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.

(Guardian)   Obama may issue executive order on gun control, which will immediately triple the price of assault weapons and popcorn   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 203
    More: Interesting, assault weapons, Biden, presidential executive order, for sale by owner, force of law, semi-automatic rifle  
•       •       •

11845 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 4:52 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
2013-01-09 05:08:01 PM
11 votes:
I can't wait to be lectured about my gun rights by an administration responsible for giving guns to Mexican drug cartels.
2013-01-09 05:12:12 PM
8 votes:
A big chunk of gun-related deaths have to do with gang violence - which largely results from the drug war.

Want to lower gun deaths? End the drug war. Disarming the law-abiding populace is not the right answer.
2013-01-09 05:09:12 PM
8 votes:
Think about the principle of this.

What if he were to issue an executive order eroding some part of the first amendment? Or any of a number of others that you might favor. How would you react?

In my mind, it's the same thing.

Let's be more straightforward. If the 2nd amendment needs to go, amend the constitution. If we need to go to war, let's have Congress make a declaration thereof. Ad naseum.

Recall how most of us felt with the legal, extra-legal, and even ethical gymnastics that occurred to "legalize" torture?

It's just all the same to me.
2013-01-09 05:21:03 PM
6 votes:
Get ready for over 2/3 gop house and senate after '14 cycle and a gop potus in'16
2013-01-09 05:18:27 PM
6 votes:
I really thought it would be a while before we had a president do more damage to civil rights than George Bush.
2013-01-09 05:12:52 PM
6 votes:
Why is it absolutely imperative that something *must* be done? Violent crime is half what it was 40 years ago and the decline seems set to continue.
2013-01-09 05:10:15 PM
6 votes:

AbbeySomeone: I can understand rifles and pistols but why do people need the big weaponry ie, assault rifles, etc?


To shoot American soldiers and police officers.

Of course, they don't say that until later in the conversation but they get around to it eventually.
2013-01-09 05:09:05 PM
6 votes:

Mr.BobDobalita: super_grass: odinsposse: Oh, and there are about 80,000 alcohol related deaths per year. Cite

Yes but alcohol aren't deadly military-style killing machines designed to kill people harder than your average people-killing pistol.

Plus alcohol is my vice of choice, so hands off.

All rifles, including assault rifles killed ~400 people last year. I would guess Advil killed more.

I can't wrap my head around wanting to remove literally tens of millions of rifles to maybe sorta kinda have a possibility of a chance to reduce 400 murders, even though they probably would have been killed another way for pissing someone off enough to kill someone.



How about having the National Guard patrol black neighborhoods? Has Obama suggested that yet? I would imagine that could cut down on thousands of homicides a year.
2013-01-09 05:25:19 PM
5 votes:
All things that I don't completely agree with are scary, and I wish to deprive 315 million other people of their 2nd amendment rights as a result of my own fear, ignorance and cowardice
2013-01-09 05:09:28 PM
5 votes:

Mr.BobDobalita: super_grass: odinsposse: Oh, and there are about 80,000 alcohol related deaths per year. Cite

Yes but alcohol aren't deadly military-style killing machines designed to kill people harder than your average people-killing pistol.

Plus alcohol is my vice of choice, so hands off.

All rifles, including assault rifles killed ~400 people last year. I would guess Advil killed more.

I can't wrap my head around wanting to remove literally tens of millions of rifles to maybe sorta kinda have a possibility of a chance to reduce 400 murders, even though they probably would have been killed another way for pissing someone off enough to kill someone.


"Assault weapon bans" advocates are irrational, poorly informed and unreasonable. Facts are of absolutely no relevance to their position.
2013-01-09 04:58:06 PM
5 votes:
Obama: Gun salesperson of the decade.
2013-01-09 04:56:55 PM
5 votes:
Good. Long overdue.

Suck it, gun nuts.
2013-01-09 04:55:14 PM
5 votes:
I swear he's getting paid by the gun manufacturers.
2013-01-09 05:12:19 PM
4 votes:

jjorsett: "We are not going to get caught up in the notion that unless we can do everything we're going to do nothing," Biden said. "It's critically important that we act."

It would be nice if Democrats were willing to apply this standard to illegal immigration. Unless we have a "comprehensive" fix, they say, there's no point in doing anything else, like building a fence or stepping up workplace enforcement. Looks like their perspective mutates depending on the issue.


Psst, go look at deportation numbers under Obama. Now reevaluate your comment.
2013-01-09 05:09:12 PM
4 votes:
"We are not going to get caught up in the notion that unless we can do everything we're going to do nothing," Biden said. "It's critically important that we act."

It would be nice if Democrats were willing to apply this standard to illegal immigration. Unless we have a "comprehensive" fix, they say, there's no point in doing anything else, like building a fence or stepping up workplace enforcement. Looks like their perspective mutates depending on the issue.
2013-01-09 05:04:19 PM
4 votes:
Hey, if Congress won't act, it makes sense for Obama to do something.

Yeah, to hell with that separation of powers crap. We need a President for Life! Much more efficient.

/if he does an executive order, the civil war will start
2013-01-09 05:01:35 PM
4 votes:

wombatsrus: Hey, if Congress won't act, it makes sense for Obama to do something.


Well, except that whole separation of powers things. Obama doesn't get to make law.
2013-01-09 05:01:00 PM
4 votes:

hbk72777: Deaths from guns are on pace to surpass traffic deaths in the United States by 2015, according to a Bloomberg News study. In 2011, the latest year for which detailed statistics are available, there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms, down 3% from a year earlier."

Hate guns but believe they should be legal.

Cars are safer than they've ever been.Back up cameras, shiat to keep you awake, etc.

What executive order is the dumbass going to pass to stop the other 4000 murders?


Alcohol is probably a better analogy than cars. Most people use it for entertainment. Some people have a legitimate need for it. Some people abuse it. Banning it outright would cause more problems than it solves. Counseling for abusers/potential abusers is a better way to address the problems.
2013-01-09 04:25:07 PM
4 votes:

Dejah: I think some tea kettles would boil over.


This is probably just the Obama administration trolling the hell out of the libertarians, but we should at least consider the possibility that something more insidious is going on.  You're right:  this would really piss off the tea party, and they could conceivably go far enough to justify Obama cracking down with martial law.  I'm not saying it's going to happen that way, but we've got to start thinking like they do before it's too late.
2013-01-10 12:25:22 AM
3 votes:

whidbey: 1. Gun regulation does not equate to prohibition

There are some weapons that simply do not belong in our society. Replying with "I can think of lots of things you don't need" is an oftenheard and completely meaningless dodging statement.


That AR-15s are so dangerous as to not belong in society is an assertion without *any* evidence behind it. Some facts for you:

1- AR-15s and all "Assault Rifles" have been selling like hot cakes for the last 5 years or so. Most of the folks I know in the industry think the number is between 1-1.5 Million a year, every year, since about 2005. Even so, murders with ALL rifles, fell 28% between 2007 and 2011 (FBI Uniform Crime Report). Overall firearm murder dropped 15% over the same period. In the end, the debate about assault weapons is about the smallest niche of the overall gun murder problem; less than 150 victims out of a total of 8600. In other words, assault rifles are used in the commission of only 0.017% of all firearm murders.

2- There is little evidence to state that the use of an assault weapon has any effect on the lethality of mass shooters.

• The Sandy Hook shooter was active for just over 10 minutes, and fired less than 100 rounds. Hardly a rapid fire machine gun pace. The same act could have been committed with the multiple pistols he carried with absolutely no effect on the number of people killed.

• The Aurora shooter had an AR, but it jammed due to the (notoriously unreliable) 100 round drum magazine he used within the first 20 shots, most of which were initially fired into the ceiling. The majority of victims were shot with the Glock 22 and Remington 870 shotgun he carried.

• The Virginia Tech shooter used a Glock 19 handgun and a Walther P22 (a .22 caliber pistol). These weapons clearly had no detriment to his lethality, as VT was the largest mass shooting in US history.

• The Columbine shooters had Tec9 pistols with 10 round magazines. The Tec9 is one of those movie pistols (like a Desert Eagle or SPAS-12 shotgun) that is designed to look super evil, but has absolutely no tactical utility. No police, military or competitive shooters use them because they are unreliable and the ergonomics are simply horrid. In other words, they did what they did without the use of the sort of firearm the military would ever deploy.

The simple, undeniable point of all the evidence is the sad realization that shooting unarmed, often cowering civilians does not require an assault rifle, high capacity magazines or anything the Democrats are currently attempting to regulate.


2. Gun regulation should not be compared to other forms of regulation

Guns are a unique item. They are not akin to drugs, food, alcohol or tobacco. They are not knives or any other weapon. Oftentimes posters choose to make these comparisons because they want to dance around the issue and not really discuss it.


We are discussing the regulation of a product that some people perceive as offering absolutely no social utility while also perceiving a tremendous social cost. Strip the emotion out of the issue, and that is precisely what this is about.

Only it isn't what this debate is really about, is it?

Gun control is to Democrats what gay marriage is to Republicans, a crypto issue. Those on the left (generally) do not own guns, like guns, have knowledge of guns or any sort of personal investment in them. They perceive those who do as morally inferior troglodytes who live in the sticks, vote Republican and buy products based on their testosterone delinquency.

You have absolutely no real skin in the game in the debate about assault weapons. Strip away the emotion and look at the actual numbers, and your chances of being killed by one are about the same as being struck by lightening. Is it a problem we need to work towards a solution to? Absolutely, but it seems the only real Democrat answer is the same tired old record of instantly running to a strategy of banning something. Even though all the facts absolutely dispute the notion that such a ban will actually produce anything effective towards your publicly stated goals.

But that's OK for you. Your real goals have not one iota to do with the ones you all indignantly present to the public. The real goal is to stick it to gun owners. The real goal is to write some legislation that costs you nothing while trampling on a bunch of people who's ideology and aesthetic you despise.
2013-01-09 05:43:21 PM
3 votes:
"We are not going to get caught up in the notion that unless we can do everything we're going to do nothing," Biden said. "It's critically important that we act."

Translation: Doing "something" is far more important than doing something that works.
2013-01-09 05:33:52 PM
3 votes:
I like how owning one gun makes you a gun nut. Kinda like having one beer makes you an alcoholic, or one joint makes you a rapist.
2013-01-09 05:30:27 PM
3 votes:

duffblue: All things that I don't completely agree with are scary, and I wish to deprive 315 million other people of their 2nd amendment rights as a result of my own fear, ignorance and cowardice


YEp. This is what it boils down to. As I've said, all rifle murders in 2011 amounted to 400. "Assault rifles" were a subset of that already small number. What we're talking about with the anti-"assault" rifle people here is LITERALLY trampling the rights of tens of millions of people over 400 deaths.

The absurdity boggles the mind.
2013-01-09 05:29:35 PM
3 votes:

Gosling: Vectron: He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.

It was made the second 20 children died even if Obama sat on his ass. You're just using Obama as a fig leaf to cover up the fact that the shootings themselves cause gun sales to spike. Someone shooting a bunch of innocents is treated as nothing less than a shiny new Black Friday sale at every gun store in America, with a special on the gun that got used. That, in and of itself, is disgusting and abhorrent to watch, and statements like yours only fuel the fire to enact restrictions.


Do you understand why?

It's a reaction not to the event, but to the historic pattern of threats and attempted actions by federal politicians every time such an event has happened.

If there was a major media and political blitz to ban the public sales of automobiles every time a senior citizen plowed through a farmer's market, or a drunk driver killed a bunch of children, all in the name of pushing people into public transit and out of private car ownership, I can guarantee you that automobile sales would eventually start spiking every time such an event occurred so people could get a car before they were cut off.

If it was sports cars or muscle cars in particular, I can ABSOLUTELY guarantee you that every Mustang, Camaro, Corvette, Audi R8, Viper, and every other sports car that looked "fast" would be flying off the lot as people who wanted one tried to buy one while before a possible ban.
2013-01-09 05:22:45 PM
3 votes:

Oldiron_79: Get ready for over 2/3 gop house and senate after '14 cycle and a gop potus in'16


I am curious as to how many individuals who ridiculed expressed concerns of firearm confiscation during the election are now advocating firearm confiscation.
2013-01-09 05:18:01 PM
3 votes:

super_grass: In b4 gun nuts complain that Obama is somehow conspiring against them.

NOBODY IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR GUNZ AWAY


At the moment, no. But if you read and understand the mechanics of Feinstien's proposed bill - which the President is supporting fully - the government comes and takes them when I die. They cannot be sold to anyone, even another person licensed similarly under the proposed law, nor can they be inherited by my family.

So yes, it absolutely is confiscation. It's just slow, and quiet.

Entirely without incident.
2013-01-09 05:17:56 PM
3 votes:

Mr.BobDobalita: Dimensio: Mr.BobDobalita: super_grass: odinsposse: Oh, and there are about 80,000 alcohol related deaths per year. Cite

Yes but alcohol aren't deadly military-style killing machines designed to kill people harder than your average people-killing pistol.

Plus alcohol is my vice of choice, so hands off.

All rifles, including assault rifles killed ~400 people last year. I would guess Advil killed more.

I can't wrap my head around wanting to remove literally tens of millions of rifles to maybe sorta kinda have a possibility of a chance to reduce 400 murders, even though they probably would have been killed another way for pissing someone off enough to kill someone.

"Assault weapon bans" advocates are irrational, poorly informed and unreasonable. Facts are of absolutely no relevance to their position.

Well not to be all paranoid and conspiracy-ish... but that's what leads me to believe that there's more to this.... we're realistically talking about a VERY small percentage of the murders and people are touting it as if it's going to solve all the problems of the US.

If it was really about saving lives, wouldn't they focus on something that takes much more life than AR-15s?

Also, I keep harping on this. Some of the most conservative estimates of defensive gun uses per year put the numbers at 60-80k. I've heard 100k from an anti-gun university prof. I"ve heard 3-400k from several studies and even 2.5 million (which I don't believe)

So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.


I do not attribute to malice what is easily attributed to incompetence. I believe that most "assault weapons bans" advocates believe that such an imposition would reduce rates of violent crime. I merely recognize that such a belief is not rationally supported by data.
2013-01-09 05:15:13 PM
3 votes:

Dimensio: Mr.BobDobalita: super_grass: odinsposse: Oh, and there are about 80,000 alcohol related deaths per year. Cite

Yes but alcohol aren't deadly military-style killing machines designed to kill people harder than your average people-killing pistol.

Plus alcohol is my vice of choice, so hands off.

All rifles, including assault rifles killed ~400 people last year. I would guess Advil killed more.

I can't wrap my head around wanting to remove literally tens of millions of rifles to maybe sorta kinda have a possibility of a chance to reduce 400 murders, even though they probably would have been killed another way for pissing someone off enough to kill someone.

"Assault weapon bans" advocates are irrational, poorly informed and unreasonable. Facts are of absolutely no relevance to their position.


Well not to be all paranoid and conspiracy-ish... but that's what leads me to believe that there's more to this.... we're realistically talking about a VERY small percentage of the murders and people are touting it as if it's going to solve all the problems of the US.

If it was really about saving lives, wouldn't they focus on something that takes much more life than AR-15s?

Also, I keep harping on this. Some of the most conservative estimates of defensive gun uses per year put the numbers at 60-80k. I've heard 100k from an anti-gun university prof. I"ve heard 3-400k from several studies and even 2.5 million (which I don't believe)

So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.
2013-01-09 05:12:59 PM
3 votes:
NPR ran a story a few weeks ago regarding gun manufacturers, the NRA, gun owners, etc. They brought up an interesting point about guns: unlike most other products, they're durable and don't need to be replaced every few years. Plenty of people are still hunting with ol' Grandad's 80-year-old rifle. The only way gun makers survive is by selling new weapons, not replacements. Paranoia and panic ("herp derp, government's gonna take away yer guns!") feed right into their need to make sales, so it won't surprise me one bit if the NRA (aka gun maker's lobby) actually supports certain facets of potential restrictions that boost sales.
2013-01-09 05:09:33 PM
3 votes:
Not that I"m saying I would want to be shot by ANY of these... but seriously... why are people calling the .223 "high powered"? High powered .22 maybe...

www.firearmstalk.com
2013-01-09 05:06:45 PM
3 votes:

AbbeySomeone: I can understand rifles and pistols but why do people need the big weaponry ie, assault rifles, etc?


You do realize that we're not talking about actual assault rifles, don't you? Those are already heavily regulated. We're talking about semi-automatic rifles that are actually less powerful than many traditional hunting rifles (but are also semi-automatic, lever, or bolt action, depending on the specific rifle). They just look different.
2013-01-09 05:06:31 PM
3 votes:

super_grass: odinsposse: Oh, and there are about 80,000 alcohol related deaths per year. Cite

Yes but alcohol aren't deadly military-style killing machines designed to kill people harder than your average people-killing pistol.

Plus alcohol is my vice of choice, so hands off.


All rifles, including assault rifles killed ~400 people last year. I would guess Advil killed more.

I can't wrap my head around wanting to remove literally tens of millions of rifles to maybe sorta kinda have a possibility of a chance to reduce 400 murders, even though they probably would have been killed another way for pissing someone off enough to kill someone.
2013-01-09 05:05:45 PM
3 votes:

nevirus: Obama's gotta be trolling. This has been one of the hottest, most emotional issues for the 'baggers lately


It's one of the hottest, most emotional issues for the rest of America too. 20 slaughtered children will do that.
2013-01-09 05:03:24 PM
3 votes:
Obama's gotta be trolling. This has been one of the hottest, most emotional issues for the 'baggers lately... he's trying to get their heads to explode.
2013-01-09 04:57:23 PM
3 votes:
Probably not a good time to have a job in a federal building.

/At least, move your kids to another daycare
2013-01-10 02:09:51 AM
2 votes:

Dan the Schman: During the ten-year assault weapons ban, there were 15 mass shootings, where 192 people were injured or killed.

In the 8 years since the ban was lifted, there have been 28 mass shootings, where 460 people have been injured or killed.


Maybe we should ban mass shootings.
2013-01-10 12:24:38 AM
2 votes:
OK A little less severe..

I will submit to a National gun registration that includes a mental health evaluation ONLY if you submit to a National Federal ID Card that is required for voting and public assistance including food stamps, WIC, Unemployment Benefits, SSI and Welfare. This card can only be issued to US Citizens (Natural Born to US Citizens or Legally Naturalized). That same ID card will track the mental stability of the holder as well as establishing him as a citizen of the United States of America. This card must also let the holder to purchase firearms and ammunition w/out any further verification or background check.
2013-01-09 08:30:53 PM
2 votes:

whidbey: But--Socialism. For a lack of a better term. Republicans want to cut social programs, and they were the ones who put a lot of mentally ill people back on the streets back during the Reagan Era.


Can we agree that ending the War on Drugs and better funding of mental health programs (up to and including involuntary institutionalizing) would probably reduce gun violence? If you and I can agree on anything, there might be a chance to make real progress.
2013-01-09 08:07:25 PM
2 votes:

whidbey: I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.


I happen to agree. Except my definition of a "military-grade" weapon is based on what actually is a military-grade weapon, and yours is based on what you imagine one to be.
2013-01-09 07:38:09 PM
2 votes:

here to help: Now keep the f*ckers locked up when not in use.


They are.

LasersHurt:

Nobody wants to take your guns. Nobody of any merit or in any position of power, that is.


"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

But then again she also said "I believe the Patriot Act is vital to the protection of the American people."
2013-01-09 06:27:56 PM
2 votes:
You can always count on the government to have some knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy which results in more legislation and shiatty unintended consequences.
2013-01-09 06:17:16 PM
2 votes:

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Fark It: I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out

Drone strikes have killed about 200 children worldwide since 2004.

Guns Killed 5,728 kids in America in 2008-2009.

So... You ready to come to the table now?


How many of those kids were really teenagers involved in gang activity, and how am I in any way responsible for them? Why is it that whenever a bunch of ghetto animals shoot at each other as a result of the drug war or some lunatic goes on a shooting rampage we look to gun owners (80 million Americans) and say 'bite the pillow, for the children!'
2013-01-09 06:00:26 PM
2 votes:
I remember back during the Bush administration when executive orders were bad. Good times.
2013-01-09 05:39:12 PM
2 votes:

Thunderpipes: Pretty factual that the assault weapons ban did absolutely nothing to lower crime as well. That doesn't bother libs. Chicago is the MDK capital of the country with very restrictive gun laws. Don't let that stop you.


You've hit on two things, I think:
1) The assault rifle ban isn't worth the paper it's written on because no one's committing murder or defending themselves from 400 yards and from 15 feet you might as well use a pistol and
2) Your likelihood of being murdered goes down a whole lot if you're not part of a gang.

/New Orleans and Detroit are the murder capitals
2013-01-09 05:36:31 PM
2 votes:

Infernalist: buffalosoldier: Infernalist: duffblue: Infernalist: Xcott: Vectron: He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.

Well, unless he plans on tripling the price by declaring a 200 PERCENT FIREARM TAX.

Actually, that wouldn't be bad public policy. Newtown happened not because "guns are legal," but because a schizo kid had a goddamn arsenal right there in his house. And that happened because it's become a teatard fad for everyone and your mother to have a badass arsenal for recreational shooting and because society's about to collapse. One of those oodles of heavily armed people is bound to have a schizo kid.

To combat this, what you need to do is have a policy that lets people keep and bear arms, but somehow reduces the raw number of weapons and "enthusiasts" stockpiling assault rifles on every block. A massive tax would probably serve that purpose.

$5000 per bullet should suffice.

How to you intend to reduce gun violence when every single firearm already purchased is grandfathered in?

If I had my way, I'd have the gun factories shut down. Without a steady flood of new guns into the system, the problem will solve itself in about 50 years.

Be glad a real liberal isn't in the President's seat.

Considering I was out shooting my damn near 150 year old mosin nagant yesterday, that is pretty funny.

Planning to do any school massacres with that single shot pos?


You mean the gun that shoots a round capable of turning cinder block into dust and penetrating 1/2" steel at 175 yards? .223 is a joke.
2013-01-09 05:33:28 PM
2 votes:
I think this is just a way to get the economy moving. Scaring fat pasty white people into buying more guns and ammo. The paranoid losers fall for it every time.
2013-01-09 05:23:29 PM
2 votes:

ronaprhys: AbbeySomeone: I can understand rifles and pistols but why do people need the big weaponry ie, assault rifles, etc?

You do realize that we're not talking about actual assault rifles, don't you? Those are already heavily regulated. We're talking about semi-automatic rifles that are actually less powerful than many traditional hunting rifles (but are also semi-automatic, lever, or bolt action, depending on the specific rifle). They just look different.


Right. This isn't about "the big weaponry". The Feinstein bill would do nothing about machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, cannons, etc. Those things are already illegal as hell unless you go through some very rigorous paperwork signed off by the local police chief and the ATF.

What it would do, is make most of the guns in the country overnight into "dangerous military weapons" in the eyes of the law and permit the government to seize them. Basically anything with a detachable magazine, even if the normal magazine is a five-round box, could be construed as an "assault" weapon, because it maybe might just be able to have a large magazine attached instead.

Personally, I'm all for increased and expanded background checks, better tracking of large sales, some additional restrictions of online sales, and I would actually support making detachable magazines over 15 rounds into NFA items (meaning you have to pay a special tax and register them with the government, the same as silencers). I also think it should be required that every firearm sold comes with a tamper-resistant trigger lock provided by the manufacturer (either built into the gun, or removable, as long as it meets a minimum standard).

But this bill that's being proposed? No, it's bullshiat, and it won't save any lives.
2013-01-09 05:12:15 PM
2 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: AbbeySomeone: I can understand rifles and pistols but why do people need the big weaponry ie, assault rifles, etc?

To shoot American soldiers and police officers.

Of course, they don't say that until later in the conversation but they get around to it eventually.


And they always start off the conversation as 'angry law-abiding citizens' and end up visualizing themselves alongside Patrick Swazye in Red Dawn. Only they're not firing at Cubans and Russians, they're firing at American soldiers.
2013-01-09 05:09:43 PM
2 votes:

Giltric: super_grass: odinsposse: Oh, and there are about 80,000 alcohol related deaths per year. Cite

Yes but alcohol aren't deadly military-style killing machines designed to kill people harder than your average people-killing pistol.

Plus alcohol is my vice of choice, so hands off.

so your an alchoholic?

Like I am a gun nut?



Yes, but my particular vice's deaths are spread out and rarely occupies an entire news cycle and is more "socially acceptable". There's no particular cluster of killings that people can point to, therefore it's safe.

/s
2013-01-09 05:08:27 PM
2 votes:

AbbeySomeone: I can understand rifles and pistols but why do people need the big weaponry ie, assault rifles, etc?


Assault rifles shoot the same size of cartrige as many hunging rifles. In fact, the typical assault riflle cartridge (.223/5.56 Nato) is on the small side for rifle calibers.
2013-01-09 05:06:51 PM
2 votes:
Tens of millions would consider such a thing treason and refuse to comply. I hope.
2013-01-09 05:06:00 PM
2 votes:
2013-01-09 05:02:32 PM
2 votes:

RickN99: Damn it! I've been trying to buy an AR-15 for 3 months as my Christmas present to myself. Between the empty shelves and the jacked-up prices, I have been waiting for things to settle down.

This is not helping!


For about 400$ you can build a receiver. Then order the upper for a few hundred more. You can't ever sell it but there you go.

Enjoy your rights while you can.
2013-01-09 04:59:01 PM
2 votes:
Hey, if Congress won't act, it makes sense for Obama to do something.
2013-01-09 04:57:59 PM
2 votes:

Emposter: "We are not going to get caught up in the notion that unless we can do everything we're going to do nothing," Biden said. "It's critically important that we act."

Oh, I'm sure you guys will do something...whether it's a horrible abortion of a bill, twisted into worthlessness as a result of misguided desire to compromise and not piss off the nutwing right, is the actual question.


Or, you know, not shiat on the Constitution. There is that, you know.
2013-01-09 04:54:52 PM
2 votes:
And I may suddenly mutate into a dragon that breathes lightning and shiats diamonds.

Come back when you morons have something more concrete than "May," "Might" or "Could."
2013-01-09 04:53:58 PM
2 votes:
If I were a selfish 1% with a warehouse full of semi-autos and my own private police I'd support a ban too.
2013-01-09 04:37:43 PM
2 votes:

Lucky LaRue: You're right: this would really piss off the tea party, and they could conceivably go far enough to justify Obama cracking down with martial law.


The Hoverounds would die before they got anywhere near the capitol.
2013-01-10 08:04:21 PM
1 votes:

MythDragon: RickN99: Damn it! I've been trying to buy an AR-15 for 3 months as my Christmas present to myself. Between the empty shelves and the jacked-up prices, I have been waiting for things to settle down.

This is not helping!

Might I suggest:
[sgcusa.com image 850x374]

Acurate, compact, and takes standard AR-15 Mags


Just another display of the government - starting at the top (Obama) - trying to do one thing and causing the opposite to occur. For the record I am a firearms owner and yes, do have an AR-15 (excellent varmit shooting rifle and just FUN to shoot).

So what does nitwit Obama do? Announces a possible ban on "assault weapons" (whatever the f*ck those are) which...CRANKS UP the sale of said arms! Now more people than ever - and probably the type of people who buy a gun and never learn how to use it responsibly - are snatching up the AR's and the AK's. I feel safer, Obama (you dumb f*ck).

And again...what IS a "assault rifle"? Many more murders using "non-assault" rifles (e.g. your bolt-action rifles) occur each year in the U.S. I also posted before some interesting homicide figures from Chicago (where I live). In 2011, of the 360 or so gun-related homicides, all but 10 were committed via handgun. Of the 10 left over, there was not ONE MURDER that could be specifically tied to an "assault rifle". There were a couple of shotgun homicides..a couple of "unknowns"...but assaults with guns are - 99% of the time - using some sort of handgun (revolver or semi-auto).

So any proposed "assault weapon" ban...including any ban related to magazine capacity...will do basically zero to curb gun violence.

You want to stop shooters? Here's some advise: DON'T F*CKING MAKE THE SHOOTER A CELEBRITY!!!.

Do you know any names killed in Aurora? Nope. But you know the gunboy's name.

Do you know any names of those killed at Sandy Hook? Nope. But you know the gunboy's name.
So my opinions - being just that - come with a lot of empirical data to support them.
2013-01-10 11:06:38 AM
1 votes:

Xcott: trotsky: The problem is in the current debate the morons are making all the rest of us, the majority, look like idiots too.

Oh, this is so true. If we end up with a serious ban, it won't be just due to liberals screaming for a serious ban; it will also be because the Republic of Derptardistan decided to appoint themselves as representatives of the other side of the debate, making gun rights advocates look like everyone's crazy uncle.


If you were the host of a nightly television show and the topic was going to be the RKBA, would you pick someone calm, cool and collected who knows what they are talking about where you might end up looking stupid, or would you pick someone like Alex Jones to interview?
2013-01-10 06:48:13 AM
1 votes:

Deep Contact: What's the real reason for gun confiscation?


Using fear to gain power.

The US has a long history of organized violence that's been a stumbling block to bureaucrats and authoritarians. It makes even simple actions, like strike breaking or extradition, into very dangerous and messy affairs. It turns things like a poorly thought out drug policy into a visible and painful war.

There are people who think they can fix things by gaining more control over the public. The same kinds of people who thought they could fix the hippy problem by banning weed think they can fix the violence problem by changing the tools we use. If they can dictate more of your life, surely they can stop you from doing wrong things.

When they are confronted with a problem, its always control-o'clock.
2013-01-10 12:39:31 AM
1 votes:
Woah, woah, woah. There are plenty of liberals who believe our right to guns and see through the idiocy of gun bans.

When someone is anti-gun despite all reason, we call these people "idiots".


The funny thing is, I'm one of them. Voted for Obama. Wanna see single payer healthcare. All for cutting the military budget (and making minor tweaks to entitlements). I was generally much more inclined to lean towards the Democrats, especially given the idiotic derp fest that has become the modern Republican party.

Honestly though, the way the Democrats have handled the gun issue over the last 2 weeks, has made me question my generally decent opinion of them. The just blatant lack of technical knowledge about the issue (especially from politicians like DiFi, who claim to have been deeply involved in it for decades) is insulting. The complete lack of any factual evidence to back up their wildly hyperbolic statements is outright disgusting. The rhetoric they are spouting ("Conversation" "I support the 2nd Amendment" "We need to put everything on the table") is so totally disconnected from their actions.

Guns are an issue I know pretty well. I was in the military. I'm a former EMT. I'm a competitive shooter. One of my businesses makes parts for ARs. Given how utterly stupid the Democrats have been about gun control, I seriously question any trust I've put in them when they address issues I am nowhere near as familiar with.

Logic, reason and evidence based decision making seems to have totally escaped the Democratic party in favor of emotion and hyperbole. It is absolutely disgusting.
2013-01-10 12:30:41 AM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iq_in_binary: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Dimensio: demaL-demaL-yeH: I'm adamantly anti pistol and anti concealed carry.


Pistol ownership is Constitutionally protected.

I am certain that you will be able to vindicate your "anti concealed carry" position through reference to data showing concealed weapons permit holders to commit violent crime at a rate substantially greater than that of the general adult population.


I'm OK with shotguns and real, useful rifles, and not OK boys' barbie substitutes with detachable magazines.

What is a "barbie substitute"?


I am especially not OK with large-capacity magazines.

What is a "large-capacity magazine"?

Over ten rounds.

There were rifles in the 18th century with higher capacity than that.

Over 30 rounds is fine to consider "high capacity."

Otherwise you're just being pathetically pedantic and melodramatic.

Hey, I like your plan better. Go ahead and run that past him.


I've actually been thinking about trying a Fark initiative a la Give Biden the Bird kind of thing to get the idea out there and spammed into as many political mailboxes as possible to give the idea traction. It's the only plan that could actually pass the SCOTUS, has enough carrot to bring NRA types to the table, and would actually start getting problem guns off the streets and keep them out of the hands of crazies. If enough Republicans saw the writing on the wall and could claim even a slight victory with the Hughes amendment being repealed, they might latch on to it.

But I've sort of been burned from the conversation with anybody who even takes the subject seriously on the Republican side because I actively campaigned for Obama, and from the Democratic side because my suggestion doesn't have any bans.

Sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing. Maybe I should just relish in pissing everybody off.
2013-01-09 11:55:08 PM
1 votes:

ontariolightning: I hope they try to take away your guns. And then militias form and attack government buildngs. That would be hilarious


You have demonstrated previously willful ignorance regarding firearm regulation in the United States of America when you claimed established federal law to be "NRA propaganda". Your opinions lack a reasonable basis.
2013-01-09 11:15:05 PM
1 votes:

TheJoe03: Xcott: You could say the same thing about dying in a terrorist attack---it's far more likely to die in a car crash, or of influenza. So by this logic, we shouldn't have done anything about Al Qaeda or 9/11. I mean, percentage-wise it's like it didn't even happen, amirite?

Well just like with 9/11, a tragedy is being used to justify an attack on our civil liberties.


Good point.

A crucial difference, however, is that with 9/11, the people who opposed the attack on our civil liberties actually suggested some alternative courses of action that could reduce our terrorism risk, like having a substantial air marshall program, focusing our defense department back to terrorism and crippling terror networks, etc.

In sad contrast, 2nd amendment supporters don't seem to offer any credible or convincing alternative policy to the ban-hammer they may be facing. Gun rights advocates could be out there proposing policies to address and reverse the paranoid cultural fad of gun hoarding that seemed to be the enabling factor of the Newtown shooting. You could find ways to do this without banning anything. But the NRA won't do this because that fad is huge business.
2013-01-09 10:32:00 PM
1 votes:

rufus-t-firefly: Try shopping for penis pumps instead. Much cheaper, about as effective, and less of a danger to society.


Once again, someone chimes in with the "penis" thing. What is with you people and your obsession with penii?
2013-01-09 10:31:33 PM
1 votes:

odinsposse: Doomed to a declining homicide rate?


You mean the declining homicide rate that is already occurring and has been for years? Your argument sounds like someone saying that banning drugs will lead to less drug use.
2013-01-09 10:23:03 PM
1 votes:

dennysgod: Oh NOW Conservative have a problem with "all options on the table"

They are all for it when it could lead to war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, but if it limits they ability to play with their toys, the are all wharrgable.

Most of the guns they are targeting are practically useless for personal protection because they are too large and cumbersome and aren't practical for hunting either, their just a civilianized version of a military weapon, they are about as useless as the H2, the civilianized version of the HumVee except to overcompensate for something.

A Ruger SR9 is great for personal protection, they can be easily carried, fit nicely under a pillow or nightstand for those "stand your ground" moments, and they are fun to target shoot as well. An AR-15...not so much save the last one.


I find this "You can't use it for home protection or hunting" claims kind of odd when they are right next to the "you can use it to kill people" statements. They seem awfully contradictory.
2013-01-09 10:13:26 PM
1 votes:

The Dog Ate My Homework: Calm down people. Regular occurrences of mass murder in our schools, movie theaters, and churches is simply the price we have to pay for the freedom to own semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity clips. It's a small price to pay for the ability to protect ourselves if...uh...well, I'm sure people need those things for something important. It can't be true that they just think they look cool.


We must strip more power from all people, and give it to the administrators who brought us the presidency of George W Bush, for the sake of a 0.02% reduction in the murder rate, which is already in freefall.

anything else is madness.
2013-01-09 10:08:09 PM
1 votes:
This part I found particularly Biden-ish:
"We are not going to get caught up in the notion that unless we can do everything we're going to do nothing,"

That notion is based on the constitution his boss claims to have studied in detail. It dictates that if you go hunting and pecking for ways to "do something" about peoples rights, you work in contempt of everything the nation was founded on.
Since we've already twisted the definition of infringement to the breaking point, I suggest he focus his underlings on their previously appointed task of fighting crime, providing health care, and fixing the economy.
Otherwise....

Maul555: well I am looking forward to participating in yet another government created black market...


Agreed.
If there's no money for school security, there won't be any money for this paper tiger Biden's making.
Might as well make an easy buck off it.

/I never got into chemistry and sucked as a gardener anyway.
2013-01-09 10:01:58 PM
1 votes:

AbbeySomeone: I can understand rifles and pistols but why do people need the big weaponry ie, assault rifles, etc?


Because "assault rifle" is a shiatty term that describes weapons based mostly on cosmetic features, and rifles that are in most cases less powerful than common "hunting rifles" that people are ready to say "I'll accept" to without knowing the difference. A common problem is the term "high powered assault rifle". The AR-15, which uses a .223 caliber bullet is not actually a very powerful rifle, and the way it looks has nothing to do with it being "more dangerous". The pistol grip, barrel shroud, muzzle break, etc, don't do anything to make it more military, and don't add anything that you can't add to a "hunting rifle"> They may affect the recoil, making it easier to shoot, but I could go buy a .30-06 and slap a stock on it that made it just as "military looking" as an AR-15, but it would be far more powerful, yet still one of those "hunting rifles" that people say they "accept".
2013-01-09 09:57:46 PM
1 votes:
Meh. I refuse to get draw into this impotent blather. Come what may, times are getting very interesting.
2013-01-09 09:14:31 PM
1 votes:

Toquinha: Yup, because making it too expensive to legally own a firearm is going to stop a person who wants to kill a whole bunch of people and has just the right amount of determination.


In gun-ban logic land, humans are immortal and invincible except for small pieces of lead traveling at high speed.
2013-01-09 09:02:21 PM
1 votes:
i253.photobucket.com

No matter how I begged Mumsy would never let me get a toy gun. So me and the neighbor kids played Cowboys and Indians and Diplomat.

I have to say, it was tough but thanks to Mumsy's helicopter parenting, I can write one hell of a treaty.
2013-01-09 08:32:25 PM
1 votes:

CynicalLA: These threads always prove the same thing. That it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with a gun nut. Bad analogies and trying to discredit people because of semantics. Bring on the bans if these idiots won't compromise.


I think if someone would come up with specifics about what should be allowed and what wouldn't there'd be a lot of discourse. In this case semantics matter as they relate to actual functions and abilities of firearms.
2013-01-09 08:31:11 PM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: EatenTheSun: LasersHurt: I legitimately didn't think "one person said something once" was on the list.

It is when that person is a U.S. Senator.

No, it's not. Our people have also suggested that women's bodies can shut down rape, that islands might tip over. They say all kinds of stupid shiat. If you lose your shiat every time, you don't look credible.


Pretty sure a whole bunch of people lost their shiat over the"legitimate rape" thing. And rightfully so.
2013-01-09 08:28:44 PM
1 votes:
Any of you that are not bothered by the Executive branch considering this... yet were bothered by the over-reaching the Bush administration did using Executive Orders (essentially... "Liberals")...

You are hypocritical, partisan assholes. Go fark yourselves.

We don't have a King.
2013-01-09 08:23:48 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Government Fromage: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "If it's good enough for the professional, it's good enough for you. Bushmaster. The world's finest AR-platform rifle."

[www.motherjones.com image 466x625]

Congratulations. Dumb advertising is dumb. It's *not* what the professionals (assuming they mean soldiers) use.

Only marketed as such.


Pretty much, but marketing goes a long way. An AR15 and it's military equivalent are about as similar as your Ford Taurus and the one driven by some Nascar guy.
2013-01-09 08:23:47 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: Insisting on specifics is a delay tactic at best.


The "specifics" are what separate the informed participants from the intellectually lazy.
2013-01-09 08:21:06 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point


I don't think the distinction is as large as you think it is. In reality, what you would call (or at least what I think you would call, because again, I can't get a definition for 'assault weapon' or 'military grade weapon') an assault weapon isn't that much different than a hell of a lot of other guns on the market that you would say you don't want to ban.

whidbey: especially if it looks


What does cosmetics have to do with anything?

whidbey: and acts like a military weapon.


Lots of guns act like military weapons. The biggest differences between what the military uses and what you would find in a comparable civilian gun (other than full auto, which you really don't see in civilian hands) are that the military tends to go with very versatile platforms. It's not that an AR15 type gun is better than what a civilian has (in fact it can be a lot worse when you look at individual uses), it's that it's suitable for many uses at once. That's one of the biggest reasons civilians like them, they can buy one gun that they can do many things with.

whidbey: I don't know. Is your hunting rifle comparable to what the shooter at Sandy Hook used?


Depends on what aspects you are comparing.

whidbey: Or it a lesser powered weapon more suitable to hunting deer?


It's much more powerful, and more accurate. Rate of fire is lower though, I'll give you that. Of course, if we're going to talk rate of fire (and limits on it) you really ought to compare the actual rate of fire used, not what it is technically capable of. For instance, the Sandy Hook killer used about 150 rounds (from what I can tell anyway) in something like 15 minutes. That averages out to 10RPM, or not very fast I can easily hit that with my old bolt action 'hunting rifle'. In fact, the soldiers trained to use the Lee Enfield were trained to hit a minimum of 20RPM, aimed fire. That means 20 rounds hitting a target at 100yd, every minute. More than enough for a spree killer.

justtray: ROFL. Alt outed.


Not sure how misquoting two different people makes either an alt, but that seems to be about your level of logic.
2013-01-09 08:20:31 PM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: I legitimately didn't think "one person said something once" was on the list.


It is when that person is a U.S. Senator.
2013-01-09 08:17:16 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: This really REALLY doesn't have to be as hard or as convoluted as some of you are making. Just an observation.


You're the one making it difficult by being vague.

The EPA suggests fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. For vehicles over a certain weight, they require a certain MPG. Vehicles under a certain weight require a certain MPG. They dont come out and say "Cars should get pretty good gas mileage and trucks and SUVs and stuff should get decent but not bad MPG - There you have it auto industry - go comply.

When you are arguing for something to be legal or illegal or registered or unregistered, you should have easily-understood criteria.
2013-01-09 08:16:53 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: Dimensio: whidbey: EatenTheSun: If you are going to argue that there should be legislation against something, shouldn't you at least know a little bit about what that something is before writing the legislation?

If I were writing the legislation, yes.

To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point. The question is whether such a rifle should be readily available to the public, especially if it looks and acts like a military weapon.

Assault rifles are already federally restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not readily available to civilians.

OK so everything's fine and dandy.

What is it exactly you're afraid of losing the right to use? Is this a hunting issue? Is this a target-shooting issue? Enlighten me.


My primary concern is that the lack of rational discourse and the lack of reasonable proposals from either "side" of the discussion -- as prominent lawmakers who oppose firearm regulation oppose any regulation at all, and prominent lawmakers who advocate firearm regulation advocate entirely unreasonable and arbitrary prohibitions that are typically unrelated to the actual lethality or utility of the firearms that they seek to ban -- will result either in no new regulation at all, or will result in substantially restrictive legislation that impacts the rights of citizens who have committed no crime. Additionally, because such restrictive legislation is a blanket prohibition based upon arbitrary characteristics, rather than an effort to restrict access to any firearms to those who would misuse them, further high-profile violent crimes will continue to occur as those who commit them will merely use different, non-banned, firearms to commit them. Rather than accept their initial methodology of banning entire classes of firearms to be faulty, firearm regulation advocates will instead erroneously conclude that they simply did not ban a sufficient scope of firearms and they will still continue to entirely fail to address a problem of violent individuals obtaining weapons of any kind.
2013-01-09 08:16:13 PM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: GoldSpider: Government Fromage: Is this were I mention that most rifles used for deer are usually more powerful than a .223?

Or that many (most, even?) hunting rifles can pierce armor?

And how most of them are designed to fire 30 rounds as fast as you can fire, because that's how you hunt.

No, wait, no...


There are a huge plethora of magazine-fed hunting rifles on the market. A quick followup shot can mean the difference between successfully dropping an animal humanely or having a mortally injured one escape.

And if you'd ever had to deal with bears or wild pigs, you'd understand that you want as many shots as you can get because even several frequently won't stop them. 500lbs of angry pig or 900lbs of pissed grizzly doesn't give a flying frak about the "why" behind you fumbling to get another round into your federally-mandated single shot rifle. All it knows is that you are about to experience a world of pain.

This is all academic, though... given that the word "hunting" or "sport" is nowhere to be found in the 2nd amendment, and that if I have to defend my family or myself, I don't really care about being "sporting" with someone trying to harm them. I care about putting as many hits on the target as fast as possible to stop the threat.
2013-01-09 08:13:17 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: And you don't really come across as someone who's cool with gun regulation, not in this thread, anyway.


It's because most of the regulation being discussed in this (and every other thread) does nothing to address what I consider the two biggest factors in gun violence: the ability of someone to illegally obtain a gun (something that making legal purchases more restrictive does nothing to address) and the motivations behind gun violence (for example, the crime surrounding the illegal drug trade).
2013-01-09 08:11:19 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point.

You can't even define what it is that you fear, yet still feel qualified to opine on the subject.

You too. Talk about the real issue, and stop trying to trip people up in semantics.

I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.


If you cannot define "military-grade weapons", then your question is without meaning. It is as reasonable as questioning why "perversion" is shown on television without defining "perversion".
2013-01-09 08:09:45 PM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: Senator Feinstein stated it, and in doing so she explicitly expressed a desire to "take" guns.

And after saying it, was it ever put in writing and brought to any level of the Congress? No, it was not. She just said it.

That it was never brought to any "level" of Congress is irrelevant; the statement itself is sufficient to prove the claim that "Nobody wants to take your guns. Nobody of any merit or in any position of power, that is." to be false; Senator Feinstein explicitly expressed such a "want".

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that what I meant was "This is an absolutely retarded thing to worry about, because nobody is TRYING to take your guns, and there is no popular support for the idea of taking your guns."


Then you should have stated such, rather than stating the much more generalized (and demonstrably false) claim that no such desire exists.
2013-01-09 08:08:39 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: EatenTheSun: If you are going to argue that there should be legislation against something, shouldn't you at least know a little bit about what that something is before writing the legislation?

If I were writing the legislation, yes.

To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point. The question is whether such a rifle should be readily available to the public, especially if it looks and acts like a military weapon.


Assault rifles are already federally restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not readily available to civilians.
2013-01-09 08:04:46 PM
1 votes:

DORMAMU: That is 10 firearms just based on caliber. Different manufacurues or brands have different pro/cons. Also, what if you are hunting with your child? Family outing to the range?


How did you get into my cabinet?

justtray: Gun nuts love semantic arguments


It's not a semantic argument at all, and your refusal to believe that won't change that fact.

here to help: You know bloody well what I'm talking about.


I really don't, and I'm pretty damn certain you don't either. Responding to my argument with a 'Pfft, whatever' doesn't make the facts any less true. Refusing to do even a little bit of research on a subject doesn't mean the facts aren't out there for you to find. Ignoring the facts when they are presented to you makes you the person unwilling to have a reasonable discussion.
2013-01-09 08:04:24 PM
1 votes:

Jaws_Victim: a liberal is intent on getting their point across in a dignified manner that is meant to respect all parties and Piers did that admirably.


"You are an incredibly stupid man"
2013-01-09 08:04:12 PM
1 votes:
I don't know why the gun owners are upset.

Now they can do what they've been keeping their stockpile of weapons for.

If the government starts restricting guns in ways they don't like, they can start killing every police officer, member of the armed forces, and government official.

You know, to protect us. From us.
2013-01-09 08:02:29 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point.


You can't even define what it is that you fear, yet still feel qualified to opine on the subject.
2013-01-09 08:01:05 PM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: Dimensio: Senator Feinstein stated it, and in doing so she explicitly expressed a desire to "take" guns.

And after saying it, was it ever put in writing and brought to any level of the Congress? No, it was not. She just said it.


That it was never brought to any "level" of Congress is irrelevant; the statement itself is sufficient to prove the claim that "Nobody wants to take your guns. Nobody of any merit or in any position of power, that is." to be false; Senator Feinstein explicitly expressed such a "want".
2013-01-09 08:00:45 PM
1 votes:

justtray: Gun nuts love semantic arguments. Its really all they have.


A statement like "We should ban automatic firearms" is as mind-numbingly misinformed as saying "Wow, she must really need a lot of birth control for all those guys she has sex with"
2013-01-09 07:57:34 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: Apparently not. Else we wouldn't be wasting huge amounts of posts on this bullshiat.


You're the only one pushing the argument about the need to ban automatic firearms whilst everyone who has the slightest idea of what firearms are is calling you a complete and utter dumbass for knowing nothing of what you're trying to sound so smart talking about.
2013-01-09 07:57:08 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: I question as to why we need them in our society

I could go through your house and find dozens of things that you dont "need"
Semi-automatic weapon technology is around 130 years old.

That same busted false analogy gets old, o5iiawah.

Why do we need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians?

Try to come up with a different response.


Automatic weapons are already federally restricted and are not readily available to civilians.
2013-01-09 07:55:29 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: EatenTheSun: whidbey: I don't know the reason for the distinction.

This right here is a huge part of the problem.

How so? Why should I care about the specifics? And why couldn't they be hashed out when drafting a gun law?


If you are going to argue that there should be legislation against something, shouldn't you at least know a little bit about what that something is before writing the legislation?

I know AR-15s can look scary to some people, and that they look just like the guns the military uses, but they are not military weapons.
2013-01-09 07:55:20 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: This also is not a satisfactory response. I really do not care about splitting hairs.


you are pushing for restrictions on firearms, yet you cant define what these restrictions are going to be because you know nothing about firearms. Kind of like old, worn out republicans writing legislation on vaginas. I know that makes you angry so there's your parallel
2013-01-09 07:51:45 PM
1 votes:

here to help: super_grass: Why does the number matter? Unless he's Vishnu, the number of guns he can fire at once is around one.

Who here has heard of limiting the number of cars a person can own in order to prevent speeding, or restricting the amount of beer someone can purchase in order to prevent alcohol poisoning?

*facepalm*

That's the point. He only needs what he needs. Anything above and beyond that is begging to end up in the wrong hands. And what if he has a psychotic break and decides to go all massacre-y? Well now he can't do quite as much damage.

God damn.


How does having more guns mean that it will end up in the wrong hands, do the extra guns grow legs and run into the homes of criminals? How would more than two or three guns make someone deadlier in a shooting? You do realize that real life isn't Call of Duty and guns shoot ammunition, not more guns, right?
2013-01-09 07:50:25 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: I don't know the reason for the distinction.


Lot's of people don't. The problem is, they are willing to to create regulations on something while staying ignorant on the subject. You don't understand something? Fine, I have no problem with that. You can't understand everything, nobody can. But don't turn around and say I'm being unreasonable when I try to explain why you are wrong.
2013-01-09 07:46:56 PM
1 votes:

here to help: That's the point. He only needs what he needs. Anything above and beyond that is begging to end up in the wrong hands.


It's as easy to leave one gun unsecured as it is ten. You aren't making any sense.
2013-01-09 07:46:02 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: Honestly, I would still rather have the rule of law where we as a society legally take a stand against dangerous weapons than your "honor system" which tends to pay off every now and then with a high-profile tragedy like Sandy Hook.


define "Dangerous"

We're grownups. be specific about your arguments. And I didn't champion anything, rather I stated a reality.

whidbey: I question as to why we need them in our society


I could go through your house and find dozens of things that you dont "need"
Semi-automatic weapon technology is around 130 years old.
2013-01-09 07:44:47 PM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: EatenTheSun: here to help: Now keep the f*ckers locked up when not in use.

They are.

LasersHurt:

Nobody wants to take your guns. Nobody of any merit or in any position of power, that is.

"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

But then again she also said "I believe the Patriot Act is vital to the protection of the American people."

I wasn't aware that anyone has proposed this. Because they have not. Someone just said it once.


Senator Feinstein stated it, and in doing so she explicitly expressed a desire to "take" guns.
2013-01-09 07:42:19 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: You mean you just don't care for the solution--that you would not be able to own or shoot military-grade weaponry.


No, I don't care for the solution, but that's besides the fact that more than a few 'solutions' (Feinstien's being the most public at the moment) go well beyond 'military grade weaponry' (whatever the hell that is).

here to help: IMO you should be able to get by with one or two revolvers, a shotgun and couple hunting rifles. If you need more than that I have no sympathy... because you don't.


I can cause a hell of a lot of damage with all that. I have zero desire to do so, but by limiting me to those items you really haven't put much of a dent in my ability to hurt.

/What the hell is a 'hunting rifle' anyway? That's one term that's even more ambiguous than 'assault weapon'.
2013-01-09 07:40:05 PM
1 votes:

here to help: Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

I did. Now there is serious talk of regulation that would take a good portion of them away, even though I've done nothing wrong with them. Then when I raise questions about said regulations, the people advocating them throw their hands in the air and yell about how I'm unwilling to consider any solution.

IMO you should be able to get by with one or two revolvers, a shotgun and couple hunting rifles. If you need more than that I have no sympathy... because you don't.


Why does the number matter? Unless he's Vishnu, the number of guns he can fire at once is around one.

Who here has heard of limiting the number of cars a person can own in order to prevent speeding, or restricting the amount of beer someone can purchase in order to prevent alcohol poisoning?
2013-01-09 07:37:38 PM
1 votes:

Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help: GoldSpider: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

And how does that deal with the fact that the people likely to commit a gun crime can easily obtain a gun without going through "the proper channels" and have every incentive to do exactly that?

*ahem*

derpderpderp

See, this is why you can't have a reasonable discussion. When someone raises a reasonable issue with your suggestion, instead of replying with a reasonable reply you just respond with 'derpderpderp'. But yeah, it's the other side that is unwilling to have a calm, rational talk about the issues, not you. Have you considered that there are people out there willing to talk, just not to you?


Reasonable replies don't get any attention, except the trolls who like to bring up genitalia size.
2013-01-09 07:36:41 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

I did. Now there is serious talk of regulation that would take a good portion of them away, even though I've done nothing wrong with them. Then when I raise questions about said regulations, the people advocating them throw their hands in the air and yell about how I'm unwilling to consider any solution.

You mean you just don't care for the solution--that you would not be able to own or shoot military-grade weaponry.


Claiming a semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle to be "military-grade" due to the presence of a pistol grip is dishonest.
2013-01-09 07:34:41 PM
1 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
2013-01-09 07:32:13 PM
1 votes:

here to help: GoldSpider: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

And how does that deal with the fact that the people likely to commit a gun crime can easily obtain a gun without going through "the proper channels" and have every incentive to do exactly that?

*ahem*

derpderpderp


See, this is why you can't have a reasonable discussion. When someone raises a reasonable issue with your suggestion, instead of replying with a reasonable reply you just respond with 'derpderpderp'. But yeah, it's the other side that is unwilling to have a calm, rational talk about the issues, not you. Have you considered that there are people out there willing to talk, just not to you?
2013-01-09 07:31:31 PM
1 votes:

you have pee hands: IMO the best bet is to (1) stop making these guys the #1 story in America for weeks. Focus on the victims, not the criminals with a walkthrough of how they did it, to cut down on copycats. (2) Have a better means of tracing guns so you can penalize people who provide guns to criminals and (3) reform the prison system so we stop making so many career criminals with no other prospects out of marginally farked up 18 year olds.


I don't see how any of those policies would have prevented something like Newtown.

(3) The Newtown shooter didn't have a criminal record and wasn't a product of a criminal justice system; (2) the person who owned the guns wasn't providing them to criminals---and if the possibility of being killed by some psycho for your guns is not a deterrent, an extra penalty after you die probably won't make a difference; (1) this kid was some kind of schizo with a morbid obsession with that school, not an attention whore or a copycat.

The only thing that really would have stopped Newtown is if the killer's mom had gravitated to some other hobby. For whatever reason, collecting and shooting assault rifles is really in right now, so that's what she got into.
2013-01-09 07:30:55 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: So you don't believe we should have a drinking age either?


Europe seems to be doing fairly well without one.

here to help: *ahem*

derpderpderp


That must be what the "rational debate" you were looking for looks like.
2013-01-09 07:30:44 PM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: GoldSpider: FlashHarry: well, duh. refusing alcohol sales to minors = complete unavailability of alcohol in the united states!

And it's totally ended underage drinking too!

no, but it curbs it.



There is also a theory that it leads to more teen alcohol abuse in the US. I remember hearing years ago that European nations with no restriction on youth drinking had less problems. That may be bullshiat, who knows?
2013-01-09 07:28:42 PM
1 votes:

here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

 
I did. Now there is serious talk of regulation that would take a good portion of them away, even though I've done nothing wrong with them. Then when I raise questions about said regulations, the people advocating them throw their hands in the air and yell about how I'm unwilling to consider any solution.
2013-01-09 07:25:53 PM
1 votes:

TomD9938: Also, how many of those gun murders were gang bangers popping each other? Because no one gives a fark about them.


You are a horrible human being - thats psychotic! i would support a gun ban just to spite you, dude.
2013-01-09 07:20:10 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: pmdgrwr: How are more gun laws going to be different.

Guns!=pot


Exactly. Prohibition will totally work this time. Black markets don't apply to things like guns, and stuff.
2013-01-09 07:17:29 PM
1 votes:
I remember all you libs saying that "Obama is NOT coming for your guns you're just being paranoid" before the election.

He was just biding his time until he could get away with it. That has always been obvious.

It comes down to liberal fear mongering. A little factoid: 10 times as many people are killed a year by knives (at least) than are killed by what the MSM calls "assault rifles".
2013-01-09 07:15:31 PM
1 votes:

nevirus: Obama's gotta be trolling. This has been one of the hottest, most emotional issues for the 'baggers lately... he's trying to get their heads to explode.


Lol. It is so farking hilarious our president is going to use an end around the legislative branch just to piss off some americans I hate lol. God damn bush was an asshole for it, but not obama. Lol.
2013-01-09 07:04:00 PM
1 votes:

DORMAMU: I also want to take a look at WHY these shootings are happening, not solely focusing on HOW or WITH.


I don't know why it is VEBOTTEN to mention mow-em-down video games and Hollywood movie violence.
A number of the mass murderers including the Sandy Hook guy were into those games. Both the movies and the games dehumanize foes. Is this subject off the table because they donate to the Democratic party?

If I were to cite one thing that has changed in our society since these recent mass killings began it would be media not guns.
2013-01-09 07:00:35 PM
1 votes:

here to help: If the gun folk can't make event the slightest concessions on this issue they will end up losing EVERYTHING due to their belligerence. I don't want to see that. I WANT good guys to have guns. The problem is the current laws let far too many BAD guys get guns.


Personally I think most "reasonable" efforts should focus on the factors that lead to the majority of gun violence, not the isolated, sensationalized tragedies that delight the media.
2013-01-09 06:59:10 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: AbbeySomeone: I can understand rifles and pistols but why do people need the big weaponry ie, assault rifles, etc?

To shoot American soldiers and police officers.

Of course, they don't say that until later in the conversation but they get around to it eventually.


This sounds so ridiculous to you? How many times do we read about an incorrect address on a no-knock warrant that ends in a para-military assault squad breaking down the door of a law-abiding citizen, shooting the family dog (or, in one famous case, a small child), throwing the owners on the ground, and threatining, mildly beating, and handcuffing the residents? If this were twice as common, would you see the need to have weapons in your home to defend yourself against the police? Ten times? One hundred times?

If you went back in time and told your great-grandparents that this was a fact of life in America, that Americans could be tracked nearly everywhere they went, that constitutional rights were ignored for certain classes of crimes, that American citizens had to remove their shoes and have their genitals fondled to get on an airplane, or any number of police-state tactics we've come to accept, they would call you a damned liar, because that could never happen in America; that was Soviet Russia. If you then told them that violence, murder, and terrorism were hundreds of times more common in this America, they would weep.
2013-01-09 06:54:09 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: here to help: You guys rail against reasonable solutions.

Such as an inexplicable obsession with a type of weapon used in an insignificant fraction of gun violence? Those "reasonable solutions"?


When many firearm regulation advocates claim their proposals to be "reasonable", they are not actually relying upon a fact of reasonableness; rather, they are attempting to imply that any opponent of their regulation -- regardless of how restrictive or irrational the regulation may be -- is "unreasonable" and thus their claims unworthy of consideration.
2013-01-09 06:53:13 PM
1 votes:

here to help: DORMAMU: To play devil's advocate here:

Replace alcohol in your statement with guns and it works the other way.

You may use alcohol safely in a way that affect you only that is legal. So can a firearm owner.

Firearm are used illegally/improperly and people are hurt. Same with alcohol. Family damage, people with multiple dui's and dui accidents on there records. Alcohol use affected many lives of those who had no say in the situation.

Safe(r), legal & responsible use is fine. There are INDIVIDUALS who choose to use them in other manners.

If you can use alcohol where it only affects you, why can't another do the same of firearms?

/end devil's advocate

And those who abuse alcohol in a way that physically impacts others should have that right stripped away and get locked up in rehab and if they cannot stop hurting others because of it be removed from society permanently.

Same sh*t. Having a ridiculous amount of firearms laying around is as irresponsible as driving drunk.

I got no problem with responsible gun ownership and reasonable weapons. The laws being suggested not only recently but for YEARS are not about that. It's about getting... sh*t... under... freaking... control.

Keep a revolver. Keep some hunting weapons. Get licensed. Register them. Take courses. It's not a big freaking deal.


Following your analogy, you get only beer & wine. No hard liquor. Also, before you drink, we need to see your alcohol consumption card.

Fyi - I am a permit holder. I have taken classes (and continue to do so). I also target shoot.

If it responsibly used, what is the difference of the type used? Also, I am assuming a vast majority of alcohol consumers do so very responsibly (I am one of them, like you). Same with firearm owners.

For what it is worth, even thought you are foaming at the mouth a little, you aren't going off the derp end. I appreciate that. Too many people are going ridiculous to support their view that it is infuriating (applies to pro gun as well). I personally am open to possible gun control measures that are:

stated simply to avoid confusion/loopholes
Are not based upon cosmetic accessories
Do not arbitrarily penalize
Are based in logic

I also want to take a look at WHY these shootings are happening, not solely focusing on HOW or WITH. I seriously doubt the gut thought "I can get a gun, therfore, I have to go and shoot someone now!" I doubt you think that you have booze, you have to finish the bottle now.
2013-01-09 06:51:37 PM
1 votes:

Infernalist: duffblue: Infernalist: Xcott: Vectron: He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.

Well, unless he plans on tripling the price by declaring a 200 PERCENT FIREARM TAX.

Actually, that wouldn't be bad public policy. Newtown happened not because "guns are legal," but because a schizo kid had a goddamn arsenal right there in his house. And that happened because it's become a teatard fad for everyone and your mother to have a badass arsenal for recreational shooting and because society's about to collapse. One of those oodles of heavily armed people is bound to have a schizo kid.

To combat this, what you need to do is have a policy that lets people keep and bear arms, but somehow reduces the raw number of weapons and "enthusiasts" stockpiling assault rifles on every block. A massive tax would probably serve that purpose.

$5000 per bullet should suffice.

How to you intend to reduce gun violence when every single firearm already purchased is grandfathered in?

If I had my way, I'd have the gun factories shut down. Without a steady flood of new guns into the system, the problem will solve itself in about 50 years.

Be glad a real liberal isn't in the President's seat.


Ye hear that folks? Don't ever elect liberals.
2013-01-09 06:51:27 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I wasn't speculating on what she knew.


Then why mention details of the event of which she would have had no knowledge?
2013-01-09 06:51:16 PM
1 votes:

here to help: I've learned there is really no point responding to the replies I get on this topic. You guys rail against reasonable solutions. You rail against logical thought. You rail against anything that means less than you being able to own a napalm spewing tank that you can drive around your neighborhood mowing down anything freaking thing you see.

But your intentions are good. You are totally responsible and well meaning. YOU would NEVER do ANYTHING that could adversely effect another member of your society.

Right?

Yeah, well all the corpses filled with lead that keep piling up say otherwise.

Enjoy your cowboy fantasies while you can ya jag offs. The civil people are getting sick of your sh*t and it looks like your violent and deceitful ways might just be coming to an end.

I can't freaking wait.


Have you any actual rational commentary to offer, rather than generalized personal attacks against opponents of unreasonable restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership?
2013-01-09 06:49:22 PM
1 votes:

here to help: You guys rail against reasonable solutions.


Such as an inexplicable obsession with a type of weapon used in an insignificant fraction of gun violence? Those "reasonable solutions"?
2013-01-09 06:44:05 PM
1 votes:

justtray: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Fark It: I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out

Drone strikes have killed about 200 children worldwide since 2004.

Guns Killed 5,728 kids in America in 2008-2009.

So... You ready to come to the table now?

Youre making the mistake of assuming hes arguing from an honest position. He, like the rest of the gun nuts are not. They are simply shouting down all gun control under any disguise available at the time, regardless of the coginitive dissonance and/or hypocrisy required.


Readers should be aware that justtray himself is a known liar and an open advocate of an authoritarian police state.
2013-01-09 06:44:01 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Directly? Or was there some sort of intermediary?

The gun sellers were directed to continue with a sale that would have otherwise been stopped. So, yes. The Administration was culpable.

Directed by who?


The ATF.
2013-01-09 06:42:37 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mr. Eugenides: OgreMagi: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Insatiable Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.


How many DGUs would have been unnecessary if the other party didn't have a gun?


Did the guy in Atlanta who was shot by the woman hiding with her 2 kids in the closet have a gun?

I mean maybe he just wanted to scare her or play mousetrap with her kids....

He had a crowbar.

And likely would have moved on had she answered the door or made her presence known.

I seriously hate the anti-2nd crowd's habit of blaming the victim.  It's their own special kind of derp.

I understand that if it was a legitimate home invasion her body would have had ways of rejecting that.

WHEN ANOTHER HOMEOWNER CONFRONTED HIM EARLIER HE JUST LEFT.


So what? You are arguing that the victim is at fault because the rapist didn't rape another woman who was wearing a burlap sack.
2013-01-09 06:38:08 PM
1 votes:
If Washington is anything like Fark, I can see why we never see any reasonable gun control laws. The people trying to work things out sensibly and drowned out by the jackasses on either side of them.
2013-01-09 06:38:05 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HartRend: CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS

OUTLAWING GUNS DOES NOT DO A DAMN THING TO THE BAD GUYS

ONLY THE GOOD GUYS FOLLOW THE LAW

OUTLAWING GUNS ONLY TAKES AWAY FROM THE GOOD GUYS

Where are the bad guys getting their guns?


Where do they get their drugs?
2013-01-09 06:37:58 PM
1 votes:

justtray: Fark It: justtray: Fark It: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Fark It: I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out

Drone strikes have killed about 200 children worldwide since 2004.

Guns Killed 5,728 kids in America in 2008-2009.

So... You ready to come to the table now?

How many of those kids were really teenagers involved in gang activity, and how am I in any way responsible for them? Why is it that whenever a bunch of ghetto animals shoot at each other as a result of the drug war or some lunatic goes on a shooting rampage we look to gun owners (80 million Americans) and say 'bite the pillow, for the children!'

Look how fast those goalposts move from a dishonest person. Amazing he had the strength to carry them. Just ignore this idiot please.

Get farked. That thing that Ben Franklin said about giving up rights for a little temporary security? It applies to the second as much as it does to the rest of the Bill of Rights. I share as much responsibility for the actions of perpetrators of gun violence as Muslims and Arabs do for acts of terrorism. Zero.

I couldnt help you didnt refute my argument.

Sorry but this is society. Every ammendment has limitations, including the 2nd. Dont like it? Go live in your dream land of Somalia. You dont get to enjoy the limitations of the other ammendments while expecting none on the one you really care about. Deal with it and grow up.


I already accept limitations on the 2nd. You seem to be of the idea that the bill of rights is really a list of privileges. What was your argument anyway, other than 'he must be a Fark Independent for not supporting Feinstein/Bloomberg, etal'
2013-01-09 06:37:42 PM
1 votes:

here to help: Having a ridiculous amount of firearms laying around is as irresponsible as driving drunk.


You're comparing owning guns to drunk driving? Really?

And you wonder why people won't engage you in a meaningful discussion about gun violence?
2013-01-09 06:34:23 PM
1 votes:

DORMAMU: To play devil's advocate here:

Replace alcohol in your statement with guns and it works the other way.

You may use alcohol safely in a way that affect you only that is legal. So can a firearm owner.

Firearm are used illegally/improperly and people are hurt. Same with alcohol. Family damage, people with multiple dui's and dui accidents on there records. Alcohol use affected many lives of those who had no say in the situation.

Safe(r), legal & responsible use is fine. There are INDIVIDUALS who choose to use them in other manners.

If you can use alcohol where it only affects you, why can't another do the same of firearms?

/end devil's advocate


And those who abuse alcohol in a way that physically impacts others should have that right stripped away and get locked up in rehab and if they cannot stop hurting others because of it be removed from society permanently.

Same sh*t. Having a ridiculous amount of firearms laying around is as irresponsible as driving drunk.

I got no problem with responsible gun ownership and reasonable weapons. The laws being suggested not only recently but for YEARS are not about that. It's about getting... sh*t... under... freaking... control.

Keep a revolver. Keep some hunting weapons. Get licensed. Register them. Take courses. It's not a big freaking deal.
2013-01-09 06:34:14 PM
1 votes:

Mr. Eugenides: OgreMagi: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Insatiable Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.


How many DGUs would have been unnecessary if the other party didn't have a gun?


Did the guy in Atlanta who was shot by the woman hiding with her 2 kids in the closet have a gun?

I mean maybe he just wanted to scare her or play mousetrap with her kids....

He had a crowbar.

And likely would have moved on had she answered the door or made her presence known.

I seriously hate the anti-2nd crowd's habit of blaming the victim.  It's their own special kind of derp.

I understand that if it was a legitimate home invasion her body would have had ways of rejecting that.


WHEN ANOTHER HOMEOWNER CONFRONTED HIM EARLIER HE JUST LEFT.
2013-01-09 06:33:47 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Directly? Or was there some sort of intermediary?


The gun sellers were directed to continue with a sale that would have otherwise been stopped. So, yes. The Administration was culpable.
2013-01-09 06:33:10 PM
1 votes:

here to help: Less guns in the community pool make it more costly for the criminals.


This line of argumentation all but admits that the community at large is just wants to stick it to the gun owners. It's also a bad way to go about things. Crime guns make up a very small minority of all guns (less than one percent, probably, according to extrapolations I did from FBI crime data a while back).

We also have people in society whose cars belch black smoke constantly because they can't be arsed to get it fixed, but the solution isn't to categorically remove 30% of all cars on the road and feel safe knowing you've at least got some of the polluters. We need better records keeping laws so we can identify risky gun purchases, rather than simply saying that all gun purchases are bad.
2013-01-09 06:30:46 PM
1 votes:

here to help: License every last person who wants to own guns. Any guns. They have to register every single one of their guns. Any guns found on people who a) do not have a license or b) did not register that gun gets their guns confiscated and depending on the circumstance get charged.

F*ck this sh*t. If you truly ARE a responsible gun owner this should not be a problem. No more a problem than having a drivers license and owning vehicles... which by the way actually serve a purpose OTHER than destroying things.


Enumerated right vs not enumerated item.

Please present your 1st ammendment license for review.

/godwinning a little
//you could modify the 2nd to include mandatory registrstion, but would have to be a government "shall/will" issue a permit, not "may issue."
2013-01-09 06:30:06 PM
1 votes:

keepitcherry: You can always count on the government to have some knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy which results in more legislation and shiatty unintended consequences.


There must be a lot of overlap between gun control enthusiasts and supporters of the Patriot Act.
2013-01-09 06:29:28 PM
1 votes:

here to help: HartRend: CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS

OUTLAWING GUNS DOES NOT DO A DAMN THING TO THE BAD GUYS

ONLY THE GOOD GUYS FOLLOW THE LAW

OUTLAWING GUNS ONLY TAKES AWAY FROM THE GOOD GUYS

Less guns in the community pool make it more costly for the criminals. Stricter regulations on who can own firearms makes it harder for those with criminal inclinations or mental health issues to acquire weapons. If they acquire them through illegal means and get caught? PMITA prison for a huge chunk of their lives..

LOL... in what fantasy world do you live in? Drugs are outlawed and have gotten cheaper, more plentiful and better over the years. Drugs are easier to get than alcohol and cigs. So what fantasy are you living.
2013-01-09 06:26:44 PM
1 votes:

justtray: Fark It: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Fark It: I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out

Drone strikes have killed about 200 children worldwide since 2004.

Guns Killed 5,728 kids in America in 2008-2009.

So... You ready to come to the table now?

How many of those kids were really teenagers involved in gang activity, and how am I in any way responsible for them? Why is it that whenever a bunch of ghetto animals shoot at each other as a result of the drug war or some lunatic goes on a shooting rampage we look to gun owners (80 million Americans) and say 'bite the pillow, for the children!'

Look how fast those goalposts move from a dishonest person. Amazing he had the strength to carry them. Just ignore this idiot please.


Get farked. That thing that Ben Franklin said about giving up rights for a little temporary security? It applies to the second as much as it does to the rest of the Bill of Rights. I share as much responsibility for the actions of perpetrators of gun violence as Muslims and Arabs do for acts of terrorism. Zero.
2013-01-09 06:25:57 PM
1 votes:

AbbeySomeone: I can understand rifles and pistols but why do people need the big weaponry ie, assault rifles, etc?


I can understand compacts and sub-compacts, but why do people need cars that go over 60 MPH?
2013-01-09 06:24:06 PM
1 votes:

here to help: Dear, every fooking idiot who compares alcohol/tobacco deaths to gun deaths...

If I drink and smoke MYSELF to death that's my god damned problem. If YOU go on a shooting rampage or leave your penis extensions laying around for your psychotic crotchbooger f*ck trophies or Cracky McCrackenstein to steal then YOU are the problem.

Your pathetic attempts to justify your need for more than a revolver in the nightstand to protect your family are exactly that... pathetic.

G0BOOGER!


To play devil's advocate here:

Replace alcohol in your statement with guns and it works the other way.

You may use alcohol safely in a way that affect you only that is legal. So can a firearm owner.

Firearm are used illegally/improperly and people are hurt. Same with alcohol. Family damage, people with multiple dui's and dui accidents on there records. Alcohol use affected many lives of those who had no say in the situation.

Safe(r), legal & responsible use is fine. There are INDIVIDUALS who choose to use them in other manners.

If you can use alcohol where it only affects you, why can't another do the same of firearms?

/end devil's advocate
2013-01-09 06:15:08 PM
1 votes:

Fubini: Not going to happen. Any executive order would be taken to the SCOTUS, and Roberts isn't going to side with the President on this one.

I would be very surprised if any gun control was enacted without some kind of concession to the far right 20%.


As I've said before, I won't be surprised one bit if whatever is offered by the left is traded down to reinstatement of the AWB/high capacity magazine bans as well as a few more token things like extended waiting periods on purchases. 'Assault weapons' are a fraction of a fraction of gun crime, but for some reason people want to jerk themselves off into dehydration over that debate rather than focusing on the vast majority of gun crime that's committed with handguns or looking at some of the social causes for the vast majority of gun crime like the illegal drug trade.

But those would take effort. And it's far easier to just make fun of a Bushmaster ad or declare the opposition gun grabbers.
2013-01-09 06:13:39 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Shockingly, the people who fear guns out of ignorance also fear gun owners for the same reason. The paranoid, gun-hoarding whackjobs represent a rather small slice of the whole gun violence picture.


I said it in another thread and I'll say it again: the vast majority of gun hoarders have more in common with the guy that collects model trains than the guy advocating for personal statehood. It's a different kind of hobby to them. I'd say the second most common group of gun hoarders are actually gold-style investors, but I have no real data to back that up.
2013-01-09 06:10:56 PM
1 votes:
Shockingly, the people who fear guns out of ignorance also fear gun owners for the same reason. The paranoid, gun-hoarding whackjobs represent a rather small slice of the whole gun violence picture.
2013-01-09 06:07:57 PM
1 votes:

EatenTheSun: Insatiable Jesus: EatenTheSun: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: I've put 20 hits on 10 targets with three reloads in less than a 90 seconds.

[ih1.redbubble.net image 413x550]

All I'm pointing out is that the ability to put a lot of rounds on target quickly isn't unique to magazine-fed "assault weapons"... and in fact a 100+ year old bolt action rifle is easily capable of it. Which cleanly undermines the fallacious argument that "assault weapons" are somehow significantly more deadly in that regard. They're not, and it's a clear sign of ignorance about the subject matter to claim so.

Then again, I can tell you're not actually interested in rational, calm discourse.

If you're trying to make the argument that bolt action is as deadly as a semi-auto, you are something else. Ridiculous on its face.

I have some of each. Which one do you feel like running from? I'll even let you pick the caliber.


Homicidal ideation in a Gunfapper? I am SHOCKED people!

Nah, I have no desire to kill you. But if I did, it wouldn't make much difference which rifle I brought.



i.qkme.me
2013-01-09 06:04:36 PM
1 votes:
Smart Diplomacy: Saying "Nobody's going to take your guns away" until the military has recalled enough troops to start going door to door.

/contrary to popular belief, the result will not be a better world
//"And the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the fire"
2013-01-09 06:04:27 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: GoldSpider: What do we need to do? IMO, to start off, eliminate the gun show loopholes. Require background checks for all transfers. ...

This entire exchange restores in me a glimmer of hope that rational people exist to steer this national debate.

Rational individuals do not author legislation, nor are they prominently visible on either side of the current discussion.


Unfortunately you're right. I think half of the legislation comes from people who get all their insight about guns from the movies, and the ones vocally against it are complete loons.

Stuck in the middle are those of us who might own a few guns that we use for plinking or hunting and actually know about them...but get tossed in with the crazies and told we shouldn't have what we have.
2013-01-09 06:01:42 PM
1 votes:
Meh. If you can executive order away the 2nd amendment, that leaves open the possibility that we can executive order away the 14th or the 19th etc etc.
2013-01-09 06:00:26 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: What do we need to do? IMO, to start off, eliminate the gun show loopholes. Require background checks for all transfers. ...

This entire exchange restores in me a glimmer of hope that rational people exist to steer this national debate.


Rational individuals do not author legislation, nor are they prominently visible on either side of the current discussion.
2013-01-09 05:58:51 PM
1 votes:

duffblue: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: I've put 20 hits on 10 targets with three reloads in less than a 90 seconds.

[ih1.redbubble.net image 413x550]

All I'm pointing out is that the ability to put a lot of rounds on target quickly isn't unique to magazine-fed "assault weapons"... and in fact a 100+ year old bolt action rifle is easily capable of it. Which cleanly undermines the fallacious argument that "assault weapons" are somehow significantly more deadly in that regard. They're not, and it's a clear sign of ignorance about the subject matter to claim so.

Then again, I can tell you're not actually interested in rational, calm discourse.

If you're trying to make the argument that bolt action is as deadly as a semi-auto, you are something else. Ridiculous on its face.

Tell that to the 16 dead and 32 injured by charles whitman


duffblue: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: I've put 20 hits on 10 targets with three reloads in less than a 90 seconds.

[ih1.redbubble.net image 413x550]

All I'm pointing out is that the ability to put a lot of rounds on target quickly isn't unique to magazine-fed "assault weapons"... and in fact a 100+ year old bolt action rifle is easily capable of it. Which cleanly undermines the fallacious argument that "assault weapons" are somehow significantly more deadly in that regard. They're not, and it's a clear sign of ignorance about the subject matter to claim so.

Then again, I can tell you're not actually interested in rational, calm discourse.

If you're trying to make the argument that bolt action is as deadly as a semi-auto, you are something else. Ridiculous on its face.

Tell that to the 16 dead and 32 injured by charles whitman



16 dead in 2 hours with a bolt action rifle.

26 dead in 10 minutes with a semi-auto.

Is this the math Gunfappers use to make themselves feel better? Oh wait, that's what the guns are for. Sorry.
2013-01-09 05:54:20 PM
1 votes:

EatenTheSun: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: I've put 20 hits on 10 targets with three reloads in less than a 90 seconds.

[ih1.redbubble.net image 413x550]

All I'm pointing out is that the ability to put a lot of rounds on target quickly isn't unique to magazine-fed "assault weapons"... and in fact a 100+ year old bolt action rifle is easily capable of it. Which cleanly undermines the fallacious argument that "assault weapons" are somehow significantly more deadly in that regard. They're not, and it's a clear sign of ignorance about the subject matter to claim so.

Then again, I can tell you're not actually interested in rational, calm discourse.

If you're trying to make the argument that bolt action is as deadly as a semi-auto, you are something else. Ridiculous on its face.

I have some of each. Which one do you feel like running from? I'll even let you pick the caliber.



Homicidal ideation in a Gunfapper? I am SHOCKED people!
2013-01-09 05:54:08 PM
1 votes:

Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: I've put 20 hits on 10 targets with three reloads in less than a 90 seconds.

[ih1.redbubble.net image 413x550]

All I'm pointing out is that the ability to put a lot of rounds on target quickly isn't unique to magazine-fed "assault weapons"... and in fact a 100+ year old bolt action rifle is easily capable of it. Which cleanly undermines the fallacious argument that "assault weapons" are somehow significantly more deadly in that regard. They're not, and it's a clear sign of ignorance about the subject matter to claim so.

Then again, I can tell you're not actually interested in rational, calm discourse.

If you're trying to make the argument that bolt action is as deadly as a semi-auto, you are something else. Ridiculous on its face.


Tell that to the 16 dead and 32 injured by charles whitman
2013-01-09 05:48:17 PM
1 votes:

randomjsa: Go ahead. Deliver a majority in the senate to the Republicans with gun control the same way you lost your super majority in the senate and your majority in the house with ObamaCare.


This honestly scares me more than anything. Sure dems could lock down deep blue areas with this kind of talk but they will lose heavily any ground they have made in places like Texas and Florida, and they have made ALOT of farking ground in those states in 4 years. They have to think about the long game not this stupid battle. Show up to this fight, fire a few shots and then retreat until a better battle presents itself, dont stick around and waste all your time fighting one issue that wont get anywhere but tie you up for 4 years and lose whatever progress you have made in ALL other areas.

House GoP must have had orgasm's when heard the big talk comming out of the white house.
2013-01-09 05:46:53 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Insatiable Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.


How many DGUs would have been unnecessary if the other party didn't have a gun?


Did the guy in Atlanta who was shot by the woman hiding with her 2 kids in the closet have a gun?

I mean maybe he just wanted to scare her or play mousetrap with her kids....

He had a crowbar.

And likely would have moved on had she answered the door or made her presence known.


I seriously hate the anti-2nd crowd's habit of blaming the victim.  It's their own special kind of derp.
2013-01-09 05:43:29 PM
1 votes:
FARK gun threads read like Free Republic politics threads.

/enjoys shooting
//not a gun owner, maybe one day I will purchase one.
2013-01-09 05:40:27 PM
1 votes:
So, if us gun owners (especially those of us who own evil things like assault weapons) are supposed to feel shame and embarrassment at owning one, do people who drink also feel shame and embarrassment every time they take a sip?

What, with the 10,000 drunk driving deaths. And the 100k+ people who die in the hospital either due to or complicated by prolonged, heavy alcohol use? And all the rapes, robberies, assaults and murders that are committed by drunk people? Or the domestic violence caused by alcoholics? Or the hundreds of thousands of kids who are abused and neglected by an alcoholic parent?

I mean, shouldn't all the alcohol nuts come together as part of this nation and say "Now Is the Time To End This!" We need to have a national conversation about alcohol. We need to put reasonable restrictions on it. Why does ANYBODY need a liter bottle of vodka? If you drank that whole thing, you would be *dead*. Why is it that anyone with an ID that says they are over 21 can walk into a liquor store and buy as much alcohol as they want, even if they have a rap sheet 3 feet long with alcohol related convictions. My god, we even have bars that mix alcohol with fruit juice, so that people who don't even like the taste of alcohol can get drunk.
2013-01-09 05:39:44 PM
1 votes:

Gosling: Vectron: He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.

It was made the second 20 children died even if Obama sat on his ass. You're just using Obama as a fig leaf to cover up the fact that the shootings themselves cause gun sales to spike. Someone shooting a bunch of innocents is treated as nothing less than a shiny new Black Friday sale at every gun store in America, with a special on the gun that got used. That, in and of itself, is disgusting and abhorrent to watch, and statements like yours only fuel the fire to enact restrictions.


Or maybe gun sales go up because when incidents like that occur there is always another call to ban assault rifles?

How about we take a look at the violence part of the problem, and leave law abiding citizens alone for a change?
2013-01-09 05:38:04 PM
1 votes:
As someone who owns firearms, I'm not so sure about their "gun control" policies (hear me out!) whereas I'd rather see a "gun-owner control" policy. Doing better background checks...mandating, say, a 14-day wait, could help. Again, though, notice that only the LEGAL gun owners would be touched by this.

The reason an "assault rifle" (definition?) ban wouldn't deter much of anything can be taken by my own city, Chicago, which had the highest murder rate of the nation - 506 deaths (more than the troops in Afghanistan) during 2012.

The most current data on annual gun-related deaths/homicide in Chicago is for 2011. 83.4% of 2011 murders were via gun.

Here's my point: of the types of guns used in these homicides, (of which there were 361), a total of 351 were via handgun. Of the 10 (11...rounding error) murders via gun left over, 5 were by shotgun, 1 by a rifle (which I would assume includes "assault rifles" as well) and 5 by an "unknown" gun.

So in one of the most violent cities (if not THE most) - Chicago - possibly as few as 1 (and at most, 6, but certainly not) murders are pinned to possibly an "assault rifle". The unknown gun incidents are probably those in which neither a casing or bullet could be found. Given the base-rates for handguns over any other gun type, you have to suppose most of those 5 murders were by handgun.

So if the goal is to reduce gun violence, controlling which people can have a gun is much more effective than any type of "gun ban".

P.S. NOT to mention unintended consequences - such as Obama's attacks on guns resulting in record numbers of people snapping up guns...handguns. The ones used in 99% of gun homicides. Bright.

The citation (URL) is: https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Sta tistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports
2013-01-09 05:37:46 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Insatiable Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.


How many DGUs would have been unnecessary if the other party didn't have a gun?


Did the guy in Atlanta who was shot by the woman hiding with her 2 kids in the closet have a gun?

I mean maybe he just wanted to scare her or play mousetrap with her kids....

He had a crowbar.

And likely would have moved on had she answered the door or made her presence known.



Oh puh-leeze.


An Oalkand woman used her cell phone to record video of a crook robbing her house moments before he raped her.
"I'm sorry, can you leave," she is heard saying.
"Yeah," he mumbles in response.

The she got some nice rapey-rape.
2013-01-09 05:35:59 PM
1 votes:

duffblue: CynicalLA: orclover: Insatiable Jesus: Dimensio: Oldiron_79: Get ready for over 2/3 gop house and senate after '14 cycle and a gop potus in'16

I am curious as to how many individuals who ridiculed expressed concerns of firearm confiscation during the election are now advocating firearm confiscation.

Everybody.

I know, isnt it hilarious?

Little kids getting shot is really hilarious.

Won't somebody think of the children?


Biden is using the if it saves just one life a its worth it argument.

I wonder how any lives could be saved by getting rid of the pesky 4th Amendment thing.
2013-01-09 05:35:13 PM
1 votes:

WordyGrrl: Bit'O'Gristle: There is no easy answer, except outlaw guns except for hunting. To be kept at the range locked up when not used.

Or we could really enforce the 2nd Amendment and require all gun owners to meet weekly/monthly at the nearest town square for a few hours of marching practice and basic infantry tactics. Ya know, sort of like a well-regulated militia.

/If that happens, I get dibs on the beer and pork rinds concession stand.


The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes no such requirement. Your statement is based upon a false and dishonest premise.
2013-01-09 05:34:22 PM
1 votes:

Infernalist: buffalosoldier: Infernalist: duffblue: Infernalist: Xcott: Vectron: He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.

Well, unless he plans on tripling the price by declaring a 200 PERCENT FIREARM TAX.

Actually, that wouldn't be bad public policy. Newtown happened not because "guns are legal," but because a schizo kid had a goddamn arsenal right there in his house. And that happened because it's become a teatard fad for everyone and your mother to have a badass arsenal for recreational shooting and because society's about to collapse. One of those oodles of heavily armed people is bound to have a schizo kid.

To combat this, what you need to do is have a policy that lets people keep and bear arms, but somehow reduces the raw number of weapons and "enthusiasts" stockpiling assault rifles on every block. A massive tax would probably serve that purpose.

$5000 per bullet should suffice.

How to you intend to reduce gun violence when every single firearm already purchased is grandfathered in?

If I had my way, I'd have the gun factories shut down. Without a steady flood of new guns into the system, the problem will solve itself in about 50 years.

Be glad a real liberal isn't in the President's seat.

Considering I was out shooting my damn near 150 year old mosin nagant yesterday, that is pretty funny.

Planning to do any school massacres with that single shot pos?


You'd be surprised how fast that old rifle can run.

I've put 20 hits on 10 targets with three reloads in less than a 90 seconds. I have video of it as well, although I'm not entirely comfortable posting it here.
2013-01-09 05:34:03 PM
1 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: There is no easy answer, except outlaw guns except for hunting. To be kept at the range locked up when not used.


Or we could really enforce the 2nd Amendment and require all gun owners to meet weekly/monthly at the nearest town square for a few hours of marching practice and basic infantry tactics. Ya know, sort of like a well-regulated militia.

/If that happens, I get dibs on the beer and pork rinds concession stand.
2013-01-09 05:31:33 PM
1 votes:

Infernalist: duffblue: Infernalist: Xcott: Vectron: He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.

Well, unless he plans on tripling the price by declaring a 200 PERCENT FIREARM TAX.

Actually, that wouldn't be bad public policy. Newtown happened not because "guns are legal," but because a schizo kid had a goddamn arsenal right there in his house. And that happened because it's become a teatard fad for everyone and your mother to have a badass arsenal for recreational shooting and because society's about to collapse. One of those oodles of heavily armed people is bound to have a schizo kid.

To combat this, what you need to do is have a policy that lets people keep and bear arms, but somehow reduces the raw number of weapons and "enthusiasts" stockpiling assault rifles on every block. A massive tax would probably serve that purpose.

$5000 per bullet should suffice.

How to you intend to reduce gun violence when every single firearm already purchased is grandfathered in?

If I had my way, I'd have the gun factories shut down. Without a steady flood of new guns into the system, the problem will solve itself in about 50 years.

Be glad a real liberal isn't in the President's seat.


Considering I was out shooting my damn near 150 year old mosin nagant yesterday, that is pretty funny.
2013-01-09 05:30:29 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Insatiable Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.


How many DGUs would have been unnecessary if the other party didn't have a gun?


Did the guy in Atlanta who was shot by the woman hiding with her 2 kids in the closet have a gun?

I mean maybe he just wanted to scare her or play mousetrap with her kids....

He had a crowbar.

And likely would have moved on had she answered the door or made her presence known.


Well he won't be doing much of this again for the foreseeable future now, will he?
2013-01-09 05:29:51 PM
1 votes:

super_grass: In b4 gun nuts complain that Obama is somehow conspiring against them.

NOBODY IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR GUNZ AWAY


Just like he said he won't use the indefinite detention power he singed into law.
2013-01-09 05:29:23 PM
1 votes:

you have pee hands: Mr.BobDobalita: So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.

By saying you think that 100,000 lives are saved by guns you're saying that for every homicide that actually happened 6 were prevented by guns. That defensive gun usage causes a 85% drop in the murder rate. That's patently absurd.


Pretty factual that the assault weapons ban did absolutely nothing to lower crime as well. That doesn't bother libs. Chicago is the MDK capital of the country with very restrictive gun laws. Don't let that stop you.
2013-01-09 05:28:59 PM
1 votes:
I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out
2013-01-09 05:28:49 PM
1 votes:

Gosling: Vectron: He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.

It was made the second 20 children died even if Obama sat on his ass. You're just using Obama as a fig leaf to cover up the fact that the shootings themselves cause gun sales to spike. Someone shooting a bunch of innocents is treated as nothing less than a shiny new Black Friday sale at every gun store in America, with a special on the gun that got used. That, in and of itself, is disgusting and abhorrent to watch, and statements like yours only fuel the fire to enact restrictions.



That also came about as Chicago announced its 500th homicide of the year.
I have never owned a gun but if I lived in Chicago I somehow, some way acquire one.
2013-01-09 05:27:38 PM
1 votes:
' We have to pass they bill so we can see what's in it' - Nancy Pelosi, Professor Emeritus School of Socialist Dumbf*cks
2013-01-09 05:27:09 PM
1 votes:
95% of Obamites don't care what he does, they worship him.

But that 5% who own guns will get pissed. Believe it or not, many Democrats come from good old boy places and they will lose their seats if they follow Obama on this.

In Burlington, VT of all places there was tons of outrage over the proposed gun ban in the city. The most liberal place on Earth, and people were upset.
2013-01-09 05:25:01 PM
1 votes:

Insatiable Jesus: Dimensio: Oldiron_79: Get ready for over 2/3 gop house and senate after '14 cycle and a gop potus in'16

I am curious as to how many individuals who ridiculed expressed concerns of firearm confiscation during the election are now advocating firearm confiscation.

Everybody.


I know, isnt it hilarious?
2013-01-09 05:23:32 PM
1 votes:

Xcott: Actually, that wouldn't be bad public policy. Newtown happened not because "guns are legal," but because a schizo kid had a goddamn arsenal right there in his house. And that happened because it's become a teatard fad for everyone and your mother to have a badass arsenal for recreational shooting and because society's about to collapse. One of those oodles of heavily armed people is bound to have a schizo kid.


She was fairly wealthy and a bit nuts herself, you aren't going to price her out without pricing out every Appalachian deer hunter too, and in any event there's already 300 million privately owned guns out there.

Unfortunately I think that Norwegian nutbar shows that even with strong gun control you can't prevent someone who's truly pathologically nuts from killing a bunch of people by some means or another.

IMO the best bet is to (1) stop making these guys the #1 story in America for weeks. Focus on the victims, not the criminals with a walkthrough of how they did it, to cut down on copycats. (2) Have a better means of tracing guns so you can penalize people who provide guns to criminals and (3) reform the prison system so we stop making so many career criminals with no other prospects out of marginally farked up 18 year olds.
2013-01-09 05:23:09 PM
1 votes:
"I'm not gonna to take away your shotguns. I'm not gonna take away your rifles. I'm not gonna take away your handguns"

Remember that guy?
2013-01-09 05:22:01 PM
1 votes:
I doubt that this will happen but if it does I swear to walk up to every person that told me that Obama was a constitutional scholar and can be trusted to uphold the constitution and just slap them silly.
2013-01-09 05:22:01 PM
1 votes:

Insatiable Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.


How many DGUs would have been unnecessary if the other party didn't have a gun?


Also consider Great Britain.... if you're getting your head stomped in by more than 1 guy (sometimes just one big one) you may need to even the odds.... or if you have small children like I do...

GB violent crime is 3-4 times that of the US....
2013-01-09 05:21:09 PM
1 votes:

Xaneidolon: Think about the principle of this.

What if he were to issue an executive order eroding some part of the first amendment? Or any of a number of others that you might favor. How would you react?

In my mind, it's the same thing.

Let's be more straightforward. If the 2nd amendment needs to go, amend the constitution. If we need to go to war, let's have Congress make a declaration thereof. Ad naseum.

Recall how most of us felt with the legal, extra-legal, and even ethical gymnastics that occurred to "legalize" torture?

It's just all the same to me.



How the fark did they let you in this thread??? Stop making sense!

/newsletter, please
2013-01-09 05:20:11 PM
1 votes:

duffblue: Infernalist: Xcott: Vectron: He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.

Well, unless he plans on tripling the price by declaring a 200 PERCENT FIREARM TAX.

Actually, that wouldn't be bad public policy. Newtown happened not because "guns are legal," but because a schizo kid had a goddamn arsenal right there in his house. And that happened because it's become a teatard fad for everyone and your mother to have a badass arsenal for recreational shooting and because society's about to collapse. One of those oodles of heavily armed people is bound to have a schizo kid.

To combat this, what you need to do is have a policy that lets people keep and bear arms, but somehow reduces the raw number of weapons and "enthusiasts" stockpiling assault rifles on every block. A massive tax would probably serve that purpose.

$5000 per bullet should suffice.

How to you intend to reduce gun violence when every single firearm already purchased is grandfathered in?


If I had my way, I'd have the gun factories shut down. Without a steady flood of new guns into the system, the problem will solve itself in about 50 years.

Be glad a real liberal isn't in the President's seat.
2013-01-09 05:19:30 PM
1 votes:

Infernalist: Most of the farking retards who stock up on guns and ammo wouldn't know how to change the oil in their cars.


Sure they would. Not hard. Right now reloading supplies are just as hard to find right now as ammo. Besides, many would get rich in the newly created black market.
2013-01-09 05:19:14 PM
1 votes:

Empty Matchbook: Assault weapons /= all guns, but hey, don't let that stop the hyperbolic outrage.
[cdn.head-fi.org image 224x207]


"Assault weapon" is an entirely arbitrary classification based upon what a politician wishes to prohibit at a given time. The "assault weapons ban" currently proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein defines a substantially larger range of firearms as "assault weapons" than did the now-expired federal "assault weapons ban".
2013-01-09 05:19:12 PM
1 votes:
"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

You know who also liked gun control...
2013-01-09 05:17:48 PM
1 votes:

Holocaust Agnostic: Why is it absolutely imperative that something *must* be done? Violent crime is half what it was 40 years ago and the decline seems set to continue.


Correction... Violent crime is half what it was TWENTY years ago.
2013-01-09 05:14:48 PM
1 votes:

duffblue: I can't wait to be lectured about my gun rights by an administration responsible for giving guns to Mexican drug cartels.


I hate to be that guy but , THIS. What a farking joke.
2013-01-09 05:14:10 PM
1 votes:

Xcott: Vectron: He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.

Well, unless he plans on tripling the price by declaring a 200 PERCENT FIREARM TAX.

Actually, that wouldn't be bad public policy. Newtown happened not because "guns are legal," but because a schizo kid had a goddamn arsenal right there in his house. And that happened because it's become a teatard fad for everyone and your mother to have a badass arsenal for recreational shooting and because society's about to collapse. One of those oodles of heavily armed people is bound to have a schizo kid.

To combat this, what you need to do is have a policy that lets people keep and bear arms, but somehow reduces the raw number of weapons and "enthusiasts" stockpiling assault rifles on every block. A massive tax would probably serve that purpose.


Is the President empowered to impose new taxes by fiat? How would such a tax survive Constitutional challenge?
2013-01-09 05:12:41 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: To shoot American soldiers and police officers.


only if needed to beat back tyranny.
2013-01-09 05:12:37 PM
1 votes:

Vectron: There are 300 million guns in America. Not that many 'baggers.


But the 'baggers tend to believe in the worst possible scenarios. "Obama considering an executive order" probably sounds to them like he's considering rescinding the second amendment in its entirety. Due to their deranged obsession with all things Obama, this little announcement will likely raise their blood pressure to dangerous levels.

Dusk-You-n-Me: It's one of the hottest, most emotional issues for the rest of America too. 20 slaughtered children will do that.


True... we may be in for some fireworks.
2013-01-09 05:12:30 PM
1 votes:
In 2011, the latest year for which detailed statistics are available, there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms, down 3% from a year earlier.

So, how many of those were assualt rifle murders? Eight thousand? One?

Also, how many of those gun murders were gang bangers popping each other? Because no one gives a fark about them.
2013-01-09 05:12:24 PM
1 votes:

Vectron: He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.


Well, unless he plans on tripling the price by declaring a 200 PERCENT FIREARM TAX.

Actually, that wouldn't be bad public policy. Newtown happened not because "guns are legal," but because a schizo kid had a goddamn arsenal right there in his house. And that happened because it's become a teatard fad for everyone and your mother to have a badass arsenal for recreational shooting and because society's about to collapse. One of those oodles of heavily armed people is bound to have a schizo kid.

To combat this, what you need to do is have a policy that lets people keep and bear arms, but somehow reduces the raw number of weapons and "enthusiasts" stockpiling assault rifles on every block. A massive tax would probably serve that purpose.
2013-01-09 05:11:51 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: AbbeySomeone: I can understand rifles and pistols but why do people need the big weaponry ie, assault rifles, etc?

To shoot American soldiers and police officers.

Of course, they don't say that until later in the conversation but they get around to it eventually.

Are you actually that misinformed, or are you just lying?


No just a tired troll that doesn't even bother trying anymore.
2013-01-09 05:09:55 PM
1 votes:
Pub President gets in power, you will of course, be fine with him simply making whatever law he wants too, because liberals are honest and fair.
2013-01-09 05:09:25 PM
1 votes:
Charge the Hoverrounds up Honey, we're goin' to war!

/lol @ the hateful hillbillies
2013-01-09 05:05:35 PM
1 votes:

nevirus: Obama's gotta be trolling. This has been one of the hottest, most emotional issues for the 'baggers lately... he's trying to get their heads to explode.


Baggers? There are 300 million guns in America. Not that many 'baggers.
2013-01-09 05:05:16 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: Enjoy your rights while you can.


I know, right?  I should have stocked up on laudanum before the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914.
2013-01-09 05:02:11 PM
1 votes:

Theburner: Poor people buy AR's, rich people buy SCAR's.


Poor people buy Stags and DPMS....wealthy people buy Noveske and LaRue.
2013-01-09 05:01:01 PM
1 votes:
Poor people buy AR's, rich people buy SCAR's.
2013-01-09 05:00:47 PM
1 votes:
He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.
2013-01-09 04:58:42 PM
1 votes:
Deaths from guns are on pace to surpass traffic deaths in the United States by 2015, according to a Bloomberg News study. In 2011, the latest year for which detailed statistics are available, there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms, down 3% from a year earlier."

Hate guns but believe they should be legal.

Cars are safer than they've ever been.Back up cameras, shiat to keep you awake, etc.

What executive order is the dumbass going to pass to stop the other 4000 murders?
2013-01-09 04:56:25 PM
1 votes:
Damn it! I've been trying to buy an AR-15 for 3 months as my Christmas present to myself. Between the empty shelves and the jacked-up prices, I have been waiting for things to settle down.

This is not helping!
2013-01-09 04:55:44 PM
1 votes:
Good. And when crazy pants people like that yelling dude on cnn decide to retaliate, we can put them away forever and make the world a better place.
2013-01-09 04:55:07 PM
1 votes:

ourbigdumbmouth: I'm cool with only rich people having guns


Move to Mexico.
2013-01-09 04:19:51 PM
1 votes:
I think some tea kettles would boil over.
 
Displayed 203 of 203 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report