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  
•       •       •

2206 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 03:56:31 PM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: dr-shotgun: I'll have that conversation. Let's ban them!

Now you go.

Go for it. I invite you to try. Start a PAC, collect donations and make your single issue a one line amendment to the constitution that repeals the 2nd Amendment.

Buy a really nice Arc'teryx jacket. They are super warm and durable. Your gonna need it for how far out in the wild your going to be.

Wait I thought you wanted to have a discussion? I thought I had the huevosTM to discuss a ban that you complained none of us libby libs had.

And we don't need to repeal the second amendment, we just need the court to overturn Heller roe v wade.

you sound like a fundie


Hey I don't think we should ban guns. I think we need more gun restrictions. I'm just trying to have the conversation that he wanted to have.
 
2013-01-11 03:56:37 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Actually, how about an amendment sort of like the 21st? Turn over firearms regulation to state and local governments. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

Enthusiasts, please note that the words 'ban' and 'confiscate' appear nowhere in my post.

This should jibe well with the libertarian leanings of many of you.

/rubs hands together, waits for cognitive dissonance posts, hopes lib gun owners stay quiet.


I'd actually be ok with this, since its not much different to what is happening now.
Catch is you've got to abide by your own states decisions and not blame the guys next door if it doesn't work out.

/looking at you, New York.
 
2013-01-11 03:57:27 PM  

Blathering Idjut: In Portland we just had a couple of knuckleheads walk around a neighborhood with semi auto rifles strung over their shoulders in hopes of "starting a discussion" about guns. This was fairly close to the mall that was shot up a couple of weeks ago.

So you can understand that this led instead to lots of concerned citizens calling the cops. A nearby school went into lockdown.

Gun rights advocates are the biggest threat to gun rights there is.


Yea, I saw that in the paper this morning. One of the important statements in the article was that an Oregon concealed carry permit trumps any/all local gun-restrictive ordinances, including restricting open-carry.
 
2013-01-11 03:58:47 PM  

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

Out of America's 10 worst mass shootings, only 1 involved an assault rifle (Newton). Furthermore, the Newton shooter was in the building for 10 minutes and fired less than 100 rounds; the same damage could easily have been inflicted with the handguns or shotgun he carried, neither of which are being addressed by any of the proposed bans. The worst mass shooting in US history was committed with two handguns.

So no, an assault rifle ban won't have any meaningful impact on the number of people killed, either in mass shootings or in more traditional gun murders.


People keep using the perfect solution fallacy to excuse a lack of action and it's farking ridiculous.

How many machine-gun massacres have there been in the past 80 years or so?

Oh, that's right - machine gun ownership was heavily regulated in 1934.

Imagine if the "Hey, people will kill each other anyway, so there's no point in banning fully automatic weapons" was the winning argument in 1934. How many full-auto firearms would be on the streets today?
It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.


Let's just do something similar for all firearms - require fingerprints, registration, licensing, etc.

Just having a few flags for a paranoid like Adam Lanza's mother could have kept those weapons out of her son's hands. But our ATF isn't allowed to do anything really useful because of ridiculous legislation.

Link

When law enforcement officers recover a gun and serial number, workers at the bureau's National Tracing Center here - a windowless warehouse-style building on a narrow road outside town - begin making their way through a series of phone calls, asking first the manufacturer, then the wholesaler and finally the dealer to search their files to identify the buyer of the firearm.

About a third of the time, the process involves digging through records sent in by companies that have closed, in many cases searching by hand through cardboard boxes filled with computer printouts, hand-scrawled index cards or even water-stained sheets of paper.

In an age when data is often available with a few keystrokes, the A.T.F. is forced to follow this manual routine because the idea of establishing a central database of gun transactions has been rejected by lawmakers in Congress, who have sided with the National Rifle Association, which argues that such a database poses a threat to the Second Amendment. In other countries, gun rights groups argue, governments have used gun registries to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens.


So, while this bullshiat slows investigation to a crawl, a spree killer is free to go on his merry way.
 
2013-01-11 03:58:55 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?!


If guns were illegal, his otherwise completely normal and law abiding mother wouldn't have had the guns that he stole, and those 26 people (including 20 first graders) would still be alive.

So a law against gun ownership would have stopped him.

/the more you know.
 
2013-01-11 03:59:00 PM  

way south: Uranus Is Huge!: Actually, how about an amendment sort of like the 21st? Turn over firearms regulation to state and local governments. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

Enthusiasts, please note that the words 'ban' and 'confiscate' appear nowhere in my post.

This should jibe well with the libertarian leanings of many of you.

/rubs hands together, waits for cognitive dissonance posts, hopes lib gun owners stay quiet.

I'd actually be ok with this, since its not much different to what is happening now.
Catch is you've got to abide by your own states decisions and not blame the guys next door if it doesn't work out.

/looking at you, New York.


No buying guns on Sunday before noon in the south?
 
2013-01-11 03:59:11 PM  

GameSprocket: Silly Jesus: In Atlanta last week a thug broke into a woman's home while she was there with her children. She ended up shooting him 5 times in the face at close range (she ran out of bullets) and he was still able to exit the house and drive a short distance away. Imagine if there were two or three people that broke in or if she had missed. Still think 10 is reasonable?

I think that if there had been multiple people breaking in, she would not have gotten off the 5. She couldn't kill him with 5 so I am happy she ran out before she accidentally shot one of her kids.


2/10
 
2013-01-11 03:59:53 PM  

Silly Jesus: QueenMamaBee: 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.

1. It seems white dudes are the ones shooting up the schools

2. My lily white father wasn't much of a dad, irresponsibility is not limited to one race

3. Why the fark do you NEED a clip with more than 10 rounds? You may WANT it, but you don't NEED it. I WANT a tiger..... I have a housecat.

/I'm about to start the National Tiger Association and buy me some lobbyists. Damnit, I should be able to have any thing I want!!!! *wahhhhh*

In Atlanta last week a thug broke into a woman's home while she was there with her children. She ended up shooting him 5 times in the face at close range (she ran out of bullets) and he was still able to exit the house and drive a short distance away. Imagine if there were two or three people that broke in or if she had missed. Still think 10 is reasonable?


Yup. I believe if one guy is getting shot in the face, the other two wouldn't stick around to see the ending.

Besides, as the gun enthusiasts like to point out... "but, but.... more people are killed with hammers, baseball bats, etc". I have a hammer, I have a baseball bat, I have a big-ass can of Raid, and I have pepper spray and mace. I'd also like to get a stun gun.
 
2013-01-11 04:00:14 PM  

CPennypacker: Hey I don't think we should ban guns


CPennypacker: Let's ban them!


So are you bipolar, schizo, or logged in with wrong alt?
 
2013-01-11 04:00:52 PM  
I don't know of any way to really enforce it, but i'm of the mind that all guns should be locked in a combination or combo/key safe. That is one of those things that might have actually prevented newtown. This assumes that lanza didn't know the combo (if they were locked up). judging by how his mom felt about him, i don't believe she would have told him. That is conjecture of course, and we dont' know how he got his hands on the guns.
 
2013-01-11 04:01:01 PM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: Hey I don't think we should ban guns

CPennypacker: Let's ban them!

So are you bipolar, schizo, or logged in with wrong alt?


No, you just have reading comprehension problems
 
2013-01-11 04:01:21 PM  

CPennypacker: Giltric: CPennypacker: dr-shotgun: I'll have that conversation. Let's ban them!

Now you go.

Go for it. I invite you to try. Start a PAC, collect donations and make your single issue a one line amendment to the constitution that repeals the 2nd Amendment.

Buy a really nice Arc'teryx jacket. They are super warm and durable. Your gonna need it for how far out in the wild your going to be.

Wait I thought you wanted to have a discussion? I thought I had the huevosTM to discuss a ban that you complained none of us libby libs had.

And we don't need to repeal the second amendment, we just need the court to overturn Heller roe v wade.

you sound like a fundie

Hey I don't think we should ban guns. I think we need more gun restrictions. I'm just trying to have the conversation that he wanted to have.


I'll bite. What restrictions do you feel would be productive?
 
2013-01-11 04:01:58 PM  

Kazan: 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.


Pretty much my thoughts as well. Also, FTFY...
 
2013-01-11 04:02:52 PM  

Giltric: CPennypacker: Hey I don't think we should ban guns

CPennypacker: Let's ban them!

So are you bipolar, schizo, or logged in with wrong alt?


Are you stupid, drunk, or on drugs?
 
2013-01-11 04:03:01 PM  

Captain_Ballbeard: Remember Gunfappers, your position grows weaker with every massacre and you've ensured there are plenty of guns around for them to continue.

Enjoy.


This massacre happened in a state with some of the strongest gun control measures in the nation. If anything, it weakens the gun control proponents.
 
2013-01-11 04:03:10 PM  

Kazan: the 2nd amendment doesn't say "any arms they want, with no conditions".


Nor does it say that citizens are allowed to only bear certain arms, depending on what the government feels would be appropriate for them to have.
 
2013-01-11 04:03:40 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Let's just do something similar for all firearms - require fingerprints, registration, licensing, etc.


Nope....something something poor people and minorities .....whatever excuse was used against voter id...they cant afford it.


next!
 
2013-01-11 04:04:25 PM  

make me some tea: Don't give guns to people with criminal records.


Create penalties for straw purchasers. That's people without criminal records who buy guns for the express purpose of reselling them to people who do. It's like buying beer for minors, and we don't have a law to address that.
 
2013-01-11 04:04:42 PM  
YEA DO AWAY WITH THE 2nd amendment
People have been killed because of what they wrote, have been crushed to death at rock concerts and murdered for criticizing the government so away with the 1st amendment,
People have no need to feel safe in their home from the government seizing anything they desire so away with the 4th amendment
People have no need to be safe from torture and beating to get a confession so away with the 5th amendment
People have no need for a trial just jail, convict and punish so away with the 6th amendment
People don't need the 7th or 8th because doing away with the others eliminates the need for them, Hell why do we need a constitution at all, just let the government do ANYTHING they feel necessary to 'GET THE JOB DONE" Having no limits on government would never cause a problem, it has ALWAYS worked in the past.
 
2013-01-11 04:04:45 PM  
www.bitrebels.com


Now they've gone too far.
 
2013-01-11 04:05:12 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Giltric: CPennypacker: Hey I don't think we should ban guns

CPennypacker: Let's ban them!

So are you bipolar, schizo, or logged in with wrong alt?

Are you stupid, drunk, or on drugs?


on your mom.

why?
 
2013-01-11 04:05:12 PM  

Giltric: rufus-t-firefly: Let's just do something similar for all firearms - require fingerprints, registration, licensing, etc.

Nope....something something poor people and minorities .....whatever excuse was used against voter id...they cant afford it.


next!


you're starting to sound satirical. dial it down a little bit. if you can afford a gun, you can afford a license
 
2013-01-11 04:06:03 PM  

QueenMamaBee: GanjSmokr: QueenMamaBee: I WANT a tiger..... I have a housecat.

/I'm about to start the National Tiger Association and buy me some lobbyists. Damnit, I should be able to have any thing I want!!!! *wahhhhh*

Looks like you can have a tiger in Alabama...

Alabama

Category: N

Summary of Law: No person, firm, corporation, partnership or association may possess, sell, offer for sale, import or cause to be brought or imported into the state the following fish or animals: fish from the genus Clarias; fish from the genus Serrasalmus; Black carp; any species of mongoose, any member of the family Cervidae (deer, elk, moose, caribou), species of coyote, fox, raccoon, skunk, wild rodents or wild turkey. However, there are no requirements for a person possessing exotic animals, such as lions, tigers, monkeys, etc.

Link


There are probably other states as well but I didn't go past the first one. I don't want a tiger.

But I'd have to live in Alabama. The derp in Kentucky is bad enough, I don't want to go further south.



It appears you don't want to own a tiger as badly as you originally said you did then.  Fair enough.

Just don't complain that you "can't" own one when it's your reluctance to move that prevents you from owning one.
 
2013-01-11 04:07:20 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If guns were illegal, his otherwise completely normal and law abiding mother wouldn't have had the guns that he stole, and those 26 people (including 20 first graders) would still be alive.


Yes. That guy would have never broken the law and would have bought a black market gun. Nor would he have made a bunch of molotov cocktails and sent them flying through windows instead. I mean, crazy people have standards, for crying out loud.
 
2013-01-11 04:08:12 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Kazan: the 2nd amendment doesn't say "any arms they want, with no conditions".

Nor does it say that citizens are allowed to only bear certain arms, depending on what the government feels would be appropriate for them to have.


That's good to hear, because an acquaintance of mine, Abdul-rahul al Salha, a nationalized US citizen and devout Muslim who lives in the approach path to JFK airport, wants to buy a few dozen rocket launchers. The gun grabbing feds wont let him! WTF?
 
2013-01-11 04:10:23 PM  

Kazan: 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


So your argument is that if a proposed law doesn't do anything useful, we're not allowed to oppose it? I think you have things backwards.
 
2013-01-11 04:21:26 PM  

Silly Jesus: GameSprocket: Silly Jesus: In Atlanta last week a thug broke into a woman's home while she was there with her children. She ended up shooting him 5 times in the face at close range (she ran out of bullets) and he was still able to exit the house and drive a short distance away. Imagine if there were two or three people that broke in or if she had missed. Still think 10 is reasonable?

I think that if there had been multiple people breaking in, she would not have gotten off the 5. She couldn't kill him with 5 so I am happy she ran out before she accidentally shot one of her kids.

2/10


Hey, I can only work with what you give me. A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.
 
2013-01-11 04:23:37 PM  

EyeballKid: Fail in Human Form: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". - Thomas Jefferson

"Which one of my slaves am I gonna bang today?" - Thomas Jefferson


If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. Great strategy.
 
2013-01-11 04:23:47 PM  

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


Even a ban on high capacity magazines accomplishes very little, and even an outright ban on firearms of every sort will just mean that our homicidal/suicidal maniacs will just build bombs, like they do in other places.

A bomb is an extremely easy thing for a person with an IQ of over 90 to make.
 
2013-01-11 04:27:27 PM  

GameSprocket: Silly Jesus: GameSprocket: Silly Jesus: In Atlanta last week a thug broke into a woman's home while she was there with her children. She ended up shooting him 5 times in the face at close range (she ran out of bullets) and he was still able to exit the house and drive a short distance away. Imagine if there were two or three people that broke in or if she had missed. Still think 10 is reasonable?

I think that if there had been multiple people breaking in, she would not have gotten off the 5. She couldn't kill him with 5 so I am happy she ran out before she accidentally shot one of her kids.

2/10

Hey, I can only work with what you give me. A woman who can't kill a guy with five rounds is a really bad argument for needing more rounds. Sounds like what she needed was more training.


She hit him in the face with all five. She was hiding in a crawl space with her kids and he found her. I think that's pretty good.

Hell, there are many other stories of aggressors being shot multiple times and it not stopping them. You picking a random number (10) and telling me that I have that many tries to defend myself and after that I just get what's coming to me is asinine and you can't possibly be serious.
 
2013-01-11 04:29:59 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If guns were illegal, his otherwise completely normal and law abiding mother wouldn't have had the guns that he stole, and those 26 people (including 20 first graders) would still be alive.

So a law against gun ownership would have stopped him.

/the more you know.


Yeah 'cause you couldn't find a drink during Prohibition and you can't find illegal drugs now.
 
2013-01-11 04:30:22 PM  
i3.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-11 04:35:59 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Debeo Summa Credo: If guns were illegal, his otherwise completely normal and law abiding mother wouldn't have had the guns that he stole, and those 26 people (including 20 first graders) would still be alive.

So a law against gun ownership would have stopped him.

/the more you know.

Yeah 'cause you couldn't find a drink during Prohibition and you can't find illegal drugs now.


You think everyone who drank before prohibition continued to afterwards?
 
2013-01-11 04:37:40 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: That's good to hear, because an acquaintance of mine, Abdul-rahul al Salha, a nationalized US citizen and devout Muslim who lives in the approach path to JFK airport, wants to buy a few dozen rocket launchers. The gun grabbing feds wont let him! WTF?


Why did your fictitious friend have to be a Muslim?
 
2013-01-11 04:44:27 PM  

Fail in Human Form: While you may feel it's in poor taste, it's a way of being "in your face" with the issue and refusing to be demonized because of the actions of a murderer.


No, it's a way of being a farkin' moron and setting back their cause. You don't get to be "in your face" with a firearm and not have it be an issue. People seeing guys walking through the neighborhood with guns have every right to be concerned and call the cops. The waste of time with regards to the police and the school lockdown falls squarely on the shoulders of these two mental midgets.

Glancing Blow: Yea, I saw that in the paper this morning. One of the important statements in the article was that an Oregon concealed carry permit trumps any/all local gun-restrictive ordinances, including restricting open-carry.

Yes, it's a loophole that I'm sure the legislature will address pretty quickly. They're "concealed" weapons permits for a reason. That's what happens when folks don't show common sense. They mess it up for everybody.
 
2013-01-11 04:45:01 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.


It doesn't matter that the stated reason is complete and total bullshiat.

It's an excuse for emotionally underdeveloped teenage man-children to have access to something they shouldn't.
 
2013-01-11 04:47:38 PM  

lennavan: You think everyone who drank before prohibition continued to afterwards?


yep, and then some.
 
2013-01-11 04:53:24 PM  
I like John Stewarts take on the subject;

"Do we ban automobiles because of deaths from drunk driving? No.

But we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders that serve drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns that stigmatize the dangerous behaviors in question . and we do those things because it might just help bring drunk driving death rates down, I dont know, by two thirds, in a few decades."

and

"Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"

Link
 
2013-01-11 05:05:20 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?


Because these only apply to vehicles that are bing used on govt owned roads. No registration, insurance, license needed to operate a vehicle on private property. The closest analogy is CC and open cary in public spaces and transportation laws over general gun ownership.
 
2013-01-11 05:08:47 PM  

Saiga410: 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?

Because these only apply to vehicles that are bing used on govt owned roads. No registration, insurance, license needed to operate a vehicle on private property. The closest analogy is CC and open cary in public spaces and transportation laws over general gun ownership.


In most states you cannot drink and drive on your own property.
 
2013-01-11 05:10:37 PM  

Heraclitus: "Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"


Let me explain something to you and Jon Stewart. Gun magazines are very simple devices. They are a box with a spring in it, and a base for the spring to push against. To change a 5-round magazine into a 30-round magazine would require one to make the box longer and to replace the spring with a bigger spring.

So if the laws were changed to restrict 30-round magazines...only law-abiding citizens would be affected by this law. Crazy people that were intent on shooting up malls or schools would be mildly inconvenienced by this new law, but they wouldn't be stopped at all. That's assuming that they wouldn't have access to magazines that were around before the new law went into effect.
 
2013-01-11 05:11:23 PM  

Heraclitus: I like John Stewarts take on the subject;

"Do we ban automobiles because of deaths from drunk driving? No.

But we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders that serve drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns that stigmatize the dangerous behaviors in question . and we do those things because it might just help bring drunk driving death rates down, I dont know, by two thirds, in a few decades."

and

"Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"

Link


"Hey, crazy people. This is the government. We know who you are, and we know what you're planning. Stay away from guns, or we'll hunt you down. We're watching you, and so are the bug men. You touch a gun, and we'll feed you to our lizard overlords. Brought to you by The Brady Campaign, the Ad Council, and This Station. JFK says take your pills."
 
2013-01-11 05:14:53 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Heraclitus: "Change magazine sizes so that crazy people have to stop and reload more often"

Let me explain something to you and Jon Stewart. Gun magazines are very simple devices. They are a box with a spring in it, and a base for the spring to push against. To change a 5-round magazine into a 30-round magazine would require one to make the box longer and to replace the spring with a bigger spring.

So if the laws were changed to restrict 30-round magazines...only law-abiding citizens would be affected by this law. Crazy people that were intent on shooting up malls or schools would be mildly inconvenienced by this new law, but they wouldn't be stopped at all. That's assuming that they wouldn't have access to magazines that were around before the new law went into effect.


That's why we also need to introduce the National Children's Family Safety Act for the Elimination of Small Springs.
 
2013-01-11 05:17:04 PM  

Kludge:
In most states you cannot drink and drive on your own property.


Citation, please?
 
2013-01-11 05:17:26 PM  

Kazan: 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


The politically defined characteristics of an assault weapon are not characteristics that make the firearm any more murderous.
 
2013-01-11 05:17:43 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: dr-shotgun: Well, since it's the only ban that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table.

Perhaps the point is that banning things is a historically stupid strategy for dealing with social issues?

Since it worked so well for alcohol when we tried it.
Since it worked for abortions before Row v. Wade.
Since it works so well for drugs now.
Since gun bans have worked so well where they have been implemented in Europe.

How is a ban gonna work with 320 million firearms already in private hands, all of which will be grandfathered in? Or how will it work when 3D printing technology will make it easy for anyone to print a huge capacity magazine at home in a couple of years?

Bans never actually produce the results those calling for them intend. This issue is no different.

Alcohol is very heavily taxed and regulated.
Abortion access is at an all time low. It is also very heavily regulated.
Prescription drugs are heavily regulated and access is limited. Where I live, weed will soon be regulated by the state.

There are only a few people arguing for bans. How about joining the grownups who want to talk about solution that WILL work?


Because none of them are talking.
 
2013-01-11 05:20:37 PM  

violentsalvation: Kazan: 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

The politically defined characteristics of an assault weapon are not characteristics that make the firearm any more murderous.


...and the characteristics that do make the firearm "more murderous" is very heavily regulated.
 
2013-01-11 05:21:42 PM  

odinsposse: IlGreven: 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.

Well, since it's the only ban that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table.

Which is pretty much what this debate comes down to. It may be stupid and ineffective but we have to do something! For the children!


...I just realized I misspoke. I should have said "Since it's the only "regulation" that anyone is willing to talk about, then it's the only thing on the table."
 
2013-01-11 05:22:58 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Kazan: the 2nd amendment doesn't say "any arms they want, with no conditions".

Nor does it say that citizens are allowed to only bear certain arms, depending on what the government feels would be appropriate for them to have.


it's almost as if it left that up to the legislature or something.
 
2013-01-11 05:23:42 PM  
Would some code genius please write a filter for fark threads that replaces the word "gun" with "penis?"

TIA
 
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 »
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