th century.

Now I know you are trolling

Yep. Considering there were already repeating firearms at the time, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that the technology would continue to evolve


Just because something existed doesn't mean it was in common use or commonly known.

The first automobile was built in this country in 1776. Why didn't the Founding Fathers include traffic laws in the Constitution?
 
2013-01-06 10:56:30 PM

Dwight_Yeast: CthulhuCalling: Where were they talking about muzzle loaders?

What do you think the phrase "bear arms" meant in the 1780s? They had no way of knowing what was going to come down the pike -technology-wise- starting in the early decades of the 19th century.


Seeing how weapons technology has evolved even in the 1700s, don't you think the Framers were aware that weapons will become lighter, faster, deadlier, more accurate? Matchlock, flintlock, wheellock, Kentucky Rifle... Surely you are aware that the first semiautomatic rifle was created a full 12 years BEFORE the Second Amendment was ratified?
 
2013-01-06 10:56:45 PM
s8.postimage.org
 
2013-01-06 10:57:08 PM

Dwight_Yeast: The first automobile was built in this country in 1776. Why didn't the Founding Fathers include traffic laws in the Constitution?


Excuse me? You're off by more than a century.
 
2013-01-06 10:58:32 PM

HeadLever: Kome: How about other non-banning types of regulations, such as safe storage requirements or closing the gun show loophole?

Mental health screenings and maybe a good safety class (something pigging backing a Hunters Ed or CCW, or NRA program) I could possibly support. However, there are pitfalls with that as the gun grabbers have a tendency to make things so onerous that these become impossible feats. I could see the DC or Chicago types charging a couple thousand for these types of programs or making them so difficult that no one could pass them.


I think a basic written test covering your knowledge of where you can carry and when you can use deadly force should be the minimum when getting a concealed carry. However with all gun laws, this should be up to the states to decide if it's required and what the questions should be. Then if you want to have a loaded weapon legally out side your home, car, hunting grounds, or shooting facility would require the permit. It's pretty much the standard in most states.
 
2013-01-06 10:58:32 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Benjamin Orr: I also think you know that there are plenty of people in these threads that actually do want to ban all or most guns.

And I have a suspicion that you may be being trolled. Especially if it's Gat_00

Benjamin Orr: There you go again... claiming we don't have any gun laws in the US.

I didn't say that we don't. But like so many other idiotic things in this country, we are constantly re-fighting the same battles. In this instance -except that it was politically expedient- I can't believe the assault weapons ban was passed with an expiration date. And I can't believe there are so many people here who seem to think that passing it again would be tantamount to "taking away their guns."


A lot more people than Gat say that. Including people you can actually have some semblance of a reasonable conversation with.

You most certainly implied that we have no gun laws.

I can't believe that people think the AWB actually made any difference at all other than to cause inconveniences to law abiding citizens. The new version that Feinstein is proposing would actually take certain guns away.

Most gun owners also know the incremental step is always the way taken (see every other country with some form of bans).

Or you know... we could actually address the real issues of why the US is such a violent place, make some tweeks on the current laws and start enforcing the ones we have. The recent Aurora asshole had multiple prior convictions and yet he was still out in public with access to guns that he was not supposed to have.
 
2013-01-06 10:58:59 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: This argument fails on its merits. Do you think the FF anticipated the Internet, telegraph, telephone, high-speed, high-volume printing press or satellites? Should speech arriving at your home derived from any of those sources be protected? It is, the First Amendment clearly covers all of those developments.


Uh, that's a piss-poor argument, especially if you know the history of the telephone, wiretapping, and who is responsible for threats made over it. It was a fifty-year, uphill battle for the phone company and pro-privacy groups.
 
2013-01-06 10:59:33 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Dwight_Yeast: I do have a problem with the constant misreading of the 2nd Amendment which we have to endure from gun nuts.

What misreading is that?

Ignoring the opening clause.


Which has already been determined an individual right by the Supreme Court...