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 252
    More: Interesting, funds, hate, Sara Lee, journalists, 57th Street, parkways  
•       •       •

21100 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-06 06:54:43 PM
21 votes:
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 03:39:30 PM
10 votes:
It is sad that the ACLU does not support an American civil liberty.
2013-01-06 04:05:54 PM
8 votes:
The pro gun paranoia is already palpable in this thread
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-01-06 03:05:50 PM
8 votes:
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 03:02:38 PM
7 votes:
It could start a conversation, Subby? I fail to see what your fearmongering is pointing at.
2013-01-06 07:29:07 PM
6 votes:
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 07:05:28 PM
6 votes:

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 05:33:16 PM
6 votes:

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 05:03:08 PM
6 votes:
fark the negativity. Lets talk about people that are down with guns. Like Alton motherfarking Brown

savethegun.files.wordpress.com
2013-01-06 05:00:10 PM
6 votes:
"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 08:38:42 PM
5 votes:

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 07:45:25 PM
5 votes:
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 07:00:09 PM
5 votes:

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 06:59:51 PM
5 votes:

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 06:57:18 PM
5 votes:
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 06:53:14 PM
5 votes:

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 05:26:29 PM
5 votes:
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 03:51:49 PM
5 votes:
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 03:07:20 PM
5 votes:
I didn't even know there was an anti-2nd Amendment movement.
2013-01-06 09:09:22 PM
4 votes:
img42.imageshack.us
2013-01-06 08:37:37 PM
4 votes:
i487.photobucket.com
2013-01-06 08:10:29 PM
4 votes:
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 07:41:23 PM
4 votes:
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 07:35:26 PM
4 votes:
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 07:24:46 PM
4 votes:
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 07:09:28 PM
4 votes:
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 07:02:15 PM
4 votes:
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 06:56:16 PM
4 votes:
Our militia isn't regulated well enough.
2013-01-06 06:55:42 PM
4 votes:
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 05:51:32 PM
4 votes:
"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 05:29:16 PM
4 votes:

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 04:17:10 PM
4 votes:

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 03:14:29 PM
4 votes:

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 09:37:12 PM
3 votes:

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 08:19:48 PM
3 votes:

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 07:44:45 PM
3 votes:
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 07:36:44 PM
3 votes:

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 07:26:55 PM
3 votes:

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 07:16:59 PM
3 votes:

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 07:12:40 PM
3 votes:
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 07:08:55 PM
3 votes:

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 07:05:49 PM
3 votes:

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 07:04:42 PM
3 votes:
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 07:03:17 PM
3 votes:

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 07:01:45 PM
3 votes:

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 06:59:56 PM
3 votes:

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 06:56:52 PM
3 votes:
...we are watching you.

Not an implied threat at all. Penis.
2013-01-06 06:31:36 PM
3 votes:

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 06:13:01 PM
3 votes:

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 05:41:40 PM
3 votes:

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 04:09:57 PM
3 votes:
That's a big list --- must be a lot of people in there. Obviously all of America is wrong.
2013-01-06 03:59:52 PM
3 votes:
It's no more scary than posting lists of legal gun owners, subby.
2013-01-07 03:39:30 AM
2 votes:

omeganuepsilon: As far as regulation that we need today?
-Cap clip/mag size at 20, and semi-automatic.[One exception, a recreational business that "rents" firearms for use on their range, only at the place of business, owners cannot take them out of the establishment to shoot more publicly or at home for protection].


Why? Magazine size is, at best, a minor roadblock for mass killers, and completely irrelevant for the more routine killings.

-More in depth and periodic background checks(to include the whole household) for anything capable of a certain ammo count, say 5 round mag.(most hunters are limited in the amount of rounds they can have loaded, some only 2 rounds loaded[much of that is as much game conservation as it is a safety issue..IE if someone rips into a field of deer with a 200 round belt fed machine gun they could take out the whole herd "by accident")

Whole house background checks opens the door or some serious invasion of privacy issues. Do I have to notify the police if I get a new roommate? Will they require a background check because I own guns?

-Other Specifications on size/class. Safety being an issue, as well as saturday night specials(very cheap and concealable) Some distinctions need to be made here.

Why? poor people have a right to self defense just like everyone else. Safety issues appear to be nonexistent-guns today don't fire unless the trigger is pulled,they don't explode with SAAMI or factory spect ammo, etc.

-Zoning for Usage(Ie you can have one in the home, regardless of local laws, but use of it is punished severely if not obviously in self defense) In this category would also be a transport safety requirement.(You stop for coffee, you can't simply leave the gun lying there in the backseat, obviously can't take it in)

We have that now in the form of discharge laws. Every county, city, town, etc. whose laws I've ever looked up for one reason or another has one. I've looked at hundreds. While perusing municode or sterling for one thing, I always poke around to see how the laws were phrased, when they came to be, etc.

-Concealed permits? More frequent extensive background checks.

Why? Are concealed weapon permit holders causing problems? Are felons getting permits?
2013-01-06 09:53:42 PM
2 votes:
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 09:39:44 PM
2 votes:
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 09:22:12 PM
2 votes:

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 08:27:40 PM
2 votes:
I think the NRA has become a domestic terrorist group, and should be dealt with accordingly.
2013-01-06 08:16:27 PM
2 votes:

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 08:14:56 PM
2 votes:
imageshack.us
2013-01-06 08:12:09 PM
2 votes:

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 07:51:14 PM
2 votes:

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 07:48:24 PM
2 votes:

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 07:48:22 PM
2 votes:

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 07:48:18 PM
2 votes:

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 07:46:44 PM
2 votes:

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 07:36:40 PM
2 votes:
Stallone is on that list? What a farkin' hypocritical asshole.
2013-01-06 07:35:10 PM
2 votes:

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 07:29:38 PM
2 votes:

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 07:27:37 PM
2 votes:
Ted Nugent's music sucks too.
2013-01-06 07:27:27 PM
2 votes:

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 07:24:08 PM
2 votes:
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 07:18:35 PM
2 votes:

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 07:14:58 PM
2 votes:
"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 07:13:47 PM
2 votes:

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 07:13:41 PM
2 votes:

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 07:13:04 PM
2 votes:

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 07:12:56 PM
2 votes:
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 07:12:33 PM
2 votes:

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 07:06:23 PM
2 votes:

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 07:05:05 PM
2 votes:
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 06:58:32 PM
2 votes:
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 06:51:08 PM
2 votes:
Oh fark, the LOPCATGOPATA is going to double
2013-01-06 05:41:17 PM
2 votes:

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 05:07:06 PM
2 votes:

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 04:07:40 PM
2 votes:

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


They didn't give this the "Scary" tag, did they?
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-06 03:31:35 PM
2 votes:
Can I have a map with crosshairs over the anti-gun groups?
2013-01-08 02:55:50 AM
1 votes:

ajeoae: #1 I picked that one quickly out of a Google result, there's plenty more with more recent dates. That article is still useful in that it states that crime guns linked to VA dropped dramatically after the handgun limit was put in place. It has since been lifted. Here's something more recent. I'm just doing the math here...of 700 guns confiscated in NY, 400 were from VA alone, the remaining 300 from the rest of the country...it's pretty obvious VA is the gun runner state of choice.

#2. I never said *most* of the increased sales were straw buyers. I'm saying that with an increase in sales and especially the handgun limitation being lifted, you can certainly bet that VA's straw buying activity has increased dramatically. Beyond the initial sale, not much is being done to ensure a gun remains legal. And nothing holds dealers accountable...they make the sale as long as the paperwork checks out (even if they know the person won't be honest with the weapon or batch of 30 from that point forward) Even requiring dealerships to comply with the laws of the purchaser's residence would have some effect...not a lot...but some. As it is now, the whole idea of curtailing the black market is a joke when the symptoms are obvious and the solutions would have little to no effect on an upstanding citizen. That's kind of what's frustrating...there are limits that could be put in place that the average gun consumer would never even notice. There are followups on purchases that could be very reasonable to a law abiding citizen. And sure guns get lost or stolen.



If people from NYC/DC are going to VA and buying guns at dealers, then they're presenting fake IDs or encountering corrupt repeat felony committing dealers. If there's a network of people who will buy for NYC/DC residents and sell to them (straw purchase), it seems like they should be able to figure out who the players are from the 4473s.

I wonder what the degrees of separation are for these guns. Over time, a lot of people steal firearms from VA residents and they make their way to NYC or DC. This would depend on things population density, etc. in VA. If the guns in NYC were sold 10 years ago in VA, then anything is possible. If it's 6 months, a year, then perhaps there is a straw purchase network.

I don't know how they detect it without a huge database and data mining and there's no way in hell gun owners will support that. Way too much potential for abuse.
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-01-07 11:59:04 PM
1 votes:
Additional note.  I'm a life member of the NRA which means I don't have to pay dues.  If I did have to pay dues, I would simply drop out and not longer support the organization.  Since they became a GOP front group, I think there are better organizations out there.  But many of the accusers here are way off base and don't have accurate information.

The NRA has 4.3 million members who pay annual dues and make contributions in addition to those dues.  Anyone can donate to the NRA and some gun manufacturers do advertise that they donate a portion of the price of gun sale to the NRA.
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-01-07 11:53:37 PM
1 votes:
The NRA gets it's funding from it's millions of members who pay annual dues.  The NRA organizes pro-gun rallies, political phone call campaigns, protests etc.  To say they're simply a pro manufacturer organization is completely false.

In years past the NRA did a great job fighting for and protecting the rights of gun owners.  HOWEVER, I openly admit they have become a political group now with the main goal of putting Republicans in office.  They endorsed Romney who is a vehement anti-gunner and if he were president today, he would be demanding that semi-autos be banned.  Just has he has done for decades.  So I agree 100% the NRA is now less of a gun rights organization and more of a pro-Republican organization.   But they do still fight for gun rights despite some of their recent and major failings in the are of protecting rights.

I see nothing scary with them collecting list of anti-gun organizations.  The NRA organizes campaigns against these organizations.

Someone asked why I have no problem with the NRA keeping lists but I was against the posting of gun owners names in the paper.  Well first, I've never said I was against it.  But, think about it, why would you tell every criminal in a state which homes to burglarize to get their hands on guns?  Why would you tell someone's employer that they own a gun?  While gun owners are already paranoid about registration, why would those handling the lists violate the trust and privacy of those forced to comply?  Every gun owner fears that while he/she is at work some dirtbag will break in and steal their guns.  Yes gun safes are pretty secure but they're very heavy and can't be placed in many homes because of stairs etc. and are very expensive.  Gun lockers are more common and keep kids out but are more easily broken into.

"TheNational Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American that has historically promoted firearm ownership, marksmanship, safety, hunting, and self-defense in the United States, and has more recently taken up a major role as a organization, ostensibly to advocate for the protection of the of the. The NRA is designated as an  organization, which allows it to operate both as a charity and to participate in political campaigns and. Donations made to the 501(c)(4) are neither tax deductible nor subject to disclosure."

"The NRA sponsors training courses, as well as marksmanship events featuring shooting skill and sports. According to a 1999 survey, lawmakers and congressional staffers considered NRA the most influential lobbying group in the United States. Its political activity is based on the belief of the NRA that gun ownership is a protected by the, and the NRA therefore refers to itself as the oldest continuously operating "" organization in the United States. According to its website, the NRA has 4.3 million members."
2013-01-07 10:57:07 PM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Nor can Congress infringe on free speech by making incitement to riot a crime.


Of course, I can only be charged AFTER I incite a riot. I can't be gagged or forced to undergo a background check before I speak in order to prevent me from inciting a riot.
2013-01-07 04:10:11 PM
1 votes:

clevernamehere: I don't want to see Americans thinking they can stand against the US Military, either lightly armed or heavily.


I'd prefer the government not think its OK to blow up Americans. If only because we'll make the ensuing fight too expensive and difficult for politicians to consider it the easy path to their goals.

clevernamehere: Tell me why being trained, tested, and licensed is a bad thing. (Other than nuisance)
Tell me why you need a semi-auto rifle, shotgun, or pistol to hunt or defend yourself.
Tell me why you need ammo that will pierce brick, or a scope, etc.
Tell me why you need 100s of rounds at home.


I should be the one asking why any of these things matter. They've got no effect on crime.
Training is fine, but licenses are just another name for registration. Registration always leads to confiscations and thefts.
Manually operated guns are no less dangerous than semi automatics.

Scopes, really?
Glass lenses are supposed to be a banned feature?

As for ammunition, I wish I stockpiled a few hundred rounds. Some dimwit do-gooder of a politician went and opened her uninformed mouth and caused a rush on the market, so now I've got nothing to spare. Next time I sure as hell will stockpile just to keep enjoying my hobby while you dream up useless things to enforce on people like me.
None of this saves lives tho.

clevernamehere: Elect people who will cut military spending and reinstate our stolen liberties.


Its what many of us have tried to do, but others turn it into a pissing match between parties just to see which one can go in the opposite direction the fastest.

Fact is that many people like a government that's powerful enough to give them everything they want, forgetting that means its also strong enough to take everything they have. Those of us who enjoy keeping guns (whether for security or sport) are facing the very real prospect of losing property and privilege while others would trivialize it as a minor loss in the name of safety.

You are taking part in this process now, but won't believe that you'll ever end up on the other side of the gun (so to speak).
If you keep accepting any tragedy as an excuse to implement draconian solutions, you'll be standing here with me soon enough.
2013-01-07 02:26:34 PM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH:
To be totally honest, these Fark rants against reasonable regulation of the arms, organization, and discipline of the militia - all specified powers of Congress - lead me to believe that a huge number of you should be protected from yourselves.

/And so should society.


And then you gun grabbers find it difficult to grasp the reasons why those of us on the opposing side find it difficult to just accept litmus tests for ownership when they can be manipulated by your type? You have no problem calling us a danger to society even though you have no evidendce and based soley upon our pro-2nd amendment arguments.
2013-01-07 02:17:07 PM
1 votes:

clevernamehere: dittybopper: *DEFINITELY* unconstitutional:

It is, when what you propose has been explicitly ruled to be unconstitutional. In order to get around that, you'd have to repeal the Second Amendment.

I see. Education! Well, I wasn't married to trigger locks anyway. And if we had a solution that would actually make a difference but was declared unconstitutional by the SC, I wouldn't mind an amendment that clarified things. (Honestly, I don't see how putting a "The Club" on your gun somehow infringes on your ability to keep or bear your arm (I suppose you can't bear it when it's locked, but really?))


I only picked *ONE* easy target out of your proposals, the "low hanging fruit" as it were. You didn't know that laws requiring guns to be locked up was unconstitutional. Many people don't know that either, especially ones for whom this is merely the 'cause du jour', and they will move on to others in a few months.

Having been shown that your ideas are at least in part untenable, right now you should be asking yourself "What else don't I know about this issue?".

Let's take a look at some of your other proposals:


B) Limit to 1 long gun, 1 pistol per person/2 per household.


Stupid idea, because it limits what even a typical sportsman might do. Guns are like golf clubs, they are optimized for different things. You wouldn't go golfing with just a 9 iron, would you? Of course not. So just a typical hunting might have the following long guns:

1. .22 LR rifle for small game/pest control
2. Rifle in .223 Remington or similar caliber for bigger "varmints", like coyotes, prairie dogs, etc.
3. Rifle in a larger caliber for deer hunting (probably a .30, but not necessarily)
4. 12 gauge shotgun. This one is as close to a "jack of all trades", but it's severely limited in range.
5. A large bore rifle for bears, elk, moose, or other game too large for typical deer calibers.

That's 5 guns and I haven't even talked about target disciplines. I know several hunters who are also target shooters, and they don't generally use their deer guns for competition or vice-versa, because the two often have widely different objectives.

Limiting a person to a single long gun or a single handgun just isn't practical.


C) Bolt/lever action rifles, pump shotguns, and revolvers only. No semi-auto.


I hate to break this to you, but a pump action shotgun has a rate of fire similar to a submachine gun. Typical 00 buck shotgun shell holds 9 pellets, and you can shoot at least 1 round a second with a pump shotgun. That's a "cyclic rate" of 9*60 = 540 projectiles per minute, greater than the WWII era M-3 Grease Gun. Each one of those pellets is .33 caliber, so at close range the effect is similar to a burst from a 9mm submachine gun. Even more so with 000 buckshot, which only has 6 pellets, but each one is slightly bigger than 9mm.

Also, revolvers can be fired quite fast, as fast as semi-auto handguns, and can be reloaded just as quickly. Google "revolver speed loader". You really aren't gaining anything here, and it's entirely likely that a semiauto ban is unconstitutional: The District of Columbia tried to ban semiauto handguns after their loss in DC v. Heller, limiting residents to just revolvers, and in the face of an impending defeat in the courts yet again, had to acquiesce and allow semiautomatics, albeit with a 10 round magazine restriction.

D) Strict licensing & training to buy guns. 3-day courses. Different ones for different gun types & usages. (Hunting vs Home defense, Pistol vs Rifle). Written test annually, practical test every 2 years or every purchase. Vision test/range test, shoot/don't shoot test.


This would likely also be unconstitutional. I know of no other enumerated constitutional right where you have to ask permission from the government to exercise it.

It's stricter than what we do for a privilege (driving), and since it's designed specifically to harass


E) Every gun is tied to its owner. No peer-to-peer sales, swaps, or gifts. Titled like a car, all changes in ownership must be accounted for. New owner must pass all tests & checks before ownership changes. If your gun is used in a crime, you're an accessory or accomplice unless you can prove you took significant measures & reported it lost/stolen immediately.


How would you account for people making their own guns? It's a fairly common hobby, actually. Right now it's *MOSTLY* people who buy kits, but guns are a 600 year old technology that for most of that time were made with tools and materials inferior to what you can find at your local hardware store.

Something else you are apparently unaware of: A national registration system of firearms is illegal under current law. That is of course easier to change than amending the Constitution, but it was put there for a reason, and I haven't see that reasoning change: When it was enacted, crime and firearms deaths were much higher than they are today.


F) Require gun safes and/or trigger locks.


We dealt with this one already.

G) Severely restrict ammo. 20 rounds or so for home defense. Hoarding more is a misdemeanor/felony, depending. Hunters check out X rounds, account for rounds fired & unfired & return the lot to a store/ranger station/whatever. Ranges can provide ammo on-site. Ammo kept in home/on person shouldn't be able to go through walls.


How are you going to stop people from making their own? Ammunition reloading is done by tens of thousands of people in the US. There are several companies that make the equipment and supplies necessary. There is a thing called a "Lee Loader" that fits in your pocket, costs less than $30, and it is specifically for reloading ammunition. You can use match heads for gun powder, you can reload the primers using strike-anywhere match tips, and you can (and many do) mold their own bullets.

The practical aspects of what you propose are similar to try to cram toothpaste back into the tube.
2013-01-07 02:08:37 PM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Maul555: thetubameister: 1) Let's see how many "Law Abiding Gun Owners" remain "law abiding" when and if there's any curtailment of their ownership rights. This thread would seem to highlight to slough off that qualifier.

2) The tyranny I fear is from the very gun owners saying they want protection from tyranny: tyranny of religiosity, tyranny of women's bodies, and tyranny of war-mongering.

It is every citizens civic duty to resist bad laws and government.

Quick question, citizen: What are the first seven words of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Those words identify the government.

To be totally honest, these Fark rants against reasonable regulation of the arms, organization, and discipline of the militia - all specified powers of Congress - lead me to believe that a huge number of you should be protected from yourselves.

/And so should society.


"We the People of the United States"... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

And the 2nd amendment was put into place to make sure that we can throw off any form of government that becomes destructive to our liberties. Read up on the founding fathers own words sometime. You might just learn something.
2013-01-07 01:54:26 PM
1 votes:

Maul555: thetubameister: 1) Let's see how many "Law Abiding Gun Owners" remain "law abiding" when and if there's any curtailment of their ownership rights. This thread would seem to highlight to slough off that qualifier.

2) The tyranny I fear is from the very gun owners saying they want protection from tyranny: tyranny of religiosity, tyranny of women's bodies, and tyranny of war-mongering.

It is every citizens civic duty to resist bad laws and government.


Quick question, citizen: What are the first seven words of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Those words identify the government.

To be totally honest, these Fark rants against reasonable regulation of the arms, organization, and discipline of the militia - all specified powers of Congress - lead me to believe that a huge number of you should be protected from yourselves.

/And so should society.
2013-01-07 01:52:36 PM
1 votes:

jaytkay: Pray 4 Mojo: jaytkay:

Whatever. Make yourselves useful instead of masturbating over you gun collection.

I masturbate over your mom.

/You are trying to start a "juvenile retort contest"... right?

No, I am telling people to help out in the real world instead of their action-hero fantasies.


I see. Well... I own guns... and I like having them... a lot. I target shoot... and hunt birds. AND I've actually used one to defend myself from death/bodily harm without killing anybody... even though it would have been justified.

I also donate about 10% of my income to various charities... I just sponsored a family of 4 for Christmas and will continue to do so... and I just bought a large piece of property in Southern California because the animal rescue (horses, dogs and the occasional 'other') operating there was about to be evicted... and they're using it rent free for the foreseeable future.

What have you done for society Sparky?

You can hate us... and try to group us into your little pre-labeled categories... but life is seldom ever that simple.
2013-01-07 01:46:12 PM
1 votes:

thetubameister: 1) Let's see how many "Law Abiding Gun Owners" remain "law abiding" when and if there's any curtailment of their ownership rights. This thread would seem to highlight to slough off that qualifier.

2) The tyranny I fear is from the very gun owners saying they want protection from tyranny: tyranny of religiosity, tyranny of women's bodies, and tyranny of war-mongering.


It is every citizens civic duty to resist bad laws and government.
2013-01-07 01:40:28 PM
1 votes:

jaytkay:
Whatever. Make yourselves useful instead of masturbating over you gun collection.


False Dichotomy. Who says we are not doing both? Nothing about these activities are mutually exclusive.
2013-01-07 12:46:32 PM
1 votes:

Insatiable Jesus: [imageshack.us image 466x625]


Because they were immune to bullets from all other guns, right?

This gun is used in less than 3% of all gun deaths, yet it's the libtard focus of the week because it's black and scary.
2013-01-07 12:40:31 PM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Phinn: The My Little Pony Killer: 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.

Lol no.

Lol yes.

Self-defense is the first and most important right.

Nobody is opposing self defense.


Having the ability to try and resist tyranny is self defense.
2013-01-07 12:27:42 PM
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: 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.

Lol no.


Lol yes.

Self-defense is the first and most important right. It's the origin of the idea of "rights" in the first place, since it divides the use of force against another person into two categories -- rightful and wrongful. All other rights flow from that one.
2013-01-07 12:18:51 PM
1 votes:

clevernamehere: Cops can only enforce the laws on the books. If the laws have loopholes, or allow for crimes only immediately preceding an illegal discharge, what are they supposed to do? It can't be cleanup only, something has to be preventative/pro-active.


Time for background checks and waiting periods for computer transfers and internet access. Time to ban "child porn cameras' (that is, the cameras they use the most). Time for inspections and recordkeeping requirements on all communications.

We can't wait until AFTER someone does something like make pornographic images of children or threaten a person online. It can't be cleanup only, we must preventative/pro-active.

Minority Report was fiction, and should serve as a warning, not a roadmap.
2013-01-07 12:15:35 PM
1 votes:
to this day my personal firearms have killed less people than ted kennedys car
thinkprogress.org assets.nydailynews.com
2013-01-07 11:50:11 AM
1 votes:
You are a bunch of retrograde, reactionary hoplophobes.

Get with the times, Neanderthals.
2013-01-07 10:39:50 AM
1 votes:

MagicMissile: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/overview/data.html


Good thing.
2013-01-07 10:29:58 AM
1 votes:
I am putting an end to this argument once and for all. ( yeah right, who am I kidding )

Here is a graph from the CDC showing the leading causes of death as far as violent crimes/deaths go.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/overview/data.html
2013-01-07 09:11:26 AM
1 votes:

clevernamehere: That Bushmaster isn't going to save you from a drone or a plane dropping a bomb down your chimney.


Will that drone strike happen like it does in Iraq and Afghanistan...with women and children present in the targeted dwelling?

this all started becasue 20 kids died....how many more are you willing to kill with a drone to assert your morally superior stance that guns kill children?
2013-01-07 05:38:03 AM
1 votes:

clevernamehere: Finally, I find it humorous that those who hold up defense against tyranny as the purpose of bearing arms are supportive of huge military spending, and are happy to have a standing army rather than participating in the nation's defense more directly.


You've got gun owners confused with Republicans.
People from many different political backgrounds own guns for various reasons. They'd be more of a threat to tyranny if certain elected Democrats, who say they don't think guns are useful against a military threat, didn't keep trying to regulate them as if they were the only threat out there.

The fact is your detailed list of regulations sends the opposite message of what you think it does, which is why it will backfire.
On one hand you are writing up all these little rules because you believe there are threats everywhere. Your neighbors might snap, there are crazies off their meds, crooks are running wild in the streets and thugs be breaking down your door. Best check under the bed because there's a monster there ready to shoot you!

On the other hand you ask "Why would anyone need a gun?".
Why would anyone want the one thing that I obsess about controlling in myopic detail, to the point where I ignore the laws of physics, the statistics, and the rules of common sense.

How many crooks need more than one gun? What prevents them from stealing another one?
Why, if vets are statistically more likely to snap, do you insist all gun owners be military trained?
Why would a bullet from one style of gun be less dangerous than a bullet of similar design from a different style of gun?
Most shootings involve fewer than five shots, why the twenty round arbitrary storage limit?
What prevents someone from saying "shot twenty rounds on my ranch yesterday, I need another twenty"... Their honor as a gun owner?
Are shooting range owners supposed to count the number of bangs from every customer?

You are depending on law abiding people to abide by alot of nonsense in the hopes that it will rub off on criminals.
Fact is that it wont and you damn well know why.

You've got plenty of rules to prosecute the criminals who already don't follow them.
I suggest you drop a few bucks on enforcement and stop inventing random new ways to harass gun owners.

If you keep doing the latter, you're only going to make more criminals out of otherwise good people.
2013-01-07 02:33:54 AM
1 votes:

Maul555: 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.

That's not very smart, it's how accidents happen. You would be better off securing your house well enough that it would take a determined person 3 to 5 minutes to break in. There by giving you plenty of time to put a clip into pistol, or load a shotgun.
2013-01-07 02:25:08 AM
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: pedrop357: Bucky Katt: Since you guys are the experts why did the Founders include that phrase in the first place? Is it a quaint leftover like the 5th amendment?

To suggest that a well regulated militia was necessary to security of a free state. To ensure that the militia can be formed to to ensure that security, the right of the PEOPLE (not militia members, not the state national guard) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The whole purpose of the amendment is to ensure that should a militia be necessary to defend against a tyrannical government, the militia members will actually have arms capable of doing that. it's hard to do that if the federal government can deprive individuals of arms or limit them to only the most impotent of arms.

One of the reasons for the 14th amendment was the the Southern states were infringing upon the rights of the recently freed men to bear arms.

If they meant for the bearing of arms to only happen while the person was in militia service, they would have said so, they wouldn't have said that the right of the PEOPLE was not to be infringed.

Now this makes sense. But your argument, like Scalia's, doesn't seem to support any restrictions such as the ban on machine gun ownership.


And there isn't a ban on ownership of machine guns. You just need proper licensing.
2013-01-07 02:20:58 AM
1 votes:

Ghastly: Most Americans realize Mexicans can't shoot worth a damn but if you give them a blade they'll kill you five times before you're dead so they want to do everything they can to keep guns in their hands and knives out of them.


Okay, this thread has went full derp.
2013-01-07 02:17:00 AM
1 votes:
The funny thing about the second amendment nuts is most places in the states it's illegal to carry a bladed weapon with a blade longer than 4" and a folding blade that can opened with one hand. It's also illegal to carry a sword. These are all arms that their interpretation of the 2nd amendment says they should be able to bare, but you never hear an uproar about states and municipalities passing laws that forbid people carrying such weapons.

That's either because the knife/sword manufacturing industry doesn't have a very powerful lobby or...

Most Americans realize Mexicans can't shoot worth a damn but if you give them a blade they'll kill you five times before you're dead so they want to do everything they can to keep guns in their hands and knives out of them.
2013-01-07 02:08:19 AM
1 votes:

llachlan: Adolf Oliver Nipples: 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.

And yet we can now have interracial marriage. I'm not saying to kill the 2nd, far from it, but to argue that just because SCOTUS said something once, doesn't mean it can't be revisited or revised is kinda naive, and just plain wrong.


In this case, I am not "plain wrong". Let's revisit yet another thing I wrote tonight:

That day came and went. The "militia" argument had standing for a very long time. As did Plessy v. Ferguson. And Bowers v. Hardwick. And Schenck v. United States. It's a happy occasion indeed when the Supreme Court revisits decisions and gets them right the second time.

You're free to keep bringing it up, and we're free to ignore it or otherwise point out its irrelevance. This time, however, we don't have to worry about its resurrection, much as you wish it might happen. It's dead and buried. It's as likely to come back as anti-miscegenation or anti-sodomy laws.


And yet another post of mine:

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.


You know, it seems to me that I have addressed or otherwise anticipated every argument made tonight, yet here I am on page 5 reposting stuff for people making the same arguments who couldn't be troubled to read the thread they're posting to.

It also seems to me that if there is any further regulation of firearms in this country it will be because of this very same strategy: grind it out. Wear them down. I'm tired of saying the same things over and over again, and for that you can declare victory. Keep grinding people down and sooner or later we'll all be tired of it, and there goes your opposition. Victory through apathy and frustration.
2013-01-07 02:04:26 AM
1 votes:

RevMercutio: CthulhuCalling: RevMercutio: Michael Moore is/was an NRA member. The others are ACTORS who play ROLES.

The others are actors who play roles, and made their fortunes wielding guns onscreen. Stallone himself is particularly reprehensible for this, being pretty much the personification of onscreen gun violence. If these people were so true to their beliefs, they would be turning down these ROLES they played.

Um, Schwarzenegger would be a better example. Rambo used hand-to-hand combat a lot, while Arnold primarily used guns.. And this whole belief that an actor can't use a gun in a film because they believed at some point in their life that there should be some sort of control on guns is ridiculously simple-minded and mostly an excuse to yell "hypocrite" without knowing what the farking word means. This whole claim of "ZOMG, he used a gun in the movie! HIPPPOCRIIITES!" is Victoria Jackson-level lunacy

explain. It's real simple to me. If an actor is so up in arms about guns, they have an ethical obligation to turn down such roles that use gu... oh, you're going to give me a farkton of money? What was I talking about?

2013-01-07 02:01:27 AM
1 votes:

llachlan: 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.

If you have kids, please tell the parents of any kids that come to visit this. You are welcome to darwin your own children of course.


The fact that you invite me to kill my hypothetical children through carelessness speaks volumes about you.
2013-01-07 01:32:13 AM
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: pedrop357: Bucky Katt: There's your original intent. Scalia tossed it out when it became inconvenient. The part you have quoted also doesn't address the "well-regulated" part. Some regulation must be ok since it's ok to bann common ownership of machine guns. I'm looking for some coherent explanation of how regulation is to be reconciled with a personal right to own guns. How do we know when regulation infringes on ownership? A literal reading of Scalia suggests that I should be able to drive to Walmart right now and guy a Tommy gun, which would actually be pretty cool. Scalia loves rhetorical flourishes, but his reasoning is lacking here.

Those rules on machine guns are wrong too. We'll get to them eventually. It's worth pointing out that in US v Miller, the court merely remanded the case back because they didn't get any information that a short barrel shotgun was useful in the preservation of a militia. They didn't get that info because the defense was completely absent. It's reasonable to assume that had they been informed that shotguns, including short barreled ones were used quite frequently in WW1, they would have ruled differently.

US v Miller is one case that should be reheard.

Now some consistency. I appreciate the explation. I'll have to think about it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

At best, this is mildly pro-gun control. but, when you consider that this is the opinion rendered in a one sided court case, I'd say it's a horrible pro gun control case. The best they can say is that this particular shotgun RIGHT NOW doesn't seem to be protected under the 2nd amendment. Imagine the decision that could have been rendered if Miller had lived and his attorney actually showed up.

My reading suggests that had they been so informed they would have ruled in Miller's favor. The same could have easily been done for short barrel rifles and machine guns.
2013-01-07 01:26:05 AM
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: I used to me a member of the NRA until the absolutists took over. I just don't buy the argument that there should be no limits to our 2nd amendment rights while all of our other rights have limits. I'd prefer that all of our rights are unlimited but I can't seem to get a legally or philosophically consistent answer from you all. I'll leave the discussion to you butthurt godwiners.


Rights don't have limits. It's the protections that have limits.

You have a 1st amendment protected right to free speech, however the protections do not extend to using your speech to threaten others, cause public panic (yelling fire in a fireless theater), etc.

You have a 2nd amendment protected right to keep and bear arms, however those protections do not extend to shooting to people without good cause (self defense), threatening others with a firearm without good cause, discharging in city limits (reckless endangerment/public panic.)

It's pretty simple stuff. Gun control as pushed forward by people using the whole 'fire in a theater' argument is prior restraint and intolerable with other rights.

It's the equivalent of gagging someone before the enter a theater in order to prevent them from yelling fire, or requiring a background check before they can post online in order to make sure threatening people aren't able to issue threats or incite riots.

The NRA, Gun Owners of America, SAF, gun owners everywhere do seem to largely agree with bans on discharging in city limits, prohibition on threatening without cause, firing/using without cause, etc.
2013-01-07 01:24:07 AM
1 votes:

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.


The basic human right ... to own a firearm. I LOL'd.
2013-01-07 01:17:05 AM
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: Now this makes sense. But your argument, like Scalia's, doesn't seem to support any restrictions such as the ban on machine gun ownership.


Agreed. There should be no ban on machine gun ownership. The NFA registration requirement and the 1986 ban on new manufacture should both be overturned.

It may take a little while longer. DC's gun ban went into effect in 1976, but took a good 30 years to be overturned. We may have to wait until 2016 to see the machine gun ban (and the restrictions on the other weapons listed in the NFA), rightfully overturned.
2013-01-07 01:15:15 AM
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: muck4doo: Bucky Katt: The amendment is ungrammatical for sure and I don't know what it really means.

You could stop there, but of course you won't. You'll say what you stupidly wish it to mean, is the politically correct version.

Hardly. You know better than that. Political correctness today dictates that any questioning of the NRA's position is heresy and I'd like that to stop. Hitler would love your effort to stifle any dissent.


So you're crying because you got schooled on account of you being a dumbass. Nice.

You: This is my redrafted opinion on the 2nd amendment

Other people: here is why you wrong, you potato counter.

You: PEOPLE WON'T LET ME SPOUT MY RETARDED OPINIONS UNCHALLENGED AMERIKKKA WORST THAN NAZIS
2013-01-07 01:08:43 AM
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: Since you guys are the experts why did the Founders include that phrase in the first place? Is it a quaint leftover like the 5th amendment?


To suggest that a well regulated militia was necessary to security of a free state. To ensure that the militia can be formed to to ensure that security, the right of the PEOPLE (not militia members, not the state national guard) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The whole purpose of the amendment is to ensure that should a militia be necessary to defend against a tyrannical government, the militia members will actually have arms capable of doing that. it's hard to do that if the federal government can deprive individuals of arms or limit them to only the most impotent of arms.

One of the reasons for the 14th amendment was the the Southern states were infringing upon the rights of the recently freed men to bear arms.

If they meant for the bearing of arms to only happen while the person was in militia service, they would have said so, they wouldn't have said that the right of the PEOPLE was not to be infringed.
2013-01-07 01:01:31 AM
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: maybe some day it will become politically correct to read the first half of the amendment as well as the second half.


oh shut the fark up.
2013-01-07 12:27:57 AM
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: Benjamin Orr: Bucky Katt: 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.

Too bad there isn't a pro well-regulated militia movement.

too bad the Supreme Court took that argument away

maybe some day it will become politically correct to read the first half of the amendment as well as the second half.


Translation: "Someday we will be able to force our authoritarian views on everyone else as we should decide and stop letting the stupid people think they matter. I am an elite who should decide on these things, of course".

/Hitler would have loved you
2013-01-07 12:22:51 AM
1 votes:

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

etc...


So what we need now is legislation to define what "arms" are. A literal definition would include nukes, bioweapons, poison gas, etc. Since we already prevent access to these, we need a legal definition of "arms".
2013-01-07 12:21:10 AM
1 votes:
There's an irony here...

People who actually hate America and enjoy seeing Americans die should therefore logically advocate for easier access to guns.
2013-01-06 11:58:24 PM
1 votes:

Maul555: 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.


As long as you don't have kids, good for you. Though did anyone even mention anything about loaded or unloaded?

I, on the other hand, would hate for my stuff to be taken so easily because it was in the nightstand drawer instead of locked in my safe, if I were ever to have my home broken into in the middle of the day.
2013-01-06 11:55:27 PM
1 votes:

JudgeItoBox: Real disappointed with how far to the right the Fark populace has gone since The Black One was elected.


Seriously? To the right? Really?
2013-01-06 11:54:02 PM
1 votes:
Oh, and this one always manages to ruffle a few freepers derpers feathers.

i.imgur.com
2013-01-06 11:51:34 PM
1 votes:
Real disappointed with how far to the right the Fark populace has gone since The Black One was elected.

But hey, at least with all the pro-gun derp and hate this thread has ginned up, we'll have a nice, long list of Pussy Cry-baby Gun-havers to reference when The Great Confiscation begins in 2016.
2013-01-06 11:40:33 PM
1 votes:

jaytkay: 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?



No. A "Standing Army" is a professional permanent army. Like the Military of the US. A Militia is "a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service."

So, the Army (or Navy, Marines, Air Force, etc) is NOT the 'militia'.

/dictionaries, how do they work?
2013-01-06 11:40:22 PM
1 votes:
I don't even know why the left discusses gun bans, it's not going to happen and only makes gun owners dig their heels in. It would be like suggesting reinstating slavery in order to cut poverty rates. You want to know why gun owners think the left wants to ban guns? Its because the left is always saying they want to ban guns.
2013-01-06 11:22:07 PM
1 votes:

Kome: What countries are firearms completely prohibited in?


www.bajabound.com
2013-01-06 11:21:41 PM
1 votes:

Kome:

What countries are firearms completely prohibited in?


Did I say they were? I am sure there are but that isn't even close to the point. You asked why people were opposed to registration and we were explaining why.

Are you going to say that the UK, Australia and different US governments haven't used registration to later enforce confiscation of firearms? Because they did.
2013-01-06 10:54:34 PM
1 votes:

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 10:48:09 PM
1 votes:

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 10:44:41 PM
1 votes:

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 10:42:01 PM
1 votes:

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 10:39:02 PM
1 votes:
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 10:38:28 PM
1 votes:

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 10:37:39 PM
1 votes:
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 10:30:29 PM
1 votes:

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 10:29:20 PM
1 votes:
You guys have lost your collective friggen minds over guns.
2013-01-06 10:26:39 PM
1 votes:

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 10:18:18 PM
1 votes:

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 10:16:35 PM
1 votes:

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 10:15:23 PM
1 votes:

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 10:00:38 PM
1 votes:

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 10:00:25 PM
1 votes:

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 09:59:39 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-01-06 09:56:55 PM
1 votes:

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 09:55:39 PM
1 votes:

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 09:47:38 PM
1 votes:

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 09:42:10 PM
1 votes:

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 09:42:05 PM
1 votes:

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 09:41:01 PM
1 votes:

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 09:40:11 PM
1 votes:
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 09:38:28 PM
1 votes:

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 09:37:57 PM
1 votes:

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 09:37:28 PM
1 votes:

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 09:36:17 PM
1 votes:

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 09:35:40 PM
1 votes:

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 09:32:03 PM
1 votes:

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 09:28:55 PM
1 votes:

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 09:28:49 PM
1 votes:

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 09:26:22 PM
1 votes:

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 09:25:57 PM
1 votes:

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 09:25:26 PM
1 votes:

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 09:17:54 PM
1 votes:
Good. Call these bastards out.
2013-01-06 09:12:38 PM
1 votes:

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 09:05:17 PM
1 votes:

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 09:03:15 PM
1 votes:

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 08:59:21 PM
1 votes:

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 08:54:40 PM
1 votes:

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 08:52:24 PM
1 votes:

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 08:51:48 PM
1 votes:
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 08:51:12 PM
1 votes:
Thanks! That gives me a lot of choices for donations.
2013-01-06 08:48:41 PM
1 votes:

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 08:42:27 PM
1 votes:
they can add my name too.
2013-01-06 08:41:50 PM
1 votes:
Nice list of dumbasses you got there.
KIA
2013-01-06 08:34:39 PM
1 votes:
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 08:34:34 PM
1 votes:

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?
2013-01-06 08:32:13 PM
1 votes:

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 08:24:18 PM
1 votes:

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 08:23:35 PM
1 votes:

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 08:21:56 PM
1 votes:

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 08:20:42 PM
1 votes:

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 08:19:25 PM
1 votes:

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 08:18:50 PM
1 votes:
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 08:17:03 PM
1 votes:

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 08:15:22 PM
1 votes:
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 08:10:40 PM
1 votes:
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 08:09:33 PM
1 votes:

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 08:08:15 PM
1 votes:
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 08:07:51 PM
1 votes:

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 08:06:08 PM
1 votes:

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 08:05:24 PM
1 votes:

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 08:02:52 PM
1 votes:
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 08:02:45 PM
1 votes:

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 08:00:38 PM
1 votes:

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 08:00:03 PM
1 votes:
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 07:59:55 PM
1 votes:
The Constitution is not a suicide pact
2013-01-06 07:59:21 PM
1 votes:

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 07:59:00 PM
1 votes:

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 07:56:55 PM
1 votes:

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.
BHK
2013-01-06 07:56:48 PM
1 votes:

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 07:56:12 PM
1 votes:

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 07:53:55 PM
1 votes:
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 07:51:30 PM
1 votes:

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 07:49:52 PM
1 votes:

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 07:48:23 PM
1 votes:
Why isnt the NRA on that list? They backed the only anti-gun candidate who has passed anti second amendment legislation.
2013-01-06 07:46:07 PM
1 votes:

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 07:45:15 PM
1 votes:
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 07:45:01 PM
1 votes:

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 07:44:22 PM
1 votes:

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 07:41:50 PM
1 votes:

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 07:41:14 PM
1 votes:

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 07:41:12 PM
1 votes:

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 07:40:52 PM
1 votes:

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 07:39:58 PM
1 votes:

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 07:39:14 PM
1 votes:

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 07:37:10 PM
1 votes:
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 07:35:38 PM
1 votes:

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


Well said.
2013-01-06 07:35:29 PM
1 votes:

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 07:32:37 PM
1 votes:
...Jesus.

Question: How many of these people are actually anti-gun or just merely anti-idiot with gun?
2013-01-06 07:31:49 PM
1 votes:
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 07:29:55 PM
1 votes:

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 07:29:53 PM
1 votes:
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 07:29:30 PM
1 votes:
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 07:28:09 PM
1 votes:

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 07:26:04 PM
1 votes:
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 07:22:54 PM
1 votes:

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 07:21:30 PM
1 votes:
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 07:20:26 PM
1 votes:

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 07:19:35 PM
1 votes:

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 07:17:29 PM
1 votes:

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 07:17:14 PM
1 votes:

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 07:16:53 PM
1 votes:
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 07:16:04 PM
1 votes:

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 07:12:55 PM
1 votes:
They're surveyor marks.
2013-01-06 07:11:52 PM
1 votes:

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 07:11:43 PM
1 votes:

Sock Ruh Tease: The list:

American Firearms Association

lol wut?


Seems the AFA has a dual role. (eyeroll).
2013-01-06 07:08:59 PM
1 votes:
Cuisine excuses slavery?
2013-01-06 07:01:27 PM
1 votes:

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 07:01:12 PM
1 votes:

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 06:57:22 PM
1 votes:

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 06:49:24 PM
1 votes:
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 05:45:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:49:02 PM
1 votes:
Why is this scary?
2013-01-06 04:16:42 PM
1 votes:

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 04:10:16 PM
1 votes:

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 03:39:32 PM
1 votes:
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 03:11:46 PM
1 votes:
The list:

American Firearms Association

lol wut?
 
Displayed 252 of 252 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report