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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Remember the crazy guy who said he'd start shooting people if his second amendment rights were infringed? Yeah, the state of Tennessee just suspended his handgun carry permit   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Tenn, Department of Safety, James Yeager, handguns, handgun carry  
•       •       •

11688 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:11 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



548 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-11 07:27:08 PM  
I love how he made a new video telling people to quit "sending him legal advice."  The irony:  no competent lawyer would send a random internet person unsolicited legal advice.
 
2013-01-11 07:32:05 PM  
SEE LIBS!! WE TOLD YOU SO!  THE GRABBING GUN GRABBERS ARE GRABBILY COMING TO GRAB YOUR GUNS!!

1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN!
 
2013-01-11 08:35:06 PM  
Good.
 
2013-01-11 08:38:59 PM  

ambassador_ahab: I love how he made a new video telling people to quit "sending him legal advice."  The irony:  no competent lawyer would send a random internet person unsolicited legal advice.


Since when are lawyers the only people who give legal advice?

Actually, since when are those useless bastards ever the ones giving free advice at all?
 
2013-01-11 08:41:59 PM  
Does this count as the "one more inch" that will start his killing spree?

If I were his mailman (you know, evil federal employee), I think I'd skip his street.
 
2013-01-11 08:46:07 PM  
Good. Keep the guns out of the hands of nutjobs.
 
2013-01-11 08:46:31 PM  
Patriots, please don't stop recording your thoughts and posting it on youtube.
 
2013-01-11 08:48:13 PM  
It's a start.

All these assholes are making the two or three dozen responsible gun owners in this country look bad.
 
2013-01-11 08:50:46 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: It's a start.

All these assholes are making the two or three dozen responsible gun owners in this country look bad.


99% of gun owners are making the other 1% look bad!

/I'm kidding...old joke, originally about lawyers
 
2013-01-11 08:55:50 PM  
I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.
 
2013-01-11 08:58:17 PM  
Well, they're after your guns, dawg, just like you predicted.

Better start that war with the government, needle dick!  Just try and make it last long enough for me to microwave some popcorn.  100 to ` says you don't make it.
 
2013-01-11 08:58:18 PM  

Good.

 
2013-01-11 09:00:32 PM  

Blues_X: Good.


This.
 
2013-01-11 09:02:18 PM  
But they let him keep his guns, he just has to promise not to carry them.  Psychopaths are known for their scrupulous honesty.
 
2013-01-11 09:13:12 PM  
Quit shooting up the place, you jackhats.
 
2013-01-11 09:13:49 PM  
I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.
 
2013-01-11 09:13:51 PM  

Indubitably: Quit shooting up the place, you jackhats.


Enough!~
 
2013-01-11 09:15:04 PM  

edmo: Good. Keep the guns out of the hands of nutjobs.


I've gotta go with this one.
 
2013-01-11 09:15:06 PM  
$144K, yup only the rich will have guns in the future.
 
2013-01-11 09:15:40 PM  
There's only one of those people in Tennessee?
 
2013-01-11 09:15:53 PM  
Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.
 
2013-01-11 09:16:04 PM  
The state of Tennessee took his guns out of his sweaty warm hands...
 
2013-01-11 09:16:06 PM  
Oops wrong thread.
 
2013-01-11 09:16:47 PM  
That is... predictable
 
2013-01-11 09:17:15 PM  
This is a fine example of existing legislation getting the job done.
 
2013-01-11 09:17:25 PM  

violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.


If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.
 
2013-01-11 09:18:01 PM  
haha-nelson.gif
 
2013-01-11 09:18:20 PM  
Typical statism.
 
2013-01-11 09:18:44 PM  
Nothing warms my heart more than watching an Internet Toughguy turn into a whiny biatch when they learn that their words have consequences.
 
2013-01-11 09:20:47 PM  
So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.
 
2013-01-11 09:20:48 PM  
And all it took was his youtube video getting on every major news broadcast and cable news twenty times a day.

I'm just glad there aren't any more out there like this guy.
 
2013-01-11 09:21:17 PM  

Sherman Potter: violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.

If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.


But... But... ALEX JONES!
 
2013-01-11 09:21:17 PM  
Surprise! You threaten to shoot people, you get in trouble!
 
2013-01-11 09:21:28 PM  
So a man who is allowed to not only own a firearm, but to carry a concealed one as well, is concerned about his second amendment rights?

community.spiceworks.com
 
2013-01-11 09:22:06 PM  
Got my popcorn and a Republican tears spritzer. This should be good.
 
2013-01-11 09:22:27 PM  
This guy's a "firearm instructor" who let his license to instruct lapse. That guy who patrolled his kid's school in uniform wasn't in the military anymore OR the rank he said he was. Joe "The Plumber" was a licensed plumber. What the hell is wrong with these kinda of people that they think attention whoring won't lead people to find out they're frauds?
 
2013-01-11 09:23:27 PM  

gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.


Ah, no.

Revoked his conceal carry permit. I'm sure he's still got a sh*tload of guns.
 
2013-01-11 09:23:47 PM  
Holy blap, being a raging, reactionary jackinape has consequences? Damn, that makes me feel better about the world on a not insignificant level.
 
2013-01-11 09:23:56 PM  

Summoner101: This guy's a "firearm instructor" who let his license to instruct lapse. That guy who patrolled his kid's school in uniform wasn't in the military anymore OR the rank he said he was. Joe "The Plumber" was a licensed plumber. What the hell is wrong with these kinda of people that they think attention whoring won't lead people to find out they're frauds?


WASN'T a licenses plumber

/good think I didn't claim I was a good with the words and such and furthermore
 
2013-01-11 09:24:07 PM  

gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.


No, they let him keep the guns, he just can't carry them. Not that he'll listen, of course.
 
2013-01-11 09:24:22 PM  
I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.
 
2013-01-11 09:24:33 PM  

Sherman Potter: violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.

If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.


Oh I have no doubt that much of the "gun community" considers him irresponsible. The problem is, none of them are willing to support a law that would take his guns away.
 
2013-01-11 09:25:42 PM  
What a major, major douche bag.
"Stop sending me emails and calling me."
Somebody alert 4Chan.
 
2013-01-11 09:25:48 PM  

gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.


Not yet. They just suspended his concealed weapons permit.
 
2013-01-11 09:26:08 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.

Ah, no.

Revoked his conceal carry permit. I'm sure he's still got a sh*tload of guns.


Oops, his "handgun carry" permit.
 
2013-01-11 09:26:19 PM  
hee
 
2013-01-11 09:26:21 PM  
Has his mother ever had him tested?
 
2013-01-11 09:27:05 PM  
Will they have to pry it from his cold dead fingers?
 
2013-01-11 09:27:25 PM  

Heraclitus: Has his mother ever had him tested?


For rabies?
 
2013-01-11 09:27:26 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.

Ah, no.

Revoked his conceal carry permit. I'm sure he's still got a sh*tload of guns.


Yeah, but his right to bear arms has been infringed.  Killin' time!!
 
2013-01-11 09:27:37 PM  
And they only started 'reviling' him after he publicly made them look bad. You are supposed to be a nutter quietly like the rest of them, not show it to the rest of the world.
 
2013-01-11 09:27:40 PM  
i471.photobucket.com

"The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public's safety," wrote Commissioner Bill Gibbons.
 
2013-01-11 09:28:32 PM  
Good call.
 
2013-01-11 09:28:52 PM  

Heraclitus: Has his mother ever had him tested?


Yes, and promptly put him up for adoption.
 
2013-01-11 09:29:42 PM  

propasaurus: I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.


No, that would be the millions who are only starting to speak up now. It might take a while but the volume will get loud enough to be heard around the world.
 
2013-01-11 09:30:07 PM  
Yes, asking the internet to stop sending you unwanted emails will certainly work. Keep it up.
 
2013-01-11 09:31:45 PM  
Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x
 
2013-01-11 09:32:38 PM  
Dear Mr. Yeager,

You're not helping.

Sincerely,
The rest of us that support the right to bear arms.

Seriously, it's nutcases like this that make people afraid of gun owners. There are lots and lots of responsible, kind, sensible, intelligent folks out there that happen to own guns. They're not a stereotype - they're just gun owners. Then, there's this moron, the kind of guy that stuffs himself into the stereotype, and then runs his mouth off, validating the very stereotype that makes other gun owners wince.
 
2013-01-11 09:32:44 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-11 09:33:00 PM  

NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.


Hmm. You okay? That last bit is worrisome.
 
2013-01-11 09:33:46 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: propasaurus: I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.

No, that would be the millions who are only starting to speak up now. It might take a while but the volume will get loud enough to be heard around the world.


suuuuuuure there buddy is it sunny in LaLa land today? any post-society pulp fics making the rounds i should read under the oomla tree while I'm here?
 
2013-01-11 09:33:49 PM  

llachlan: gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.

No, they let him keep the guns, he just can't carry them. Not that he'll listen, of course.


He can carry them. Just not concealed. And revoking his CCW permit is pretty much the same thing as a UN letter.
 
2013-01-11 09:34:18 PM  
Today I learned that there is such a thing as the "Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security"

/Feels safer now.
 
2013-01-11 09:34:44 PM  
James Yeager in 10 years


stagevu.com
 
2013-01-11 09:35:58 PM  

Blues_X: Good.

Careful

. You don't want to sound too emphatic, making you look like a gun-grabber.
 
2013-01-11 09:36:30 PM  

Old enough to know better: Nothing warms my heart more than watching an Internet Toughguy turn into a whiny biatch when they learn that their words have consequences.


So you are saying he should start complaining about his First Amendment rights being violates.

You all know that's the next step.
 
2013-01-11 09:37:10 PM  
Ya, no concealed weapon permit is going to stop a combat vet/PMC with access to full auto long arms (real assault weapons for you slow people) from doing something bad.

I hear that criminals also carry their illegal weapons concealed, with no permit.
 
2013-01-11 09:37:21 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


Last I checked a threat on the life of another person or to society as a whole is a fairly reasonable area to legislate in regards to an individual's right to free speech.
 
2013-01-11 09:37:22 PM  

NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.


Hi,

I'm not sure what to offer, but I will listen if that will help. I'm more than a little concerned about you.
 
2013-01-11 09:37:56 PM  

Gerard Repe: NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.

Hmm. You okay? That last bit is worrisome.


Agreed. Please don't kill yourself with a gun; use an axe...

*)
 
2013-01-11 09:39:06 PM  
If they really cared about public safety, officials would have seized his Prozac.
 
2013-01-11 09:39:12 PM  

EvilEgg: But they let him keep his guns, he just has to promise not to carry them.  Psychopaths are known for their scrupulous honesty.


I'd be willing to bet the Camden, Tennessee police department have all memorized his face and license plate number by now. It may be years before he's able to sneak a loaded gun out of the house.
 
2013-01-11 09:39:21 PM  

Indubitably: Gerard Repe: NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.

Hmm. You okay? That last bit is worrisome.

Agreed. Please don't kill yourself with a gun; use an axe...

*)


JK. Please stand down with the violence against self, for that is not what violence is all about, man.
 
2013-01-11 09:40:03 PM  

Indubitably: Indubitably: Gerard Repe: NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.

Hmm. You okay? That last bit is worrisome.

Agreed. Please don't kill yourself with a gun; use an axe...

*)

JK. Please stand down with the violence against self, for that is not what violence is all about, man.


P.S. Deviolence, please. Thank you.
 
2013-01-11 09:40:44 PM  

ObamaTheOmnipotent: James Yeager in 10 years


More like:

www.zuguide.com
 
2013-01-11 09:41:19 PM  
there is not a [Nelson_Muntz.jpg] big enough to express my elation.
 
2013-01-11 09:41:22 PM  

edmo: Good. Keep the guns out of the hands of nutjobs.


This. If you're a semiliterate whack job with anger issues you shouldn't be allowed to carry concealed or otherwise.
 
2013-01-11 09:41:42 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


You don't have the right to make threats of violence.

Rights are not absolute, they do have limits and those limits can be revised.

This includes the 2nd Amendment.
 
2013-01-11 09:42:35 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


ALL amendments are not absolute.  A threat to shoot people is not protected by the 1st amendment.   The right to bear arms is not absolute , for example criminals and ex cons are not allowed to have them (Vary in state, of course)
 
2013-01-11 09:43:37 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


Yawn, you can't sell fire in a crowded theater, you can't invite others to violence. Your rights end where mine begin. Stop being intellectually dishonest.
 
2013-01-11 09:45:31 PM  

Sherman Potter: violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.

If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.


Portraying him as such better fits their agenda and preconceived notions about gun owners. They can say, "See? That's a gun owner! That's who doesn't agree with us, that's your opposition!" If they reduced the entire gun rights crowd to a 2 dimensional caricature of a whack shiat hillbilly, they make it easier for themselves to dismiss out of hand any dialogue coming out of that corner. You don't debate people like that, you tell them what's best because they're too ignorant to see it for themselves. If they weren't, they'd already agree with you wouldn't they?
 
2013-01-11 09:46:21 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


This. This with cheese on top.

/Fark the ACLU
//Former ACLU cardholder (Emphasis on "Former")
 
2013-01-11 09:47:03 PM  
i309.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-11 09:47:36 PM  
i.imgur.com
Gunfarking-tastic!
 
2013-01-11 09:48:09 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

ALL amendments are not absolute.  A threat to shoot people is not protected by the 1st amendment.   The right to bear arms is not absolute , for example criminals and ex cons are not allowed to have them (Vary in state, of course)


Oh, I understand that - but it does strike me as odd when I listen to the gun control debate rage around me, that curbs to the 1st, 5th, 6th and 7th are accepted as reasonable (by and large) but the reactions to curbing the 2nd are almost hysterical in their tone. Or maybe it's just me.
 
zeg
2013-01-11 09:48:56 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: You don't have the right to make threats of violence.

Rights are not absolute, they do have limits and those limits can be revised.

This includes the 2nd Amendment.


Exactly. Making a video where you say, "It is unconscionable and I will stand up to defend my unfettered right to possess firearms, and I urge other citizens to do the same," should not have any legal consequences. Making a video where you say, "I will kill people if..." is entirely different.
 
2013-01-11 09:49:16 PM  
I have to admit, this is a case where gun laws worked.
 
2013-01-11 09:50:09 PM  
Koodz: I'd be willing to bet the Camden, Tennessee police department have all memorized his face and license plate number by now. It may be years before he's able to sneak a loaded gun out of the house.

He's a rich white guy.  Why would they care?
 
2013-01-11 09:52:22 PM  
So they took away his right to carry a firearm in public but he still has them? Yea this will end well, dude needs 10 days of observation in a psych ward.
 
2013-01-11 09:52:34 PM  
roguecity.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-11 09:54:09 PM  

ReaverZ: Yawn, you can't sell fire in a crowded theater, you can't invite others to violence.


In Canada you aren't allowed to sell ice to Eskimos either.

/Btw, selling fire must be like a Zen koan for the Wall St. crowd. That's gotta blow their minds.
 
2013-01-11 09:54:40 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-11 09:55:18 PM  

ReaverZ: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

Yawn, you can't sell fire in a crowded theater, you can't invite others to violence. Your rights end where mine begin. Stop being intellectually dishonest.


You so missed what I was getting at. I totally understand why we limit the 1st. What I am having trouble with is understanding why the reaction to applying the same logic to the 2nd is so vociferous. Btw, even in Canada, where we have no 1st Amendment, you can't yell fire in a theatre.

I wasn't trying to be intellectually dishonest in any way. I live and work in the US, and while I thought I had a good grasp of the culture as compared to back home, I have recently realized that I actually truly understand very little of it - I'm not culturally equipped for it, I guess. As an outsider (who supports your right to bear arms), I am honestly surprised at how reactions to curbing various amendments differ (and my questions apply as much to the 5th, 6th and 7th as to the 1st versus the 2nd).
 
2013-01-11 09:55:28 PM  

FormlessOne: Dear Mr. Yeager,

You're not helping.

Sincerely,
The rest of us that support the right to bear arms.

Seriously, it's nutcases like this that make people afraid of gun owners. There are lots and lots of responsible, kind, sensible, intelligent folks out there that happen to own guns. They're not a stereotype - they're just gun owners. Then, there's this moron, the kind of guy that stuffs himself into the stereotype, and then runs his mouth off, validating the very stereotype that makes other gun owners wince.


I used to have a sort of casual view of gun owners. I sort of didn't know who in my life was a gun owner. never came up.

Now.... I'm starting to think that gun owners are not as rational as they think they are. I've listened to people that I had assumed were pretty with it say some awfully dumb things in the last few months.

These aren't the way-out-there nutcases. These are regular gun owners from a casual inspection. I'm not sure I trust their judgment.

In short, even the run-of-the-mill gun owners are not impressing me all that much. Some are family and I'll just have to suck it up, others I probably will be just seeing less of. The group is self-selecting, so that is probably part of it, but I also think artifact itself influences how people think.
 
2013-01-11 09:55:55 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


x=42, or beer. Or 42 beer. Which ever comes last.
 
2013-01-11 09:56:01 PM  

EvilEgg: But they let him keep his guns, he just has to promise not to carry them.  Psychopaths are known for their scrupulous honesty.


This
 
2013-01-11 09:56:10 PM  

Ow My Balls: [i471.photobucket.com image 236x357]

"The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public's safety," wrote Commissioner Bill Gibbons.


Thanks - I've got LaGrange earworm now.
 
2013-01-11 09:57:46 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-11 09:57:59 PM  
These gun control threads must really be driving the page views. I'd swear they're multiplying when we're not looking.
 
2013-01-11 10:00:02 PM  

fnordfocus: Koodz: I'd be willing to bet the Camden, Tennessee police department have all memorized his face and license plate number by now. It may be years before he's able to sneak a loaded gun out of the house.

He's a rich white guy.  Why would they care?


I'm not sure that being "CEO" of four guys running a shooting range and giving seminars to survivalists counts as rich, unless some other article has done some research on that.

If he IS rich (and Tennessee Rich is barely six figures) then I withdraw my statement.
 
2013-01-11 10:00:23 PM  
does someone actually get sent around to take his guns away now?  how does this work?
 
2013-01-11 10:00:30 PM  

pxlboy: These gun control threads must really be driving the page views. I'd swear they're multiplying when we're not looking.

To gun

 
2013-01-11 10:00:43 PM  

llachlan: ReaverZ: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

Yawn, you can't sell fire in a crowded theater, you can't invite others to violence. Your rights end where mine begin. Stop being intellectually dishonest.

You so missed what I was getting at. I totally understand why we limit the 1st. What I am having trouble with is understanding why the reaction to applying the same logic to the 2nd is so vociferous. Btw, even in Canada, where we have no 1st Amendment, you can't yell fire in a theatre.

I wasn't trying to be intellectually dishonest in any way. I live and work in the US, and while I thought I had a good grasp of the culture as compared to back home, I have recently realized that I actually truly understand very little of it - I'm not culturally equipped for it, I guess. As an outsider (who supports your right to bear arms), I am honestly surprised at how reactions to curbing various amendments differ (and my questions apply as much to the 5th, 6th and 7th as to the 1st versus the 2nd).


Ah ,okay. It depends on what you care about. Also who has money to spend on ads and politicians.
 
2013-01-11 10:01:14 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: EvilEgg: But they let him keep his guns, he just has to promise not to carry them.  Psychopaths are known for their scrupulous honesty.

This


I'm not so sure this guy is a psychopath. If the persona he portrayed on the videos was his normal regular self, he'd likely be behind bars already for some kind of violent crime.

If he's one of the more self-aware variety, he'd probably be more measured and likely wouldn't have posted the first video. He definitely wouldn't have posted the 2nd. He would make sure to come across as reasonable and normal.

He's likely got some other snappy combo of mental illness... perhaps he's a manic depressive, maybe narcissistic, and likely a combo of more than one.
 
2013-01-11 10:01:23 PM  
I love it when stupid people get what they deserve.
 
2013-01-11 10:02:00 PM  
i.imgur.com

Guntasmagorical!
 
2013-01-11 10:03:01 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-11 10:03:14 PM  
For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.
 
2013-01-11 10:03:47 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 660x360]

Guntasmagorical!


Cute.

To frak
 
2013-01-11 10:04:42 PM  

Indubitably: Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 660x360]

Guntasmagorical!

Cute.

To frak


I am SO ready to decimate...

To asteroid
 
2013-01-11 10:07:44 PM  

Indubitably: Indubitably: Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 660x360]

Guntasmagorical!

Cute.

To frak

I am SO ready to decimate...

To asteroid


When my consciousness ceases, so does our world, so choose your poison...

We build our worlds and end them with consciousness...

No?
 
2013-01-11 10:08:35 PM  
This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.
 
2013-01-11 10:10:28 PM  
img818.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-11 10:13:41 PM  

i.imgur.com

GUNBELIEVABLEZ

 
2013-01-11 10:13:47 PM  
Good. I am a CCW supporter and a pro gun person. I even agree that the 2nd amendment is to be a chexk on government. But actions have consequences. If you choose to threaten or wage war against the US government you will provoke a response. That response will most likely involve your death. The Israeli's are respond in manner similar to the US government.
 
2013-01-11 10:15:49 PM  

FourBlackBars: This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.


He still has his weapons. Only now he'll be violating the law when he carries them - and he will. Jebus help any cop who stops him for any reason.
 
2013-01-11 10:16:28 PM  
just some back ground on Yeager. This chickenshiat was a PMC back in Iraq who basically abandoned his principal when their convoy came under attack. His comrades are doing their job but when danger reared its ugly head brave sir yeager...well you get idea.
 
2013-01-11 10:17:36 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


Here's my suggestion how to lower gun violence. Ban all Republicans from owning guns. Period. Check voting records, any R votes, you lose your hobby.
 
2013-01-11 10:18:24 PM  
Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.
 
2013-01-11 10:20:12 PM  

leadmetal: Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.


Welcome to the thread.  We already covered that.
 
2013-01-11 10:20:46 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


FIRE!
 
2013-01-11 10:20:58 PM  

FourBlackBars: This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.


If we could well-regulate without the NRA and the other gun groups (and apparently the NRA is less crazy than some of them) having an explosive diarrhea tantrum every time, we wouldn't be in this pickle.
 
2013-01-11 10:21:05 PM  
But isn't he going to protect us from invisible Hitler?
 
2013-01-11 10:21:40 PM  

kombat_unit: Ya, no concealed weapon permit is going to stop a combat vet/PMC with access to full auto long arms (real assault weapons for you slow people) from doing something bad.

I hear that criminals also carry their illegal weapons concealed, with no permit.


Which is why we shouldn't bother banning land mines, tanks, grenades, anthrax.... what's the point?
 
2013-01-11 10:22:45 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


I own a gun I am ok with closing the gun show loophole. Background checks and ban high cap magazines. I with holding judgement on an assault weapons ban till I see actual legislation that gets to a vote.
 
2013-01-11 10:24:51 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.
 
2013-01-11 10:25:29 PM  
pjmedia.com

Threatening people isn't being a responsible gun owner.
 
2013-01-11 10:28:27 PM  

globalwarmingpraiser: Good. I am a CCW supporter and a pro gun person. I even agree that the 2nd amendment is to be a chexk on government. But actions have consequences. If you choose to threaten or wage war against the US government you will provoke a response. That response will most likely involve your death. The Israeli's are respond in manner similar to the US government.


When you declare war on the government, the government declares war on you.
 
2013-01-11 10:28:33 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


As far a massacres are concerned, I have no good ideas outside of easier access to mental health care. Concerning gun violence in general, or any violence really, that's going to take a major cultural shift and how do we affect that? As long as you have desperate, miserable people that don't see any way out of their situation, we'll see that kind of thing. Wage disparity, poverty, despair, anger and resentment boiling over, etc etc. Banning handguns hasn't made the hood any safer that I can tell, certainly hasn't stopped kids from joining gangs. I think we need to spend more time highlighting the root causes of violence rather than focusing on one of the means and hoping that solves the problem.
 
2013-01-11 10:29:10 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: propasaurus: I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.

No, that would be the millions who are only starting to speak up now. It might take a while but the volume will get loud enough to be heard around the world.


Please keep the volume down, I'm trying to get some sleep, dammit!
 
2013-01-11 10:29:49 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.

Ah, no.

Revoked his conceal carry permit. I'm sure he's still got a sh*tload of guns.


And all he has to do is get a Utah CCW. Tennessee reciprocally recognizes them.


Also, subby. He said he would start killing people if Obummer uses executive order on gun control not infringe his second amendment rights. An executive order is directed at government employees not citizens. We a have a chief at the top of the executive branch who can give directives to it much like a CEO can give directives to the people under him. What we don't have is a king, queen, dictator, or somebody else that can just dream up some command that you have to follow. Any executive order he gives would be to direct his agencies to do something. What that is exactly we don't know, but from what they have been hinting at is more enforcement of the laws. THAT is exactly what we anti-gun grabbers have been advocating all along. I welcome that POS to actually start enforcing the GD laws for a change.
 
2013-01-11 10:30:12 PM  

Meanniss: dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.

I own a gun I am ok with closing the gun show loophole. Background checks and ban high cap magazines. I with holding judgement on an assault weapons ban till I see actual legislation that gets to a vote.


Lib here. That would be enough for me. Thanks.

All I want is a little more sanity and a little less synthetic testosterone.
 
2013-01-11 10:30:17 PM  

joness0154: Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.


42 + 345789 x 4566789 - 2 = ass banana

ok i see your math there...
 
2013-01-11 10:30:52 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: leadmetal: Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.

Welcome to the thread.  We already covered that.


No, you did not cover it.
Nobody else mentioned how it used to be paranoid to think licensing would be used to silence people's political speech and that has changed to it being good that licensing is being used to silence political speech.

To it being 'violent' political speech, well the federal government folks engage in it frequently. They even have a 'kill list'. Perhaps their licenses to carry firearms should be revoked?
 
2013-01-11 10:30:53 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


How do you propose to make a very rare event (gun 'massacres') even more rare, short of waving a magic wand removing all the guns from the planet? A very determined individual will find a way to accomplish their goal no matter what - look at Brevik for example. He prepared for over 7 years....

For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that until innocent individuals get involved.
 
2013-01-11 10:31:10 PM  

joness0154: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.


That's a perfect analogy...or it would be if speech were capable of piercing human flesh and causing death, permanent paralysis, horrific disfigurement, agonizing pain, and unanswerable grief for the survivors. Close though--keep working on it.
 
2013-01-11 10:31:30 PM  
HA HA! If you're going to be a dumbass... we should treat you like the dumbass you are. :D
 
2013-01-11 10:33:43 PM  

GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.


Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.
 
2013-01-11 10:33:59 PM  
The funny thing?

Tennessee is almost overwhelmingly filled with Republicans, so even then, there was a problem with this guy. It has nothing to do with politics once you start saying you'll kill people.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:13 PM  

leadmetal: Lionel Mandrake: leadmetal: Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.

Welcome to the thread.  We already covered that.

No, you did not cover it.
Nobody else mentioned how it used to be paranoid to think licensing would be used to silence people's political speech and that has changed to it being good that licensing is being used to silence political speech.

To it being 'violent' political speech, well the federal government folks engage in it frequently. They even have a 'kill list'. Perhaps their licenses to carry firearms should be revoked?


Clearly it's time to rise up, patriot.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:22 PM  

Lochsteppe: joness0154: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.

That's a perfect analogy...or it would be if speech were capable of piercing human flesh and causing death, permanent paralysis, horrific disfigurement, agonizing pain, and unanswerable grief for the survivors. Close though--keep working on it.


The point must've gone completely over your head.

The only limitation on the 1st amendment is that there are consequences for misuse.

The same can be currently said about the 2nd.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:23 PM  

joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that


And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:32 PM  

TommyymmoT: What a major, major douche bag.
"Stop sending me emails and calling me."
Somebody alert 4Chan.


NOT YOUR PERSONAL ARMY!
 
2013-01-11 10:37:47 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.

Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.


Too bad he's still got'em.
 
2013-01-11 10:39:02 PM  
I feel much safer.

/Just Sayin'
 
2013-01-11 10:41:07 PM  

ABOUT DAMN TIME.

Camden, TN is full of crazy, too. They're one of the big meth production cities in West-Middle Tennessee - the other being Waverly. (Waverly is also a sundown town, even today.)

 
2013-01-11 10:41:46 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that

And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.


Because I don't care about the scum of our society taking care of each other? Please, enlighten us on why we should give a damn.
 
2013-01-11 10:41:56 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.

Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.

Too bad he's still got'em.


Got'em?

Younmean, Got'all...

*)
 
2013-01-11 10:43:09 PM  

ThisIsntMe: I feel much safer.

/Just Sayin'


I don't. This paranoid, delusional farkwit now has more reason to believe the evil gub'mint is taking away his rights - and he still has his guns. This makes it more likely that he will kill innocent people who are only interested in protecting society from his insanity.
 
2013-01-11 10:43:29 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


-----------------

That's the thing - there are plenty of limits on the 2nd Amendment. Try getting your hands on a RPG, or a machine gun, or napalm. All are "arms", and all are heavily, heavily limited. This whole argument is just about the *amount* of regulation we want.

That's why it's retarded to claim that you're somehow infringing upon 2nd amendment rights if you limit "assault weapons". There is absolutely no basis in the constitution for banning a fully automatic weapon, but not a semi-automatic one. Either you claim the 2nd Amendment allows ALL arms to be held by any citizen, or you're admitting that some amount of regulation is reasonable.
 
2013-01-11 10:43:31 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.

Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.

Too bad he's still got'em.


Yeah, true. I have a friend in CA that got divorced, his ex talked a lot of shiat about him in court, and he was required to surrender all his firearms. Of course, he's not a reactionary nut, but something along those lines might work better.

/You go get his guns. I'll uh - stay back here in the office and do the necessary paperwork.
 
2013-01-11 10:43:49 PM  

Lochsteppe: joness0154: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.

That's a perfect analogy...or it would be if speech were capable of piercing human flesh and causing death, permanent paralysis, horrific disfigurement, agonizing pain, and unanswerable grief for the survivors. Close though--keep working on it.


Apparently speech can cause death or why would yelling fire in a crowded theatre be something punishable? Because it would anoy the other patrons or because a massacre would happen as people got trampled on? Whether 26 kids get shot to death or 26 kids get trampled to death makes no difference.
 
2013-01-11 10:44:05 PM  

Indubitably: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.

Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.

Too bad he's still got'em.

Got'em?

Younmean, Got'all...

*)


However, if love, peace, and words are crimes, then I want to be wrong...
 
2013-01-11 10:45:28 PM  

joness0154: How do you propose to make a very rare event (gun 'massacres') even more rare, short of waving a magic wand removing all the guns from the planet? A very determined individual will find a way to accomplish their goal no matter what - look at Brevik for example. He prepared for over 7 years....


Australia stopped them. Granted they weren't knee-deep in guns to start with, but they did have a lot, and they used to have gun massacres.

as for Brevik, I'd LOVE to have the rate of gun violence as low as Norway. Sure, the committed lunatic will exist.
 
2013-01-11 10:49:18 PM  

joness0154: AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that

And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.

Because I don't care about the scum of our society taking care of each other? Please, enlighten us on why we should give a damn.


Antipathy towards any violence is the sign of a deranged mind. Your approval of violence by and against those of whom you disapprove precludes you from holding rational ideas or conversations about meaningful reform to prevent violence against those of whom you do approve.
 
2013-01-11 10:49:54 PM  

BronyMedic: ABOUT DAMN TIME.

Camden, TN is full of crazy, too. They're one of the big meth production cities in West-Middle Tennessee - the other being Waverly. (Waverly is also a sundown town, even today.)


Seconded - You can include Gainsboro, TN to that list.
 
2013-01-11 10:51:07 PM  

balloot: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

-----------------

That's the thing - there are plenty of limits on the 2nd Amendment. Try getting your hands on a RPG, or a machine gun, or napalm. All are "arms", and all are heavily, heavily limited. This whole argument is just about the *amount* of regulation we want.

That's why it's retarded to claim that you're somehow infringing upon 2nd amendment rights if you limit "assault weapons". There is absolutely no basis in the constitution for banning a fully automatic weapon, but not a semi-automatic one. Either you claim the 2nd Amendment allows ALL arms to be held by any citizen, or you're admitting that some amount of regulation is reasonable.


The USSC, in their Miller decision, disagrees with your last line.


"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.[139]"

According to the USSC, many items (such as those you listed) aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment to begin with. They're not limits....
 
2013-01-11 10:55:19 PM  

Malivon: BronyMedic: ABOUT DAMN TIME.

Camden, TN is full of crazy, too. They're one of the big meth production cities in West-Middle Tennessee - the other being Waverly. (Waverly is also a sundown town, even today.)

Seconded - You can include Gainsboro, TN to that list.


Dude I went to high school in Celina.
 
2013-01-11 10:55:20 PM  

dbaggins: joness0154: How do you propose to make a very rare event (gun 'massacres') even more rare, short of waving a magic wand removing all the guns from the planet? A very determined individual will find a way to accomplish their goal no matter what - look at Brevik for example. He prepared for over 7 years....

Australia stopped them. Granted they weren't knee-deep in guns to start with, but they did have a lot, and they used to have gun massacres.

as for Brevik, I'd LOVE to have the rate of gun violence as low as Norway. Sure, the committed lunatic will exist.


I think the fact that Australia's history does not include a deep rooted gun culture is another contributor. And I think they had less than a million guns, where we're likely approaching 400 times that.

But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.
 
2013-01-11 10:56:19 PM  

dookdookdook: SEE LIBS!! WE TOLD YOU SO!  THE GRABBING GUN GRABBERS ARE GRABBILY COMING TO GRAB YOUR GUNS!!

1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN!


Bullshiat. They mean 1861. I'm all for 2nd amendment rights, but half of these a$$holes are just looking for an excuse.

If you make threats like that, you have no business owning a gun.
 
2013-01-11 10:57:18 PM  
So much for the First Amendment.
 
2013-01-11 10:57:18 PM  
Call me crazy, but it seems like researching the candidates before casting your ballot would be a lot more effective in preventing Imaginary Hitler than keeping a weapons bunker in the basement.
 
2013-01-11 10:57:33 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that

And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.

Because I don't care about the scum of our society taking care of each other? Please, enlighten us on why we should give a damn.

Antipathy towards any violence is the sign of a deranged mind. Your approval of violence by and against those of whom you disapprove precludes you from holding rational ideas or conversations about meaningful reform to prevent violence against those of whom you do approve.


It doesn't preclude me one bit. Many of my ideas for reducing gun violence are rational and based on facts and statistics, not raw emotion like we're seeing now. You're free to ignore me if you like, I don't give a damn about that either.
 
2013-01-11 11:01:40 PM  

joness0154: AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that

And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.

Because I don't care about the scum of our society taking care of each other? Please, enlighten us on why we should give a damn.

Antipathy towards any violence is the sign of a deranged mind. Your approval of violence by and against those of whom you disapprove precludes you from holding rational ideas or conversations about meaningful reform to prevent violence against those of whom you do approve.

It doesn't preclude me one bit. Many of my ideas for reducing gun violence are rational and based on facts and statistics, not raw emotion like we're seeing now. You're free to ignore me if you like, I don't give a damn about that either.


Present them. Your ideas, that is.
 
2013-01-11 11:02:14 PM  

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.


That was a silly thing to post and you are a silly poster for having posted it.
 
2013-01-11 11:04:00 PM  
So... Someone help me out here. Is this clown a "Good Guy With A Gun" or a "Bad Guy With A Gun"?
 
2013-01-11 11:04:37 PM  
well darn, i guess it's up to the other million right?
 
2013-01-11 11:05:01 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


Well, currently we have about 20,000 "curbs" to the 2nd amendment. It's actually quite tough to keep track of them all (just ask your local firearms shop owner.)

Since there's still quite a bit of gun "violence" going around. People, who are actually concerned about staying on the right side of the law, would like to see some critical thinking and actual proof before we add another 20,000 rules...

/there are a *lot* of gun laws, far more than there are for "free speech".
 
2013-01-11 11:05:38 PM  

ox45tallboy: So... Someone help me out here. Is this clown a "Good Guy With A Gun" or a "Bad Guy With A Gun"?


Good? Bad? He's the guy with the gun.
 
2013-01-11 11:06:19 PM  

cuzsis: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

Well, currently we have about 20,000 "curbs" to the 2nd amendment. It's actually quite tough to keep track of them all (just ask your local firearms shop owner.)

Since there's still quite a bit of gun "violence" going around. People, who are actually concerned about staying on the right side of the law, would like to see some critical thinking and actual proof before we add another 20,000 rules...

/there are a *lot* of gun laws, far more than there are for "free speech".


I forgot to add that my response to this is also "Good."

Actually I would like to see him arrested (or whatever the procedure is) for making threats of bodily harm. But maybe they can't because he didn't specify who he would shoot.
 
2013-01-11 11:09:27 PM  
I love a story with a happy ending.
 
2013-01-11 11:10:09 PM  
Koodz:
I'm not sure that being "CEO" of four guys running a shooting range and giving seminars to survivalists counts as rich, unless some other article has done some research on that.

If he IS rich (and Tennessee Rich is barely six figures) then I withdraw my statement.


Indeed, I may have read too much into the articles on CEO salaries and I assumed if this guy was getting attention, he must be important.  That seems incorrect.
 
2013-01-11 11:10:42 PM  
Of course!

Close the 'gunshow loophole' - require background checks for every sale, even through private hands.

Require certain entities, particularly physicians and mental health professions, to report when they may believe an individual may be capable and willing to cause harm to others. It should be part of the same NICS/background check system.

The background check system should be ongoing. If I bought a gun 10 years ago, that's the only time I would've got a background check. If my mental stability changed a year ago, it should be flagged and a visit by the local LEO should be in order. That doesn't really happen today.

Stiffer penalties for violating existing gun laws, such as straw purchases, etc. oh, and have the ATF stop feeding the cartels with weapons.

Just a few for now.
 
2013-01-11 11:11:23 PM  

joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.


Smells like bullshiat.
 
2013-01-11 11:11:31 PM  

cuzsis: Since there's still quite a bit of gun "violence" going around. People, who are actually concerned about staying on the right side of the law, would like to see some critical thinking and actual proof before we add another 20,000 rules...

/there are a *lot* of gun laws, far more than there are for "free speech".



so, what does that tell you about the kind of gun laws we have? or the kind of enforcement we are using?
 
2013-01-11 11:11:37 PM  

ambassador_ahab: I love how he made a new video telling people to quit "sending him legal advice."  The irony:  no competent lawyer would send a random internet person unsolicited legal advice.


are you kidding? after that fark ups mistakes i bet they're lined up outside his door.

/vulture and all
 
2013-01-11 11:12:01 PM  
Serves him right for leaving the TACT out of Tactical Response.
 
2013-01-11 11:12:10 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: ox45tallboy: So... Someone help me out here. Is this clown a "Good Guy With A Gun" or a "Bad Guy With A Gun"?

Good? Bad? He's the guy with the gun.


He's a Clown With A Gun And No Carry Permit.
 
2013-01-11 11:13:52 PM  

Dansker: joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.

Smells like bullshiat.


That's because you're too lazy to do any research before opining.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun- c rime-goes-89-decade.html
 
2013-01-11 11:15:59 PM  

joness0154: Of course!

Close the 'gunshow loophole' - require background checks for every sale, even through private hands.

Require certain entities, particularly physicians and mental health professions, to report when they may believe an individual may be capable and willing to cause harm to others. It should be part of the same NICS/background check system.

The background check system should be ongoing. If I bought a gun 10 years ago, that's the only time I would've got a background check. If my mental stability changed a year ago, it should be flagged and a visit by the local LEO should be in order. That doesn't really happen today.

Stiffer penalties for violating existing gun laws, such as straw purchases, etc. oh, and have the ATF stop feeding the cartels with weapons.

Just a few for now.


I agree with all of these, although I'd go a bit further with some of them. It's odd, though, since most of these proposals would work to limit the exact types of gun violence you claim to not care about. Seems you actually do care.
 
2013-01-11 11:16:58 PM  
Dude, the first rule of Second Amendment remedies is you don't talk about Second Amendment remedies. Especially on the Internet.

You think about your convictions and your beliefs, really hard. This isn't playing around or macho-man time. This is you thinking about what is so important to you that you'll break the biggest of human social taboos.

You decide what your line in the sand is. You decide where to put your effort to try to keep that line from being crossed by every legal method you have.

You make concrete plans for the day that your line is crossed. You don't talk about it. Not to anyone, not even to your best friend, who just happens to be the guy the FBI has assigned to watch over you your whole life and egg you on. (There is no downside in this situation to being that paranoid.)

You can blab about it if you're not actually going to do it, if you're that guy, if you're the farking jerk.

Yeager, you're that farking jerk.
 
2013-01-11 11:17:04 PM  

Dansker: joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence

violent crime has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.

Smells like bullshiat.



UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Sweet as roses now.
 
2013-01-11 11:17:06 PM  
To play
 
2013-01-11 11:18:07 PM  

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.


You mean, so much for what you imagine the First Amendment to be.
 
2013-01-11 11:18:19 PM  
One nutjob down, 4.3 million more to go.
 
2013-01-11 11:18:58 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


Why does it have to involve guns? Why can't they reduce gun massacres and lower the rate of gun violence by a different way?

By adding a completely unnecessary stipulation to your definition of "sane" you aren't coming across as very sane yourself....

Personally, I want the reduce *violence* in general (I'm not particular if someone kills someone with a gun or a knife, I don't want them to do it period.) as much as possible, while at the same time infringing on *everyone else* as little as possible. And then if we can't get a good result with zero infringement, try to find that happy medium that reduces it substantially in exchange for some minor costs for the rest of us. I realize violence will never be zero, but there will be a "value point" somewhere in there where the costs are worth the benefits.
 
2013-01-11 11:20:30 PM  
Gun licensing should be like automobile licensing, only stricter.

Written and practical tests.
Bans for medical conditions.
Special insurance.
Annual registration with a fee.
Graduated system depending on the power of the weapon.
Some weapons restricted to specialists.
 
2013-01-11 11:20:40 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.

You mean, so much for what you imagine the First Amendment to be.



What should (s)he imagine it to be?
 
2013-01-11 11:21:00 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: And all he has to do is get a Utah CCW. Tennessee reciprocally recognizes them.


He can do that, and Utah can chose to accept or deny his permit. He would be an absolute moron to even attempt this, so he probably will given his recent life choices. If Utah gives him such a permit then it WILL make national news, probably a day or two of CNN at least. And things will then get even worse for him. Utah as a whole is probably alot smarter than this poorly raised schmuck. and would not likely grant his request.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.

Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.

Too bad he's still got'em.


For now, soon maybe not as many. He is a "security contractor" and just lost his CCW. He likely also has tax stamps for multiple class 3 weapons as well and those can be yanked at any time for any reason, like running your mouth like an idiot threatening the nation. If he were to lose his rights to his SOT weapons and implements the most expensive aspects of his entire collection would suddenly become illegal, which could be confiscated, legally. If such items were "lost" suddenly, then he would be in violation of his NFA paperwork. Then we get to have a huge schadenfreude (holyshiatispelledthatcorrectly) moment.

His great crime in all this, to himself, ins mouthing off and being a huge douche, its being a (very small) online celebrity with a (very small) following and making these threats publicly. If I said something this stupid to a huge group of people in a room then im just a (drunk probably) moron. If however lets say I run a armed business and tell it to my thousand or so twitter followers who all yank it to gun porn........well im this guy.

This guy needs to shut up and hide for a few months and it might all blow over enough to save his business...eventually. I dont think the roids will let him keep his cool that long.
 
2013-01-11 11:22:07 PM  
Not that it matters, but it keeps striking me as odd how much some gun owners care about a possession. I can't think of a single other item, something we buy or possess. that has anywhere near this level of passion.

Think if, for some reason, they decided to outlaw pool cues or model airplanes or bonsai trees or whatever. Yeah, there would be some grumbling and calls of outrage, but I can't imagine it would be anywhere near this amount.

It's just phenomenal.
 
2013-01-11 11:22:11 PM  

joness0154: dbaggins: joness0154: How do you propose to make a very rare event (gun 'massacres') even more rare, short of waving a magic wand removing all the guns from the planet? A very determined individual will find a way to accomplish their goal no matter what - look at Brevik for example. He prepared for over 7 years....

Australia stopped them. Granted they weren't knee-deep in guns to start with, but they did have a lot, and they used to have gun massacres.

as for Brevik, I'd LOVE to have the rate of gun violence as low as Norway. Sure, the committed lunatic will exist.

I think the fact that Australia's history does not include a deep rooted gun culture is another contributor. And I think they had less than a million guns, where we're likely approaching 400 times that.

But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.


Yes, let's not forget a completely made-up and false statement.
 
2013-01-11 11:22:27 PM  

whatshisname: Gun licensing should be like automobile licensing, only stricter.

Written and practical tests.
Bans for medical conditions.
Special insurance.
Annual registration with a fee.
Graduated system depending on the power of the weapon.
Some weapons restricted to specialists.



This calls for an amendment!

Sounds like you have work to do.

Off you go, then!
 
2013-01-11 11:22:48 PM  

joness0154: Dansker: joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.

Smells like bullshiat.

That's because you're too lazy to do any research before opining.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun- c rime-goes-89-decade.html



while a VERY popular Daily Mail link amongst gun advocates, it is a bit dated, no? Perhaps you want to update your references. There WAS a run up in gang violence in that period. most likely having nothing to do with brand new gun regulations. The problem with new regulations is they don't fix things in the short term. Enforcement is a much trickier problem than legislation.
 
2013-01-11 11:23:29 PM  
Haven't read all the responses, but it has been said it bears repeating. Not only should his CC permit be revoked, every firearm in his possession should be confiscated. And perhaps a psych eval is in order.

And if the NRA should also have at him.

Of course liberals love guys like him. Support your local nutjob guys.
 
2013-01-11 11:24:21 PM  

SomeoneDumb: I can't think of a single other item, something we buy or possess. that has anywhere near this level of passion.


An alcoholic's bottle comes to mind.
The level of cognitive dissonance is similar.
 
2013-01-11 11:25:00 PM  
Idiots like Yeager love to scream about their rights, but they really don't get the whole responsibility thing that goes along with that.
 
2013-01-11 11:25:07 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


Sure you have freedom of speech. You can say almost anything you want, but there can be consequences when you make death threats.
 
2013-01-11 11:25:15 PM  

Amos Quito: UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Sweet as roses now.


oh goody, another reference from 2009.

often roses don't smell so sweet after several years past their sell-by date.
 
2013-01-11 11:25:42 PM  

SomeoneDumb: Not that it matters, but it keeps striking me as odd how much some gun owners care about a possession. I can't think of a single other item, something we buy or possess. that has anywhere near this level of passion.

Think if, for some reason, they decided to outlaw pool cues or model airplanes or bonsai trees or whatever. Yeah, there would be some grumbling and calls of outrage, but I can't imagine it would be anywhere near this amount.

It's just phenomenal.


Consider our culture for a second....in the late 1800s nearly every adult male owned a firearm. I saw a statistic that showed nearly 50% of households today have a firearm of some sort.

With firearms being so ingrained in our culture, along with them being included as part of the Bill of Rights, it's no surprise to me.
 
2013-01-11 11:25:42 PM  

Amos Quito: whatshisname: Gun licensing should be like automobile licensing, only stricter.

Written and practical tests.
Bans for medical conditions.
Special insurance.
Annual registration with a fee.
Graduated system depending on the power of the weapon.
Some weapons restricted to specialists.


This calls for an amendment!

Sounds like you have work to do.

Off you go, then!



I spoke too soon.

These days we cowardly accept an Executive Odor from the Oblong Office as "law".


Don't we, Citizens?
 
2013-01-11 11:27:05 PM  

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment


How did this action impact any of his constitutional rights, oh expert scholar?
 
2013-01-11 11:27:33 PM  
www.patentspostgrant.com
 
2013-01-11 11:28:44 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: ox45tallboy: So... Someone help me out here. Is this clown a "Good Guy With A Gun" or a "Bad Guy With A Gun"?

Good? Bad? He's the guy with the gun.


Not anymore, apparently.
 
2013-01-11 11:28:44 PM  

dbaggins: joness0154: Dansker: joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.

Smells like bullshiat.

That's because you're too lazy to do any research before opining.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun- c rime-goes-89-decade.html


while a VERY popular Daily Mail link amongst gun advocates, it is a bit dated, no? Perhaps you want to update your references. There WAS a run up in gang violence in that period. most likely having nothing to do with brand new gun regulations. The problem with new regulations is they don't fix things in the short term. Enforcement is a much trickier problem than legislation.


Not only that, but gun crime != gun violence. Catching someone illegally carrying constitutes an instance of gun crime but does not mean there was violence involved.
 
2013-01-11 11:28:54 PM  

joness0154: Of course!

Close the 'gunshow loophole' - require background checks for every sale, even through private hands.

Require certain entities, particularly physicians and mental health professions, to report when they may believe an individual may be capable and willing to cause harm to others. It should be part of the same NICS/background check system.

The background check system should be ongoing. If I bought a gun 10 years ago, that's the only time I would've got a background check. If my mental stability changed a year ago, it should be flagged and a visit by the local LEO should be in order. That doesn't really happen today.

Stiffer penalties for violating existing gun laws, such as straw purchases, etc. oh, and have the ATF stop feeding the cartels with weapons.

Just a few for now.



I don't think you get it. THE ATF is one of the cartels.
 
2013-01-11 11:29:03 PM  

The Name: One nutjob down, 4.3 million more to go.


Thats a very optimistic number. Personally I think we would be better off dumping zoloft into the water supplies of every city.


SomeoneDumb: Not that it matters, but it keeps striking me as odd how much some gun owners care about a possession. I can't think of a single other item, something we buy or possess. that has anywhere near this level of passion.

Think if, for some reason, they decided to outlaw pool cues or model airplanes or bonsai trees or whatever. Yeah, there would be some grumbling and calls of outrage, but I can't imagine it would be anywhere near this amount.

It's just phenomenal.


If they installed a massive consumer transit system everywhere, and then outlawed all cars............we would start running out of people due to the backlash.
 
2013-01-11 11:29:28 PM  
What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.
 
2013-01-11 11:29:34 PM  

dbaggins: Amos Quito: UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Sweet as roses now.

oh goody, another reference from 2009.

often roses don't smell so sweet after several years past their sell-by date.



Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.

Off you go, then!

Cheerio!
 
2013-01-11 11:29:39 PM  

Amos Quito: Lionel Mandrake: david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.

You mean, so much for what you imagine the First Amendment to be.


What should (s)he imagine it to be?


It's been covered, but, simply: The right to free speech is not absolute.  You cannot incite riots, you cannot libel or slander, you cannot harass or threaten.  This is not new.

Also, you do not have a right to carry a handgun, it is a privilege.  That is why they issue permits.

He had a privilege suspended (and he can appeal that decision).

He did not have a right suppressed.
 
2013-01-11 11:29:55 PM  

joness0154: Dansker: joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.

Smells like bullshiat.

That's because you're too lazy to do any research before opining.


No, it's because I have done a little research, and I know that violence in general is much lower in the UK now than in the mid '90s, so I thought a dramatic increase in gun violence compared to before the ban was unlikely.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun- c rime-goes-89-decade.html


And now I stand corrected, more or less.
 
2013-01-11 11:30:05 PM  

Amos Quito: I spoke too soon.

These days we cowardly accept an Executive Odor from the Oblong Office as "law".


Don't we, Citizens?



Where the hell did the Second Amendment come from? Was it written by Gods?

"essseee here, we screwed up the first time, so let's amend this thing with some vague language and see how the next 200 years plays out"
 
2013-01-11 11:30:07 PM  
www.theblaze.com
Hoped it was this Human Turd.
 
2013-01-11 11:30:48 PM  
I have a suggestion. Increase spending in each and every "entitlement" program we have here in the US. More per family on welfare. More on medicare. More in every "hand out" program that you can think of. Pay people to sit home, live comfortably and with as much medication as they need even if they just need it recreationally. Decrease the desperation, increase the treatment. You'll see fewer people losing it and mowing down children or who feel like they need to make a point. Coincidentally, you'll probably see less crime in general.
 
2013-01-11 11:32:28 PM  

ox45tallboy: AdmirableSnackbar: ox45tallboy: So... Someone help me out here. Is this clown a "Good Guy With A Gun" or a "Bad Guy With A Gun"?

Good? Bad? He's the guy with the gun.

Not anymore, apparently.


They didn't take away his guns, only his option of legally carrying them in public.

He still has his massive paranoia complex, his guns, and his reasons to carry them. As I've said in this thread, that could lead to disastrous results, especially given that he's willing to kill people to ensure that he can carry his precious guns.
 
2013-01-11 11:32:38 PM  

whatshisname: SomeoneDumb: I can't think of a single other item, something we buy or possess. that has anywhere near this level of passion.

An alcoholic's bottle comes to mind.
The level of cognitive dissonance is similar.


You may be right. Even stranger that I didn't think of that considering, well, you know...
 
2013-01-11 11:32:53 PM  

Amos Quito: Executive Odor from the Oblong Office


Thanks for continuing to let us know what words crazy people are using to replace other words
 
2013-01-11 11:33:23 PM  

Amos Quito: Dansker: joness0154:
But let's not forget the UK, where gun violence violent crime has doubled since their latest gun restriction in 97 or 98.

Smells like bullshiat.


UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Sweet as roses now.


Yeah, the other guy may have a point, but you're just a dumbass. You can't tell a trend from a single data point.
 
2013-01-11 11:34:13 PM  

orclover: The Name: One nutjob down, 4.3 million more to go.

Thats a very optimistic number. Personally I think we would be better off dumping zoloft into the water supplies of every city.


I was going by the NRA's self-reported membership numbers, but you're probably right.
 
2013-01-11 11:34:29 PM  

dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.


The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.
 
2013-01-11 11:34:38 PM  
So Buck Angel got "his" guns taken away?

Buck Angel's problems go further than his 2nd Amendment rights.
 
2013-01-11 11:34:42 PM  

orclover: Thats a very optimistic number. Personally I think we would be better off dumping zoloft into the water supplies of every city.


I remember something like that being tried before:

intotheblu.com
 
2013-01-11 11:34:48 PM  

Amos Quito: Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.


Oh, Cheerio! off I go and with the magic of Google discover the UK hasn't had a gun massacre since 1996, The Dunblane School Massacre. People got pretty upset. They passed some laws.

This is not the only country to have this sequence of events.

Your turn.
 
2013-01-11 11:34:54 PM  

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.


Nothing he said was 'free speech' as defined by the First Amendment. But then I suspect you were just looking to be fed.
 
2013-01-11 11:35:21 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Thanks for continuing to let us know what words crazy people are using to replace other words


For a person who doesn't believe in that nutcase Alex Jones,  Amos Quito sounds an awful lot like him right now, doesn't he?
 
2013-01-11 11:35:55 PM  

GoldSpider: [www.patentspostgrant.com image 480x360]

To help

 
2013-01-11 11:37:51 PM  

dbaggins: Amos Quito: Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.

Oh, Cheerio! off I go and with the magic of Google discover the UK hasn't had a gun massacre since 1996, The Dunblane School Massacre. People got pretty upset. They passed some laws.

This is not the only country to have this sequence of events.

Your turn.


Wrong, again. Let's try 2010 for starters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/02/cumbria-shootings-slaughter- c ountryside-derrick-bird

Seriously - you need to do research before spouting your mouth. You're making yourself look dumb.
 
2013-01-11 11:38:45 PM  
Gun control simply doesn't work. For example, look at all the classrooms full of kids and theaters full of people taken out en masse by the widely abundant hand grenades available to anyone. If we took hand grenades from law abiding citizens, the bad guys would still have hand grenades and we would be defenseless.
 
2013-01-11 11:41:20 PM  

joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that until innocent individuals get involved.


I'm not going to comment on any moral or ethical implications of that, but I will point out that, since I've observed in other threads that you claim to be a dispassionate, 'decide using facts', person that you should have a problem with it for purely fiduciary reasons.

It costs money to deal with the aftermath of every shooting, money is lost when neighbourhoods lose business, money is lost to treat and incarcerate those that survive, and so on.
 
2013-01-11 11:43:46 PM  

Farkomatic: Gun control simply doesn't work. For example, look at all the classrooms full of kids and theaters full of people taken out en masse by the widely abundant hand grenades available to anyone. If we took hand grenades from law abiding citizens, the bad guys would still have hand grenades and we would be defenseless.


I can't even attempt to point out the logical incompetence of your attempted analogy.

Slutter McGee
 
2013-01-11 11:44:16 PM  

joness0154: dbaggins: Amos Quito: Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.

Oh, Cheerio! off I go and with the magic of Google discover the UK hasn't had a gun massacre since 1996, The Dunblane School Massacre. People got pretty upset. They passed some laws.

This is not the only country to have this sequence of events.

Your turn.

Wrong, again. Let's try 2010 for starters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/02/cumbria-shootings-slaughter- c ountryside-derrick-bird

Seriously - you need to do research before spouting your mouth. You're making yourself look dumb.


Wow, you found a whole 'nother shooting spree to take place in England since 1996. Just find a few hundred more and you'll have something resembling evidence that England's "failed" gun control can be used cogently as an argument against similar measures in the US.
 
2013-01-11 11:44:49 PM  

joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.



OK, I can put up

http://data.euro.who.int/dmdb/

go look it up if you don't believe it. UK 2011 has 0.25 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. Down almost every year since 2009.
 
2013-01-11 11:47:00 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Amos Quito: Lionel Mandrake: david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.

You mean, so much for what you imagine the First Amendment to be.


What should (s)he imagine it to be?

It's been covered, but, simply: The right to free speech is not absolute.  You cannot incite riots, you cannot libel or slander, you cannot harass or threaten.  This is not new.

Also, you do not have a right to carry a handgun, it is a privilege.  That is why they issue permits.

He had a privilege suspended (and he can appeal that decision).

He did not have a right suppressed.



Second amendment:  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

In defense of the above, he exercised the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And bearing in mind the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I call bullshiat.


Now, given the current insane climate of mass submission to Centralized Authoritarianism, I will say that the chap was STOOPID for saying what he said.

Not that he was not within his Constitutionally defined rights to do so, but the fact is that AUTHORITAY draws its validity from POWER, and the fact is that the AUTHORITAYS have a LOT more guns than he does.


farm3.staticflickr.com


Get used to it, Mandrake.
 
2013-01-11 11:47:44 PM  

dbaggins: joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.


OK, I can put up

http://data.euro.who.int/dmdb/

go look it up if you don't believe it. UK 2011 has 0.25 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. Down almost every year since 2009.


Gun crime and gun deaths are related, but not the same thing. Try again.
And start in 1998, like I said, the year the ban was instituted. Look at the long term trend.
 
2013-01-11 11:49:09 PM  
img825.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-11 11:49:56 PM  

joness0154: dbaggins: joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.


OK, I can put up

http://data.euro.who.int/dmdb/

go look it up if you don't believe it. UK 2011 has 0.25 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. Down almost every year since 2009.

Gun crime and gun deaths are related, but not the same thing. Try again.
And start in 1998, like I said, the year the ban was instituted. Look at the long term trend.


We've had more mass shootings in the past 2 months than the UK has had in the past 14 years. That's a long-term trend.
 
2013-01-11 11:50:44 PM  

plausdeny: Dude, the first rule of Second Amendment remedies is you don't talk about Second Amendment remedies. Especially on the Internet.

You think about your convictions and your beliefs, really hard. This isn't playing around or macho-man time. This is you thinking about what is so important to you that you'll break the biggest of human social taboos.

You decide what your line in the sand is. You decide where to put your effort to try to keep that line from being crossed by every legal method you have.

You make concrete plans for the day that your line is crossed. You don't talk about it. Not to anyone, not even to your best friend, who just happens to be the guy the FBI has assigned to watch over you your whole life and egg you on. (There is no downside in this situation to being that paranoid.)

You can blab about it if you're not actually going to do it, if you're that guy, if you're the farking jerk.

Yeager, you're that farking jerk.


So planning to start killing people if Obama passes new gun laws is OK, it's just talking openly about it that's bad?
 
2013-01-11 11:51:03 PM  

Slutter McGee: I can't even attempt to point out the logical incompetence of your attempted analogy.


I think that was sarcasm. Hard to tell these days with all the trolls around, but I'm pretty sure it was.
 
2013-01-11 11:52:05 PM  
Sock Ruh Tease:
i.imgur.com

Jesus christ, does any of these people have any farking clue what Fight Club was ACTUALLY about?!

CSB:

I was once in an English class and we were talking about movies and Fight Club came up. The professor declared his disdain for the flick cause he thought it was all about tough guys beating the shiat out of each other. I calmly tried to explain it was actually about the loss of the male identity due to modern cultural changes compared to previous generations, as well as a social commentary on our consumption-based behavior and a rebuke of corporations and advertising.

"Yeah, but it was just so violent!"

*FACEPALM*

/How in the fark someone like that got a doctorate and tenure is beyond me.
 
2013-01-11 11:52:48 PM  
I forgot Derrik Bird. That is true. They DID have another massacre in 2010
 
2013-01-11 11:53:42 PM  

The Name: joness0154: dbaggins: Amos Quito: Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.

Oh, Cheerio! off I go and with the magic of Google discover the UK hasn't had a gun massacre since 1996, The Dunblane School Massacre. People got pretty upset. They passed some laws.

This is not the only country to have this sequence of events.

Your turn.

Wrong, again. Let's try 2010 for starters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/02/cumbria-shootings-slaughter- c ountryside-derrick-bird

Seriously - you need to do research before spouting your mouth. You're making yourself look dumb.

Wow, you found a whole 'nother shooting spree to take place in England since 1996. Just find a few hundred more and you'll have something resembling evidence that England's "failed" gun control can be used cogently as an argument against similar measures in the US.


I was specifically responding to dbaggins assertion that there hasn't been a massacre in the UK since 1996.
 
2013-01-11 11:53:45 PM  
I still say we shouldn't go overboard with banning guns. The answer doesn't lie there. We need to focus more on our mental healthcare system, as well as enforcement of background checks and such. And ultimately, we must accept that, no matter what we do, tragedies will happen. All we can do is try to reduce the amount.
 
2013-01-11 11:53:59 PM  

Amos Quito: I call bullshiat.


Call it what you want.  I don't really care.

Go ahead and take it to court.  Grab a handgun, go outside and threaten to shoot people.

When you get arrested, tell them you were exercising your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.  See how long it takes before every lawyer in the world stops laughing.

I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.
 
2013-01-11 11:54:12 PM  

dbaggins: Amos Quito: Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.

Oh, Cheerio! off I go and with the magic of Google discover the UK hasn't had a gun massacre since 1996, The Dunblane School Massacre. People got pretty upset. They passed some laws.

This is not the only country to have this sequence of events.

Your turn.


Okay. From my previous link:

"
A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.

It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population."

END QUOTE

So VIOLENT CRIME in the UK (as of 2009) was 4.29 times HIGHER than in the gun-laden US.

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

Pawn takes queen.

Your move,
 
2013-01-11 11:54:34 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: It's a start.

All these assholes are making the two or three dozen responsible gun owners in this country look bad.


Hold on a minute, the last thread we were in together you said at least half of gun owners were perfectly fine, upstanding, nice people. With such a lowball number here it leads me to believe you were just placating me despite your true feelings about gun owners.

You wouldn't lie to me, would you NHA?
 
2013-01-11 11:55:13 PM  

joness0154: Gun crime and gun deaths are related, but not the same thing.


I don't need to "try again".

breaking their tougher gun laws counts as a gun crime in the UK, and is a useless statistic.

gun deaths is the relevant metric. It tracks assaults and accidents very well.
 
2013-01-11 11:55:29 PM  

llachlan: NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.

Hi,

I'm not sure what to offer, but I will listen if that will help. I'm more than a little concerned about you.


No, I gotta go with NotSoFunky on this one. If this douche bag wants to prove his point by shooting me, so be it. I won't shoot back - not because of religion just because violence isn't really the answer in this question. What will happen, though, is he won't prove his point, he'll prove the opposition's point by being a gun slinging asswipe. I'll be dead, but that's ok. It's been a funky ride and I don't have a wife or kids... so shoot my ass, looney-tunes!
 
2013-01-11 11:55:45 PM  

ratagorda: So Buck Angel got "his" guns taken away?

Buck Angel's problems go further than his 2nd Amendment rights.


Well, now I'm picturing this guy smoking and shooting people with his cooter. Thanks for that.
 
2013-01-11 11:55:51 PM  

Amos Quito: Second amendment:  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"


The second amendment is subject to "reasonable limitations" which protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general population. (Jurisprudence established by DC v. Heller, 2008.) The state of Tennessee established that they wish to regulate the practice of concealed carry, and the voters of the State agreed with that sentiment. Regulation of handgun concealed carry is constitutional. (Upheld in McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). One of those reasonable limitations is that the person who has that permit does not pose an immediate danger to himself, or others, that he is of sound mental state, and is not a felon or under suspicion of a felony.

This man not only committed a videotaped terroristic threat against the President of the United States, but stated he would start murdering people if a law were passed. Both are not forms of protected speech.

Amos Quito: In defense of the above, he exercised the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Terroristic Threats are not protected speech under the first amendment. (Virginia V. Black, 2003)

Amos Quito: And bearing in mind the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


None of his rights were denied. His privileged to conceal and carry a handgun according to the State of Tennessee laws, which was a power delegated to the states by the Federal Government, was revoked because he broke the rules which allowed him to have that privileged

Amos Quito: Now, given the current insane climate of mass submission to Centralized Authoritarianism, I will say that the chap was STOOPID for saying what he said.

Not that he was not within his Constitutionally defined rights to do so, but the fact is that AUTHORITAY draws its validity from POWER, and the fact is that the AUTHORITAYS have a LOT more guns than he does.


.static.guim.co.uk
 
2013-01-11 11:56:24 PM  

joness0154: I was specifically responding to dbaggins assertion that there hasn't been a massacre in the UK since 1996.


And in so doing you moved the conversation along an entire iota. Congratulations.
 
2013-01-11 11:56:26 PM  
Looks like he just can't conceal carry. Unless he's convicted of a felony, he can still own one.
 
2013-01-11 11:56:51 PM  

Amos Quito: So VIOLENT CRIME in the UK (as of 2009) was 4.29 times HIGHER than in the gun-laden US.


Look at the criteria for "violent crime" in each country.

Hint - in the UK, it's spitting on someone.
 
2013-01-11 11:56:56 PM  

Amos Quito: So VIOLENT CRIME in the UK (as of 2009) was 4.29 times HIGHER than in the gun-laden US.

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

Pawn takes queen.

Your move,



you didn't counter my assertion at all. right in your quote you state your data ENDS in 2009. just like gunpolicy.org.
 
2013-01-11 11:57:10 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.


Man, who can even guess how racist Amos would be after a jail stint.
 
2013-01-11 11:57:22 PM  

ratagorda: So Buck Angel got "his" guns taken away?

Buck Angel's problems go further than his 2nd Amendment rights.


Congratulations. You've added nothing to this conversation.
 
2013-01-11 11:58:05 PM  

joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.


I hate to say it, but the ball is not completely out of your court. The Daily Mail article cites numbers for '98 compared to '08, but the gun ban was instituted in 1997. What was the number of offences in '96?
The numbers seem to have dropped in the last 2 or 3 years, so you can't really say that gun crime has doubled since the ban.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-end i ng-june-2012/stb-crime-in-england-and-wales--year-ending-june-2012.htm l#tab-Offences-involving-firearms
 
2013-01-11 11:59:13 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Amos Quito: I call bullshiat.

Call it what you want.  I don't really care.

Go ahead and take it to court.  Grab a handgun, go outside and threaten to shoot people.

When you get arrested, tell them you were exercising your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.  See how long it takes before every lawyer in the world stops laughing.

I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.



Yeah, delete the context of my post in the hopes of salvaging a shred of dignity.

That's the ticket, Mandrake.

Feel like a hero?
 
2013-01-12 12:00:08 AM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


A "consequence" is not a "curb or limit" on freedom of speech, first of all. A "curb or limit" would be something that stopped you from speaking in the first place. Secondly, the law does not say "Speak about something and have your guns taken away." What happened here is that a person spoke about using weapons in a way that made the state assess whether or not his use of them might be a threat to public safety and security--and then revoked not his right to SPEAK, but his right to continue to OWN AND USE WEAPONS. He can still run his mouth as much as he likes and nobody can stop him.

Free speech and your right to use it also doesn't mean what you seem to think it does either. It is the right to say what you wish free of government restraint on that speech--period. It does not mean that you can say anything you want and not have the potential effects of that speech evaluated, as happened here; or that you can say anything you want and not have restrictions placed on where, when and how you say it; or that you can say anything you want and expect to be free of social repercussions (which also happened here).

Free speech merely means the government cannot pass a law saying "It is illegal in and of itself to talk about X and here is the penalty for doing so." Dear Mr. Yeager cannot be sentenced to prison or even given a nominal fine for saying "Let's start a war!" He can't even have his guns taken away for saying it--but if the authorities feel that he presents a "clear and present danger" of using his guns in a threatening manner, then they can suspend his right to legally use guns for the greater good of society. Look up the decisions in Chemerinsky and Brandenburg if you have any doubts, and take a look at a state's "police powers".

Also, bear in mind this little factoid: The 1st only restrains GOVERNMENT action. All of us here cheering on this douchebag's punishment are private citizens. Your right to free speech is irrelevant between private parties. I absolutely have the right to tell another private person to STFU in a private situation; you HAVE NO RIGHTS that are enforceable between you and me as regards your right to "free speech". So if we want to applaud his idiot remarks landing him in hot water, well, that's not a restraint of his freedom of speech, nor is it our "acceptance of curbs on free speech." It's just our acknowledgement that actions have consequences, which apparently he didn't realize.
 
2013-01-12 12:00:22 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Sherman Potter: violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.

If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.

Oh I have no doubt that much of the "gun community" considers him irresponsible. The problem is, none of them are willing to support a law that would take his guns away.


Try coming up with a law which would take his guns away for a logical reason and not mine at the same time, because I've done nothing of the sort and we'll talk.
 
2013-01-12 12:00:43 AM  

dbaggins: I forgot Derrik Bird. That is true. They DID have another massacre in 2010


That wasn't actually a massacre - that was a spree.
 
2013-01-12 12:01:01 AM  
also keep in mind there were a bunch of riots in the UK in this time, with hundreds of violence charges laid per day for several periods.

of which, nobody was shot, and almost nobody died.

unlike when we have riots. the LA riots for instance. 52 dead by firearms.
 
2013-01-12 12:01:14 AM  
To endquote
 
2013-01-12 12:01:29 AM  

dbaggins: joness0154: Gun crime and gun deaths are related, but not the same thing.

I don't need to "try again".

breaking their tougher gun laws counts as a gun crime in the UK, and is a useless statistic.

gun deaths is the relevant metric. It tracks assaults and accidents very well.


Seriously?

Homicide by firearm does not take into account non-lethal shootings, muggings, armed robbery, assault, or the myriad of other crimes committed with a firearm that would be just as deadly had the perpetrator pulled the trigger.
 
2013-01-12 12:01:30 AM  

BSABSVR: Lionel Mandrake: I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.

Man, who can even guess how racist Amos would be after a jail stint.


He might stop being coy about it, shave his head, and get a swastika tattoo'd on his chest.
 
2013-01-12 12:02:43 AM  

The Name: joness0154: I was specifically responding to dbaggins assertion that there hasn't been a massacre in the UK since 1996.

And in so doing you moved the conversation along an entire iota. Congratulations.


Whereas your comment contributed nothing to the discussion.

Come play along with us, provide something useful.
 
2013-01-12 12:03:41 AM  

Amos Quito:

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

Pawn takes queen.

Your move,


img.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-12 12:03:46 AM  
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-12 12:04:54 AM  

joness0154: Consider our culture for a second....in the late 1800s nearly every adult male owned a firearm. I saw a statistic that showed nearly 50% of households today have a firearm of some sort.

With firearms being so ingrained in our culture, along with them being included as part of the Bill of Rights, it's no surprise to me.


I'm not so sure that every one of two households has a gun. Probably more like "99 of 100 households have no gun, but that 1 guy? He's got 50 guns in his collection."
 
2013-01-12 12:04:57 AM  

joness0154: The Name: joness0154: I was specifically responding to dbaggins assertion that there hasn't been a massacre in the UK since 1996.

And in so doing you moved the conversation along an entire iota. Congratulations.

Whereas your comment contributed nothing to the discussion.

Come play along with us, provide something useful.


Well, I did point out that one shooting spree since 1996 is not evidence that gun control doesn't work, which is what I took you as implying, so there's that.
 
2013-01-12 12:05:00 AM  

joness0154: dbaggins: joness0154: Gun crime and gun deaths are related, but not the same thing.

I don't need to "try again".

breaking their tougher gun laws counts as a gun crime in the UK, and is a useless statistic.

gun deaths is the relevant metric. It tracks assaults and accidents very well.

Seriously?

Homicide by firearm does not take into account non-lethal shootings, muggings, armed robbery, assault, or the myriad of other crimes committed with a firearm that would be just as deadly had the perpetrator pulled the trigger.


yes, seriously. do you not know what it means for an indicator to track another indicator?
 
2013-01-12 12:05:00 AM  

Amos Quito: Lionel Mandrake: Amos Quito: I call bullshiat.

Call it what you want.  I don't really care.

Go ahead and take it to court.  Grab a handgun, go outside and threaten to shoot people.

When you get arrested, tell them you were exercising your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.  See how long it takes before every lawyer in the world stops laughing.

I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.


Yeah, delete the context of my post in the hopes of salvaging a shred of dignity.

That's the ticket, Mandrake.

Feel like a hero?


The guy had a privileged suspended because he abused it.  Like losing a license for driving like a dick.

The "context" of your post was pure bullshiat.

Take your persecution/victim/paranoia/ignorance complex elsewhere...I've exceeded my limits of tolerating stupidity for the day.
 
2013-01-12 12:05:02 AM  

Gyrfalcon: A "consequence" is not a "curb or limit" on freedom of speech, first of all. A "curb or limit" would be something that stopped you from speaking in the first place. Secondly, the law does not say "Speak about something and have your guns taken away." What happened here is that a person spoke about using weapons in a way that made the state assess whether or not his use of them might be a threat to public safety and security--and then revoked not his right to SPEAK, but his right to continue to OWN AND USE WEAPONS. He can still run his mouth as much as he likes and nobody can stop him.

Free speech and your right to use it also doesn't mean what you seem to think it does either. It is the right to say what you wish free of government restraint on that speech--period. It does not mean that you can say anything you want and not have the potential effects of that speech evaluated, as happened here; or that you can say anything you want and not have restrictions placed on where, when and how you say it; or that you can say anything you want and expect to be free of social repercussions (which also happened here).

Free speech merely means the government cannot pass a law saying "It is illegal in and of itself to talk about X and here is the penalty for doing so." Dear Mr. Yeager cannot be sentenced to prison or even given a nominal fine for saying "Let's start a war!" He can't even have his guns taken away for saying it--but if the authorities feel that he presents a "clear and present danger" of using his guns in a threatening manner, then they can suspend his right to legally use guns for the greater good of society. Look up the decisions in Chemerinsky and Brandenburg if you have any doubts, and take a look at a state's "police powers".

Also, bear in mind this little factoid: The 1st only restrains GOVERNMENT action. All of us here cheering on this douchebag's punishment are private citizens. Your right to free speech is irrelevant between private parties. I absolute ...


Some of what you said, is what I meant when I indicated that most of you didn't actually understand what free speech is. You seem to, though, so I'm going to ask you to touch on my actual question: why all the butthurt when people discuss the 2nd, and no where near the same reaction to discussing the 1st?

Also, they didn't take away his right to use the guns - just to cary them.
 
2013-01-12 12:05:54 AM  

Amos Quito: Lionel Mandrake: Amos Quito: I call bullshiat.

Call it what you want.  I don't really care.

Go ahead and take it to court.  Grab a handgun, go outside and threaten to shoot people.

When you get arrested, tell them you were exercising your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.  See how long it takes before every lawyer in the world stops laughing.

I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.


Yeah, delete the context of my post in the hopes of salvaging a shred of dignity.

That's the ticket, Mandrake.

Feel like a hero?


At least you're standing up for your right to protect your precious bodily fluids.

/That's right, I'm reading trollin'
 
2013-01-12 12:06:07 AM  

BronyMedic: Amos Quito: Second amendment:  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The second amendment is subject to "reasonable limitations" which protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general population. (Jurisprudence established by DC v. Heller, 2008.) The state of Tennessee established that they wish to regulate the practice of concealed carry, and the voters of the State agreed with that sentiment. Regulation of handgun concealed carry is constitutional. (Upheld in McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). One of those reasonable limitations is that the person who has that permit does not pose an immediate danger to himself, or others, that he is of sound mental state, and is not a felon or under suspicion of a felony.

This man not only committed a videotaped terroristic threat against the President of the United States, but stated he would start murdering people if a law were passed. Both are not forms of protected speech.

Amos Quito: In defense of the above, he exercised the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Terroristic Threats are not protected speech under the first amendment. (Virginia V. Black, 2003)

Amos Quito: And bearing in mind the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

None of his rights were denied. His privileged to conceal and carry a handgun according to the State of Tennessee laws, which was a power delegated to the states by the Federal Government, was revoked because he broke the rules which allowed him to have that privileged

Amos Quito: Now, given the current insane climate of mass s ...



You have a bad habit of inane internet blabbermouthing, BM, so forgive me if I don't bother to waste my time on your unsubstantiated bullshiat.

Go back and provide cites WITH LINKS to all of the bolded above.

Then we'll talk.

Maybe.
 
2013-01-12 12:08:18 AM  
Concealed carry is not an absolute right.
 
2013-01-12 12:09:51 AM  

BSABSVR: Lionel Mandrake: I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.

Man, who can even guess how racist Amos would be after a jail stint.


Yes but his views on gay marriage would likely change tremendously!
 
2013-01-12 12:10:48 AM  
Suggestion:

All persons purchasing a firearm are required to upload a 3-minute video to YouTube explaining their personal beliefs in the Second Amendment while holding their weapon. If they can get through 180-seconds without scaring the ever-loving buh-jesus out of the public they can be deemed 'well-regulated' and allowed to possess their weapon in perpetuity.
 
2013-01-12 12:10:57 AM  

WordyGrrl: joness0154: Consider our culture for a second....in the late 1800s nearly every adult male owned a firearm. I saw a statistic that showed nearly 50% of households today have a firearm of some sort.

With firearms being so ingrained in our culture, along with them being included as part of the Bill of Rights, it's no surprise to me.

I'm not so sure that every one of two households has a gun. Probably more like "99 of 100 households have no gun, but that 1 guy? He's got 50 guns in his collection."


I was mistaken about households - replace that with adults.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest - 1993.aspx
 
2013-01-12 12:12:17 AM  

Indubitably: To endquote


I used to find your posting incredibly annoying but now it's damn near sublime.
/If I wasn't poor I'd give you tf for a month.
 
2013-01-12 12:13:55 AM  

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.



Speaking of First Amendment rights, next time you're in an airport getting patted down by those nice TSA folks, go right ahead and joke about how they'll never find that bomb you've hidden in your carry-on luggage. They love hearing that one, betcha they'll be rolling on the floor laughing, like always.

It's your right, exercise it! Yay, First Amendment!
 
2013-01-12 12:13:59 AM  

Dansker: Amos Quito:

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

Pawn takes queen.

Your move,

[img.photobucket.com image 817x650]



So you're saying that the Telegraph article was a LIE?

A complete, bald faced LIE??? If that be the case, they should all be keel hauled, don't you think?

But before we force them to walk the plank, perhaps I should ask you to kindly link to the cite of your source.

Would that be too much to ask?

In the meanwhile, don't hold your breath waiting for a response from me.

it's night night time.


Ban
Ban Ban
Ban Ban Ban
BANBAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN !!!!!1!!
 
2013-01-12 12:15:34 AM  

dbaggins: joness0154: Gun crime and gun deaths are related, but not the same thing.

I don't need to "try again".

breaking their tougher gun laws counts as a gun crime in the UK, and is a useless statistic.

gun deaths is the relevant metric. It tracks assaults and accidents very well.


The UK statistics involving gun crime include:

Firearms are provisional. Excludes offences involving the use of air weapons and offences recorded by British Transport Police. Includes crimes recorded by police where a firearm has been fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person or used as a threat.

Nowhere does it say just breaking the law is a gun crime.
 
2013-01-12 12:15:35 AM  

propasaurus: Concealed carry is not an absolute right.



All "absolute rights" end the moment someone sticks a gun (or a knife) in your ribs.

/Facts of life, bub
 
2013-01-12 12:16:08 AM  

llachlan: Some of what you said, is what I meant when I indicated that most of you didn't actually understand what free speech is. You seem to, though, so I'm going to ask you to touch on my actual question: why all the butthurt when people discuss the 2nd, and no where near the same reaction to discussing the 1st?


I think you may have it backwards. Even gun owners tolerate fairly considerable restrictions on the second amendment. On the other hand, first amendment rights are widely considered to be pretty damn absolute in all cases excepting fairly direct threats or slander. We all accept that guns require licenses, but needing a license to engage in certain types of speech would be beyond the pale.

I should also add that I have no problem with this.
 
2013-01-12 12:19:37 AM  

llachlan: As an outsider (who supports your right to bear arms), I am honestly surprised at how reactions to curbing various amendments differ (and my questions apply as much to the 5th, 6th and 7th as to the 1st versus the 2nd).


I'm an "insider" - born and raised in Kansas, and I don't get it either. But, I wasn't raised around guns. My dad was West Point, but got rid of the guns when I was under 2 yrs old. No guns since. I've never been enamored of guns, never played with them, never saw them as much more than a chemical way to throw a couple ounces of metal very fast in order to tear something up. I've only shot guns once, a 30.06 rifle and some kind of pistol. I'm actually a good shot with the rifle, but I really didn't care a whole lot.
But I have several friends who grew up shooting and loading their own rounds, and getting 13th birthday gifts of pistols or rifles. They were into guns like some kids are into engines or planes or football. Oddly, only one of them hunted, the rest were just into guns.

As to opposition to restrictions on the 1st, 5th, 6th and 7th amendments: Most people don't know what those are. Most people think the 1st is: "You can say whatever you want" and maybe "You can worship your Christian god however you want", and that's about it. 5th, 6th and 7th are just things nobody needs to know. BUT the 2nd! That one means "you can have any kind of gun you want all the time anywhere and anybody trying to restrict that is a commie bastard and deserves to be shot". At least, that's what most of my relatives think.
 
2013-01-12 12:21:01 AM  

Amos Quito: You have a bad habit of inane internet blabbermouthing, BM, so forgive me if I don't bother to waste my time on your unsubstantiated bullshiat.


Ah. So we've reached the "personally attack me" stage of your anger that people dare call you out over your bullshiat.

Amos Quito: Go back and provide cites WITH LINKS to all of the bolded above.


Sure thing!

Amos Quito: The state of Tennessee established that they wish to regulate the practice of concealed carry, and the voters of the State agreed with that sentiment.


In October of 1996, the Department of Safety began issuing handgun carry permits pursuant to Public Chapter 905. Prior to this change, handgun carry permits were issued by local sheriff's offices. Tennessee became a "Shall Issue" state in 1994.

Amos Quito: This man not only committed a videotaped terroristic threat against the President of the United States, but stated he would start murdering people if a law were passed. Both are not forms of protected speech.


The link to his video is in the farking article, you idiot.

Amos Quito:
power delegated to the states by the Federal Government

There are no federal laws or statutes delegating that power to the Federal Government, and no specific federal laws regarding concealed carry. DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago both established that the States AND local municipalities have the right to establish Reasonable limitations on the second amendment, but outright bans are not reasonable. Please go read both decisions if you want to, google isn't hard.
 
2013-01-12 12:23:29 AM  

joness0154: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun- c rime-goes-89-decade.html


1. Daily fail can suck it.

2."And while it is true that gun violence increased marginally after gun laws were tightened in 1997, it has more recently dropped. More telling are the actual numbers. There were only thirty-nine gun-related deaths in the United Kingdom in 2009. In the US there were over nine thousand. In other words, the US has five times as many people as the UK, and more than 230 times the number of gun homicides. We might well learn something from the British experience."

3. Read the highlighted parts. Come back when they sink in.

4. Profit.

/Now you know what the ??? is
//reading comprehension
 
2013-01-12 12:24:55 AM  
Sorry, I think I need a new scorecard.

Which of these AMENDMENTS (Corrections) to the Constitution are absolute human rights, encoded in our DNA and not arbitrarily invented by some guy 200 years ago?
 
2013-01-12 12:26:37 AM  

joness0154: The UK statistics involving gun crime include:


but I didn't cite "gun crime" in my reference. I cited morbidity. You didn't look in the database I provided the link for, did you?

I don't know why *you* switched to "gun crime".

gun deaths is a valid stand-in for several gun violence stats.
 
2013-01-12 12:27:14 AM  

whatshisname: Which of these AMENDMENTS (Corrections) to the Constitution are absolute human rights, encoded in our DNA and not arbitrarily invented by some guy 200 years ago?


Good point. Human rights are a new concept from the Age of Enlightenment, and both Secular and religious philosophers who thought there was something better than just killing and torturing your fellow man in the name of your King and God.

How does that point make the Amendments to the constitution any less valid then they are today?
 
2013-01-12 12:27:27 AM  

whatshisname: Sorry, I think I need a new scorecard.

Which of these AMENDMENTS (Corrections) to the Constitution are absolute human rights, encoded in our DNA and not arbitrarily invented by some guy 200 years ago?


.
You sound like you went to public school.
 
2013-01-12 12:27:46 AM  

propasaurus: ratagorda: So Buck Angel got "his" guns taken away?

Buck Angel's problems go further than his 2nd Amendment rights.

Congratulations. You've added nothing to this conversation.


Is that any different than any of your shiat posting?
 
2013-01-12 12:28:30 AM  

david_gaithersburg: You sound like you went to public school.


Don't you have a religion thread to feel persecuted in somewhere?
 
2013-01-12 12:29:08 AM  

Aquapope: llachlan: As an outsider (who supports your right to bear arms), I am honestly surprised at how reactions to curbing various amendments differ (and my questions apply as much to the 5th, 6th and 7th as to the 1st versus the 2nd).

I'm an "insider" - born and raised in Kansas, and I don't get it either. But, I wasn't raised around guns. My dad was West Point, but got rid of the guns when I was under 2 yrs old. No guns since. I've never been enamored of guns, never played with them, never saw them as much more than a chemical way to throw a couple ounces of metal very fast in order to tear something up. I've only shot guns once, a 30.06 rifle and some kind of pistol. I'm actually a good shot with the rifle, but I really didn't care a whole lot.
But I have several friends who grew up shooting and loading their own rounds, and getting 13th birthday gifts of pistols or rifles. They were into guns like some kids are into engines or planes or football. Oddly, only one of them hunted, the rest were just into guns.

As to opposition to restrictions on the 1st, 5th, 6th and 7th amendments: Most people don't know what those are. Most people think the 1st is: "You can say whatever you want" and maybe "You can worship your Christian god however you want", and that's about it. 5th, 6th and 7th are just things nobody needs to know. BUT the 2nd! That one means "you can have any kind of gun you want all the time anywhere and anybody trying to restrict that is a commie bastard and deserves to be shot". At least, that's what most of my relatives think.


To add just a little bit to this: the second amendment has a certain iconic status with certain demographics that other amendments just don't have. You don't have a whole lot of people walking around in their daily lives thinking about how proud they are to be exercising their 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. amendment rights. I think a lot of these people ("people of the land," let us call them) actually have the notion that the second amendment was written just for them and their gun-related hobbies, because they're just that important to the stability of the country. You can imagine the inflated sense of self-importance having your "own" constitutional amendment can cause, and how protective such people would be of this amendment.
 
2013-01-12 12:31:20 AM  

david_gaithersburg: You sound like you went to public school.


Because I'm not screaming as the proctor buggers me while I recite the Bill of Rights?

Sounds like you have experience.
 
2013-01-12 12:31:36 AM  

Amos Quito: Dansker: Amos Quito:

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

Pawn takes queen.

Your move,

[img.photobucket.com image 817x650]


So you're saying that the Telegraph article was a LIE?

A complete, bald faced LIE??? If that be the case, they should all be keel hauled, don't you think?


Nah, they're just quoting the Conservatives, and partisan political lies are to be expected.

But before we force them to walk the plank, perhaps I should ask you to kindly link to the cite of your source.

Would that be too much to ask?


No, here it is.


In the meanwhile, don't hold your breath waiting for a response from me.

it's night night time.


Ban
Ban Ban
Ban Ban Ban
BANBAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN !!!!!1!!


You seem perfectly rational, and I look forward to resuming this discourse... *smiles politely, backs away slowly*
 
2013-01-12 12:32:24 AM  

Dansker: Amos Quito:

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

Pawn takes queen.

Your move,

[img.photobucket.com image 817x650]


news.bbcimg.co.uk

Correlation =/= causation.
 
2013-01-12 12:33:23 AM  

BronyMedic: whatshisname: Which of these AMENDMENTS (Corrections) to the Constitution are absolute human rights, encoded in our DNA and not arbitrarily invented by some guy 200 years ago?

Good point. Human rights are a new concept from the Age of Enlightenment, and both Secular and religious philosophers who thought there was something better than just killing and torturing your fellow man in the name of your King and God.

How does that point make the Amendments to the constitution any less valid then they are today?


It doesn't make them less valid per se, but it does open the door to seeing them as fallible and changeable -something most Americans still don't understand.
 
2013-01-12 12:34:38 AM  

Uberdeity: 2."And while it is true that gun violence increased marginally after gun laws were tightened in 1997, it has more recently dropped. More telling are the actual numbers. There were only thirty-nine gun-related deaths in the United Kingdom in 2009. In the US there were over nine thousand. In other words, the US has five times as many people as the UK, and more than 230 times the number of gun homicides. We might well learn something from the British experience."

kryptonradio.com
 
2013-01-12 12:35:35 AM  

Zeno-25: Dansker: Amos Quito:

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

Pawn takes queen.

Your move,

[img.photobucket.com image 817x650]

[news.bbcimg.co.uk image 464x316]

Correlation =/= causation.


I never claimed a causative relation between any two things. Not in this thread.
 
2013-01-12 12:36:06 AM  

Summoner101: Last I checked a threat on the life of another person or to society as a whole is a fairly reasonable area to legislate in regards to an individual's right to free speech.


Only if it's a clear and present danger. To be fair though, his concealed weapons license is a privilege, not a right, hence he still can own his gun.
 
2013-01-12 12:36:51 AM  

American Decency Association: does someone actually get sent around to take his guns away now?  how does this work?


He only lost his concealed carry permit, not his right to own guns.  No one comes to take them away.  Unless someone can prove he shouldn't have passed his background check when he bought his handguns, there's no legal mechanism to take his guns.
 
2013-01-12 12:37:43 AM  

BronyMedic: (Waverly is also a sundown town, even today.)


Haven't been there, but the 2010 United States census would suggest otherwise:

Waverly, TN population (black or african american): 7.9%
Humphreys County, TN population (black or african american): 2.5%

Admittedly, that's well below the Tennessee average of 16.7%, but Waverly's black population is *well* above the county average, and close to one in ten people there are black. If it were a true sundown town, that number would be rather lower.

There's a site tracking current and past sundown towns, and it doesn't even mention Waverly. It does, however, list significantly smaller places in Tennessee that are still sundown towns, including:

* Copperhill has just two people or 0.6%.

* Crossville is even lower at just 0.5%, and that's more notable as it has a population over 10,000.

* Ducktown has just a single black resident in a population of 475 (0.2%)

* Dunlap has 0.3%

* Englewood has 0.7%

* Erwin, with an incredible nine people in over 6,000, has 0.1%

* Tourist trap Gatlinburg is listed as "don't know" but has only 0.6%

* Lafayette has 0.5%

* Norris has just three people and 0.2%

* Oneida doesn't have a single black person in a population of 3,752 (!!) (Yes, really. 0%)

* Palmer has a much smaller population, but it's also 0% with not a single black person

* Tracy City is another incredible statistic, with just one black person in almost 1,500 (0.1%)

Are there still sundown cities in Tennessee. Oh, yeah. A surprising -- honestly, rather disgusting -- number. Is Waverly one, or even close to being one? No.
 
2013-01-12 12:38:44 AM  

joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.


I will take that free month thank you: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/ research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/

Again. Stop reading newspapers like the Daily fail and learn to find the actual data source. You'll go far.
 
2013-01-12 12:38:48 AM  

Lsherm: Unless someone can prove he shouldn't have passed his background check when he bought his handguns, there's no legal mechanism to take his guns.


And I can't take 150ml of sunscreen on a plane. OK, then. Glad we have the priorities straight.
 
2013-01-12 12:39:09 AM  
Gah, that should have said "both larger, similar, and significantly smaller"
 
2013-01-12 12:39:48 AM  

Skyrmion: Uberdeity: 2."And while it is true that gun violence increased marginally after gun laws were tightened in 1997, it has more recently dropped. More telling are the actual numbers. There were only thirty-nine gun-related deaths in the United Kingdom in 2009. In the US there were over nine thousand. In other words, the US has five times as many people as the UK, and more than 230 times the number of gun homicides. We might well learn something from the British experience."
[kryptonradio.com image 300x300]


I love you, you glorious bastard.
 
2013-01-12 12:40:13 AM  

Uberdeity: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics / research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/


Just FYI, that URL throws a 404 error.
 
2013-01-12 12:41:34 AM  

Uberdeity: joness0154: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun- c rime-goes-89-decade.html

1. Daily fail can suck it.

2."And while it is true that gun violence increased marginally after gun laws were tightened in 1997, it has more recently dropped. More telling are the actual numbers. There were only thirty-nine gun-related deaths in the United Kingdom in 2009. In the US there were over nine thousand. In other words, the US has five times as many people as the UK, and more than 230 times the number of gun homicides. We might well learn something from the British experience."

3. Read the highlighted parts. Come back when they sink in.

4. Profit.

/Now you know what the ??? is
//reading comprehension


There are far more ways to kill people than using a gun. I would expect less gun-related deaths if there's less guns. But that means nothing. I bet the number of homicides by blunt objects rose.
 
2013-01-12 12:41:41 AM  

gweilo8888: Is Waverly one, or even close to being one? No.


When I last worked there in 2008, it was most definitely. You didn't show yourself in the town proper if you were black and it was after dark. It's one of the few places in the United States you'll find Klan and Neo-nazi symbology openly displayed (Hohenwald houses an active chapter of the KKK, and Waverly has the Aryan Skinheads)

I get what you're saying here, but as I understand the historical usage, it means "N*ggers get out after dark". The Waverly (And New Johnsonville) I left behind was most definitely that.
 
2013-01-12 12:41:43 AM  

Uberdeity: joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.

I will take that free month thank you: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/ research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/

Again. Stop reading newspapers like the Daily fail and learn to find the actual data source. You'll go far.


You know you'll never get it, right?
 
2013-01-12 12:41:53 AM  

gweilo8888: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics / research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/


take the spaces out.

some cut n paste tools toss in extra spaces.
 
2013-01-12 12:42:14 AM  

dennysgod: pjmedia.com

Threatening people isn't being a responsible gun owner.


THIS



I'm surprised his home and business haven't been raided by ATF and SWAT yet.
 
2013-01-12 12:43:58 AM  

gweilo8888: Uberdeity: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics / research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/

Just FYI, that URL throws a 404 error.


There is a space... you have to remove it.

cameroncrazy1984: Uberdeity: joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.

I will take that free month thank you: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/ research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/

Again. Stop reading newspapers like the Daily fail and learn to find the actual data source. You'll go far.

You know you'll never get it, right?


I know, but I like watching people wager things and then back the hell down fast.

Rockstone: Uberdeity: joness0154: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun- c rime-goes-89-decade.html

1. Daily fail can suck it.

2."And while it is true that gun violence increased marginally after gun laws were tightened in 1997, it has more recently dropped. More telling are the actual numbers. There were only thirty-nine gun-related deaths in the United Kingdom in 2009. In the US there were over nine thousand. In other words, the US has five times as many people as the UK, and more than 230 times the number of gun homicides. We might well learn something from the British experience."

3. Read the highlighted parts. Come back when they sink in.

4. Profit.

/Now you know what the ??? is
//reading comprehension

There are far more ways to kill people than using a gun. I would expect less gun-related deaths if there's less guns. But that means nothing. I bet the number of homicides by blunt objects rose.


Then I guess it was a good thing we were talking about GUN CRIME and not BLUNT OBJECT CRIME. Those being different.... and all....
 
2013-01-12 12:44:16 AM  

Amos Quito: Go back and provide cites WITH LINKS to all of the bolded above.


Virginia v. Black

Go read Gyrfalcon's post.  There's a lot of helpful explanation in there.  It's really important to remember that the 1st Amendment is a restriction on Government Action.

For example, remember when that guy Sanchez from CNN said something about the Jews controlling the media?  And Sanchez didn't even make those comments on CNN/his show.  CNN fired him like 24 hours later.  Can the government punish him criminally?  No.  But he can't sue CNN claiming he was "exercising his free speech rights" because CNN can make whatever rules they want about what their employees are allowed to say in interviews--even on other stations or in print or whatever.

BUT, if Sanchez were to get hired by another network that didn't care about his antisemitism, he could keep on saying how much he hates the Jews or whatever, and the government still can't punish him.

AND, even the protection from the government isn't absolute.  Not all speech is protected speech (for example obscenity as defined in Miller v. California).
 
2013-01-12 12:45:59 AM  

The Name: To add just a little bit to this: the second amendment has a certain iconic status with certain demographics that other amendments just don't have. You don't have a whole lot of people walking around in their daily lives thinking about how proud they are to be exercising their 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. amendment rights. I think a lot of these people ("people of the land," let us call them) actually have the notion that the second amendment was written just for them and their gun-related hobbies, because they're just that important to the stability of the country. You can imagine the inflated sense of self-importance having your "own" constitutional amendment can cause, and how protective such people would be of this amendment.


Thank you. I never thought about it from that perspective, and I appreciate you giving me a serious answer to my question.
 
2013-01-12 12:47:07 AM  
I don't wanna piss on anybody's badass cred touchstones, but, uh if you are dealing with somebody with the following characteristics ▼

1.) - Shaved head
2.) - Spinach chin goatee
3.) - Bowhard
4.) - Has more guns than the national guard
5.) - Huge motorcycle that runs like sh*t
6.) - Lots of ink
7.) - Almost never smiles unless it's to smirk at the misfortune of others

You're probably dealing with a violent douchebag who never quite past the 8 year old schoolyard bully phase who likes to go out and "see who wants to start some sh*t". This person may be on home made methedrine and or anabolic steroids.

Avoid this person.
 
2013-01-12 12:48:18 AM  

Rockstone:

There are far more ways to kill people than using a gun. I would expect less gun-related deaths if there's less guns. But that means nothing. I bet the number of homicides by blunt objects rose.


The overall homicide rates are enormously lower too, let alone the accidental death rates. The USA is massively more violent than the UK is if homicide count is the measure (4 times more so approximately), and in terms of guns it is just a slaughterhouse by civilised world standards.

Say that it is worth it to have these death rates in order to preserve your second amendment if you like, but don't pretend they arent real.
 
2013-01-12 12:53:53 AM  

BronyMedic: gweilo8888: Is Waverly one, or even close to being one? No.

When I last worked there in 2008, it was most definitely. You didn't show yourself in the town proper if you were black and it was after dark. It's one of the few places in the United States you'll find Klan and Neo-nazi symbology openly displayed (Hohenwald houses an active chapter of the KKK, and Waverly has the Aryan Skinheads)

I get what you're saying here, but as I understand the historical usage, it means "N*ggers get out after dark". The Waverly (And New Johnsonville) I left behind was most definitely that.


The 2000 census shows it having had an even higher black population (9.51% ) than it does now, so even when you were there close to one in ten people would've been black, and chosen to live there.

And the town proper makes up the bulk of that census tract. Even if you zoom in to the census block groups, the two block groups that cover the city (and little else except undeveloped land and a bit of very low-density residential) have 10.1%" and 2.6% populations respectively.

I'm sure it was unfriendly to African Americans -- far too many places still are -- but even in Waverly's worst area that's not into sundown town figures of well below one percent (and in some cases, not a single black person in a place with a population of similar size, where Waverly has several hundred black people).
 
2013-01-12 12:54:03 AM  

Uberdeity: Then I guess it was a good thing we were talking about GUN CRIME and not BLUNT OBJECT CRIME. Those being different.... and all....


The whole point when comparing crime rates after a gun ban would be to compare VIOLENT CRIME, not GUN CRIME. Otherwise that's a stupid comparison.
 
2013-01-12 12:54:58 AM  

dbaggins: gweilo8888: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics / research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/

take the spaces out.

some cut n paste tools toss in extra spaces.


Thanks, missed that. I think it's either Fark or the web browser that introduces the space actually, because I've had it happen to me in the past -- I'd just forgotten as I usually put links in as HTML.
 
2013-01-12 12:59:45 AM  
Successful troll (Obama) is successful
 
2013-01-12 01:04:18 AM  
And he and all the rest of the criminals will ignore gun control. Oops.
 
2013-01-12 01:04:57 AM  

whatshisname: Lsherm: Unless someone can prove he shouldn't have passed his background check when he bought his handguns, there's no legal mechanism to take his guns.

And I can't take 150ml of sunscreen on a plane. OK, then. Glad we have the priorities straight.


I didn't say I agreed with it, I just corrected his assumption.  And plane travel rights aren't enumerated in the Constitution, although I wish they were.  I've started paying extra to take the Acela to NY just to avoid security at the airport.  Plus, bar car.
 
2013-01-12 01:05:41 AM  

Rockstone: Uberdeity: Then I guess it was a good thing we were talking about GUN CRIME and not BLUNT OBJECT CRIME. Those being different.... and all....

The whole point when comparing crime rates after a gun ban would be to compare VIOLENT CRIME, not GUN CRIME. Otherwise that's a stupid comparison.


Well then, I guess it was good that he asked for data I could provide easily. Perhaps you would like to start a thread about your topic and we can all discuss that over there?
 
2013-01-12 01:05:45 AM  
Kettle Corn or Ultimate Butter ..... hmmmmm....
 
2013-01-12 01:09:04 AM  

gaspode: Rockstone:

There are far more ways to kill people than using a gun. I would expect less gun-related deaths if there's less guns. But that means nothing. I bet the number of homicides by blunt objects rose.

The overall homicide rates are enormously lower too, let alone the accidental death rates. The USA is massively more violent than the UK is if homicide count is the measure (4 times more so approximately), and in terms of guns it is just a slaughterhouse by civilised world standards.

Say that it is worth it to have these death rates in order to preserve your second amendment if you like, but don't pretend they aren't real.


yeah, it's all chaff in this kind or discussion. We are knee-deep in guns here in the US, and with that many fancy guns, we end up using them, on each other, a lot.

I can't see a reasonable argument for anyone owning more that a bolt action hunting rifle, quail gun, and a six shooter. That's it.

the first two for sport hunting, the third for home defense. Nothing else is justifiable without bizarre anti-government fantasies.

If you want more than that, it should stay locked up at the firing range.
 
2013-01-12 01:13:48 AM  
www.inetres.com


Don't you DARE take away my hunting rifle... ... from 1 mile away. Because fark you, that's why.
 
2013-01-12 01:14:48 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I'm just glad there aren't any more out there like this guy.


Hahahahahahaha.
 
2013-01-12 01:16:58 AM  

Rockstone:
The whole point when comparing crime rates after a gun ban would be to compare VIOLENT CRIME, not GUN CRIME. Otherwise that's a stupid comparison.


Do you mean like this?
 
2013-01-12 01:22:45 AM  
Remember how, at some point in your life, somebody told you to take the ship off your shoulder because you were acting like a total cock? Nobody ever told this guy.
 
2013-01-12 01:23:56 AM  

propasaurus: Concealed carry is not an absolute right.


There are some who would disagree. Some jurisdictions are "shall issue", as in, "The Sheriff shall issue a permit on request", while others are "may issue", where the Sheriff or other official responsible for such duty has the option to set his or her own policy for declining to issue CCW or other gun permits - for example, if you have not lived in the county for at least two years. Furthermore, this doesn't always mean a blanket policy - the official might choose to issue a permit for a well-connected new resident, or decline one for a native who is a habitual drunkard , even if the drunkard has no criminal record.

The difference is that in a "shall issue" jurisdiction, the person is automatically issued the permit as long as he meets the requirements set by the state - it's the Sheriff's job to issue the permit no matter how he feels about it; in a "may issue" jurisdiction, local requirements come into play, and the Sheriff or other official can decline on a case-by-case basis.

In other words, in some jurisdictions, it is indeed seen as a "right". Obviously some disagree that this is the way things should be, which is why we have "may issue" jurisdictions, and some states that simply don't allow CCW by private citizens at all.
 
2013-01-12 01:25:39 AM  

leadmetal: Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.


The guy threatened to kill people, genius. That's not covered under freedom of speech. You're such a hypocritical pussy, I bet you'd whine like a little biatch if someone in this thread threatened you in the same manner as Yeager.
 
2013-01-12 01:29:07 AM  

BronyMedic: DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago both established that the States AND local municipalities have the right to establish Reasonable limitations on the second amendment, but outright bans are not reasonable.


What officials enforcing "reasonable limitations" in a local municipality might look like:

cf.drafthouse.com

 
2013-01-12 01:30:01 AM  

Uberdeity: [www.inetres.com image 850x539]


Don't you DARE take away my hunting rifle... ... from 1 mile away. Because fark you, that's why.


No one would hunt with an M107 unless they really didn't want a usable carcass to begin with.  Ammo is also hella expensive, and you can't fire it at indoor ranges because the round keeps going, and going, and going.

You picked a bad weapon to complain about, though.  No one has used them for a massacre in the US.  Crazies tend to go for much cheaper guns.

It looks scary though, doesn't it?  That's what matters to you.  It looks scary.
 
2013-01-12 01:31:07 AM  

joness0154: Come play along with us, provide something useful.


Here you go, gun nut. Proof that gun control doesn't work:

home.comcast.net
 
2013-01-12 01:31:18 AM  
Firearms deaths in the USA in 2012: About 31,500
Firearms deaths in the UK in 2012: About 50

/ today's gun nut thread is brought to you by the letters C, C, W and the IQ potato
 
2013-01-12 01:32:25 AM  

Uberdeity: Don't you DARE take away my hunting rifle... ... from 1 mile away. Because fark you, that's why.


But, but, the CHILDREN!!
Barrett M107 rifles are so commonly used in school shootings, we could save literally zero's of children by banning them!
 
2013-01-12 01:32:56 AM  

HaywoodJablonski: Successful troll (Obama) is successful


How in the hell does this have anything to do with Obama?

This was a silly thing to post and you are a silly person for having posted it.
 
2013-01-12 01:34:40 AM  

Lsherm: It looks scary though, doesn't it?  That's what matters to you.  It looks scary.


And capable of shooting through switching stations, high voltage transmission line power transformers and switches, Industrial and Large Residential/Commercial Oxygen, Propane, and LNG tanks, tanker trucks, most cars, through schools, and most anything not carrying Chobham Armor and on tracks.

There's a reason it's called an Anti-Materiel Rifle, and not a "People Explodie Rifle"
 
2013-01-12 01:34:43 AM  

Lsherm: It looks scary though, doesn't it? That's what matters to you. It looks scary.



you can cram that smug jackass attitude right up your crap hole.

people are scared of guns, and they are right to be scared. What do you want to do about it ? let me guess: tell them to pound sand. gun ownership is More Important.
 
2013-01-12 01:35:35 AM  

dbaggins: What do you want to do about it ? let me guess: tell them to pound sand. gun ownership is More Important.


If they're so scared, they can go buy a gun themselves. Armed people have nothing to fear, after all!
 
2013-01-12 01:37:30 AM  
sorry, but 2005 statistics is not that useful. UK violence has been a strange and complicated animal in the the 1997-2009 period.

Lots of riots, lots of gang activity, very hard economics, and the same in the US.
 
2013-01-12 01:39:37 AM  

dbaggins: sorry, but 2005 statistics is not that useful. UK violence has been a strange and complicated animal in the the 1997-2009 period.

Lots of riots, lots of gang activity, very hard economics, and the same in the US.


I have yet to see you post any data. All you have said is, "nope, your data isn't enough." My guess is that you don't actually care; you'll move the goalposts to Mars, if you have to.
 
2013-01-12 01:43:14 AM  

BronyMedic: If they're so scared, they can go buy a gun themselves. Armed people have nothing to fear, after all!


But since the Bad Guy With A GunTM is supposed to fear the Good Guy With A GunTM, doesn't that mean that at least some armed individuals should be living in fear even though they are, in fact, armed? Never mind the fact the fact that they are Bad Guys; they are armed, but yet living in fear.
 
2013-01-12 01:44:31 AM  

pxlboy: These gun control threads must really be driving the page views. I'd swear they're multiplying when we're not looking.


Meh, Palin threads were similar. 4 or 5 per day.
 
2013-01-12 01:45:03 AM  

ox45tallboy: But since the Bad Guy With A GunTM is supposed to fear the Good Guy With A GunTM, doesn't that mean that at least some armed individuals should be living in fear even though they are, in fact, armed? Never mind the fact the fact that they are Bad Guys; they are armed, but yet living in fear.


Good? Bad.

I'm the man with the gun.
 
2013-01-12 01:45:16 AM  
 
2013-01-12 01:45:53 AM  

ox45tallboy: But since the Bad Guy With A GunTM is supposed to fear the Good Guy With A GunTM, doesn't that mean that at least some armed individuals should be living in fear even though they are, in fact, armed? Never mind the fact the fact that they are Bad Guys; they are armed, but yet living in fear.


AHEM.

home.swipnet.se
 
2013-01-12 01:45:58 AM  

llachlan: Some of what you said, is what I meant when I indicated that most of you didn't actually understand what free speech is. You seem to, though, so I'm going to ask you to touch on my actual question: why all the butthurt when people discuss the 2nd, and no where near the same reaction to discussing the 1st?

Also, they didn't take away his right to use the guns - just to cary them.


Dude, if I knew that I'd be on the Supreme Court. Or rotting in Gitmo.

The only thing I can fathom is that nobody in America has ever EVER had their freedom of speech curtailed--not even a little bit--and so they have exactly zero idea what it would be like. You don't love something until you fear its loss, but you can't understand loss until you've actually lost it. Guns, on the other hand, are tangible items, and people KNOW what it's like not to have "a thing" or to have that "thing" taken away. Which may be why people tend to react to "gun control" like little kids whose parents are threatening to take their favorite toys away.

My guess is that if people genuinely understood what censorship or loss of free speech could be like, they would be seriously furious about losing it; and conversely, they would understand better why countries that DON'T have free speech get so unhinged when we exercise our rights to use it here (like when the Islamic countries riot over our anti-Mohammed cartoons and movies); but lacking that comprehension, people take it completely for granted.
 
2013-01-12 01:46:25 AM  

dickfreckle: pxlboy: These gun control threads must really be driving the page views. I'd swear they're multiplying when we're not looking.

Meh, Palin threads were similar. 4 or 5 per day.


/ Derp generates traffic - look at the Faux News empire
 
2013-01-12 01:46:37 AM  

ParaHandy: A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths


God Bless America is how!

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-12 01:49:13 AM  

James F. Campbell: joness0154: Come play along with us, provide something useful.

Here you go, gun nut. Proof that gun control doesn't work:

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]


Did you control for the fact that the UK has better health care?
 
2013-01-12 01:58:40 AM  

Gyrfalcon: llachlan: Some of what you said, is what I meant when I indicated that most of you didn't actually understand what free speech is. You seem to, though, so I'm going to ask you to touch on my actual question: why all the butthurt when people discuss the 2nd, and no where near the same reaction to discussing the 1st?

Also, they didn't take away his right to use the guns - just to cary them.

Dude, if I knew that I'd be on the Supreme Court. Or rotting in Gitmo.

The only thing I can fathom is that nobody in America has ever EVER had their freedom of speech curtailed--not even a little bit--and so they have exactly zero idea what it would be like. You don't love something until you fear its loss, but you can't understand loss until you've actually lost it. Guns, on the other hand, are tangible items, and people KNOW what it's like not to have "a thing" or to have that "thing" taken away. Which may be why people tend to react to "gun control" like little kids whose parents are threatening to take their favorite toys away.

My guess is that if people genuinely understood what censorship or loss of free speech could be like, they would be seriously furious about losing it; and conversely, they would understand better why countries that DON'T have free speech get so unhinged when we exercise our rights to use it here (like when the Islamic countries riot over our anti-Mohammed cartoons and movies); but lacking that comprehension, people take it completely for granted.


Jeez, dude, who in the hell is taking away this guy's right to free speech? He's been given a HUGE soapbox in that several news outlets are making sure that people are aware of what he has said. No one, not even YouTube, has said that he can't say these things. He took his video down himself, but other websites have it saved and are putting his message out there for him.

He is not facing any criminal penalties. No one has put a gag in his mouth or censored his speech in any way. Quite the opposite, really. He is still free to continue spouting off his opinions just as much as he was last week, with the added bonus that even more people are willing to listen to his musings.

You've picked a horrible example to use for a "free speech" rant. You have posted a silly post, and this thread is sillier for its presence.
 
2013-01-12 02:04:16 AM  

ox45tallboy: propasaurus: Concealed carry is not an absolute right.

There are some who would disagree. Some jurisdictions are "shall issue", as in, "The Sheriff shall issue a permit on request", while others are "may issue", where the Sheriff or other official responsible for such duty has the option to set his or her own policy for declining to issue CCW or other gun permits - for example, if you have not lived in the county for at least two years. Furthermore, this doesn't always mean a blanket policy - the official might choose to issue a permit for a well-connected new resident, or decline one for a native who is a habitual drunkard , even if the drunkard has no criminal record.

The difference is that in a "shall issue" jurisdiction, the person is automatically issued the permit as long as he meets the requirements set by the state - it's the Sheriff's job to issue the permit no matter how he feels about it; in a "may issue" jurisdiction, local requirements come into play, and the Sheriff or other official can decline on a case-by-case basis.

In other words, in some jurisdictions, it is indeed seen as a "right". Obviously some disagree that this is the way things should be, which is why we have "may issue" jurisdictions, and some states that simply don't allow CCW by private citizens at all.


If I might add a bit to this, and I'll probably be flamed for it, this brings up the wording of the 2nd Amendment that I really don't recall seeing much on Fark. "To keep and bear arms..." To keep is an implication of ownership. To bear would mean (in the context of arms) to utilize or to have on one's person. Since arms can be utilized in a manner which has been determined illegal in most jurisprudence for longer than the Constitution has been around (criminal assault, murder, etc.) we can assume that the second definition (on one's person) is the intended meaning. Thus, if a local jurisdiction requires a permit which may not be issued for reasons other than what has currently been established to restrict the ownership of firearms (felony conviction, adjudicated mentally unstable, etc.) for concealed carry, then open carry must be legally allowed or vice versa to be in compliance with the 2nd Amendmend.

In summary: if local law requires a may issue concealed carry license, then open carry must be legal without a license to be in compliance with the 2nd Amendment provision "and bear arms."

If local law requires a may issue license for open carry then concealed carry must be legal to be in compliance with the 2nd Amendment provision "and bear arms."

The reason why I excluded shall issue from this is because the reasons for removal of "shall issue" licenses from license holders or the prohibition of granting "shall issue" licenses are already accepted as being constitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms. Personally, I can understand the point that requiring government approval to exercise a right makes it a privilege, not a right and as such if a license to carry concealed (or open) is shall issue, then open (or concealed) carry must be legal to anyone passing the requirement for legal gun ownership. However, I also understand that such a premise would be met with much hem and hawing and hyperbole, and perhaps other words which start with "h" which I'm a bit too inebriated to recall.

As always, I would appreciate actual feedback and discourse on this. I don't come to Fark just for the Video and Geek and dearly (departed Music) tabs. I come to Fark because it is a forum, a place for discourse and debate, even though there is a prevalence of dick jokes.
 
2013-01-12 02:06:30 AM  

ParaHandy: Did you control for the fact that the UK has better health care?


I'm not really sure this helps your argument.
 
2013-01-12 02:12:54 AM  

James F. Campbell: ParaHandy: Did you control for the fact that the UK has better health care?

I'm not really sure this helps your argument.


It might if better health care equates to less deaths from assault, seeing as the graph deals specifically deals with deaths. Ergo, if better health care means more people being treated for life threatening injuries and surviving, then yes, it might indeed help his argument. I do not know if this is the case, just pointing out that it indeed could matter in that circumstance.
 
2013-01-12 02:28:06 AM  
I just got my car totaled by a guy with a suspended drivers license.
 
2013-01-12 02:28:13 AM  

ox45tallboy: HaywoodJablonski: Successful troll (Obama) is successful

How in the hell does this have anything to do with Obama?

This was a silly thing to post and you are a silly person for having posted it.


Seriously? This guy's video rant was a direct result of Obama (via Biden) threatening executive order to bring about gun control.

http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2013/jan / 10/should-obama-use-executive-orders-enact-gun-contro/
 
2013-01-12 02:30:39 AM  

Loaded Six String: Ergo, if better health care means more people being treated for life threatening injuries and surviving, then yes, it might indeed help his argument.


Yeah, I get that -- but, frankly, all you're doing is making the UK look even better.
 
2013-01-12 02:31:15 AM  

BronyMedic: Lsherm: It looks scary though, doesn't it?  That's what matters to you.  It looks scary.

And capable of shooting through switching stations, high voltage transmission line power transformers and switches, Industrial and Large Residential/Commercial Oxygen, Propane, and LNG tanks, tanker trucks, most cars, through schools, and most anything not carrying Chobham Armor and on tracks.

There's a reason it's called an Anti-Materiel Rifle, and not a "People Explodie Rifle"


Actually, I believe it's called an Anti-material rifle because according to UN conventions, you can't fire explosive rounds directly at a person, so they claim the rifle is made to take out enemy weaponry.  When it is used to snipe the claim is that snipers are aiming at enemy weapons instead of the enemy himself.

And before everyone gets all butthurt, like this:

dbaggins: you can cram that smug jackass attitude right up your crap hole.


or you, BronyMedic, the M107 (M82) is a weapon I don't think should be sold to civilians, even if it hasn't been used in a rampage yet.   I'm sure it's fun to shoot, but it's dangerously close to what I call the "bazooka doctrine of LSherm" where a weapon is so powerful it shouldn't be in the hands of common people.  My main beef with Uberdeity was his claim that anyone would use that rifle for hunting, which was disingenious, and his penchant for posting "scary" pictures of rifles, because that's a common tactic of people who don't understand guns.  It's like idiots who think a 1975 Corvette is a sports car because of how it looks.

The M107 is actually a scary gun.  This isn't:

img35.imageshack.us

Looks scary though, doesn't it?
 
2013-01-12 02:31:32 AM  
"Your data doesn't account for the fact that not as many people die from firearm assaults in the UK as they do in the US."

Ah, yes. A stellar argument against gun control if I ever saw one.
 
2013-01-12 02:33:44 AM  

ParaHandy: dickfreckle: pxlboy: These gun control threads must really be driving the page views. I'd swear they're multiplying when we're not looking.

Meh, Palin threads were similar. 4 or 5 per day.

/ Derp generates traffic - look at the Faux News empire


.
It does bring out the paid posters.
 
2013-01-12 02:36:36 AM  
It's funny when derp has consequences...
 
2013-01-12 02:39:02 AM  

Loaded Six String: As always, I would appreciate actual feedback and discourse on this


Okay... where to begin....

First off, I agree that the word "bear" as it is written in the Second Amendment does indeed mean "to carry".

Now, here's a CSB:

When I was in school, I carried a pocketknife. So did most of my friends. There were several occasions when the teacher borrowed my or another student's knife to cut boxes or whatever. No one had any problem with it.

In 8th grade the Art class took a trip to Memphis to see the Catherine the Great exhibit on tour from Russia. I didn't think when I got dressed to go to school, but when we got to the museum and I saw the security with metal detectors, I got nervous. Two of my classmates went through with their knives no problem, but the metal detector caught me and they made me dump out my pockets. The policeman confiscated my knife, explaining "if you had had this in Memphis City Schools, you'd be going to jail." Well, I didn't go to Memphis city schools. Eventually, they gave my knife to the principal who gave it back to me on the bus, and he wasn't even mad at me.

My friends and I had disagreements just like at every other school. There were fist fights on rare occasions. But the thought of anyone using one of our pocket knives as a weapon to stab or cut someone else was completely foreign to us. Not to mention that the two-inch-or-so blades wouldn't do much damage anyways. We kept knives in our pockets for the sorts of things redneck Tennessee kids did at school, from cutting strings to sharpening pencils to loaning them to the teacher.

See, this is the thought that the Founders had when King George declared they couldn't have guns anymore. King George (well, one of his advisers, anyways) saw the potential for violence in something the colonists had always considered a tool, not a weapon. In the frontier, people needed their two-shots-per-minute muskets to kill wild game to put food in their bellies, and to protect themselves from armed assailants. The point was that no one was really considering using them against the British government when the gun ban was initiated - but it did help convince people to be open to the idea.

Nowadays having a knife at school automatically means you must be wanting to do someone else harm - otherwise, why would you have a knife? People have adapted to find other things tho use instead of knives in school, like scissors and whatnot. But there weren't any real alternatives to guns.

What I'm trying to say is that while you're absolutely correct about what "bear" meant to the writers and passers of the Second Amendment, I take issue with what many people consider to be the definition of "arms", since the bleeding edge of 1790's technology was a dual-barrel musket that could fire two shots before you needed to reload both barrels using your powder horn, musket ball, and a long stick.

The new United States citizens wanted to be sure no silly laws would be passed about limiting their use of something that really wasn't that deadly even when used as it was designed. If my art class had taken a vote, we would have easily passed a common-sense law protecting pocketknives that would have lasted all the way up until we got a new kid in the class who carried a six-inch switchblade and threatened other kids on the playground with it.
 
2013-01-12 02:43:44 AM  

HaywoodJablonski: Seriously? This guy's video rant was a direct result of Obama (via Biden) threatening executive order to bring about gun control.


No, the guy's video rant was a direct result of being dropped on his head when he was three. Obama himself hasn't "threatened" to take away anyone's guns. The idea of Federal agents going around to everyone's home to collect their guns isn't even on the table.

Although I agree that Obama is the greatest troll President ever (with Clinton in second), I think this is one issue he's absolutely serious about.
 
2013-01-12 02:47:18 AM  

Lsherm: Looks scary though, doesn't it?


Not really. I'd like to invite it back to my flat for scones and iced coffee. Maybe later we can visit a museum or art gallery.

You need a white guy with a weird hairstyle holding it to make it scary.
 
2013-01-12 02:52:05 AM  

doglover: This is a fine example of existing legislation getting the job done.


Indeed. Guy mouthed off and made threats to harm others, he shouldn't have a concealed handgun permit, it is as simple as that. I doubt it will stop this jagoff from carrying a firearm on his person, though (2ND AMENDMENT! I GOTS MAH RIGHTS!), and I hope there is a friendly neighborhood police officer who stops said jagoff for perfectly legitimate reasons, finds said concealed weapon on his person, and enforces still more existing legislation on him.
 
2013-01-12 02:55:21 AM  

Lsherm: or you, BronyMedic, the M107 (M82) is a weapon I don't think should be sold to civilians, even if it hasn't been used in a rampage yet.   I'm sure it's fun to shoot, but it's dangerously close to what I call the "bazooka doctrine of LSherm" where a weapon is so powerful it shouldn't be in the hands of common people.  My main beef with Uberdeity was his claim that anyone would use that rifle for hunting, which was disingenious, and his penchant for posting "scary" pictures of rifles, because that's a common tactic of people who don't understand guns.  It's like idiots who think a 1975 Corvette is a sports car because of how it looks.

The M107 is actually a scary gun.  This isn't:


Sig 552 Civilian Trigger Group? Hardly scary.

So, uh. What are you home defending with a 30 round magazine? Or Hunting? You got that many coyotes and varmints on your lawn? Didn't Call of Medal: Duty Warfare teach you that hip firing was a bad thing? Defend to me the need for civilians to own a high capacity magazine who's only legitimate use is to reduce the need to reload during firefights?
 
2013-01-12 02:59:25 AM  

ox45tallboy: Loaded Six String: As always, I would appreciate actual feedback and discourse on this

Okay... where to begin....

First off, I agree that the word "bear" as it is written in the Second Amendment does indeed mean "to carry".

Now, here's a CSB:

When I was in school, I carried a pocketknife. So did most of my friends. There were several occasions when the teacher borrowed my or another student's knife to cut boxes or whatever. No one had any problem with it.

In 8th grade the Art class took a trip to Memphis to see the Catherine the Great exhibit on tour from Russia. I didn't think when I got dressed to go to school, but when we got to the museum and I saw the security with metal detectors, I got nervous. Two of my classmates went through with their knives no problem, but the metal detector caught me and they made me dump out my pockets. The policeman confiscated my knife, explaining "if you had had this in Memphis City Schools, you'd be going to jail." Well, I didn't go to Memphis city schools. Eventually, they gave my knife to the principal who gave it back to me on the bus, and he wasn't even mad at me.

My friends and I had disagreements just like at every other school. There were fist fights on rare occasions. But the thought of anyone using one of our pocket knives as a weapon to stab or cut someone else was completely foreign to us. Not to mention that the two-inch-or-so blades wouldn't do much damage anyways. We kept knives in our pockets for the sorts of things redneck Tennessee kids did at school, from cutting strings to sharpening pencils to loaning them to the teacher.

See, this is the thought that the Founders had when King George declared they couldn't have guns anymore. King George (well, one of his advisers, anyways) saw the potential for violence in something the colonists had always considered a tool, not a weapon. In the frontier, people needed their two-shots-per-minute muskets to kill wild game to put food in their bellies, and to protect them ...


You and I both know there's a huge difference in culture between Rural Tennessee Schools and the City of Memphis, too.

There is no legitimate need to carry a pocket knife in Memphis Schools other than to cut someone. Rural Schools tend to be more vocationally oriented in their teaching, and as such there is a greater need for students to be able to use one. (Questionable, considering the schools provide you with tools and equipment for the classes.)
 
2013-01-12 03:00:11 AM  

violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.


Not going to wade through 300 comments, but... WHY NOT? why is his 1st amendment right NOT as strong as his 2nd amendment right? He can say whatever he wants, just like he can own any gun he wants, right?

Why is the 2nd amendment absolute, but not the 1st?

Truly curious how "they want to grab our guns" proponents justify this in their heads.
 
2013-01-12 03:01:20 AM  
Yup.

As any competent licensing instructor will tell you, the restrictions of the license can put you on a pretty short leash if you're a careless or violent person. You're no longer expected to be polite and reasonable, you're _legally bound_ to be so, and if you aren't your license isn't long for this world.

//I specify "competent" instructor because apparently some people have run into some that aren't so much.

ox45tallboy: Nowadays having a knife at school automatically means you must be wanting to do someone else harm - otherwise, why would you have a knife? People have adapted to find other things tho use instead of knives in school, like scissors and whatnot. But there weren't any real alternatives to guns.


I always carried a penknife in grade school/Jr High ('90s) to do things like sharpen pencils and open packaging, if you weren't packing a machete or something ridiculous no one cared. Then when I got into college it was always assumed that if you left your knife at home (or, more likely, your multitool), you could ask a random classmate to borrow one, they were about as ubiquitous as writing utensils. Maybe more, as there was always that one weird kid who insisted on taking notes on a laptop, but even he had a knife.

Albeit, my undergrad degree was in an engineering department.
 
2013-01-12 03:03:13 AM  

Loaded Six String: James F. Campbell: ParaHandy: Did you control for the fact that the UK has better health care?

I'm not really sure this helps your argument.

It might if better health care equates to less deaths from assault, seeing as the graph deals specifically deals with deaths. Ergo, if better health care means more people being treated for life threatening injuries and surviving, then yes, it might indeed help his argument. I do not know if this is the case, just pointing out that it indeed could matter in that circumstance.


Wuz kidding.
 
2013-01-12 03:04:40 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Yup.

As any competent licensing instructor will tell you, the restrictions of the license can put you on a pretty short leash if you're a careless or violent person. You're no longer expected to be polite and reasonable, you're _legally bound_ to be so, and if you aren't your license isn't long for this world.

//I specify "competent" instructor because apparently some people have run into some that aren't so much.

ox45tallboy: Nowadays having a knife at school automatically means you must be wanting to do someone else harm - otherwise, why would you have a knife? People have adapted to find other things tho use instead of knives in school, like scissors and whatnot. But there weren't any real alternatives to guns.

I always carried a penknife in grade school/Jr High ('90s) to do things like sharpen pencils and open packaging, if you weren't packing a machete or something ridiculous no one cared. Then when I got into college it was always assumed that if you left your knife at home (or, more likely, your multitool), you could ask a random classmate to borrow one, they were about as ubiquitous as writing utensils. Maybe more, as there was always that one weird kid who insisted on taking notes on a laptop, but even he had a knife.

Albeit, my undergrad degree was in an engineering department.


In the rural areas, it has to do a lot with the culture and where you are in the school the majority of the time. No one's going to think twice about you having a can of dip and a linoleum knife in your pocket if you spend most of your time in the shop that semester building crap for your vocational pathway. Or if you're a senior and a member of the local volunteer department and may get called from school to help at a fire or medical emergency (smaller towns do this.)

If you whip out your buck knife in the middle of english class, however, the teacher might have an issue with that.
 
2013-01-12 03:05:06 AM  

BronyMedic: ParaHandy: A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

God Bless America is how!

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x530]


People who aren't obsessed with guns make cool shiat

static.cargurus.com
 
2013-01-12 03:05:47 AM  

James F. Campbell: Loaded Six String: Ergo, if better health care means more people being treated for life threatening injuries and surviving, then yes, it might indeed help his argument.

Yeah, I get that -- but, frankly, all you're doing is making the UK look even better.


Or expressing the incentive for better health care here, as our violent crime homicides would be lessened. Whichever way you want to look at it.
 
2013-01-12 03:07:19 AM  
This will happen for a while until the really guntastic farkwits get the memo that it's time to "go dark" and plan for when Maobama cancels the elections in 2016. Then they'll go luddite and avoid youtube. Of course, they'll still have their email forwards... I mean... uh... Patriot newsletters and they'll crank up their privacy settings on Facebook.
 
2013-01-12 03:14:19 AM  

ox45tallboy: Lsherm: Looks scary though, doesn't it?

Not really. I'd like to invite it back to my flat for scones and iced coffee. Maybe later we can visit a museum or art gallery.

You need a white guy with a weird hairstyle holding it to make it scary.


It used to be just white guys, but whathisname at Virginia Tech ruined the curve.
 
2013-01-12 03:20:36 AM  

Lsherm: It used to be just white guys, but whathisname at Virginia Tech ruined the curve.


Seung-Hui Cho. The Choinnator. The High Score Winner. (NSFW)

images.encyclopediadramatica.se
 
2013-01-12 03:24:07 AM  

dennysgod: [pjmedia.com image 379x214]

Threatening people isn't being a responsible gun owner.


Definitely not.

I'm curious why he wasn't arrested. Threatening to kill others kinda sorta sounds like a felony to me.
 
2013-01-12 03:26:19 AM  

ox45tallboy: Loaded Six String: As always, I would appreciate actual feedback and discourse on this

Okay... where to begin....

First off, I agree that the word "bear" as it is written in the Second Amendment does indeed mean "to carry".

Now, here's a CSB:

When I was in school, I carried a pocketknife. So did most of my friends. There were several occasions when the teacher borrowed my or another student's knife to cut boxes or whatever. No one had any problem with it.

In 8th grade the Art class took a trip to Memphis to see the Catherine the Great exhibit on tour from Russia. I didn't think when I got dressed to go to school, but when we got to the museum and I saw the security with metal detectors, I got nervous. Two of my classmates went through with their knives no problem, but the metal detector caught me and they made me dump out my pockets. The policeman confiscated my knife, explaining "if you had had this in Memphis City Schools, you'd be going to jail." Well, I didn't go to Memphis city schools. Eventually, they gave my knife to the principal who gave it back to me on the bus, and he wasn't even mad at me.

My friends and I had disagreements just like at every other school. There were fist fights on rare occasions. But the thought of anyone using one of our pocket knives as a weapon to stab or cut someone else was completely foreign to us. Not to mention that the two-inch-or-so blades wouldn't do much damage anyways. We kept knives in our pockets for the sorts of things redneck Tennessee kids did at school, from cutting strings to sharpening pencils to loaning them to the teacher.

See, this is the thought that the Founders had when King George declared they couldn't have guns anymore. King George (well, one of his advisers, anyways) saw the potential for violence in something the colonists had always considered a tool, not a weapon. In the frontier, people needed their two-shots-per-minute muskets to kill wild game to put food in their bellies, and to protect them ...


But the pocketknives, even the six-inch switchblade carried by the new kid, weren't a problem because of their intrinsic value as a tool or weapon. It was the upbringing of you and your classmates which made the use of those pocketknives to harm out of malice unthinkable. Your CSB has only affirmed that the efficacy of the tool is irrelevant if the person wielding it does not have it in their nature or values to do harm with said implement. Thus we must proceed from one of three assumptions which I can see: either all people are generalized as untrustworthy with dangerous implements, or something has changed in the general cultural values from the time of your csb and now, or the cultural values of your specific time and place differ quite a bit from other cultural values within this same nation. The third assumption I believe is the unfortunate truth. Unfortunate because that means nothing has changed at all, which makes changing things for the better a bit more difficult.

Honestly, I wish it was the second of the three. Then we could address when violence became an accepted act, or how violence begins.

Also, it is not my intention to bust your balls on this, but you did not validate or refute my assertion on the concealed carry/open carry dilemma. I'm curious as to whether or not my reasoning is correct in that matter.
 
2013-01-12 03:31:16 AM  

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.


Threatening to shoot people is not covered.
 
2013-01-12 03:32:28 AM  
it really is a fine line, isn't it?

casually infer it as a reason why your arsenal is a right? that's a-ok.

state your taking this to the logical conclusion, and all the sudden you're a crazy person who must be dealt with.


for clarity, i do think this guy is whackopants. i just see it as a difference in degree from entirely too many other whackopants, and not really a difference in kind.
 
2013-01-12 03:35:55 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: This will happen for a while until the really guntastic farkwits get the memo that it's time to "go dark" and plan for when Maobama cancels the elections in 2016. Then they'll go luddite and avoid youtube. Of course, they'll still have their email forwards... I mean... uh... Patriot newsletters and they'll crank up their privacy settings on Facebook.


A president suspending elections would actually be something to cause a ruckus over. I agree with you in principle though, unless it happens, IDGAF.
 
2013-01-12 03:36:45 AM  
A lot of people with internet GEDs is constitutional law posting in this thread. Glenn Beck would be proud.
 
2013-01-12 03:51:06 AM  

Loaded Six String: Or expressing the incentive for better health care here, as our violent crime homicides would be lessened. Whichever way you want to look at it.


Sure. But the disparity between 0.33 deaths per million and 42 deaths per million from firearms alone cannot be explained solely by differences in healthcare. Surely you're intellectually honest enough to admit that.
 
2013-01-12 03:57:08 AM  

BronyMedic: So, uh. What are you home defending with a 30 round magazine? Or Hunting? You got that many coyotes and varmints on your lawn? Didn't Call of Medal: Duty Warfare teach you that hip firing was a bad thing? Defend to me the need for civilians to own a high capacity magazine who's only legitimate use is to reduce the need to reload during firefights?


Why?  I agree with a ban on high capacity magazines.

The only animal I've shot in the past year was a mouse and that was with a pellet pistol that didn't have any ammo in it.  Why?  Because he came out of a vent and sat down while I was putting a new C02 cartridge in, and between stepping on him or shooting him with a blast of air, I went with the option that had as little contact as possible.  I'm terrified of mice, which is a source of endless amusement for my wife.  It had the desired effect.  I live on a retired farm and there are mice everywhere.  You can't let them go - it's like asking for trouble later.  I have no problem with people, but mice are the enemy, and they must be stopped.  Fortunately, poison and traps are effective and are my preferred method of elimination.

I don't hunt.  I don't collect guns.  The picture I posted is a pellet rifle.  I have a .22 Henry lever action rifle that hasn't ever fired on anything more dangerous than an aluminum can or a paper target.  I don't own any handguns, but I've fired a few at the local range.  I'm living in the middle of nowhere and people come on my property all the time (usually hunters) with guns and I don't feel I need an arsenal at home to protect myself.  Quite honestly, I'm not really a gun advocate.  I understand how they work, and what the differences are, and I'll fire my friend's guns at the range.  That's about it.  I don't want a handgun in the house because I don't see the point - I'd keep it unloaded and locked in a safe anyway.

But I can't abide stupidity, and that's what most of this debate is about.  Semiautomatic handguns kill more people in a week than "assault rifles" kill in a year.  In terms of human damage, this:

img59.imageshack.us

is more dangerous than this:

img850.imageshack.us

So I feel the debate has gone off the rails, because no one is really interested in reducing gun violence.  If they were, they'd ban handguns, which are easily concealable, easy to carry into situations where your judgement is likely to be compromised, and easy to fire repeatedly.  You can't wander all day with a rifle in your backpack, but you sure as shiat can carry a pistol.  I find the whole term "assault rifle" ridiculous because it has been defined by the press as anything that looks dangerous whether it really is or not.

I would like the gun show loophole closed permanently, I would like background checks to be more extensive, and I would like a nationwide licensing and registration system for gun ownership.  Our gun problem isn't with responsible gun owners, it's with criminals getting their hands on guns.  Closing the gun show loophole will take care of part of that, and registration will take care of the rest.  I believe that the registered database should be government and citizen controlled but private (not open to FOIA requests), and that registered gun owners should be allowed to buy whatever the fark they want in exchange. For existing guns, if they aren't registered, I think it should be a federal misdemeanor that can be wiped once the guns are registered.  It will narrow down the pool of weapons that are untraceable and aid in closing the gun show loophole.

I believe these are reasonable requests.  I also believe that if Timmy from down the street is a responsible gun nut, then he should be allowed to buy weapons that he uses responsibly.  Even the scary ones.
 
2013-01-12 04:02:03 AM  

James F. Campbell: Loaded Six String: Or expressing the incentive for better health care here, as our violent crime homicides would be lessened. Whichever way you want to look at it.

Sure. But the disparity between 0.33 deaths per million and 42 deaths per million from firearms alone cannot be explained solely by differences in healthcare. Surely you're intellectually honest enough to admit that.


True. There is a vast disparity in culture, ethnic diversity, population density, and economic structure and disparity. Which points to numerous factors being the underlying cause of our violent crime, and yes, violence is what is at the heart of the matter. To use a colloquialism, in regards to gun violence, the best way to "nip it in the bud" would be to address the issue of violent behavior and the factors which drive it, of which a firearm is not. Surely you're intellectually honest enough to admit that possession of a weapon of any sort does not inherently increase the likelihood that you will use it to commit a violent crime?
 
2013-01-12 04:10:25 AM  
One phrase I've seen posted in these threads which I agree with on principle is "the most effective way to get people to give up their guns to make them no longer feel the need for them" or something to that effect. I don't see why we aren't trying to apply that to acts of criminal violence. "The most effective way to get people not to commit acts of criminal violence is to make them no longer feel the need to commit them." Seems to me that would have a greater net gain for society as a whole.
 
2013-01-12 04:20:58 AM  

Loaded Six String: Surely you're intellectually honest enough to admit that possession of a weapon of any sort does not inherently increase the likelihood that you will use it to commit a violent crime?


this probably made sense to you when you typed it, didn't it?
 
2013-01-12 04:26:19 AM  

American Decency Association: does someone actually get sent around to take his guns away now?  how does this work?


No, they're revoking his carry permit, he can keep a gun in his house, and he can transport it locked in a box, unloaded. He can't carry it on his person in public anymore.

Gun confiscation is rare for a lot of reasons. It potentially places the confiscator (probably a local cop) in danger. There's also no way to know how many guns someone has because they can be purchased second hand. You can also go buy another easily after they take yours.

All that being said, I am pro-gun but this guy is a wank job and it's a shame the craziest people become accidental representatives to one "side" of the debate. He should not only not be allowed to have guns, he should probably be forced to see a therapist.
 
2013-01-12 04:44:30 AM  

Lsherm: BronyMedic: So, uh. What are you home defending with a 30 round magazine? Or Hunting? You got that many coyotes and varmints on your lawn? Didn't Call of Medal: Duty Warfare teach you that hip firing was a bad thing? Defend to me the need for civilians to own a high capacity magazine who's only legitimate use is to reduce the need to reload during firefights?

...So I feel the debate has gone off the rails, because no one is really interested in reducing gun violence. If they were, they'd ban handguns, which are easily concealable, easy to carry into situations where your judgement is likely to be compromised, and easy to fire repeatedly. You can't wander all day with a rifle in your backpack, but you sure as shiat can carry a pistol. I find the whole term "assault rifle" ridiculous because it has been defined by the press as anything that looks dangerous whether it really is or not.

I would like the gun show loophole closed permanently, (open the NICS system to citizens with no charge and a simple yes sell, or no do not sell or implement a system requiring all private sales reliably go through an FFL with little or preferably no charge. Done.) I would like background checks to be more extensive, (More extensive in what manner? Currently the NICS system flags those with a documented history of substance and/ or alcohol abuse, those convicted of violent felonies, those convicted of nonviolent felonies which I object to, those adjudicated mentally unstable, and those who have a documented history of domestic violence. Proposals have been offered by gun owners to incorporate data from mental health practitioners who have deemed patients a danger to themselves or others, but are not mentally adjudicated unstable and thus are not flagged in the NICS system, but this has been met with harsh criticism under the auspices of doctor/ patient confidentiality and HIPPA.) and I would like a nationwide licensing and registration system for gun ownership (I would tack on a provision that any attempted use of the registration system to confiscate weapons without strict scrutiny and full legal processes lead to immediate loss of authority, dismissal from office, and/ or legal prosecution. We cannot ignore the danger that such information may be used at a future date to confiscate weaponry without due cause). Our gun problem isn't with responsible gun owners, it's with criminals getting their hands on guns. Closing the gun show loophole will take care of part of that, and registration will take care of the rest. I believe that the registered database should be government and citizen controlled but private (not open to FOIA requests), and that registered gun owners should be allowed to buy whatever the fark they want in exchange. For existing guns, if they aren't registered, I think it should be a federal misdemeanor that can be wiped once the guns are registered. It will narrow down the pool of weapons that are untraceable and aid in closing the gun show loophole.

I believe these are reasonable requests. I also believe that if Timmy from down the street is a responsible gun nut, then he should be allowed to buy weapons that he uses responsibly. Even the scary ones. (As such, this contradicts your agreement with high capacity magazine bans, as someone who will responsibly use a scary weapon will use a high capacity magazine for said scary weapon reasonably. Also, on the most important parts of being a responsible firearm owner and user is proper education in the use, both practically and legally, of a firearm. Proposals for wider based firearms safety and application education in primary and high schools has also been met with harsh criticism because Eddie Eagle teaching kindergarteners to "Stop, don't touch, tell an adult" when encountering a firearm is lambasted as encouraging gun use and propagation. Admittedly, the high school classes would have a refresher on firearms handling safety, practical training, legal application, and be an elective course requiring parental permission.


All in all, with a few tweaks, additions, and clarifications, your proposals are reasonable and non-infringing. However, it is unlikely they would gain any traction among the people calling for something to be done because allowing Timmy the responsible gun nut (read: gun nerd) down the street to buy the scary weapons because on average they see that as unacceptable. They wish for Timmy to have no semi-automatic firearms, or no firearms at all. Primarily because it seems Timmy cannot be responsible with anything other than a revolver or a bolt action rifle or a 3 round shotgun. Because of what suicidal Tommy, or homicidal Billy, or meth addicted Jimmy, or poor and disenfranchised Johnny did with their firearm.
 
2013-01-12 04:48:06 AM  

Lsherm: If they were, they'd ban handguns, which are easily concealable, easy to carry into situations where your judgement is likely to be compromised, and easy to fire repeatedly.


Um.... and also the specific subject of a very, very clear Supreme court decision within the last decade declaring in language any idiot could easily follow that the things cannot be constitutionally banned.
 
2013-01-12 04:48:55 AM  

heap: Loaded Six String: Surely you're intellectually honest enough to admit that possession of a weapon of any sort does not inherently increase the likelihood that you will use it to commit a violent crime?

this probably made sense to you when you typed it, didn't it?


It makes sense to you that someone with a weapon in their possession is more likely to commit a violent crime than if they did not have a weapon? That the weapon overrides who they are and makes them more likely to commit violence? Or was it something else which you snipped out of that post in the interest of brevity?
 
2013-01-12 04:52:31 AM  

RulerOfNone: I still say we shouldn't go overboard with banning guns. The answer doesn't lie there. We need to focus more on our mental healthcare system, as well as enforcement of background checks and such. And ultimately, we must accept that, no matter what we do, tragedies will happen. All we can do is try to reduce the amount.


Who wants a ban? Reasonable restrictions are not "a ban."
 
2013-01-12 04:53:24 AM  

Loaded Six String: It makes sense to you that someone with a weapon in their possession is more likely to commit a violent crime than if they did not have a weapon?


that isn't what you said.

possession of a weapon of any sort does not inherently increase the likelihood that you will use it

possession of a spatula greatly increases the likelihood that i will use a spatula. not really throwing you a curve ball here, or anything.
 
2013-01-12 04:58:19 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Lsherm: If they were, they'd ban handguns, which are easily concealable, easy to carry into situations where your judgement is likely to be compromised, and easy to fire repeatedly.

Um.... and also the specific subject of a very, very clear Supreme court decision within the last decade declaring in language any idiot could easily follow that the things cannot be constitutionally banned.


I know, I know.  I was pointing out the fallacy of the whole gun control argument to begin with - they can't ban the problem child, so they go for the sibling and pretend like it will do any good.  It won't.

Realistically, they CAN come up with a method to make sure that guns are registered to people who are supposed to own them.  That's not a huge leap.
 
2013-01-12 05:00:08 AM  

heap: possession of a spatula greatly increases the likelihood that i will use a spatula


If we're to have this national conversation in earnest, people really need to make an effort to be intellectually honest. You're not helping your side of the debate.
 
2013-01-12 05:03:18 AM  

phenn: You're not helping your side of the debate.


then explain to me how not having something doesn't decrease your likelihood to use it, either violently or as intended.

that isn't intellectual honesty, that's logical consistency. if you don't have something, yes, yes you've affected your ability to use that thing - either as instructed, or not.
 
2013-01-12 05:06:58 AM  

heap: phenn: You're not helping your side of the debate.

then explain to me how not having something doesn't decrease your likelihood to use it, either violently or as intended.

that isn't intellectual honesty, that's logical consistency. if you don't have something, yes, yes you've affected your ability to use that thing - either as instructed, or not.


You're attempting to compare a simple household item, with a legitimate daily use to something that is used in an emergency.

You will use your spatula every day. I will use my gun once.

Your attempted comparison is silly and it has nothing to do with the debate of ownership vs. control.
 
2013-01-12 05:07:03 AM  

heap: Loaded Six String: It makes sense to you that someone with a weapon in their possession is more likely to commit a violent crime than if they did not have a weapon?

that isn't what you said.

possession of a weapon of any sort does not inherently increase the likelihood that you will use it to commit a violent crime?

possession of a spatula greatly increases the likelihood that i will use a spatula. not really throwing you a curve ball here, or anything.


It is when you don't cut off the relevent part at the end. Redacting my words to make your case does not help you and only serves to expose you as someone who is dishonest or wasn't paying attention until I replied. Want to give it another go? If I were to place in your hand a weapon of any sort, would you then be compelled to use it in an act of violence? Yes or No?
 
2013-01-12 05:14:14 AM  

phenn: You're attempting to compare a simple household item, with a legitimate daily use to something that is used in an emergency.


consider it any 'thing'. i use spatula just to demonstrate that it's a logical black hole. put any 'thing' in that place, and it doesn't change what i'm saying.

if you don't possess a thing, it absolutely affects your ability to use that thing. not really bending space and time here.

Loaded Six String: It is when you don't cut off the relevent part at the end.


not having a spatula affects my ability to use a spatula violently. it doesn't change a single thing.

i'm not talking about something ethereal or conceptual here - if you don't possess a thing, it affects your ability to use that thing. violently, or in a loving fashion between consenting adults and a griddle.


If I were to place in your hand a weapon of any sort, would you then be compelled to use it in an act of violence?

again, that isn't what you said, if we're getting into dishonesty or intellectual wankery. increased likelihood and personal compulsion aren't the same thing.
 
2013-01-12 05:15:01 AM  

heap: Loaded Six String: It makes sense to you that someone with a weapon in their possession is more likely to commit a violent crime than if they did not have a weapon?

that isn't what you said.

possession of a weapon of any sort does not inherently increase the likelihood that you will use it

possession of a spatula greatly increases the likelihood that i will use a spatula to swat my neighbor's dog. not really throwing you a curve ball here, or anything.


Possession of a firearm does not make someone more inherently likely to commit an act of violence. That statement includes acts of violence utilizing the weapon, or not utilizing the weapon. The weapon does not factor into whether a person is violent or not. Is there some grammatical error I made which made it appear I said otherwise?

Especially given the context that I was referencing the address of violence and weapons are not a factor in whether or not an act of violence is committed?
 
2013-01-12 05:17:17 AM  

Loaded Six String: The weapon does not factor into whether a person is violent or not


Precisely why gun control is a stupid idea.

Thank you for finally putting this to bed.
 
2013-01-12 05:18:22 AM  

Loaded Six String: possession of a spatula greatly increases the likelihood that i will use a spatula to swat my neighbor's dog.


if you don't have a spatula, what is the likelihood that you'd use a spatula to swat your neighbors dog? greater, or lesser than if you own a whole drawer full of spatulas?

again, these aren't curve balls here. possession of an object absolutely affects the likelihood of using that object. for good, bad, or ugly uses, but it absolutely affects the likelihood of use.

and really, can anybody be upset if this one gunwank thread tuns into a spatula thread? spatulas are awesome.
 
2013-01-12 05:19:09 AM  

Lsherm: Jim_Callahan: Lsherm: If they were, they'd ban handguns, which are easily concealable, easy to carry into situations where your judgement is likely to be compromised, and easy to fire repeatedly.

Um.... and also the specific subject of a very, very clear Supreme court decision within the last decade declaring in language any idiot could easily follow that the things cannot be constitutionally banned.

I know, I know.  I was pointing out the fallacy of the whole gun control argument to begin with - they can't ban the problem child, so they go for the sibling and pretend like it will do any good.  It won't.

Realistically, they CAN come up with a method to make sure that guns are registered to people who are supposed to own them.  That's not a huge leap.


This (combined with your previous post) is why we need gun enthusiasts to help craft meaningful gun control legislation. Unfortunately, most of them are too paranoid to do so, believing that registration will absolutely lead to confiscation and that any minor inconvenience between them and owning a(nother) gun is "infringing" on their rights. So instead of quality, helpful legislation we get bans on "scary looking" weapons and nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and spree shooters.
 
2013-01-12 05:21:57 AM  

heap: phenn: You're attempting to compare a simple household item, with a legitimate daily use to something that is used in an emergency.

consider it any 'thing'. i use spatula just to demonstrate that it's a logical black hole. put any 'thing' in that place, and it doesn't change what i'm saying.

if you don't possess a thing, it absolutely affects your ability to use that thing. not really bending space and time here.

Loaded Six String: It is when you don't cut off the relevent part at the end.

not having a spatula affects my ability to use a spatula violently. it doesn't change a single thing.

i'm not talking about something ethereal or conceptual here - if you don't possess a thing, it affects your ability to use that thing. violently, or in a loving fashion between consenting adults and a griddle.


If I were to place in your hand a weapon of any sort, would you then be compelled to use it in an act of violence?

again, that isn't what you said, if we're getting into dishonesty or intellectual wankery. increased likelihood and personal compulsion aren't the same thing.


One last time, in full context.

"To use a colloquialism, in regards to gun violence, the best way to "nip it in the bud" would be to address the issue of violent behavior and the factors which drive it, of which a firearm is not. Surely you're intellectually honest enough to admit that possession of a weapon of any sort does not inherently increase the likelihood that you will use it to commit a violent crime?"

Did I inadvertently have an English language disconnect between these two sentences?

Factors which lead to violence of which firearms are not. Ergo, possession of a firearm does not contribute to a violent act being committed where otherwise there would not.
 
2013-01-12 05:24:19 AM  

Loaded Six String: address the issue of violent behavior and the factors which drive it, of which a firearm is not.


what, you want me to make fun of that, too?

ok, your unsupported assertion makes my nipples hard.

you've given no support to the idea that firearms have nothing at all to do with violent behavior, just accepted it as a truism from which to continue with.

is that what you were looking for?
 
2013-01-12 05:26:49 AM  
i realize it's 5am, i'm not expecting anybody to be full of mental rigor, or anything.

but for a second, pretend you aren't talking about a sacred gun. pretend you're attempting to discuss some other object or issue that has to play by normal rules of logic or argument.
 
2013-01-12 05:28:01 AM  
Did he shoot the the hostage?
 
2013-01-12 05:28:39 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Lsherm: Jim_Callahan: Lsherm: If they were, they'd ban handguns, which are easily concealable, easy to carry into situations where your judgement is likely to be compromised, and easy to fire repeatedly.

Um.... and also the specific subject of a very, very clear Supreme court decision within the last decade declaring in language any idiot could easily follow that the things cannot be constitutionally banned.

I know, I know.  I was pointing out the fallacy of the whole gun control argument to begin with - they can't ban the problem child, so they go for the sibling and pretend like it will do any good.  It won't.

Realistically, they CAN come up with a method to make sure that guns are registered to people who are supposed to own them.  That's not a huge leap.

This (combined with your previous post) is why we need gun enthusiasts to help craft meaningful gun control legislation. Unfortunately, most of them are too paranoid to do so, believing that registration will absolutely lead to confiscation and that any minor inconvenience between them and owning a(nother) gun is "infringing" on their rights. So instead of quality, helpful legislation we get bans on "scary looking" weapons and nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and spree shooters.


Admittedly, the President, the Vice President, Senator Feinstein, the NRA, the DOJ, and Congress will not look to Fark and request a meeting with LSherm, IQ_in_Binary, you, myself, or any one of us for suggestions. I would be surprised if anyone who would normally found outside of the Capitol would actually be asked for input. Look how reasonable it is in the land of red vs. blue. We're here, there's just no effective way to have our voices heard.
 
2013-01-12 05:34:58 AM  
He hates Jesus.
 
2013-01-12 05:35:05 AM  

heap: Loaded Six String: address the issue of violent behavior and the factors which drive it, of which a firearm is not.

what, you want me to make fun of that, too?

ok, your unsupported assertion makes my nipples hard.

you've given no support to the idea that firearms have nothing at all to do with violent behavior, just accepted it as a truism from which to continue with.

is that what you were looking for?


How could you honestly claim that violent behavior could be spurred on by the simple possession of a weapon? Any weapon, not just firearms. Do you honestly believe that if you took 100 people one by one and put a knife, or firearm, or rock in their hand that they would then be more likely to commit an act of violence just because you gave them an implement than if they otherwise had none? That was the crux of my point. An unarmed is not inherently less violent than if they were armed, and similarly an armed person is not inherently more violent than if they were armed.
 
2013-01-12 05:38:36 AM  

heap: i realize it's 5am, i'm not expecting anybody to be full of mental rigor, or anything.

but for a second, pretend you aren't talking about a sacred gun. pretend you're attempting to discuss some other object or issue that has to play by normal rules of logic or argument.


A stone. A person is not inherently more apt to commit an act of violence because they have a stone in their hand, in their car, at home, or in a box with a fox. If that person is normally nonviolent, then the introduction of a weapon into their vicinity, possession, or mind will not make them any more violent.
 
2013-01-12 05:40:58 AM  

Loaded Six String: How could you honestly claim that violent behavior could be spurred on by the simple possession of a weapon?


yet you seek answers to curtailing whatever it is that may cause violent behavior - but you've automatically crossed one thing off the list.

in other words, you have no idea what could cause violent behavior, but you're willing to state with absolute certainty what does not. just why it's automatically crossed off the list isn't supported, or even contemplated - it's just assumed.

again, for a minute contemplate this in any other context.
 
2013-01-12 05:43:32 AM  

Loaded Six String: A stone. A person is not inherently more apt to commit an act of violence because they have a stone in their hand


consider this a practical experiment.

walk up to 100 people tomorrow, and put a stone in their hand.

do you think the likelihood of that person having thrown a stone at something or somebody would increase, or decrease? consider their average day of never having a stone in their hand as a baseline, then consider the day that you put a stone in their hand.

you're trying to muddle personal individual compulsion with statistical likelihood, and doing it badly.
 
2013-01-12 05:43:47 AM  

Loaded Six String: heap: Loaded Six String: address the issue of violent behavior and the factors which drive it, of which a firearm is not.

what, you want me to make fun of that, too?

ok, your unsupported assertion makes my nipples hard.

you've given no support to the idea that firearms have nothing at all to do with violent behavior, just accepted it as a truism from which to continue with.

is that what you were looking for?

How could you honestly claim that violent behavior could be spurred on by the simple possession of a weapon? Any weapon, not just firearms. Do you honestly believe that if you took 100 people one by one and put a knife, or firearm, or rock in their hand that they would then be more likely to commit an act of violence just because you gave them an implement than if they otherwise had none? That was the crux of my point. An unarmed personis not inherently less violent than if they were armed, and similarly an armed person is not inherently more violent than if they were unarmed.


Guess that's my indicator that I've been awake for too long...
 
2013-01-12 05:46:20 AM  

Loaded Six String: AdmirableSnackbar: Lsherm: Jim_Callahan: Lsherm: If they were, they'd ban handguns, which are easily concealable, easy to carry into situations where your judgement is likely to be compromised, and easy to fire repeatedly.

Um.... and also the specific subject of a very, very clear Supreme court decision within the last decade declaring in language any idiot could easily follow that the things cannot be constitutionally banned.

I know, I know.  I was pointing out the fallacy of the whole gun control argument to begin with - they can't ban the problem child, so they go for the sibling and pretend like it will do any good.  It won't.

Realistically, they CAN come up with a method to make sure that guns are registered to people who are supposed to own them.  That's not a huge leap.

This (combined with your previous post) is why we need gun enthusiasts to help craft meaningful gun control legislation. Unfortunately, most of them are too paranoid to do so, believing that registration will absolutely lead to confiscation and that any minor inconvenience between them and owning a(nother) gun is "infringing" on their rights. So instead of quality, helpful legislation we get bans on "scary looking" weapons and nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and spree shooters.

Admittedly, the President, the Vice President, Senator Feinstein, the NRA, the DOJ, and Congress will not look to Fark and request a meeting with LSherm, IQ_in_Binary, you, myself, or any one of us for suggestions. I would be surprised if anyone who would normally found outside of the Capitol would actually be asked for input. Look how reasonable it is in the land of red vs. blue. We're here, there's just no effective way to have our voices heard.


That's because the vocal minority (by that I mean the extremist NRA and their idiot followers) drown us out. The President and Vice President want to do something, Diane Feinstein wants to do something else and is rightfully being shut down, but the gun nut extremists (as I said) work to prevent any and all gun control. Their extremist stance gives Feinstein power. I've said it before and I'll say it again: extremists on one side only create extremists on the other. The gun control crowd has come a very, very long way in the past few decades, but the NRA is too paranoid to acknowledge that. Hell, you can see that in this thread. There are over 400 posts, with fewer than 1% (if that) calling for the outright ban of all guns, but many whining about the powerless Feinstein and calling for no increased regulation whatsoever while trying to paint anyone who wants to make changes to gun laws as wanting what Feinstein wants.

Now, I'm neither pro- nor anti-gun (I'm anti-dangerous and violent people owning guns), but I know that something needs to change. But unless pro-gun people start shouting down the gun nuts instead of allowing their posts and ideas to only be challenged by anti-gun or neutral people, the anti-regulation extremists are emboldened to continue their stupidity.
 
2013-01-12 05:49:54 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Lsherm: Jim_Callahan: Lsherm: If they were, they'd ban handguns, which are easily concealable, easy to carry into situations where your judgement is likely to be compromised, and easy to fire repeatedly.

Um.... and also the specific subject of a very, very clear Supreme court decision within the last decade declaring in language any idiot could easily follow that the things cannot be constitutionally banned.

I know, I know.  I was pointing out the fallacy of the whole gun control argument to begin with - they can't ban the problem child, so they go for the sibling and pretend like it will do any good.  It won't.

Realistically, they CAN come up with a method to make sure that guns are registered to people who are supposed to own them.  That's not a huge leap.

This (combined with your previous post) is why we need gun enthusiasts to help craft meaningful gun control legislation. Unfortunately, most of them are too paranoid to do so, believing that registration will absolutely lead to confiscation and that any minor inconvenience between them and owning a(nother) gun is "infringing" on their rights. So instead of quality, helpful legislation we get bans on "scary looking" weapons and nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and spree shooters.


In all fairness to the "gun nuts" (who I don't think are nuts) - the anti-gun folks are not talking about, nor aiming for, anything that can cross the divide.  They start with bans and go from there.  It's not smart, nor is it effective.

The trick here is to get the entire gun industry, gun owners, the NRA, and people like me to develop their own solution.  Start registration with a citizen group, and write the law that the government can't ever have access to the list without a majority of member approval.  The gun industry isn't going to play ball since there's no reason or upside if they do.  They want to sell guns.  So target legal gun owners.

Turn gun owners into a union - they already are via the NRA, but make it mandatory.  However, and here's the sticking point, they control all of their registered information, and who can access it.  Make a nationwide gun club.  Then don't ban guns, but require registration on the private database for any new gun sold.

As I said before, the gun problem in this country isn't with responsible gun owners, it's with unregistered guns that can end up anywhere.  Remove those from the equation, and the problem will solve itself over time, although it will probably take 50 years.
 
2013-01-12 05:51:14 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Now, I'm neither pro- nor anti-gun (I'm anti-dangerous and violent people owning guns), but I know that something needs to change. But unless pro-gun people start shouting down the gun nuts instead of allowing their posts and ideas to only be challenged by anti-gun or neutral people, the anti-regulation extremists are emboldened to continue their stupidity.


indeed - and bad arguments in favor are worse than good arguments against.

people speaking individually just never seem to accomplish much, however - and the groups around the issue that one could add their voice to are typically a political minefield where you need 2 weeks study to find out who you're actually dealing with.
 
2013-01-12 05:57:53 AM  

heap: Loaded Six String: A stone. A person is not inherently more apt to commit an act of violence because they have a stone in their hand

consider this a practical experiment.

walk up to 100 people tomorrow, and put a stone in their hand.

do you think the likelihood of that person having thrown a stone at something or somebody would increase, or decrease? consider their average day of never having a stone in their hand as a baseline, then consider the day that you put a stone in their hand.

you're trying to muddle personal individual compulsion with statistical likelihood, and doing it badly.


The best description I found of what I think we're arguing about is this: Link

Even then, it is not concrete for either of our cases as subjects which had been taught familiarity with the weapon in question as well as how to use it not to harm other people showed less likelihood for aggressive impulses. A point for you that the presence of a weapon does indeed increase aggressive impulses and I will concede that now. A point for me that education on the familiarity and positive uses of that weapon appears to mitigate those agressive impulses.

I'm off to get an hour or so of sleep before work now. Good night.
 
2013-01-12 05:59:05 AM  

Loaded Six String: (More extensive in what manner?


Follow up checks every two years?

Loaded Six String: (I would tack on a provision that any attempted use of the registration system to confiscate weapons without strict scrutiny and full legal processes lead to immediate loss of authority, dismissal from office, and/ or legal prosecution. We cannot ignore the danger that such information may be used at a future date to confiscate weaponry without due cause).


Agreed, so I revised my thought to make the list privately owned by all registered gun owners.  Access to the list would require permission from the owners themselves.  No government access.
 
2013-01-12 06:00:44 AM  

Loaded Six String: Even then, it is not concrete for either of our cases as subjects which had been taught familiarity with the weapon in question as well as how to use it not to harm other people showed less likelihood for aggressive impulses. A point for you that the presence of a weapon does indeed increase aggressive impulses and I will concede that now. A point for me that education on the familiarity and positive uses of that weapon appears to mitigate those agressive impulses.

I'm off to get an hour or so of sleep before work now. Good night.


kudos, and hope you enjoy the nap.

(again, all i'm asking for is to treat this like it wasn't a sacred cow. it leads to better support for whatever angle you're taking)
 
2013-01-12 06:08:41 AM  

Benjimin_Dover:


Also, subby. He said he would start killing people if Obummer uses executive order on gun control not infringe his second amendment rights. An executive order is directed at government employees not citizens. We a have a chief at the top of the executive branch who can give directives to it much like a CEO can give directives to the people under him. What we don't have is a king, queen, dictator, or somebody else that can just dream up some command that you have to follow. Any executive order he gives would be to direct his agencies to do something.



Oh, EOs can do quite a bit of damage. Back in '03, Bush issued an EO banning the importation of chinese manufactured guns and ammo, which were very popular,
 
2013-01-12 06:09:42 AM  

Lsherm: In all fairness to the "gun nuts" (who I don't think are nuts) - the anti-gun folks are not talking about, nor aiming for, anything that can cross the divide. They start with bans and go from there. It's not smart, nor is it effective.


People who go out and buy out the latest mass-murdering instrument (in this case the AR15) are nuts. There's no other way to say it. They need to have an instrument that ensured the death of 20 kids. That's farking sick.

And no, the anti-gun people do not start with bans. Right now, Obama and Biden are looking into solutions, not bans. If they wanted bans they wouldn't be going through this dog-and-pony act. And if the result of their investigations and discussions is proposal of a ban and nothing else, that would be extremely out of character given their negotiating history. And the vast majority of Americans wouldn't stand for it - even most anti-gun people.

The trick here is to get the entire gun industry, gun owners, the NRA, and people like me to develop their own solution. Start registration with a citizen group, and write the law that the government can't ever have access to the list without a majority of member approval. The gun industry isn't going to play ball since there's no reason or upside if they do. They want to sell guns. So target legal gun owners.

This registration idea won't work. Gun nuts won't go for it, hell they won't even consider it. If their name and what guns they own is on a list, that's the first step towards confiscation. They would never do so willingly. And the NRA's solution is to arm everyone everywhere with absolutely no consideration of the consequences. Basically you're saying "let us handle it" when the ultimate solution you (and by this I mean you and these rabid pro-gun people, obviously you're relatively rational) would come up with would be nothing because you're working with the wrong people.

Turn gun owners into a union - they already are via the NRA, but make it mandatory. However, and here's the sticking point, they control all of their registered information, and who can access it. Make a nationwide gun club. Then don't ban guns, but require registration on the private database for any new gun sold.

As I understand it the NRA is the minority of gun owners. What responsible gun owner would allow Wayne Lapierre to speak for him or her? Your idea just won't happen because the people you want to create this union don't trust anybody at all.

As I said before, the gun problem in this country isn't with responsible gun owners, it's with unregistered guns that can end up anywhere. Remove those from the equation, and the problem will solve itself over time, although it will probably take 50 years

We can't remove those from the equation because folks like the NRA want to keep those guns unregistered. Again, you're working with the wrong people if you want change to happen. Your voice is drowned out by the extremists that we need to isolate and minimize. Your presence supporting them only emboldens them and makes it impossible for meaningful progress.
 
2013-01-12 06:11:21 AM  
Loaded Six String: Surely you're intellectually honest enough to admit that possession of a weapon of any sort does not inherently increase the likelihood that you will use it to commit a violent crime?

Apparently you're not intellectually honest enough to refrain from asking dissimulative questions.
 
2013-01-12 06:13:12 AM  
The simple fact is that gun control laws as they stand now restrict law-abiding gun owners much more than they do violent criminals. There is no law you can create that will suddenly make violent criminals decide to stop being violent or using firearms illegally. All we can do is place greater penalties on those who do commit crimes with firearms, and work to remove firearms from the hands of criminals whenever possible.

Thought for the day: How about we stop putting people in prison for non-violent crimes like Marijuana possession, and start putting those who commit crimes with firearms there longer? I'm all for doubling the current penalties for anyone who uses a firearm in a crime, and/or giving Life without Parole to anyone who commits a violent crime with a firearm. Get these people off of the street, and at the same time stop filling the jails with non-violent drug offenders.
 
2013-01-12 06:13:44 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: believing that registration will absolutely lead to confiscation and that any minor inconvenience between them and owning a(nother) gun is "infringing" on their rights. So instead of quality, helpful legislation we get bans on "scary looking" weapons and nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and spree shooters.


Half of the problem being that, in world history, gun registration has frequently preceded confiscation or efforts at confiscation, and confiscation has actually frequently preceded an increase in totalitarian measures by the government. Albeit, possibly more a correlation than a causative link, since confiscation of private property is in itself authoritarian.

The other half of the issue would be the US's own history with the suppression of civil rights. Allowing states to make a lot of small "common sense" measures to "minimize problems" is a pretty good summary of why it was incredibly difficult for a black person to vote in many parts of the US before the latest civil rights movement. And a lot of the proposed regulations on guns do legitimately have the flavor of the kind of concealed-intentions crap used to suppress voting in the 1950s/60s, and many of the excuses for the more egregiously unconstitutional proposals are exactly those used to excuse, say, segregated schools. "Oh, but the schools are functionally equal, therefore you shouldn't care about the colors of the student body being different. And there's the potential for mixing to lead to some low-level violence, so we're really doing this in the public interest, it's a reasonable limitation of the 14th amendment to segregate if it prevents even one crime."

Basically you're going to have trouble convincing a lot of the people that are serious about their rights that many of the half-measures aren't actually intended to dilute or weaken the bill of rights because, well, historically they're probably correct to be suspicious. This isn't a new path, we've been down this one before.

//Not that there aren't reasonable controls that can be implemented, they just cannot take the form of arbitrarily restricting private individuals from owning arms of the type suitable to militia-scale response, for the same reasons that restrictions on free speech can't take the form of fining journalists for expressing political opinions. Mandatory military training like Sweden does could help the problem, for instance. Both of people not knowing how to deal with the presence of weapons and of idiots who don't know a slingshot from an ICBM making laws about guns.
 
2013-01-12 06:14:23 AM  

Loaded Six String: There is a vast disparity in culture, ethnic diversity, population density, and economic structure and disparity.


Here is a translation for those who can't read the coded racism: "One reason America has more violent deaths than the UK is because of blacks and other minorities." Just say it. We won't judge you any worse than we already do.
 
2013-01-12 06:15:47 AM  
"I do not condone anybody committing any kind of felonies up to and including any aggravated assaults or murders, unless it's necessary," he said. "Right now it is not necessary."

No, you're going to have to learn to apologize properly. Really. It's the adult thing to do.
 
2013-01-12 06:20:13 AM  

Jim_Callahan: AdmirableSnackbar: believing that registration will absolutely lead to confiscation and that any minor inconvenience between them and owning a(nother) gun is "infringing" on their rights. So instead of quality, helpful legislation we get bans on "scary looking" weapons and nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and spree shooters.

Half of the problem being that, in world history, gun registration has frequently preceded confiscation or efforts at confiscation, and confiscation has actually frequently preceded an increase in totalitarian measures by the government. Albeit, possibly more a correlation than a causative link, since confiscation of private property is in itself authoritarian.

The other half of the issue would be the US's own history with the suppression of civil rights. Allowing states to make a lot of small "common sense" measures to "minimize problems" is a pretty good summary of why it was incredibly difficult for a black person to vote in many parts of the US before the latest civil rights movement. And a lot of the proposed regulations on guns do legitimately have the flavor of the kind of concealed-intentions crap used to suppress voting in the 1950s/60s, and many of the excuses for the more egregiously unconstitutional proposals are exactly those used to excuse, say, segregated schools. "Oh, but the schools are functionally equal, therefore you shouldn't care about the colors of the student body being different. And there's the potential for mixing to lead to some low-level violence, so we're really doing this in the public interest, it's a reasonable limitation of the 14th amendment to segregate if it prevents even one crime."

Basically you're going to have trouble convincing a lot of the people that are serious about their rights that many of the half-measures aren't actually intended to dilute or weaken the bill of rights because, well, historically they're probably correct to be suspicious. This isn't a new path, we've been down ...


None of those other nations has had a founding document expressly giving people the right to own and use guns. No matter how many people want gun control, the vast majority of Americans understand the importance of the 2nd amendment and would absolutely resist overturning it. People stood for (or at least allowed) confiscation of those guns in other nations because they didn't have a right to own them, so there was no legal leg to stand on for them to resist. That's very different here. Anyone who thinks outright confiscation of all privately owned American guns is a possibility is insane.
 
2013-01-12 06:30:56 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Lsherm: In all fairness to the "gun nuts" (who I don't think are nuts) - the anti-gun folks are not talking about, nor aiming for, anything that can cross the divide. They start with bans and go from there. It's not smart, nor is it effective.

People who go out and buy out the latest mass-murdering instrument (in this case the AR15) are nuts. There's no other way to say it. They need to have an instrument that ensured the death of 20 kids. That's farking sick.

And no, the anti-gun people do not start with bans. Right now, Obama and Biden are looking into solutions, not bans. If they wanted bans they wouldn't be going through this dog-and-pony act. And if the result of their investigations and discussions is proposal of a ban and nothing else, that would be extremely out of character given their negotiating history. And the vast majority of Americans wouldn't stand for it - even most anti-gun people.

The trick here is to get the entire gun industry, gun owners, the NRA, and people like me to develop their own solution. Start registration with a citizen group, and write the law that the government can't ever have access to the list without a majority of member approval. The gun industry isn't going to play ball since there's no reason or upside if they do. They want to sell guns. So target legal gun owners.

This registration idea won't work. Gun nuts won't go for it, hell they won't even consider it. If their name and what guns they own is on a list, that's the first step towards confiscation. They would never do so willingly. And the NRA's solution is to arm everyone everywhere with absolutely no consideration of the consequences. Basically you're saying "let us handle it" when the ultimate solution you (and by this I mean you and these rabid pro-gun people, obviously you're relatively rational) would come up with would be nothing because you're working with the wrong people.

Turn gun owners into a union - they already are via the NRA, but make ...


*sigh*

Read everything you just wrote, and come up with a better solution.  You are as much of a problem as the people you're railing against.  Inflexibility is not a virtue.
 
2013-01-12 06:31:10 AM  

MmmmBacon: The simple fact is that gun control laws as they stand now restrict law-abiding gun owners much more than they do violent criminals. There is no law you can create that will suddenly make violent criminals decide to stop being violent or using firearms illegally. All we can do is place greater penalties on those who do commit crimes with firearms, and work to remove firearms from the hands of criminals whenever possible.

Thought for the day: How about we stop putting people in prison for non-violent crimes like Marijuana possession, and start putting those who commit crimes with firearms there longer? I'm all for doubling the current penalties for anyone who uses a firearm in a crime, and/or giving Life without Parole to anyone who commits a violent crime with a firearm. Get these people off of the street, and at the same time stop filling the jails with non-violent drug offenders.


3... possibly 4 birds with 1 stone thinking. Bravo.

Attacking the tool instead of the criminal won't do a damn thing.
 
2013-01-12 06:37:29 AM  

Lsherm: Read everything you just wrote, and come up with a better solution. You are as much of a problem as the people you're railing against. Inflexibility is not a virtue


What about my statements leads you to believe that I am inflexible?

My whole point is that I would go further than the ideas you proposed, but your ideas would be perfectly acceptable to me as a compromise. The problem is you yourself couldn't sell your ideas to the extremists on the pro-gun side. They're as paranoid of you as they are of me, or of Senator Feinstein regardless of the differences between our views and proposals.
 
2013-01-12 06:37:43 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar:
This (combined with your previous post) is why we need gun enthusiasts to help craft meaningful gun control legislation. Unfortunately, most of them are too paranoid to do so, believing that registration will absolutely lead to confiscation and that any minor inconvenience between them and owning a(nother) gun is "infringing" on their rights. So instead of quality, helpful legislation we get bans on "scary looking" weapons and nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and spree shooters.



The reason so many gun nuts are unwilling to compromise is that we've done it before, and then the anti-gunners come back and ask for more. We all know that people like Feinstein have the goal of eventually disarming the public COMPLETELY. That is unaccptable.

A registration plan is a very necessary precursor to any confiscation. And confiscation of registered guns HAS happened in California.

Another issue is cost. Feinstein has suggested that semiautomatic firearms sheould be registered on the NFRTR. That will drive up the cost of ownership a LOT. Look at the prices of machineguns today. A semi auto AK can be had for $500 or less. A full auto AK on the NFRTR will set you back maybe fifteen THOUSAND dollars. That puts it out of reach for a great many people,

The gun culture has been screwed over and over again, And it is it's own culture. When somebody comes in and says "We don't like you, so we're going to destroy your entire culture", you're prolly going to get a negative response.

There's one other thing to think about.. If they try to get all confiscatey, going around to peoples houses and searching for contraband, people will die. Most will be citizens serfs that still think they are free, but a fair number of the dead will be local cops. I wonder how many dead cops DC is willing to make.
 
2013-01-12 06:43:54 AM  
1. Still waiting on my TF here.

2. To you idiots that don't seem to understand a very basic concept... If I do not own a car, I have a supremely decreased chance of using one in a violent crime. I could steal one, but I must hope I know how to hot wire it, or that the owner is a farking moron and keep keys in the car.

3. If I do not own a gun, I have a supremely decreased chance of using one in a violent crime. I could steal one, but I must hope that I understand how to point and click and that the owner was a farking moron and kept it loaded or the ammo where I could find it.

4. If I do not own a computer, I have a supremely decreased chance of having to read the muttering of morons that are not honest enough to understand that the vast quantity of guns make gun related homicide MORE LIKELY.

Looking at you Phenn and Loaded Six String...
 
2013-01-12 06:45:26 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: AdmirableSnackbar:
This (combined with your previous post) is why we need gun enthusiasts to help craft meaningful gun control legislation. Unfortunately, most of them are too paranoid to do so, believing that registration will absolutely lead to confiscation and that any minor inconvenience between them and owning a(nother) gun is "infringing" on their rights. So instead of quality, helpful legislation we get bans on "scary looking" weapons and nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and spree shooters.

The reason so many gun nuts are unwilling to compromise is that we've done it before, and then the anti-gunners come back and ask for more. We all know that people like Feinstein have the goal of eventually disarming the public COMPLETELY. That is unaccptable.

A registration plan is a very necessary precursor to any confiscation. And confiscation of registered guns HAS happened in California.

Another issue is cost. Feinstein has suggested that semiautomatic firearms sheould be registered on the NFRTR. That will drive up the cost of ownership a LOT. Look at the prices of machineguns today. A semi auto AK can be had for $500 or less. A full auto AK on the NFRTR will set you back maybe fifteen THOUSAND dollars. That puts it out of reach for a great many people,

The gun culture has been screwed over and over again, And it is it's own culture. When somebody comes in and says "We don't like you, so we're going to destroy your entire culture", you're prolly going to get a negative response.

There's one other thing to think about.. If they try to get all confiscatey, going around to peoples houses and searching for contraband, people will die. Most will be citizens serfs that still think they are free, but a fair number of the dead will be local cops. I wonder how many dead cops DC is willing to make.


Thanks for proving my point. Feinstein's idea is not shared by anything resembling a majority of gun control advocates. By all means, stop assuming that just because we don't think everyone everywhere should be armed that we think her ideas are just peachy. And my point is that the only reason that her voice is being heard at all on this issue is that extremism on the pro-gun side brings out extremists on the gun control side. If anti-gun-control advocates would at least budge a little they wouldn't make Feinstein seem sane (although ill-informed and completely misdirected). Willingness to compromise would make her look less sane, thereby eliminating her power. Get it?

/And no, confiscation of registered guns has NOT happened in CA.
 
2013-01-12 06:46:58 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: AdmirableSnackbar:
This (combined with your previous post) is why we need gun enthusiasts to help craft meaningful gun control legislation. Unfortunately, most of them are too paranoid to do so, believing that registration will absolutely lead to confiscation and that any minor inconvenience between them and owning a(nother) gun is "infringing" on their rights. So instead of quality, helpful legislation we get bans on "scary looking" weapons and nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and spree shooters.

The reason so many gun nuts are unwilling to compromise is that we've done it before, and then the anti-gunners come back and ask for more. We all know that people like Feinstein have the goal of eventually disarming the public COMPLETELY. That is unaccptable.

A registration plan is a very necessary precursor to any confiscation. And confiscation of registered guns HAS happened in California.

Another issue is cost. Feinstein has suggested that semiautomatic firearms sheould be registered on the NFRTR. That will drive up the cost of ownership a LOT. Look at the prices of machineguns today. A semi auto AK can be had for $500 or less. A full auto AK on the NFRTR will set you back maybe fifteen THOUSAND dollars. That puts it out of reach for a great many people,

The gun culture has been screwed over and over again, And it is it's own culture. When somebody comes in and says "We don't like you, so we're going to destroy your entire culture", you're prolly going to get a negative response.

There's one other thing to think about.. If they try to get all confiscatey, going around to peoples houses and searching for contraband, people will die. Most will be citizens serfs that still think they are free, but a fair number of the dead will be local cops. I wonder how many dead cops DC is willing to make.


You have a VERY small penis, don't you?
 
2013-01-12 06:49:53 AM  

Uberdeity: 1. Still waiting on my TF here.

2. To you idiots that don't seem to understand a very basic concept... If I do not own a car, I have a supremely decreased chance of using one in a violent crime. I could steal one, but I must hope I know how to hot wire it, or that the owner is a farking moron and keep keys in the car.

3. If I do not own a gun, I have a supremely decreased chance of using one in a violent crime. I could steal one, but I must hope that I understand how to point and click and that the owner was a farking moron and kept it loaded or the ammo where I could find it.

4. If I do not own a computer, I have a supremely decreased chance of having to read the muttering of morons that are not honest enough to understand that the vast quantity of guns make gun related homicide MORE LIKELY.

Looking at you Phenn and Loaded Six String...


The problem is your argument is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

If I don't own a kitchen knife, I have no chance to kill someone with it.
If I don't own a skateboard, I have no opportunity to open someone's skull with it.
If I don't own a baseball bat, I have no chance to smash someone's face in with it.
If I don't own a fork, I have no chance of poking out someone's eyeballs with it.

Absolutely the dumbest line of thinking you or anyone else could engage in. And, you're wasting the time of other people here who would like to have an adult conversation about it.

If I don't own a firearm for my personal protection, I have zero chance of saving my life from an armed home intruder.

Know how I know this?
 
2013-01-12 06:59:21 AM  

phenn: Uberdeity: 1. Still waiting on my TF here.

2. To you idiots that don't seem to understand a very basic concept... If I do not own a car, I have a supremely decreased chance of using one in a violent crime. I could steal one, but I must hope I know how to hot wire it, or that the owner is a farking moron and keep keys in the car.

3. If I do not own a gun, I have a supremely decreased chance of using one in a violent crime. I could steal one, but I must hope that I understand how to point and click and that the owner was a farking moron and kept it loaded or the ammo where I could find it.

4. If I do not own a computer, I have a supremely decreased chance of having to read the muttering of morons that are not honest enough to understand that the vast quantity of guns make gun related homicide MORE LIKELY.

Looking at you Phenn and Loaded Six String...

The problem is your argument is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

If I don't own a kitchen knife, I have no chance to kill someone with it.
If I don't own a skateboard, I have no opportunity to open someone's skull with it.
If I don't own a baseball bat, I have no chance to smash someone's face in with it.
If I don't own a fork, I have no chance of poking out someone's eyeballs with it.

Absolutely the dumbest line of thinking you or anyone else could engage in. And, you're wasting the time of other people here who would like to have an adult conversation about it.

If I don't own a firearm for my personal protection, I have zero chance of saving my life from an armed home intruder.

Know how I know this?


I believe their argument was supremely decreased chance. As for knives and their deadliness, they are not valid in a gun control debate. The same day a shooter shot and killed 20 kids in ct, a man in china stabbed 20 kids at a school. All of them lived.

Stop equating the deadliness of guns with knives, they are nowhere near as deadly or capable of critically injuring large numbers of people in short periods of time.
 
2013-01-12 07:01:35 AM  

Uberdeity: You have a VERY small penis, don't you?


Well, my wife of allmost 20 years still thinks that it's big enough for her purposes, and it did help producing our kids.

\ Why are you pondering about my penis?
 
2013-01-12 07:03:18 AM  

Jaws_Victim: I believe their argument was supremely decreased chance. As for knives and their deadliness, they are not valid in a gun control debate. The same day a shooter shot and killed 20 kids in ct, a man in china stabbed 20 kids at a school. All of them lived.

Stop equating the deadliness of guns with knives, they are nowhere near as deadly or capable of critically injuring large numbers of people in short periods of time.


My point was nearly anything can be deadly. We can't ban everything under the sun that people have already used to kill other people. It's ridiculous at best.

The debate here was gun control vs gun rights. The previous poster makes the argument that, if you don't have one, you can't kill someone with it. I've tried to make the argument that my owning one does not automatically mean I'm going to do murder with it. Conversely, my not owning one almost guarantees that a violent criminal with one will end my life.

And that is the matter at hand.
 
2013-01-12 07:07:23 AM  

phenn: Conversely, my not owning one almost guarantees that a violent criminal with one will end my life.


Gee, why is it, then, that the UK has such a lower rate of deaths from assaults by firearm than the US?
 
2013-01-12 07:15:38 AM  

James F. Campbell: phenn: Conversely, my not owning one almost guarantees that a violent criminal with one will end my life.

Gee, why is it, then, that the UK has such a lower rate of deaths from assaults by firearm than the US?


UK has a much higher rate of violent crime per capita. Lower gun death rates? Sure. But, you see, the criminals, gang-bangers and violent assholes already have them here. They will not be turning them in. Trust me. If you would like to be a sitting duck, by all means do so.
 
2013-01-12 07:18:45 AM  

phenn: UK has a much higher rate of violent crime per capita.


Link?
 
2013-01-12 07:19:20 AM  
And I don't mean link me to some derpy blog, phenn. Link me to the US stats, then link me to the UK stats.
 
2013-01-12 07:21:01 AM  

phenn: Jaws_Victim: I believe their argument was supremely decreased chance. As for knives and their deadliness, they are not valid in a gun control debate. The same day a shooter shot and killed 20 kids in ct, a man in china stabbed 20 kids at a school. All of them lived.

Stop equating the deadliness of guns with knives, they are nowhere near as deadly or capable of critically injuring large numbers of people in short periods of time.

My point was nearly anything can be deadly. We can't ban everything under the sun that people have already used to kill other people. It's ridiculous at best.

The debate here was gun control vs gun rights. The previous poster makes the argument that, if you don't have one, you can't kill someone with it. I've tried to make the argument that my owning one does not automatically mean I'm going to do murder with it. Conversely, my not owning one almost guarantees that a violent criminal with one will end my life.

And that is the matter at hand.


The previous poster said the chances were supremely decreased, and you just applied the same logic the opposite way in a position that was favorable to you.

No one cares about your security issues or what activities you engage in that requires you to have protection when you go about your daily business. With stricter gun control laws there is also a diminished chance the criminal will end up with a gun, as evidenced by the knife attack in china.
 
2013-01-12 07:25:19 AM  

phenn: Lower gun death rates? Sure.


Anyway, at least you've implicitly admitted that your argument that "everything is deadly!!111" is farking retarded, and that guns do make it easier to kill people. Glad we agree.
 
2013-01-12 07:34:38 AM  

BronyMedic: Defend to me the need for civilians to own a high capacity magazine who's only legitimate use is to reduce the need to reload during firefights?


Without going into semantics and technical details, the issue boils down to "rights default to 'on' and those wishing to restrict a right have to show a justifiable reason for the proposed restriction" -- this applies to all manner of things, not just guns. Put differently, the burden of proof is on the one wishing to make a restriction to show that (a) such a restriction is necessary for a clearly-stated reasons and (b) the the restriction would be effective at producing the stated goal.

Getting onto the topic of guns in particular, is there evidence that limiting magazine capacity will reduce violent crime in general? Not really. The 1994-2004 federal ban limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Several states have similar limitations to this day. Some studies I've read show that while fewer magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds were confiscated from criminals during the ban, they made no statements if the limitations actually had any effect on the rates of violent crime or their outcomes. As far as I've been able to tell, most firearms-related crimes involve only a few shots being fired, so restrictions on larger magazines aren't really likely to have much effect.

Is there evidence that limiting magazine capacity will reduce the effectiveness of mass shooters? Perhaps, though it's not clear. According to the reports I've read in the news, the Newtown shooter fired something like 100 rounds over 15 minutes and often changed magazines in his rifle when they were less than half empty, all without being interrupted. The Aurora shooter had a 100 round drum magazine that jammed, so he had to switch to a different, less effective firearm. The Virginia Tech shooter used handguns with 10 and 15 round magazines and the capacity of these magazines didn't seem to limit him from committing the second-worst mass murder in US history (after the Bath school disaster back in 1927, which used explosives). The Tucson shooter fumbled his reload and dropped his magazine, during which time he was seized by people standing there; had he been a bit further out of reach it's likely that he could have completed the magazine change successfully. The Columbine shooters used a range of firearms, including a double-barrel shotgun and pistols with varying magazine capacities; this took place mid-federal-ban.

Mass shootings are, fortunately, statistically very rare but it seems that in nearly all cases the attackers have been able to continue their attacks and reload without resistance or interruption and that it seems unlikely that limiting magazine capacity to make such a shooter reload more often wouldn't really be effective.

In short: while limiting magazine capacity to some arbitrary value may seem to be a good idea, the evidence for for such a limit having an effect on violent crime or mass shootings isn't terribly convincing.

/it's my personal opinion that there's a ton of things that can be improved or modified, both with gun laws and other things, that would be more effective at reducing violent crime, protect the rights of the law-abiding, and improving people's lives in general than restrictions on certain types of guns or limits on magazine capacity.
 
2013-01-12 07:39:00 AM  

whatshisname: Gun licensing should be like automobile licensing, only stricter.

Written and practical tests.
Bans for medical conditions.
Special insurance.
Annual registration with a fee.
Graduated system depending on the power of the weapon.
Some weapons restricted to specialists.


Holy crap! A clear and reasonable set of gun owning rules. Now you'll be run out of Fark, dear sir or madam....
 
2013-01-12 07:41:55 AM  

heypete: BronyMedic: Defend to me the need for civilians to own a high capacity magazine who's only legitimate use is to reduce the need to reload during firefights?

Without going into semantics and technical details, the issue boils down to "rights default to 'on' and those wishing to restrict a right have to show a justifiable reason for the proposed restriction" -- this applies to all manner of things, not just guns. Put differently, the burden of proof is on the one wishing to make a restriction to show that (a) such a restriction is necessary for a clearly-stated reasons and (b) the the restriction would be effective at producing the stated goal.

Getting onto the topic of guns in particular, is there evidence that limiting magazine capacity will reduce violent crime in general? Not really. The 1994-2004 federal ban limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Several states have similar limitations to this day. Some studies I've read show that while fewer magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds were confiscated from criminals during the ban, they made no statements if the limitations actually had any effect on the rates of violent crime or their outcomes. As far as I've been able to tell, most firearms-related crimes involve only a few shots being fired, so restrictions on larger magazines aren't really likely to have much effect.

Is there evidence that limiting magazine capacity will reduce the effectiveness of mass shooters? Perhaps, though it's not clear. According to the reports I've read in the news, the Newtown shooter fired something like 100 rounds over 15 minutes and often changed magazines in his rifle when they were less than half empty, all without being interrupted. The Aurora shooter had a 100 round drum magazine that jammed, so he had to switch to a different, less effective firearm. The Virginia Tech shooter used handguns with 10 and 15 round magazines and the capacity of these magazines didn't seem to limit him from committing the second-worst ma ...


So what you are saying is that the proposed laws arent strict enough and outright banning of all fire arms would be required to make a dent. Fine with me.
 
2013-01-12 07:47:10 AM  
Haha!
 
2013-01-12 07:47:48 AM  
I see a lot of garbage on the web declaring criminals will simply ignore gun laws. So will this responsible gun owner submit to his permit being revoked? Or will he go rogue and continue to concealed carry?

/I think we all know the answer.
 
2013-01-12 07:48:30 AM  
Oh, almost forgot. BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

/this news made me smile.
 
2013-01-12 08:11:08 AM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


Would a sane gun owner be required to propose something that would lower the rate of gun violence?

/I am for all gun sales to require background checks, recording of who bought them, and it being a felony not to. This would give more teeth and tools to LEO trying to stop people getting guns illegally, and not violate the constitution.
 
2013-01-12 08:17:01 AM  

AbbeySomeone: Ow My Balls: [i471.photobucket.com image 236x357]

"The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public's safety," wrote Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

Thanks - I've got LaGrange earworm now.


Ah how how how how how hows that working out for you?
 
2013-01-12 08:20:35 AM  

James F. Campbell: Loaded Six String: Surely you're intellectually honest enough to admit that possession of a weapon of any sort does not inherently increase the likelihood that you will use it to commit a violent crime?

Apparently you're not intellectually honest enough to refrain from asking dissimulative questions.


Jumped the gate on that one, as my underlying premise was flawed. I apologize.
 
2013-01-12 08:24:01 AM  

Jaws_Victim: So what you are saying is that the proposed laws arent strict enough and outright banning of all fire arms would be required to make a dent. Fine with me.


That's one way to interpret it, though it is by no means the interpretation I intended.

A total ban on firearms, even if it were to somehow pass legal muster, would be of some effect, sure. I don't doubt that.

Let's go so far as to say that someone came across a genie and was able to magically eliminate all guns, gun manufacturers, and any possibility of creating new guns in the country (guns are not difficult to make with basic tools, but let's assume that nobody in the country could make new guns at all). Clearly, there'd still be a demand for such things by criminals and it's likely that a black market would spring up to supply this market: the US has remarkably porous land and sea borders and there's a lot of people who are quite skilled at sneaking illicit things into the country. While it'd be less likely that the average criminal would have a gun, those inclined to commit violent crimes would not be terribly inconvenienced -- these people are already getting guns illegally so it wouldn't be much of a change for them.

Now, let's go further: say the genie is able to not only eliminate all guns and prevent their manufacture and import but is also able prevent criminals from getting any guns. There would then be zero gun deaths at all. That's great, but there's something else to consider: firearms can (and often are) used for self-defense purposes. Since nothing has been done about the problem of violent criminals except that they now have no guns, what prevents these criminals from attacking their victims with other weapons (knives, pipes, fists, etc.) with the reasonable assumption that they, the criminal, are more prepared for a violent encounter then their victim and are able to likely to carry out their attack without any meaningful resistance? Is that any better?

I think not.

Look at prisons, for example: except in very rare situations, prisoners have no access to firearms and yet violent crime is extremely common in prisons.

While there are improvements to existing gun laws that I think could help things, I think the real problem lies not with there being a lot of guns but rather there being a lot of violent criminals. A person who is healthy, stable, and prosperous is quite unlikely to commit violent crime even if they're surrounded by all manner of weapons. I think it would be more effective to work to reduce the number of violent criminals, the factors that cause them to turn to violent crime, and improve the lives and communities of people in the country. I can't speak for others, but I'd happily pay a higher (even a significantly higher) tax rate if it meant that there'd be fewer violent criminals and that the lives of more people would be improved.
 
2013-01-12 08:29:20 AM  

James F. Campbell: Loaded Six String: There is a vast disparity in culture, ethnic diversity, population density, and economic structure and disparity.

Here is a translation for those who can't read the coded racism: "One reason America has more violent deaths than the UK is because of blacks and other minorities." Just say it. We won't judge you any worse than we already do.


I realize this is what you interpret my phrasing here to mean, or even want me to have meant that, but that is not the case. Due to the size of the U.S. and it's historically documented appeal to immigrants, it is not unreasonable to assume the United States has more ethnic and cultural identities/ groups than the UK. I was unable to determine how to verify this assumption as I'm unsure where to look for such data.
 
2013-01-12 08:34:26 AM  
This is more a lesson in keeping your tough guy nonsense off of youtube.
 
2013-01-12 08:36:04 AM  

chuggernaught: I see a lot of garbage on the web declaring criminals will simply ignore gun laws. So will this responsible gun owner submit to his permit being revoked? Or will he go rogue and continue to concealed carry?

/I think we all know the answer.


Well, the guy does make a living doing above-board, legal things with firearms. I would hope that he recognized that he was being stupid, crossed a line, the authorities are now aware of him, and he shouldn't do stupid stuff like that lest he break the law and be banned from owning or using guns legally (not to mention the risk of other penalties, like being imprisoned).

Like you, I'm not so sure he be so self-aware and I think he may continue to be a moron. If so, I'd totally support throwing the book at him as he'd clearly not be acting responsibly.
 
2013-01-12 08:47:47 AM  

Uberdeity: joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.

I will take that free month thank you: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/ research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/

Again. Stop reading newspapers like the Daily fail and learn to find the actual data source. You'll go far.


That chart doesn't show before 2006. Last I checked, I requested statistics that encompass the time since their gun ban was enacted in the late 90s. I know reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your or dbaggins' strong suit...
 
2013-01-12 08:51:55 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: This is more a lesson in keeping your tough guy nonsense off of youtube.


Yep. The problem is, what's the point of being a raving lunatic if you can't do any raving? I don't think this guy, and other morans like him, are capable of staying off of Youtube on their own.
 
2013-01-12 09:18:24 AM  
They want Obama to come after their guns.
 
2013-01-12 09:23:54 AM  

SomeoneDumb: Not that it matters, but it keeps striking me as odd how much some gun owners care about a possession. I can't think of a single other item, something we buy or possess. that has anywhere near this level of passion.

Think if, for some reason, they decided to outlaw pool cues or model airplanes or bonsai trees or whatever. Yeah, there would be some grumbling and calls of outrage, but I can't imagine it would be anywhere near this amount.

It's just phenomenal.


None of those other things are mentioned directly in the Constitution.

As some of our founding fathers recognized, modern nation states have two ways of solving problems: throwing money at them, and throwing armed (male) bodies at them...both, sometimes, without their consent.

Quite a lot of people think it "can't happen today", yet even a cursory glance at US history indicates that may well be wishful thinking.

You can, in fact, be dropped onto a battlefield with very little training if the shiat REALLY hits the fan. Quite legally, too...check out the federal definition of 'militia.'

Good luck learning how to shoot a military rifle under combat conditions.

That's why I support gun ownership, not of handguns, but of weapons similar to whatever our military is currently using...these days, that means an AR15, for example, is not only reasonable, but just about the MOST reasonable weapon for a "civilian" to own, outside of a hunting rifle for feeding his family.

Is a draft likely? No. Just ask anyone in 1913, I'm sure they'd agree :)

Impossible? Also no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States
 
2013-01-12 09:30:14 AM  
I'm no lawyer--I just play one on TV--but it seems to me this guy's statements really do constitute "terroristic threats."

Link

He should be in jail.
 
2013-01-12 09:45:28 AM  

joness0154: Uberdeity: joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.

I will take that free month thank you: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/ research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/

Again. Stop reading newspapers like the Daily fail and learn to find the actual data source. You'll go far.

That chart doesn't show before 2006. Last I checked, I requested statistics that encompass the time since their gun ban was enacted in the late 90s. I know reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your or dbaggins' strong suit...


So a link to the home office isn't good enough for you. In fact, you linked data from prior to that 2006. Why should I do it too? Can you only read it if I give it to you? You asked for proof of a decline. I gave it to you in the form of the most recent numbers compared to the numbers you gave. But just so you can't move the goal posts again:

This link shows the rates from 1996 to 2007 (you can then look to my other numbers to see if the rates have gone down either further) Link

Now do I need to get you the numbers for before 1996? Since you can look at how effective it is over 20 farking years since it was implemented. And I doubt even you would argue that MORE gun violence happened as a result of the restrictions... and you will find in the chart I gave you that the majority of "gun violence" on the uptick is "air weapons"; i.e pellet guns.

Also this is the definition of "gun violence": Gun violence defined literally means the use of a firearm to threaten or inflict violence or harm.

Now do I have to do more work for you or are you finally willing to shut up, accept data that gun violence on the whole is trending downward in the UK and you owe me a Month of TF?
 
2013-01-12 09:45:56 AM  

PunGent: SomeoneDumb: Not that it matters, but it keeps striking me as odd how much some gun owners care about a possession. I can't think of a single other item, something we buy or possess. that has anywhere near this level of passion.

Think if, for some reason, they decided to outlaw pool cues or model airplanes or bonsai trees or whatever. Yeah, there would be some grumbling and calls of outrage, but I can't imagine it would be anywhere near this amount.

It's just phenomenal.

None of those other things are mentioned directly in the Constitution.

As some of our founding fathers recognized, modern nation states have two ways of solving problems: throwing money at them, and throwing armed (male) bodies at them...both, sometimes, without their consent.

Quite a lot of people think it "can't happen today", yet even a cursory glance at US history indicates that may well be wishful thinking.

You can, in fact, be dropped onto a battlefield with very little training if the shiat REALLY hits the fan. Quite legally, too...check out the federal definition of 'militia.'

Good luck learning how to shoot a military rifle under combat conditions.

That's why I support gun ownership, not of handguns, but of weapons similar to whatever our military is currently using...these days, that means an AR15, for example, is not only reasonable, but just about the MOST reasonable weapon for a "civilian" to own, outside of a hunting rifle for feeding his family.

Is a draft likely? No. Just ask anyone in 1913, I'm sure they'd agree :)

Impossible? Also no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States


I didn't think there could possibly be a pro-gun argument more tenuous than the "overthrowing tyrants" one, but there you have it.
 
<