Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(LA Times)   Well, it's time to reset the "days until we can talk about gun control" counter back to zero again   (latimesblogs.latimes.com ) divider line
    More: News, Kern County, Taft Union High School, gun controls, counters  
•       •       •

19304 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:04 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2013-01-10 04:25:17 PM  
Come take them....Cowards
 
2013-01-10 04:25:56 PM  

chuckufarlie: If you do not want to turn in your illegal fire arms, then we can have the FBI come and take them from you.


Which is precisely why people oppose registration.
 
2013-01-10 04:26:48 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: GoldSpider: whidbey: It should not be allowed to have the features of the second model, because it's obviously for military use.

And supposing you're not trolling, how do you know gun #2 is used by the military? I'd wager you can't even identify the model.

There is only one feature that matters - magazines. Rifles that use magazines should be confiscated. Then your objections to the stupidity of the law would be removed. There would be no ambiguity.

By what means would compensation for such a confiscation act be budgeted?

Compensation? If the guns are made illegal to own, you would have to turn them in or be arrested. We do not give compensation to drug dealers. There item is illegal and so would the guns.

Thank you for admitting that you are in fact an authoritarian fascist in addition to a liar.

You don't know what those words mean, do you?

If something is illegal, then it is illegal. What part of that do you not understand?

You are advocating depriving millions of law-abiding citizens of billions of dollars worth of their property without any compensation. Such a measure would result in substantially increased rates of noncompliance as compared to a system where fair compensation were provided, and would create a black market for firearm owners who wished to rid themselves of contraband property but who also wished to receive some compensation for their loss. Your proposal would substantially reduce any possible improved "safety" -- due to the larger rates of noncompliance and the substantial incentive for feeding a black market -- than would a compensation system. As such, you are demonstrably not actually interested in increasing "safety"; your proposal is specifically intended to oppress a class of individuals, which is consistent with authoritarian fascism.

If you do not want to turn in your illegal fire arms, then we can have the FBI come and take them from you.


The fact remains that you are an authoritarian fascist, and that you are a liar. Your proposals remain entirely unreasonable and Unconstitutional.
 
2013-01-10 04:26:56 PM  
Look... If we can get to 365 days without anyone dying from guns in the whole entire world, then, maybe we can think about setting a time table for considering the possibility of setting up a fact-finding committee to look into the possibility that gun violence is a bad thing.
 
2013-01-10 04:27:13 PM  

SFSailor: Easy solution, or at least a path to one:

Appease the gun crowd: Buy whatever you want. "Because fark you I want one" is a perfectly legitimate reason to own a weapon.

But, that comes with a cost... the cost of responsibility both fiscal and mental.

Let's put a nationwide tax on all gun-, ammunition- and gun-related items (hearing protection... targets... cases... stupid stickers for your truck... etc). Starts at 5%.

All revenue from that tax go to funding a massive mental health campaign -- screening of children from elementary school through college; screening of anyone buying a gun; annual screening of anyone with a license for a gun, which would also include checking for proper security and storage of that gun. Let's have PR campaigns working to reduce the stigma of mental counseling and increase the willingness of people to get help. Let's have success stories of people who were helped -before- they shot up a movie theater. Etc etc etc.

Here's the rub: Every time two or more people are killed with a gun, the tax goes up 5%. No limit.

Even if it's at 7000%, if some poor soul shoots up a [school | mall | nursing station | whatever]... 7005%, effective immediately.

You want an AR-AK-M-16-mp3-LOL fully auto anti-tank howitzer? Fine. But contribute to paying for and preventing the harm other weapons like it do to our society. Be a responsible gun owner, and support getting help for those who need it, and maybe, just maybe, we can reduce the problem. Fair trade?

Let's do that with foods that aren't vegetables too and vehicles, for every car accident that injures more then 1 person add 5% tax to gasoline. For ever heart attack etc add 5% tax to food. Make it compounding. I'm tired of paying for fat peoples healthcare and rules around food that you can/cannot eat.
 
2013-01-10 04:27:38 PM  

chuckufarlie: You have a problem with the fact that people do not know what guns should be banned and which ones should not.


Not really. Nobody can know everything, and this is a subject that a whole lot of people don't have any interest in. I do however have a problem with people who are ignorant on a subject, know they are ignorant (but think that it somehow doesn't matter) and still try to regulate that thing.

chuckufarlie: That is why we ban guns based on their abilities and performance and not by the way that they look.


Yeah, you'd think. Yet here we are going back and forth with a guy who has a problem with the drapes but not the window.
 
2013-01-10 04:27:51 PM  

whidbey: Yeah we have this amazingly violent culture


We actually aren't all that bad... say compared to the brits:

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe
 
2013-01-10 04:29:00 PM  

chuckufarlie: GoldSpider: chuckufarlie: If you do not want to turn in your illegal fire arms, then we can have the FBI come and take them from you.

Which is precisely why people oppose registration.

At this point, I do not care why people oppose registration. Law abiding citizens would not oppose it.

What I oppose is some of your ilk shooting up another school.


"Guilt by association" is logically fallacious. However, I understand that as a dishonest authoritarian fascist, you are likely unable to present rational arguments to justify your position.
 
2013-01-10 04:29:14 PM  

Skarekrough: Pfactor: But... high capacity magazines and military-looking rifles are ALREADY banned in California. Gun activists told us this couldn't happen!

Only two injured, not double-digits dead.

Try harder.

1/10

At least we know what your threshold is for a horribleness: double-digit dead. You could be a military planner or possible Dick Cheney.
 
2013-01-10 04:30:54 PM  

whidbey: I'm just as qualified as anyone else who opposes gun violence, F.A.T..


Not when it comes to specifics of what should and shouldn't be banned.

chuckufarlie: not at all. It is just common sense. If the one gun should be banned, then so should the other. They have the same basic performance.


That's a reasonable statement. I don't agree that either should be banned, but you at least can see that they are the same damn weapon.

chuckufarlie: If you do not want to turn in your illegal fire arms, then we can have the FBI come and take them from you.


Ooh, good luck with that one. You'll have even less luck getting rid of the 4th amendment than you will the 2nd.
 
2013-01-10 04:31:41 PM  

chuckufarlie: Law abiding citizens would not oppose it.


I'm a law abiding citizen, and I oppose it.
 
2013-01-10 04:32:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: What matters is how fast the bullets can be fired.


Eh, that's only one part of the equation. There's a lot more to how deadly a gun will be than how fast you can empty a mag.

chuckufarlie: Performance is what matters.


Agreed.
 
2013-01-10 04:33:19 PM  

chuckufarlie: kombat_unit: chuckufarlie: Virtue: Come take them....Cowards

says the moron who has to have a gun to feel like a man. What are you so afraid of that you need to have a gun?

Criminals with guns?

That is what I thought. you are a coward. Guns make you feel like a man. You are truly sad.


Your assessment of cowardice must be balanced by the fact that you are a dishonest authoritarian fascist.
 
2013-01-10 04:34:02 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Ooh, good luck with that one. You'll have even less luck getting rid of the 4th amendment than you will the 2nd.


I guess he wants to get a lot of cops shot too.
 
2013-01-10 04:34:22 PM  

LaRoach: whidbey: Yeah we have this amazingly violent culture

We actually aren't all that bad... say compared to the brits:

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe


Didn't even get to the bottom of the article in your rush to post huh?

"Researchers admit that comparisons of crime data between countries must be viewed with caution because of differing criminal justice systems and how crimes are reported and measured.
A Home Office spokesperson said: "These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime."
 
2013-01-10 04:34:32 PM  
Nice day for a
White wedding...
 
2013-01-10 04:34:42 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: Ah so if we are at such an advanced stage in our societal development, why then is it not enough to use physical restraint to not abuse a firearm but instead you need to have the government actively take it away from citizens?


Because the honor system isn't, and it often takes law to enact change.

. At which point, you should not need to take away anything because your "progressive" society has reached a point where violent crime almost ceases to exist. You and I both know that this is a utopian fairy tale.

So regulation of any kind is a "utopian fairy tale" to you?

So because I free-willingly can choose to ignore said limit and drive faster, should cars all be outfitted with governors disallowing them from exceeding the posted limits? What you and others advocate is the government taking anything potentially harmful or that does not fit within your realm of a perfect society and limiting freedoms

Government is made up of the people. It is not a sinister nefarious evil organization you're making it out to be. Obviously I'm having trouble with your worldview.
 
2013-01-10 04:35:08 PM  

chuckufarlie: Virtue: Come take them....Cowards

says the moron who has to have a gun to feel like a man. What are you so afraid of that you need to have a gun?


Yep. That's really what everyone with a gun thinks. Including the millions of women who own guns.
 
2013-01-10 04:35:19 PM  
I love the "These are exactly the same" posts. No they aren't. A folding stock and a pistol grip, that handle further up the barrel, shorter barrel, all this makes the gun more effective and practical in tight quarters, like a school or a movie theater. If they are all the same, why don't we issue mass market hunting rifles to the Troops? It'd be cheaper.

The Military doesn't do anything for "style" it's all done to enhance the effectiveness of the weapon for the purpose they have in mind, killing people. The only exception to this are things that make the guns cheaper without compromising effectiveness. If a pink gun was more effective, all military guns would be pink. The enhancements that produce the "military style" are there for field of combat effectiveness and if they didn't work, they wouldn't be there.
 
2013-01-10 04:36:03 PM  

whidbey: Government is made up of the people. It is not a sinister nefarious evil organization you're making it out to be. Obviously I'm having trouble with your worldview.


I bet your rosy opinion of the federal government was quite different five or six years ago.
 
2013-01-10 04:36:06 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: And if you really care about what I should know, then I would appreciate some links that deal with some of the specifics.

Says the person who claims the AWB was a "huge deterrent" yet cannot produce any evidence to support said claim.


I'm not the one in denial here. Do the math. How many people were legally able to buy assault weapons in 2005?
 
2013-01-10 04:36:33 PM  

Dimensio: chuckufarlie: kombat_unit: chuckufarlie: Virtue: Come take them....Cowards

says the moron who has to have a gun to feel like a man. What are you so afraid of that you need to have a gun?

Criminals with guns?

That is what I thought. you are a coward. Guns make you feel like a man. You are truly sad.

Your assessment of cowardice must be balanced by the fact that you are a dishonest authoritarian fascist.


He's either a complete troll (likely) or another tard who wants to pigeonhole all gun owners into one tidy group (white male republican christian rednecks.)

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership- s tatistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

Link

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2013-01-10 04:36:56 PM  
Alright, since everyone keeps mentioning the AWB, lemme hit you with some knowledge.

This, I repeat, will not stop mass shootings. The original AWB was passed in 1994 and sunset in 2004 and during this time we had:
1999 Columbine, 15 dead 21 injured
1997 North Hollywood Shootout, 2 dead 18 injured (LEO mind you)
1998 Westside Middle School, 5 dead, 10 injured

Let's not forget one of the worst...
VT Shooting 33 dead, 23 injured. With 2 firearms that would perfectly pass the AWB, simply a Glock 19 9mm and Walther 22 .22LR.

It happens and will continue to happen, AWB or not.
 
2013-01-10 04:37:22 PM  

whidbey: To me there is a huge difference in the purpose of either of those weapons. I don't think I can convince you otherwise.


whidbey: Not trolling. I'm trying to provide some leeway here. If the top example could really be justified in the use of hunting, then that is a reasonable exception to the ban.


Jesus. H. Tap. Dancing. Farking. Christ.
It is the same Goddamn gun. If you say the top one is okay since it can be used for hunting, then how is the other's only purpose 'military use only'? The 2nd one can be used for hunting just as well. More comfortably, in fact, as you can adjust the stock according to your position. There is no difference in purpose of the weapons. One has wood on it, the other has plastic. The purpose happens to be what you are using it for at the moment. They can both be used for hunting or shooting busloads of school kids equally well. But most people have no problem with the top one, simply because of look.
 
2013-01-10 04:37:49 PM  

DeathCipris: Alright, since everyone keeps mentioning the AWB, lemme hit you with some knowledge.

This, I repeat, will not stop mass shootings. The original AWB was passed in 1994 and sunset in 2004 and during this time we had:
1999 Columbine, 15 dead 21 injured
1997 North Hollywood Shootout, 2 dead 18 injured (LEO mind you)
1998 Westside Middle School, 5 dead, 10 injured

Let's not forget one of the worst...
VT Shooting 33 dead, 23 injured. With 2 firearms that would perfectly pass the AWB, simply a Glock 19 9mm and Walther 22 .22LR.

It happens and will continue to happen, AWB or not.


Damn. Forgot to add that VT Shooting was in 2008.
 
2013-01-10 04:37:58 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: Government is made up of the people. It is not a sinister nefarious evil organization you're making it out to be. Obviously I'm having trouble with your worldview.

I bet your rosy opinion of the federal government was quite different five or six years ago.


Not at all. We had someone very scary in office, and I'm glad that person's gone.
 
2013-01-10 04:38:04 PM  

whidbey: How many people were legally able to buy assault weapons in 2005?


You're the one making the claim. You tell me.
 
2013-01-10 04:38:30 PM  

PDid: Didn't even get to the bottom of the article in your rush to post huh?


Nah, I just wanted to get in on the troll fun!
 
2013-01-10 04:38:35 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: Government is made up of the people. It is not a sinister nefarious evil organization you're making it out to be. Obviously I'm having trouble with your worldview.

I bet your rosy opinion of the federal government was quite different five or six years ago.


The government, as a collection of people effecting governance, is made up up people who can successfully ask to be showered with millions of dollars in order to apply for a 90,000.00 - 400,000.00 a year job. Think about that.
 
2013-01-10 04:40:00 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: I'm just as qualified as anyone else who opposes gun violence, F.A.T..

Not when it comes to specifics of what should and shouldn't be banned.


I've got an open mind. I'm not about banning all weaponry, I support strict regulation.

I still object to your and Dimensio's insistence on extraneous information being an all or nothing qualifier to join this discussion.
 
2013-01-10 04:40:49 PM  

chuckufarlie: DeathCipris: Alright, since everyone keeps mentioning the AWB, lemme hit you with some knowledge.

This, I repeat, will not stop mass shootings. The original AWB was passed in 1994 and sunset in 2004 and during this time we had:
1999 Columbine, 15 dead 21 injured
1997 North Hollywood Shootout, 2 dead 18 injured (LEO mind you)
1998 Westside Middle School, 5 dead, 10 injured

Let's not forget one of the worst...
VT Shooting 33 dead, 23 injured. With 2 firearms that would perfectly pass the AWB, simply a Glock 19 9mm and Walther 22 .22LR.

It happens and will continue to happen, AWB or not.

The AWB was as worthless as any law ever enacted. What we need this time is a much stricter law that is well defined and easy to understand.

Why would we want to make the same mistake twice?


Aside from a full-on ban of all weapons, I don't see how a current AWB can be made to be different than the previous, useless AWB.
 
2013-01-10 04:41:05 PM  
Man alive, this does not seem that hard to me. It's not a debate that has to be painted in black-and-white.

1) Stringent background checks before a gun can be purchased.
2) Guns that are sufficient for home defense and/or hunting should be legal to own; guns designed specifically to kill (many) people should not.
3) More resources should be devoted to mental health care, since that seems to be a common factor in these types of incidents. I suspect easy access to a gun makes a mentally ill person more likely to commit murder, but I don't have the data to back that up.

"Ban all guns" and "you can't ban any guns at all, slippery slope, plus I might have to rebel against the government" are both pretty extreme viewpoints. Why is everyone in the modern U.S. so afraid of compromise?
 
2013-01-10 04:41:36 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-10 04:43:04 PM  

ultimabeam: Guns that are sufficient for home defense and/or hunting should be legal to own; guns designed specifically to kill (many) people should not.


Yet no "reasonable" person has been able to define the distinction.
 
2013-01-10 04:43:32 PM  

chuckufarlie: If the govt. decided that the guns were no longer legal and must be turned in, would you comply? If you did not comply, you would not be a law abiding citizen, would you.


There's a difference between criminals who want to be criminals, and people who would otherwise be law abiding but have been turned into criminals by their government. To say that a guy unwilling to give up something that he feels shouldn't be banned is the same and will behave the same as a guy who wants to kill a bunch of kids is pretty damn intellectually dishonest.
 
2013-01-10 04:43:51 PM  

plewis: I love the "These are exactly the same" posts. No they aren't. A folding stock and a pistol grip, that handle further up the barrel, shorter barrel, all this makes the gun more effective and practical in tight quarters, like a school or a movie theater. If they are all the same, why don't we issue mass market hunting rifles to the Troops? It'd be cheaper.


A weapon's size and shape has nothing to do with how it performs. A weapon being shorter does not mean that it shoots faster. We do issue hunting rifles to the Troops, they're called sniper rifles. The M-24 that I used in the Army was just a Remington 700 with the stock replaced and crappier optics than what I can get at BassPro.
 
2013-01-10 04:45:09 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: Government is made up of the people. It is not a sinister nefarious evil organization you're making it out to be. Obviously I'm having trouble with your worldview.

I bet your rosy opinion of the federal government was quite different five or six years ago.

Not at all. We had someone very scary in office, and I'm glad that person's gone.


Yeah....and having a POTUS who is toying with the idea of gun control via executive orders isn't scary at all.
 
2013-01-10 04:45:31 PM  

chuckufarlie: ultimabeam: Man alive, this does not seem that hard to me. It's not a debate that has to be painted in black-and-white.

1) Stringent background checks before a gun can be purchased.
2) Guns that are sufficient for home defense and/or hunting should be legal to own; guns designed specifically to kill (many) people should not.
3) More resources should be devoted to mental health care, since that seems to be a common factor in these types of incidents. I suspect easy access to a gun makes a mentally ill person more likely to commit murder, but I don't have the data to back that up.

"Ban all guns" and "you can't ban any guns at all, slippery slope, plus I might have to rebel against the government" are both pretty extreme viewpoints. Why is everyone in the modern U.S. so afraid of compromise?

Your definition is open to interpretation. Just say all rifles that use magazines and there is no wiggle room.


Yes, I realize this. I wrote this post at my computer in five minutes, and I'm not a farking legislator. Do you agree that there's some merit to the general approach?
 
2013-01-10 04:48:08 PM  

chuckufarlie: I just want to keep your ilk from killing kids


People of my ilk? You mean the people who don't (and have zero desire) to kill kids? You don't have to keep us from killing kids.

chuckufarlie: You fear criminals with guns


No I don't. I have nothing to fear, I can protect myself.
 
2013-01-10 04:48:51 PM  

chuckufarlie: MythDragon: whidbey: I am in favor of reinstating the AWB. Because the type of weapons described in the law are not necessary to be in the hands of a civilian population. As stated, the law does not infringe on the right to bear arms.

And here is the problem. People not knowing what the law actualy banned. People will say they are okay with people having a hunting rifle, but not 'assault weapons'.

Here is a hunting rifle
[home.mchsi.com image 640x429]

And here is an assault rifle (according to the ban)
[cdn2.armslist.com image 590x300]

According to the ban, one the top one is okay to have, but the bottom 'doesn't belong on the streets in the hands of civilians'
They are the SAME rifle
The only difference one is made with wood, the other plastic. They have different grips, and the bottom one has a stock that adjusts to the user to fit more body types.

Aside from that, they function EXACTLY the same and shoot the same bullet the same number of times.

But yet the bottom one was banned because of how you hold it and because you can adjust the stock to fit your shoulder. That is what you are in favor of banning. How people hold their guns. Did you even know this? Or does banning the scary name 'assault' make you feel better? True 'assault' weapons are already banned. They have been since the 1930's. But people call for a reinstatement of the AWB despite not having ANY idea of that they would be banning.

You made the claim several days ago that assault rifles have been banned since the 1930's and I proved you wrong. Instead of being a man and admitting that you were wrong then, you come back and repeat the same lie again.

Another truly funny thing is that assault rifles were not even invented until 1944. Who banned a weapon ten years before it existed.

FYI, the Thompson sub machine gun has never been classified as an assault weapon by anybody but people as stupid as you are.

Now, be a man just once in your life, admit that you are wrong and stop spreading lies ...


I was unaware this event occured. I blame fark for not providing me an email notification of such provings taking place.

National Fireams Act of 1934:
It banned:
Machine guns-this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.

Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)-this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.

Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)-this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the barrel must be at least 18" instead of 16", and the barrel must be a smoothbore. The minimum overall length limit remains 26".

Silencers -this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.


The thompson would have been classified as a machine gun. I don't claimed they called it an 'assault rifle' back then. But that's what we could call it today.

And since I missed it last time, please tell me how exactly I am wrong.
 
2013-01-10 04:48:54 PM  

chuckufarlie: What I said was that you would be a criminal.


I never said anything different.
 
2013-01-10 04:49:07 PM  

whidbey: the money is in the banana stand: Ah so if we are at such an advanced stage in our societal development, why then is it not enough to use physical restraint to not abuse a firearm but instead you need to have the government actively take it away from citizens?

Because the honor system isn't, and it often takes law to enact change.

. At which point, you should not need to take away anything because your "progressive" society has reached a point where violent crime almost ceases to exist. You and I both know that this is a utopian fairy tale.

So regulation of any kind is a "utopian fairy tale" to you?

So because I free-willingly can choose to ignore said limit and drive faster, should cars all be outfitted with governors disallowing them from exceeding the posted limits? What you and others advocate is the government taking anything potentially harmful or that does not fit within your realm of a perfect society and limiting freedoms

Government is made up of the people. It is not a sinister nefarious evil organization you're making it out to be. Obviously I'm having trouble with your worldview.


I did not say that ANY kind of regulation is a utopian fairy tale. I said that to think that violent crime would disappear and the need for weapons would disappear is a utopian fairy tale. Not allowing the purchase of "some" weapons is acceptable. Having to pass an extensive background check is acceptable. The total ban of weapons or semi-automatic weapons is pushing it. Also, it is exactly because it is made up of people that I give it so much credit. Trusting the government is a very bad idea. Do I sit around with a tin foil hat on and have a stockpile of weapons in a bunker outside? No, but at the same time I am not naive enough to believe that the government (people) are righteous.
 
2013-01-10 04:49:22 PM  

GoldSpider: ultimabeam: Guns that are sufficient for home defense and/or hunting should be legal to own; guns designed specifically to kill (many) people should not.

Yet no "reasonable" person has been able to define the distinction.


It's really not that hard. And the often deliberate obfuscation seen in these threads only makes it that much more obvious.
 
2013-01-10 04:50:44 PM  

ultimabeam: Yes, I realize this. I wrote this post at my computer in five minutes, and I'm not a farking legislator. Do you agree that there's some merit to the general approach?


I admire the fact that you're trying and it appears to be in all earnestness, but there are some real problems with your second point.

a) who decides?
2) what is "powerful enough"? By what standard?
green) what happens when my home is invaded by more than 1 person at a time?
 
2013-01-10 04:50:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: Anybody who has to have a gun handy is afraid of something.


This is true if a person owns a gun for defense purposes. Possibly false if owned for other reasons.


What they are actually afraid of is nothing but their own imagination.

This is a sweeping generalization


A person afraid of his own imagination is a coward.

I don't see how this follows at all.
 
2013-01-10 04:51:11 PM  

whidbey: Government is made up of the people.


Cool. Just like corporations.

James Buchanan (not that one) just died.

Dr. Buchanan, a professor emeritus at George Mason, in Fairfax, Va., was a leading proponent of public choice theory, which assumes that politicians and government officials, like everyone else, are motivated by self-interest...
 
2013-01-10 04:52:47 PM  
farking gun grabbers, I swear to God.

Yeah, and I bet my Mom is a coward as well for carrying a handgun when she's working on my Grandparents' old house.....never mind that it's five acres, nobody lives close by, and the police response time would be beyond long.
 
2013-01-10 04:52:55 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: I said that to think that violent crime would disappear and the need for weapons would disappear is a utopian fairy tale. Not allowing the purchase of "some" weapons is acceptable. Having to pass an extensive background check is acceptable. The total ban of weapons or semi-automatic weapons is pushing it. Also, it is exactly because it is made up of people that I give it so much credit. Trusting the government is a very bad idea. Do I sit around with a tin foil hat on and have a stockpile of weapons in a bunker outside?.


Again, we are the government. It is not some nebulous unreachable unchangeable entity to be feared and loathed (thanks a lot, Reagan!)

No, but at the same time I am not naive enough to believe that the government (people) are righteous

You missed the point again. It takes law to enact change. By banning assault weapons per the AWB, we are making the statement as a nation and as a society that certain weapons are not acceptable in this society.
 
2013-01-10 04:53:03 PM  

MythDragon: The thompson would have been classified as a machine gun. I don't claimed they called it an 'assault rifle' back then. But that's what we could call it today.


point of order: A Thompson is a submachine gun as it fires pistol ammo. They are FUN as hell to shoot though, and I highly recommend the experience if you have the opportunity.
 
2013-01-10 04:54:56 PM  

jigger: whidbey: Government is made up of the people.

Cool. Just like corporations.


So corporations are governments to you? Interesting. Only they have a Board of Directors instead of the Constitutional powers of separation. Much more efficient wouldn't you say?
 
Displayed 50 of 741 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report