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.

(Talking Points Memo)   It looks like nobody is buying the 'gun control' they're selling, so they're re-branding it as 'gun safety'   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 266
    More: Asinine, Brady Campaign, gun safety, Biden  
•       •       •

2204 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jan 2013 at 3:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-11 01:42:00 PM
I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.
 
2013-01-11 01:44:52 PM
Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.
 
2013-01-11 01:45:34 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.


What do you consider meaningful? Because an assault rifle ban isn't gonna do much to change the homicide rate.
 
2013-01-11 01:48:56 PM

make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.


Gun safety is pretty simple. Treat every gun like it is loaded. Don' t point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.
 
2013-01-11 01:52:43 PM

EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Gun safety is pretty simple. Treat every gun like it is loaded. Don' t point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.


Don't give guns to crazy people.
Don't give guns to people with criminal records.
Don't let kids handle guns without strict supervision and proper guidance.
Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.
 
2013-01-11 01:53:35 PM

EatenTheSun: Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.

What do you consider meaningful? Because an assault rifle ban isn't gonna do much to change the homicide rate.


I think it would.  It will lower the number of casualties at these farking mass shootings, anyway.

I think guns should be as regulated as cars and driver's licenses.  Tests, background checks, classes, check-ups, renewals for classes and licenses...the whole thing.

I would prefer guns be outlawed completely and every single one of them melted down, but my idealistic bent takes a back seat to practicality and feasibility.
 
2013-01-11 01:53:43 PM

make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.


Exactly.

One thing I'd like to know though.  The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.   If somehow that did happen, do they really think their "Michigan Militia" and the like are going to take down this dictator?  It isn't like rebels trying to fight the government of Rwanda.... our government (and whomever is in charge of it) can squash you like a bug if they really thought they needed to...  I mean, the government can pull out weapons you'd never even think about.

I mean, ok, yeah, if everyone is fully "unarmed" , then, the "dictatorship" happens much easier, I won't deny that.  But, even if you are supposedly "armed to the teeth".... compared to a fully stocked US Armed Forces (assuming for the most part that the rank & file of the armed forces are on the side of the government)... you are nothing.

Of course, the people who believe this most likely think we are basically under a dictator right now, which is 90% of the problem.
 
2013-01-11 01:54:10 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I don't care what they brand it as, as long as they get something meaningful done.


When one party equates the 2nd Amendment as religion and any attempt to change that as throwing them to the lions, don't expect anything meaningful to get done.
 
2013-01-11 01:56:42 PM
Cold. Dead. Fingers.

Proper gun control is using two hands.
 
2013-01-11 01:58:26 PM

EatenTheSun: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Gun safety is pretty simple. Treat every gun like it is loaded. Don' t point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the tringer until you are ready to fire. Done.


Ironic that those with absolutely no concept of these fundamental safety rules are painting themselves as 'experts' because they looked at a bunch of pictures of guns. Magazine in gun, finger on trigger.  If someone in the audience were carrying concealed, they might have shot her.


i831.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-11 02:01:37 PM

make me some tea: Don't give guns to crazy people.

This is the hard part.  Identifying crazy people, and also what right does the government have to deem one 'crazy'?  I mean under the current law?

Don't give guns to people with criminal records.
We already do this, don't we?  Of course anyone can buy a gun out of someone's trunk, even those crazy folks, even if we could identify them.

Don't let kids handle guns without strict supervision and proper guidance.
Common sense, but this falls on the parent.  No government agency is capable of enforcing this.

Squeeze slowly, the kick should surprise you.
Maybe the first time, but you will quickly get a feel for where the trigger's fire threshold is.
 
2013-01-11 02:02:09 PM

dletter: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Exactly.

One thing I'd like to know though.  The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.   If somehow that did happen, do they really think their "Michigan Militia" and the like are going to take down this dictator?  It isn't like rebels trying to fight the government of Rwanda.... our government (and whomever is in charge of it) can squash you like a bug if they really thought they needed to...  I mean, the government can pull out weapons you'd never even think about.

I mean, ok, yeah, if everyone is fully "unarmed" , then, the "dictatorship" happens much easier, I won't deny that.  But, even if you are supposedly "armed to the teeth".... compared to a fully stocked US Armed Forces (assuming for the most part that the rank & file of the armed forces are on the side of the government)... you are nothing.

Of course, the people who believe this most likely think we are basically under a dictator right now, which is 90% of the problem.


Civilian gun ownership does not protect a populace from an authoritarian government, nor does it guarantee rule of law. Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule had an armed populace, for example.
 
2013-01-11 02:06:07 PM

dletter: One thing I'd like to know though. The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.


Actually the 2nd amendment empowers the government to use the militia to fight off insurrections and threats.  Kind of the opposite of what these yahoos think it means.
 
2013-01-11 02:06:53 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Cold. Dead. Fingers.

Proper gun control is using two hands.


So, if the Newtown shooter had used two hands, this all could have been avoided then?
 
2013-01-11 02:08:17 PM

nekom: We already do this, don't we?  Of course anyone can buy a gun out of someone's trunk, even those crazy folks, even if we could identify them.


There needs to be some sort of accountability in place to hold the gun owner responsible for its misuse.

Using the car analogy (a car can be used as a deadly weapon): When you buy a car, it has a title. You have to register it to drive it. When you sell the car, you transfer the title to the new owner, and the new owner has to register it again. If you let someone borrow your car and they hit a pedestrian with it, the pedestrian can sues the driver, you, and your insurance.

Why can't this type of responsibility be applied to firearms?
 
2013-01-11 02:08:20 PM
Considering that this is a push to make the country safer, that makes perfect sense.
 
2013-01-11 02:11:06 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Cold. Dead. Fingers.

Proper gun control is using two hands.

So, if the Newtown shooter had used two hands, this all could have been avoided then?


I laughed way too hard at that. I'll show myself the door to Hell now.
 
2013-01-11 02:11:19 PM
Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".
 
2013-01-11 02:12:53 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Cold. Dead. Fingers.

Proper gun control is using two hands.


The Rambo fantasy from old fat white guy. Scary.
 
2013-01-11 02:13:51 PM

EatenTheSun: Treat every gun like it is loaded. Don' t point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.


I'm pretty sure most of the recent mass murders or attempted mass murders were working off of this ethos. That didn't seem to help the rest of us. I'm ready to call it inadequate.
 
2013-01-11 02:15:03 PM

make me some tea: There needs to be some sort of accountability in place to hold the gun owner responsible for its misuse.

Using the car analogy (a car can be used as a deadly weapon): When you buy a car, it has a title. You have to register it to drive it. When you sell the car, you transfer the title to the new owner, and the new owner has to register it again. If you let someone borrow your car and they hit a pedestrian with it, the pedestrian can sues the driver, you, and your insurance.

Why can't this type of responsibility be applied to firearms?


Well, the key difference is that you will obviously be pulled over if your car doesn't have proper plates and tags, which you would have a hell of a time getting (though probably not impossible) for a car you "found" or wound up with somehow.  A gun, on the other hand, well unless you get pulled over and searched or use it in a crime, an unlicensed gun can exist and be useful without a single bit of paperwork. 
It's a tough nut to crack.
 
2013-01-11 02:17:48 PM

nekom: Identifying crazy people, and also what right does the government have to deem one 'crazy'? I mean under the current law?


I'm pretty sure officials make determinations about people's mental health all the time. The problem is that they often don't do it well enough.
 
2013-01-11 02:18:47 PM

violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".


We should put Sheriff Joe in charge. He is great at this sort of thing.
 
2013-01-11 02:25:00 PM

nekom: make me some tea: There needs to be some sort of accountability in place to hold the gun owner responsible for its misuse.

Using the car analogy (a car can be used as a deadly weapon): When you buy a car, it has a title. You have to register it to drive it. When you sell the car, you transfer the title to the new owner, and the new owner has to register it again. If you let someone borrow your car and they hit a pedestrian with it, the pedestrian can sues the driver, you, and your insurance.

Why can't this type of responsibility be applied to firearms?

Well, the key difference is that you will obviously be pulled over if your car doesn't have proper plates and tags, which you would have a hell of a time getting (though probably not impossible) for a car you "found" or wound up with somehow.  A gun, on the other hand, well unless you get pulled over and searched or use it in a crime, an unlicensed gun can exist and be useful without a single bit of paperwork. 
It's a tough nut to crack.


Sure, there are obviously practical differences there, but just because it's tough doesn't mean we throw our hands up in the air and say it's unsolvable and give up. I'm not saying I have any answers myself either, just saying there has to be an answer for this.
 
2013-01-11 02:26:34 PM

make me some tea: Sure, there are obviously practical differences there, but just because it's tough doesn't mean we throw our hands up in the air and say it's unsolvable and give up. I'm not saying I have any answers myself either, just saying there has to be an answer for this.


There is, but we'll never find it here.  The answer is to ban assault weapons and handguns.  It won't hurt hunters or those who want a weapon for home defense, but it will make it awfully hard to kill dozens of people.  Fat chance of that ever happening in the states though.
 
2013-01-11 02:26:36 PM

nekom: make me some tea: Don't give guns to crazy people.
This is the hard part.  Identifying crazy people, and also what right does the government have to deem one 'crazy'?  I mean under the current law?


It's not hard.  In my state, part of the background check asks if, within the past five years, you've been committed voluntarily or involuntarily for six months or longer to a facility whose primary purpose is the treatment of mental health.

There's also a form I've filled out at a local gun store that asks the purpose of the purchase (straw buying is illegal).  I'm pretty sure that if anyone put "going on a mass killing spree next month" they would not be allowed to purchase the weapon.

So now we're down to subjective assessments of who's 'crazy'.  I think Diane Feinstein, an elected representative who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and yet seems bound and determined to trample on it (she also approves of warrantless wiretaps, a violation of the Fouth Amendment) is bat-shiat crazy.  And yet, there's a picture of Diane, holding an AK-47s with a 75-round magazine, possibly loaded, possibly with a round in the chamber, pointing it at people with her hand on the trigger.  Lock that crazy biatch up!  If you don't start with her, then you can't make judgments against anyone else.
 
2013-01-11 02:26:46 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Cold. Dead. Fingers.Cuts

Proper gun sub control is using two hands.

www.fredericksburgparent.net
Correct!

s3-media4.ak.yelpcdn.com
NO!
 
2013-01-11 02:28:54 PM

make me some tea: dletter: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Exactly.

One thing I'd like to know though.  The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.   If somehow that did happen, do they really think their "Michigan Militia" and the like are going to take down this dictator?  It isn't like rebels trying to fight the government of Rwanda.... our government (and whomever is in charge of it) can squash you like a bug if they really thought they needed to...  I mean, the government can pull out weapons you'd never even think about.

I mean, ok, yeah, if everyone is fully "unarmed" , then, the "dictatorship" happens much easier, I won't deny that.  But, even if you are supposedly "armed to the teeth".... compared to a fully stocked US Armed Forces (assuming for the most part that the rank & file of the armed forces are on the side of the government)... you are nothing.

Of course, the people who believe this most likely think we are basically under a dictator right now, which is 90% of the problem.

Civilian gun ownership does not protect a populace from an authoritarian government, nor does it guarantee rule of law. Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule had an armed populace, for example.


I dunno. I'm told everyone in the military are God fearing patriots that will rise up en masse with the civilian population to depose the Obamatator.
 
2013-01-11 02:34:24 PM

djkutch: I dunno. I'm told everyone in the military are God fearing patriots that will rise up en masse with the civilian population to depose the Obamatator.


lulz
 
2013-01-11 02:34:27 PM
syrynxx: If you don't start with her, then you can't make judgments against anyone else.

Well Ted Nugent is crazy too.  And Wayne LaPierre isn't helping his case.
 
2013-01-11 02:39:48 PM

Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".

We should put Sheriff Joe in charge. He is great at this sort of thing.


Reactionary responses based in unfounded fear and prejudice? Yeah that does sound a lot like Sheriff Joe.
 
2013-01-11 02:40:54 PM

dletter: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Exactly.

One thing I'd like to know though.  The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.   If somehow that did happen, do they really think their "Michigan Militia" and the like are going to take down this dictator?  It isn't like rebels trying to fight the government of Rwanda.... our government (and whomever is in charge of it) can squash you like a bug if they really thought they needed to...  I mean, the government can pull out weapons you'd never even think about.

I mean, ok, yeah, if everyone is fully "unarmed" , then, the "dictatorship" happens much easier, I won't deny that.  But, even if you are supposedly "armed to the teeth".... compared to a fully stocked US Armed Forces (assuming for the most part that the rank & file of the armed forces are on the side of the government)... you are nothing.

Of course, the people who believe this most likely think we are basically under a dictator right now, which is 90% of the problem.


When you're done with that strawman, I have a garden we could put him in.
 
2013-01-11 02:41:55 PM
No matter how you brand it, either side of the gun control debate is bait and switch.

We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

But we won't. Instead folks are going to conflate the tools themselves as both cause and solution to crime. And very little will be done to address the real issue of crime in this country, and a lot of lobbyists will pocket cash on both sides of this uselessly vitriolic debate...
 
2013-01-11 02:44:15 PM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Hi! I was shot by a psycho in my classroom.

It would be nice if someone did something about crazy people with guns going on
killing sprees. I really don't care whether you call it "gun control" or "gun safety".

Thank you.

/I purposely did not use a photo of one of the actual victims. This is a stock photo.
 
2013-01-11 02:45:19 PM

violentsalvation: Nadie_AZ: violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".

We should put Sheriff Joe in charge. He is great at this sort of thing.

Reactionary responses based in unfounded fear and prejudice? Yeah that does sound a lot like Sheriff Joe.


Well, his plan is to send a zealot group of his into schools so they can shoot anyone who is threatening.
 
2013-01-11 02:50:18 PM
As long as they don't use the word "ban" or any of its synonyms I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation with them, I don't care what they call it.
 
2013-01-11 02:51:22 PM

vernonFL: It would be nice if someone did something about crazy people with guns going on
killing sprees.


Crazy people with other weapons is still okay.
 
2013-01-11 02:51:32 PM
hubiestubert:
We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.


That's like having a meaningful discussion on Crips vs. Bloods.  Are we really going to try to rearchitect black society so that males marry the mothers of their children and have them grow up with honest, job-holding role models so the youths don't succumb to peer pressure to join a gang?  That's dumber than suggesting 10-round magazines are going to change anything.
 
2013-01-11 02:53:46 PM

doglover: dletter: make me some tea: Actually, that is a more accurate description of what we're looking for. "Gun control" is a rather hyperbolic.

Exactly.

One thing I'd like to know though.  The people who says that the 2nd Amendment is needed because they need the right to have guns to thwart a "take over" of America by a supposed "dictator" getting control within the government.   If somehow that did happen, do they really think their "Michigan Militia" and the like are going to take down this dictator?  It isn't like rebels trying to fight the government of Rwanda.... our government (and whomever is in charge of it) can squash you like a bug if they really thought they needed to...  I mean, the government can pull out weapons you'd never even think about.

I mean, ok, yeah, if everyone is fully "unarmed" , then, the "dictatorship" happens much easier, I won't deny that.  But, even if you are supposedly "armed to the teeth".... compared to a fully stocked US Armed Forces (assuming for the most part that the rank & file of the armed forces are on the side of the government)... you are nothing.

Of course, the people who believe this most likely think we are basically under a dictator right now, which is 90% of the problem.

When you're done with that strawman, I have a garden we could put him in.


Who has the strawman?   I didn't say there is or isn't a GOOD reason for unlimited gun rights... I was just pointing out one of the arguments for it (the people who make the claim because of.....) , and making statements about that.   People make the claim for a variety of reasons, and I wasn't commenting on any of those.
 
2013-01-11 02:55:21 PM

syrynxx: hubiestubert:
We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

That's like having a meaningful discussion on Crips vs. Bloods.  Are we really going to try to rearchitect black society so that males marry the mothers of their children and have them grow up with honest, job-holding role models so the youths don't succumb to peer pressure to join a gang?  That's dumber than suggesting 10-round magazines are going to change anything.


upload.wikimedia.org
No kidding man, I tried that.. doesn't work dude.
 
2013-01-11 02:56:36 PM

violentsalvation: Might as well re-brand it "gun appearance control".


Either these features matter, serve a purpose etc and you should care

Or they're all cosmetic, and you shouldn't care


IT CANNOT BE BOTH, STOP THIS DISHONEST TALKING POINT
 
2013-01-11 02:59:38 PM

hubiestubert: No matter how you brand it, either side of the gun control debate is bait and switch.

We need to have a discussion in this country about crime. Causes. Prevention. Why folks turn to violent crime. How we can reduce the factors and conditions that make it an option.

That means having a meaningful discussion on education, mental health, and economic opportunity as well as drug policy.

But we won't. Instead folks are going to conflate the tools themselves as both cause and solution to crime. And very little will be done to address the real issue of crime in this country, and a lot of lobbyists will pocket cash on both sides of this uselessly vitriolic debate...


very much this.


i think both sides are largely being stupid about guns - i lean slightly in favor of better regulation of the militia (*twists the constitutional knife*) - but will call out dumb things on my own side (criminals will ignore laws. so make it harder for them to have guns in the first place - close the gun show loopholes that still exist). However the right is always, completely, totally and utterly pants-on-head retarded when any discussion of guns comes up.
 
2013-01-11 03:06:24 PM

vernonFL: Hi! I was shot by a psycho in my classroom.

It would be nice if someone did something about crazy people with guns going on
killing sprees. I really don't care whether you call it "gun control" or "gun safety".

Thank you.

/I purposely did not use a photo of one of the actual victims. This is a stock photo.


Key word: psycho

Let's do something about all those psychos and leave all the law abiding sane people alone!

Lets count the laws/rules that were broken:
1) theft - he stole the guns
2) carrying a gun into a gun free zone
3) murder (30 counts)

So what new law or rule would have stopped him?!
 
2013-01-11 03:08:10 PM
I would agree that gun safety is the proper term. We are far past gun control at this point, as far too many gun owners didn't control their guns and now we have plenty of criminals who have gotten them through various means.


They had their chance to control their guns, now we are in need of regulations to make our society safer from them.
 
2013-01-11 03:10:05 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: vernonFL: Hi! I was shot by a psycho in my classroom.

It would be nice if someone did something about crazy people with guns going on
killing sprees. I really don't care whether you call it "gun control" or "gun safety".

Thank you.

/I purposely did not use a photo of one of the actual victims. This is a stock photo.

Key word: psycho

Let's do something about all those psychos and leave all the law abiding sane people alone!

Lets count the laws/rules that were broken:
1) theft - he stole the guns
2) carrying a gun into a gun free zone
3) murder (30 counts)

So what new law or rule would have stopped him?!


Background check including mental health?
He stole the guns from his mother. So, perhaps background checks including mental health for all house hold members?

I say you can have a bazooka if you want, if we could agree to something like that.  It's a start.
 
2013-01-11 03:10:58 PM

syrynxx: If someone in the audience were carrying concealed, they might have shot her.


wouldn't THAT get your little dick hard
 
2013-01-11 03:11:30 PM
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
GUN THREAD
 
2013-01-11 03:11:35 PM
www.supplementinnercircle.com
 
2013-01-11 03:12:01 PM

Publikwerks: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Cold. Dead. Fingers.Cuts

Proper gun sub control is using two hands.
[www.fredericksburgparent.net image 400x266]
Correct!

[s3-media4.ak.yelpcdn.com image 600x399]
NO!


I think that kid's sandwich just gave me an erection.
 
2013-01-11 03:12:26 PM

make me some tea: nekom: We already do this, don't we?  Of course anyone can buy a gun out of someone's trunk, even those crazy folks, even if we could identify them.

There needs to be some sort of accountability in place to hold the gun owner responsible for its misuse.

Using the car analogy (a car can be used as a deadly weapon): When you buy a car, it has a title. You have to register it to drive it. When you sell the car, you transfer the title to the new owner, and the new owner has to register it again. If you let someone borrow your car and they hit a pedestrian with it, the pedestrian can sues the driver, you, and your insurance.

Why can't this type of responsibility be applied to firearms?


We can and we should. Bans aren't going to help nearly as much as this type of control, and economic disincentives to owning them (tax, insurance, etc).
 
Displayed 50 of 266 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report