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  
•       •       •

21106 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 1051 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report