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.

(Politico)   Bill Clinton to Democrats: Don't trivialize gun culture   (politico.com) divider line 1115
    More: Advice, Bill Clinton, gun culture, Democrats, GOP House  
•       •       •

16582 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2013 at 5:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 08:14:04 AM  
No one is trivializing something that kills thousands of Americans a year. If anything, the pro-gun people are trivializing it.
 
2013-01-20 08:14:35 AM  

doglover: Alphax: Is that really something you want to fight for?

Not per se.

Guns are specifically mentioned as a right in the Constitution. I wouldn't mind a licensing process, like cars, even. But I'm dead set against bans of any kind.

Actually, a gun license would be a great idea. Just strike down the machine gun ban and add a licensing process for each class of weapon. You go to the gun store, you got an H you can get handguns. You got an L you can get long rifles. You got an M, you can get a machine gun. You got a little radiation symbol an $10B you can pick up a tactical nuke and a bomber to drop it from. (The President and certain Pentagon staffers will be the only people who have this mark on their license. Kind of a little joke.)

It would eliminate background checks and make everyone feel as safe as they already are. Plus it would be easy to find scapegoats when licensed guns made their way into crimes.


This sounds too reasonable and sensible. I'm sure the NRA and some gun nuts  won't like it for some reason.
 
2013-01-20 08:15:41 AM  
Gun control laws are nothing more than populace control laws. Slaves and subjects don't have the right to own guns. Free people do. Allowing citizens to have guns is not about hunting or protecting one's home. Citizens are allowed to have guns when the government is behaving in such a manner that they believe the guns will not be used on them. When politicians seek to control guns, we must ask ourselves why.

Governments do not write gun control laws to stop gun violence. No gun law ever proposed or enacted will stop an evil, deranged person from using whatever weapon he can devise to achieve his goal of destruction. Any thinking person can grasp that. Murder is against the law in every state, yet murder continues. Chicago is an example of the efficacy of gun laws. Some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation and yet the gun violence rate is one of the highest in the nation. Rather than 26 people killed in a single incident, however, there is a steady trickle of murder and injury day after day. That, apparently, makes it more palatable. Or, it makes it less useful in ginning up support for taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens.

One must ask himself why so many in government are so committed to taking away the 2nd Amendment. What are they afraid of?

One must also ask why so many of the governed are willing to give up their rights. What has convinced them that they do not deserve the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? Obama supporters are apparently willing to let him rewrite the Constitution as he desires. Would they be so complacent if GW Bush were still in office? Biden, during the campaign, accused Republicans of wanting to put blacks back in chains. Can people be put in chains when they are armed?

Gun control laws are not an answer to gun violence. Controlling evil in the public square is. Evil will never be brought fully under control. We can attempt to ameliorate it and we can defend ourselves against it. Just as the locks on our homes have become more sophisticated as thieves have become more sophisticated, so our defenses against evil must become more sophisticated - be they arms, psychological profiling, or other tools.

So Clinton is correct. Be very careful about taking rights away from gun owners. The gun culture is not about a bunch of rednecks drinking and plinking. It's about a people who believe that their self-determination is permitted by their self-reliance.

It's the anti-gun culture that we should fear. People who wish to abrogate their self-determination and look to the government for protection are the same people who want the government to provide for them; from food, clothing, shelter, health care to protection from evil.

If that is what a majority of voters want, that is what they will get. But when government controls every facet of life in this country, the American Experiment will have failed and we will descend into yet one more failing socialist experiment.
 
2013-01-20 08:16:08 AM  

Mrtraveler01: unamused: PS.  The idiotic crap the pubbies come out with regarding rape is to try and close the rape baby loophole which allows women to avoid sensible abortion laws.

Because as we know, this is a serious and chronic problem.

/rolls eyes
//"sensible abortion laws" my ass


I know; it sounds just as stupid as "sensible gun laws."  I planned it that way.
 
2013-01-20 08:16:19 AM  

GAT_00: Pray 4 Mojo: Remember farkers... "gun nut"... "small penis"... "Rambo fantasy"...

These things you say... they make Bill Clinton sad.

And?  Nobody declared that Clinton was right about everything.  And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.


Exactly. Gun culture SHOULD be trivialized and mocked.

We're supposed to say "yeah, first graders are getting shot, but we can offend gun lovers because it might cost some dem congressmen their seats"?!? If the dems and Obama don't show balls on this issue, they're worthless.
 
2013-01-20 08:17:50 AM  

doglover: gadian: Yes, guns are for killing. That is their purpose

No. Guns accelerate projectiles with expanding gas out of a tube. What you do with the projectiles is up to you.

I like target shooting. It's harmless fun and there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to have an AR-15 and a banana clip because I've never done anything violent to anyone in my life that wasn't part of a sport and controlled. I've never even shot a squirrel, and god knows that's a common enough rite of passage for children with their first .22 or pellet gun all over PA.

Yes, you can also shoot living things. But that's merely a technicality. There's no mental gymnastics required to say you can shoot other things, because as a lifelong shooter other things are all I've ever shot or thought about shooting.


So you are saying that guns were not invented to kill? Really? That is why they were invented, and why they are improved on constantly. The power to kill something is the sole reason they are around. Just because you can use them for something else doent mean the nature and purpose chages. I have a bunch of books in the trunk of my car. Are you saying a car is just a bookshelf that can be used to drive around, but thats not why is was made?
 
2013-01-20 08:18:15 AM  
doglover,
Guns aren't evil, people are.


I completely agree. Let's train a high functioning monkey, more intelligent then average. Let the monkey shoot a few watermelons. Don't bother with mercy or put your hands up sort of thing.

Then let's put the monkey in Wayne LaPierre's home, doors locked, with a few 30 round magazines. We trained the monkey to swap magazines.

Let's see how that turns out.

/Thank You Eddie Izzard.
 
2013-01-20 08:19:47 AM  
Bill Clinton is pretty smart.
 
2013-01-20 08:22:30 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Yep, guns he got in VA in a pawn shop and ordered online even though he was mentally unfit to own a gun.


Pawn shops need a Federal Firearms License to sell guns. They are required to perform background checks, just like standard "gun shops".

Ordering guns online doesn't mean that one gets the gun shipped to their house -- it's more like "ship to store" services available from a lot of merchants in that one buys the gun online, the gun is shipped to the local gun shop (they have to get a copy of the dealer's license and can verify its validity on the ATF site), and one goes through the background check there. It's a useful thing when the local gun shop or their regular distributors don't have something in stock (I'm a lefty and many shops don't have lefty-specific rifles due to the low volume of sales).

Bill_Z_Bub: However it does beg the question why


I rather like the AR platform because it's easy to customize and adjust for specific needs. I'm 6'0" and my wife is 5'4" -- we can both shoot the same rifle comfortably because the stock is adjustable. She has a history of carpal tunnel issues with her wrists and finds the pistol grip to be more comfortable than the more traditional stock. I like the fact that I can pop off the standard .223 upper and put on a .22LR upper for cheap target practice, and that pretty much all the internal parts are user-maintainable -- I don't need to go to a gunsmith to have a match-grade trigger installed or to change calibers. I like the modularity and ease of maintenance/service -- to use a computer analogy, it's the "custom-built PC" of rifles, compared to more appliance-like guns that aren't really meant to be used in anything but the default configuration.

I've never understood all the "tacticool" stuff that people do with their firearms, but they don't really harm anyone, so why not?
 
2013-01-20 08:22:56 AM  

Mr. Right: Gun control laws are nothing more than populace control laws.


Oh boy...here we go...

Mr. Right: Citizens are allowed to have guns when the government is behaving in such a manner that they believe the guns will not be used on them.


People still keep fantasizing this moment huh?

Mr. Right: Chicago is an example of the efficacy of gun laws. Some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation and yet the gun violence rate is one of the highest in the nation.


Cities like Detroit also have numbers that high but not as strict gun laws. There has to be more behind this than simple talking points.

Mr. Right: What has convinced them that they do not deserve the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government?


They're not delusional?

Mr. Right: People who wish to abrogate their self-determination and look to the government for protection are the same people who want the government to provide for them; from food, clothing, shelter, health care to protection from evil.


Or tax breaks for that competitors might not get and would only benefit their particular industry (because they're so special and all)....oh wait...that wasn't what you meant huh?

Mr. Right: If that is what a majority of voters want, that is what they will get. But when government controls every facet of life in this country, the American Experiment will have failed and we will descend into yet one more failing socialist experiment.


Funny'd
 
2013-01-20 08:25:49 AM  

doglover: Alphax: Is that really something you want to fight for?

Not per se.

Guns are specifically mentioned as a right in the Constitution. I wouldn't mind a licensing process, like cars, even. But I'm dead set against bans of any kind.

Actually, a gun license would be a great idea. Just strike down the machine gun ban and add a licensing process for each class of weapon. You go to the gun store, you got an H you can get handguns. You got an L you can get long rifles. You got an M, you can get a machine gun. You got a little radiation symbol an $10B you can pick up a tactical nuke and a bomber to drop it from. (The President and certain Pentagon staffers will be the only people who have this mark on their license. Kind of a little joke.)

It would eliminate background checks and make everyone feel as safe as they already are. Plus it would be easy to find scapegoats when licensed guns made their way into crimes.


Before the revolution printing presses also had to be licensed. By it's very nature a license implies something that is not a right. You don't have a right to drive for example.

The only purpose of a license is to restrict something. If guns are licensed than your rights are being denied. It's no different than trying to license a printing press.
 
2013-01-20 08:27:15 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I still don't think limiting the size of a magazine = infringement of 2nd Amendment rights.


It's a little complicated.

Basically, the right to bear the best arms one could was a fact of life back then because America was a war on all fronts. The Canadians were still loyal British, and their allies the Indians were up there with them. The Spanish were doing things in the Caribbean. The natives to the west were not keen on the pale faces who kept pushing into their turf. And to top it off, the British themselves were still the biggest Empire this globe has ever seen and they ruled the waves.

So it was almost a given that someone was gonna attack your area at some point and the Continental Army wouldn't be able to get there in time to help. So the colonies wouldn't sign off on anything until they got the right to arm themselves.

There's also the fact that in English history, hence in American history, we've practiced the art of perpetual training for times of war. In ye olden days, England found longbowmen were brutally effective against heavy cavalry. The only problem? It takes years to be able to use the English longbow with any skill. So they made bow practice mandatory for all men. The result? Well, just look into the history of the British two finger salute. The French were so decimated by the archers that any archer or suspected archer had their right hands maimed. Lifetimes of training work.

What's that got to do with the second amendment? Military guns are ALWAYS expensive. The old smoothbore muskets were much heavier duty weapons than the rifles civilians liked to use. But, a gun's a gun. A boy who grows up hunting with a rifle could really sling a musket around, too. That's true even to this day. Someone who knows how to hit a moving target with a .22 will be that much better at using a deck mounted .50 cal on a destroyer to take out a pirate speed boat off Somalia.

So basically, while you're not gonna overthrow any governments with an AR-15 and a 100 round beta-mag, there's no reason not to let responsible people have one for shiats and giggles because learning how to deal with jams and put multiple rounds into a target as quickly as is possible to do safely as a boy might one day translate into Little Johnny Smith saving the life of someone in his squad out in some war zone after he joins up to get that GI Bill.
 
2013-01-20 08:27:29 AM  

onyxruby: If guns are licensed than your rights are being denied.


What about permits?
 
2013-01-20 08:28:39 AM  

Mrtraveler01: unamused: abhorrent1: BigBooper: That top gun is not a Bushmaster .223.

Sorry you're correct. It's a Vepr-Pioneer. It is a .223 though so the point still stands. Throw a different stock on it and you have virtually identical weapons. So go ahead a limit magazine size. If nothing else it'll inconvenience spree killers by making them carry 4 or 5 mags instead of 2.

The champion is still Cho, who carried handguns.

Yep, guns he got in VA in a pawn shop and ordered online even though he was mentally unfit to own a gun.


He was never adjudicated unfit to own a gun.
Even if you buy guns online, you have to do a background check.
 
2013-01-20 08:30:44 AM  

doglover: So basically, while you're not gonna overthrow any governments with an AR-15 and a 100 round beta-mag, there's no reason not to let responsible people have one for shiats and giggles because learning how to deal with jams and put multiple rounds into a target as quickly as is possible to do safely as a boy might one day translate into Little Johnny Smith saving the life of someone in his squad out in some war zone after he joins up to get that GI Bill.


I can agree with that.

I will say that banning assault weapons and restricting the size of a magazine really aren't the things I'm interested in.

I'm more interested in seeing what can be done to regulate who can get a gun and add some teeth to some enforcement mechanisms that have been weakened by Republicans in the past.
 
2013-01-20 08:31:08 AM  

violentsalvation: vernonFL: violentsalvation: Same with airplanes, I guess.

No, airplanes are made for transporting people from one place to another.

Guns are made for moving a small projectile very quickly into  the body of another person in order to incapacitate or kill them.

No, guns are made for moving a small projectile from the barrel to ______________.


Don't Stop....
 
2013-01-20 08:32:00 AM  

Mrtraveler01: shotglasss: Ilmarinen: unamused: doglover: violentsalvation: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.

He knows as good as anyone how that crap swayed the midterms. He knows it was a useless law, and it cost them a bunch of (D) seats.

And people will post some Washington Post opinion piece about how that isn't a concern anymore.. Uh huh. Wait and see, you're giving the GOP CPR with every gun control speech.

This is the big thing for me. I HATE the GOP as a rule, but it I will have to vote Republican to keep guns around (and no bolt action .22 long rifles with 5 round magazines aren't the guns I'm talking about) I'll do it. The Democrats only get my vote because they've had slightly better policies for me thus far. This is rapidly becoming not the case.

THIS

You guys would vote for rape and bigotry just to keep your guns?

It's only 6 AM but you just won the stupidest post of the day, hands down. Congrats, bigot.

How is he a bigot again?

I will agree the GOP doesn't endorse Rape per se, they just are very insensitive about it (ie: sex out of wedlock is just as bad as rape, Rape victims never get pregnant, etc.).

And I guess the GOP has turned down the rhetoric it had against Muslims like they did in 2010. That and that stupid law in AZ that got struck down which would've allowed police to stop and question anyone who "looks like an illegal immigrant".

That and the fact that the economy seems to do worse under a Republican than it does under a Democrat, just look at what happened when Bush was President, we had the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression largely because of some deregulation drafted and championed by the GOP back in the 1990's.


The economy does poorly when Democrats run Congress, better when Republicans run it. Check history.
 
2013-01-20 08:32:26 AM  

Alphax: unamused: Clinton is trying to tell you idiots how not to be seen as enemies of the Constitution.

Trying not to slam my face through the desk..


By all means, slam away.....
 
2013-01-20 08:32:32 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: If you are really, really concerned for your your safety, and the safety of your children, vote to ban alcohol.

When someone walks into a school and drinks a classroom of kids to death, maybe I'll consider it.

That's the insidious thing about alcohol. It will have killed far more children this year then that shooting. It just does it quietly, one or two at a time. perfect killing machine. It manages to stay just under the radar.
Your post is proof of that.

Yes, all those homicides by alcohol really slip under the radar. It's worrying. That's why I carry a concealed flask. Who knows, that stranger might be carrying a beer or even an assault tequila. I can't believe Obama is standing in the way of putting emergency bourbon stations in every school.


And people like you are why there can not be a reasonable debate. If I shoot and kill you, it's homicide. If I kill you with a car while driving drunk, it's a homicide. Both have the end result. Someone is dead.

2010 numbers:

Number of Gun Homicides: 11,078

People who died in drunk driving crashes: 10,228

Both numbers are far too great, and yet we are only aggressively addressing one of them.

I'm not seriously proposing a ban on alcohol. I'm making a point that there are other things out there killing people.
The public is fed crap by the media. The media makes a living selling crap. It's a lot scarier to hold up a gun and say it's a killing monster, then to hold up a bottle of vodka and say the same.
 
2013-01-20 08:32:33 AM  

Mrtraveler01: onyxruby: If guns are licensed than your rights are being denied.

What about permits?


I suspect he doesn't like licenses, permits, certificates, go-aheads, cards, notes, or thoughtful glances towards any method of registering weapons.
 
2013-01-20 08:33:01 AM  
FTA:  "Clinton said that an National Rifle Association lobbyist threatened him over his veto in the state house, saying that the group would cause problems for his upcoming presidential campaign in rural states like Texas.

"Right there in the lobby," Clinton said. "They thought they could talk to governors that way.

"I knew I was getting older when I didn't hit him," Clinton said. Clinton recalls telling the NRA lobbyist, "If that's the way you feel, you get your gun, I'll get my gun and I'll see you in Texas."


I LOL'd.
 
2013-01-20 08:33:13 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I'm more interested in seeing what can be done to regulate who can get a gun and add some teeth to some enforcement mechanisms that have been weakened by Republicans in the past.


Pretty much all sensible people agree, though the devil is in the details (as it always is).

The big disagreement seems to come about when people try lumping in sensible things with really extreme things like gun bans that have no real effect on crime. Since a lot of people are opposed to gun bans and ineffective restrictions on their rights, tempers flare and nothing productive gets done.
 
2013-01-20 08:33:24 AM  
onyxruby
Before the revolution printing presses also had to be licensed. By it's very nature a license implies something that is not a right. You don't have a right to drive for example.
The only purpose of a license is to restrict something. If guns are licensed than your rights are being denied. It's no different than trying to license a printing press.

It's almost like something was wrong when a high functioning autistic semi-adult adult can go around a grade school and kill 21 students with a random tool of some sort, and that tools needs re-evaluation.
 
2013-01-20 08:33:29 AM  

Enemabag Jones: And let's consider basic psych evaluations as a precondition.

It isn't perfect, but would screen out nutbags who clearly don't get empathy.


...and thus would be obliterated in court as violations of both the 2nd and 14th amendments. Banning otherwise law-abiding citizens who've never made any overt threats but fail to pass an arbitrary mental examination from owning or shooting a gun is just as bad as a blanket ban on guns in the first place, and it's dangerously close to thoughtcrime.

The real question is, can we even legislate our way into weeding out those who would do that sort of thing without trampling on anyone's rights? Because it doesn't look like we can.
 
2013-01-20 08:34:39 AM  

Jim_Callahan: mksmith: Handguns are, in fact, designed with "persons" in mind. They're intended to provide killing efficiency. You don't hunt deer or ducks with a handgun.

They're used for backup for most things you hunt with a rifle, as well, if you don't get a clean shot the first time. Trying to take a mercy-shot at a deer that's flopping around with a rifle from close range can be pretty awkward, and once you wound your prey you're ethically obligated to finish the job.

They're also very popular target shooting guns, because in all frankness if you set your rifle ranges far enough out that a trained person can't pretty much nail it every time then the variation is damn near pure luck, where pistol has more skill-dependent variation in accuracy. Pistol's an olympic sport, for instance.

So, in summary... nope.


All the way back to the flintlock pistol, the handgun was designed as an antipersonnel weapon, not a back-up tool for deer-hunters. You can go fishing with hand grenades, too, but that's not their purpose.

IAC, it's not hunters I especially have a problem with, . . . even though I don't understand people who think killing things is "fun". My grandfather was an avid duck hunter -- and my grandmother got really tired of plucking the damn things, because, to him, the ethics of hunting insisted you ate what you killed. My father was a career army officer but we never had firearms in the house, with the exception of his mandatory sidearm, which we kids NEVER were allowed to go near.

But people like my father and grandfather were extremely safety-conscious and would NOT have approved of untrained civilians swaggering around in populated areas with military-style weapons over their shoulder. I was in combat myself in the '60s, and after I got home and married and had kids, I had no weapons of any kind in the house, either. Still don't.

My problem is with the gun-worshipers -- and that's exactly what they are -- who buy only assault weapons (or as near to that ideal as they can get), and in large quantities. They have to have large-capacities magazines. They have to have hollow-point cartridges. They wear camo underwear. They used to rave about the dangers of a Communist invasion. Now they rave about the government coming in black helicopters to "take away their rights" -- which they interpret as carrying any weapon they like, anywhere they like (including inside schools), and the hell with everyone else. That's the definition of a sociopath. The very idea of licensing their weapons and checking their background for criminal activity and mental health issues, they regard as an infringement.

These people are NOTHING but dangerous. We are the only society in the history of the world that thinks it proper to arm the mentally ill. And if I ever decide to acquire a handgun, it will be to protect myself from people like them.
 
2013-01-20 08:36:08 AM  
If Democrats couldn't patronize everyone with opposing viewpoints, what would they do with their lives?
 
2013-01-20 08:36:27 AM  

Enemabag Jones: abhorrent1,
These guns are the same, functionally.
Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?

I am game. Granted you can swap out hardware to a greater or lesser degree on either, or just get a mini-14 if you are sick fark that wants to take out a grade school or a movie theater.

Perceptive.
1-One has wood, the other is black and evil.
2-One has a flash hider at the end of the barrel, making it more taticool.

Real:
1-One has a scope indicating it might be for hunting, the other has iron sites making it less useful for hunting. Spray and Pray might mean something to some people.
2-One has smaller magazine indicating it is probably used for hunting, the other has a large magazine making it more capable for battle and more scary in the media after 21 grade school kids just were shot. Please argue the 30 round is useful for hunting.


Why is not useful for hunting?
 
2013-01-20 08:38:20 AM  

heypete: Mrtraveler01: I'm more interested in seeing what can be done to regulate who can get a gun and add some teeth to some enforcement mechanisms that have been weakened by Republicans in the past.

Pretty much all sensible people agree, though the devil is in the details (as it always is).

The big disagreement seems to come about when people try lumping in sensible things with really extreme things like gun bans that have no real effect on crime. Since a lot of people are opposed to gun bans and ineffective restrictions on their rights, tempers flare and nothing productive gets done.


I would agree with dropping the gun bans if we focus more on strengthing background checks and keeping better track of who gun stores sell guns to.
 
2013-01-20 08:38:25 AM  

The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.



Aaaand that was the year he lost the Senate to the Repubs.

He remembers, and is warning of a replay.
 
2013-01-20 08:39:00 AM  

Mrtraveler01:
Or tax breaks for that competitors might not get and would only benefit their particular industry (because they're so special and all)....oh wait...that wasn't what you meant huh?



Your "response" is nothing more than a reiteration of failed, leftist talking points. But the above statement stands out for its incoherence, irrationality, and irrelevance. Congratulations!
 
2013-01-20 08:39:01 AM  
shotglasss
The economy does poorly when Democrats run Congress, better when Republicans run it. Check history.


Yeah, because when Iisten to Hannity I know that I can expect the job-creators to do their job-creating when the Bush tax cuts are in effect.

Look at what happens with deficit spending comparing Republicans presidents to Democratic presidents.

Look at the recent boom and bust cycle comparing Republican Presidents to Democratic Presidents.
 
2013-01-20 08:39:17 AM  

LL316: If Democrats Republicans couldn't patronize everyone with opposing viewpoints, what would they do with their lives?


FTFY

Not seeing your point here to be honest with you.
 
2013-01-20 08:39:39 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I'm more interested in seeing what can be done to regulate who can get a gun and add some teeth to some enforcement mechanisms that have been weakened by Republicans in the past.


Well, I think Alligators have a lot of teeth.

If we just collect dead alligators from zoological parks we could get lots of teeth and glue them to the parchment.

I'm thinking this isn't what you were talking about.
 
2013-01-20 08:39:40 AM  
Wow I must have really changed - I could not stand Clinton when he was president - hated everything about him, was glad when them impeached him. Now I kinda wish he was back in politics again... wtf is going on?
 
2013-01-20 08:39:55 AM  
Fair enough. But the pro-gun crowd should stop trivializing mass shootings by claiming the victims didn't even exist, and that they're made up to promote gun safety laws.
 
2013-01-20 08:40:28 AM  

Mr. Right: But the above statement stands out for its incoherence, irrationality, and irrelevance.


The fact you said this after that irrational and frankly incoherent post you made earlier is HILARIOUS to me.

Thanks buddy, I needed a good laugh this morning.
 
2013-01-20 08:41:17 AM  

Mrtraveler01: onyxruby: If guns are licensed than your rights are being denied.

What about permits?


What about a valid driver license and a background check to vote?  We have already established that a right can be restricted by a background check.  Everyone should have to pass NICS to vote.
Equal rights.
 
2013-01-20 08:41:31 AM  

Amos Quito: The_Sponge: ORLY Slick Willy?  Then maybe you should not have signed that stupid "assault weapons" ban into law back in 1994.


Aaaand that was the year he lost the Senate to the Repubs.

He remembers, and is warning of a replay.


How is polling for these gun laws doing now compared to the mid 1990's?
 
2013-01-20 08:42:06 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Sirboss37: It's simple... Obama probably knows it is not a good idea politically to just "executive action" the awb or the clip limit, so he threw those to congress

Um, Executive orders also cannot do the things the clip limit and AWB would like to do, those require laws.

... what do you think executive authority involves, exactly? Because EOs are pretty much limited to the interpretation of the law by members of the executive branch, the creation and organization of executive departments, and the general dispostion of military forces in ways taht don't trespass on congressional authority (he can't declare war, for instance).


Hence the quotes around executive action...
 
2013-01-20 08:42:07 AM  

doglover: Mrtraveler01: I'm more interested in seeing what can be done to regulate who can get a gun and add some teeth to some enforcement mechanisms that have been weakened by Republicans in the past.

Well, I think Alligators have a lot of teeth.

If we just collect dead alligators from zoological parks we could get lots of teeth and glue them to the parchment.

I'm thinking this isn't what you were talking about.


cdn.styleforum.net

/Probably should've chosen better wording
 
2013-01-20 08:42:33 AM  

Shae123: Enemabag Jones: abhorrent1,
These guns are the same, functionally.
Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?

I am game. Granted you can swap out hardware to a greater or lesser degree on either, or just get a mini-14 if you are sick fark that wants to take out a grade school or a movie theater.

Perceptive.
1-One has wood, the other is black and evil.
2-One has a flash hider at the end of the barrel, making it more taticool.

Real:
1-One has a scope indicating it might be for hunting, the other has iron sites making it less useful for hunting. Spray and Pray might mean something to some people.
2-One has smaller magazine indicating it is probably used for hunting, the other has a large magazine making it more capable for battle and more scary in the media after 21 grade school kids just were shot. Please argue the 30 round is useful for hunting.

Why is not useful for hunting?


If you need 30 rounds to take down a deer, you should take up farming instead.
 
2013-01-20 08:43:44 AM  

unamused: What about a valid driver license to vote?


You mean something like Voter ID?
 
2013-01-20 08:44:32 AM  
IlGreven
...and thus would be obliterated in court as violations of both the 2nd and 14th amendments. Banning otherwise law-abiding citizens who've never made any overt threats but fail to pass an arbitrary mental examination from owning or shooting a gun is just as bad as a blanket ban on guns in the first place, and it's dangerously close to thoughtcrime.
The real question is, can we even legislate our way into weeding out those who would do that sort of thing without trampling on anyone's rights? Because it doesn't look like we can.


I would never questions your understanding the United States Constitution. I am sure you are the utmost scholar. The phrase right to bear arms means unlimited ownership of gun, I would not question that. Anyone can drive, people with multiple DWI's, medical conditions, people don't have any restrictions with regard to wearing lenses.

fark it, sorry I brought it up.
 
2013-01-20 08:44:40 AM  

unamused: We have already established that a right can be restricted by a background check.


You don't like background checks?

Even most sensible gun owners seem to be ok with that.
 
2013-01-20 08:45:12 AM  

mksmith: who buy only assault weapons (or as near to that ideal as they can get), and in large quantities.


Rifles like the AR-15 are very well-suited to competition and sporting purposes, and are extremely commonly used for those purposes.

Over the years, the gun culture has changed a bit: it used to be mostly about hunting and clay shooting and, while those sports are still common, different types of competition and other non-hunting shooting sports have increased significantly in popularity.

They have to have large-capacities magazines.

In general, such magazines have been the "standard" size for those firearms since they were first introduced for civilian sale.

Even with the increase in popularity of "assault weapons" and certain magazines, gun-related homicide rates have been going down for decades (and are at their lowest value since 1964). Mass shootings have pretty much remained constant in the last ~30 years. While they are certainly tragic, they remain very rare.

They have to have hollow-point cartridges.

What's wrong with hollow-points? They're more effective and less likely to overpenetrate their target, walls, etc. and pose a risk to bystanders than full metal jacket bullets. They're much less likely to penetrate body armor, such as worn by police, than FMJs.
 
2013-01-20 08:46:24 AM  

mittromneysdog: Fair enough. But the pro-gun crowd should stop trivializing mass shootings by claiming the victims didn't even exist, and that they're made up to promote gun safety laws.


Nobody sane is saying that. But don't forget Columbine and Virgina Tech were committed with weapons that fit the AWB. Those wouldn't be prevented.
 
2013-01-20 08:46:46 AM  

Sirboss37: It's simple... Obama probably knows it is not a good idea politically to just "executive action" the awb or the clip limit,


Well that and he knows that an Executive Order can't make new law - it only applies to directing the Executive Branch.

unamused: The champion is still Cho, who carried handguns.


Both of which he used nothing but standard capacity magazines with and which he purchased 30 days apart due to the VA law limiting him to one purchase a month.

He knew he wasn't going to meet any armed resistance, so he just brought two pistols and 19 magazines and reloaded.

Mrtraveler01: Yep, guns he got in VA in a pawn shop and ordered online even though he was mentally unfit to own a gun.


The state of Virginia didn't report the court holding over Cho's mental status because he wasn't actually committed. That's why he passed the NICS check. And he did pass, twice. Once for each handgun.
 
2013-01-20 08:47:39 AM  

doglover: mittromneysdog: Fair enough. But the pro-gun crowd should stop trivializing mass shootings by claiming the victims didn't even exist, and that they're made up to promote gun safety laws.

Nobody sane is saying that. But don't forget Columbine and Virgina Tech were committed with weapons that fit the AWB. Those wouldn't be prevented.


Which is exactly why I'm lukewarm to a renewed AWB.
 
2013-01-20 08:48:35 AM  

heili skrimsli: He knew he wasn't going to meet any armed resistance


Except campus police.
 
2013-01-20 08:50:29 AM  
unamused: What about a valid driver license and a background check to vote? We have already established that a right can be restricted by a background check. Everyone should have to pass NICS to vote.
Equal rights.


False Equivalence. Voting is not a Right. Voting is a Privilige.
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report