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  
•       •       •

16578 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 09:23:50 AM

numb3r5ev3n: 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.

I am of two minds on this (as I am with most things.) But I do think assault weapons belong in the hands of the military, any any hunter who needs high-capacity magazines is a shiatty hunter.

It's hard not to look down at folks who obviously harbor Red Dawn fantasies, and are willing to possibly endanger others for the sake of those fantasies. The problem is the gun business/gun lobby playing upon those fantasies in order to make a buck. The Red Dawn fantasies are unfortunately ingrained in our culture. The type of folks who keep bleating that we need access to high capacity magazines and assault weapons are not going to be convinced overnight (if at all) that we won't become a fascist dictatorship the very second gun reform is enacted - because a lot of them have been drinking the Kool-aid (via faux news, Free Republic, etc) that says we already are. They're not going to listen to anyone who tells them that other countries that have instituted assault weapons bans or full-on gun bans haven't imploded/become socialist/facist dictatorships, because in their minds, 'this is MURICA! goddammit.'

A lot of these people are folks who are willing to believe that Sandy Hook is a 'ZOMG GUBMINT CONSPIRACEE' rather than face the fact that we have a real problem in this country that needs to be addressed.

How do you reason with people like that?


Maybe some of those people think that tyranny can come from places besides the government, as in anarchy or from the mob (not the "Mob" proper). Maybe some people don't think a bunch of plutocrats and advocates of disarmament should have a say in how people choose to defend themselves, their families, and their property. If I want to own a gun for home defense, I don't want some gimped shotgun that the Brady Campaign has signed off on, I want an AK with two 30-rounders taped together. Maybe some of these people live far away from any police response, or think that the police have no obligation to provide any kind of protection. Maybe some of those people aren't afraid of Obama, despite his drone strikes and zealous continuation of George Bush's war on terror. Maybe they're afraid of who comes after who comes after Obama. Maybe people who oppose your gun control ideas (not really yours, but that's nit-picky) don't conform to your media-narrative stereotypes.
 
2013-01-20 09:24:56 AM

BullBearMS: Mrtraveler01: 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.

[dl.dropbox.com image 415x249]

You know how I know you know nothing of history?

Clinton not only led the fight to kill Glass Steagall, he also killed an attempt to regulate derivatives.  Here's the PBS Frontline episode detailing this.

Giving his Wall Street buddies exactly what they wanted has been very lucrative for Clinton.

Over the course of the next ten years after his Presidency, Clinton brought in roughly $8-10 million a year in speaking fees. In 2004, Clinton got $250,000 from Citigroup and $150,000 from Deutsche Bank. Goldman paid him $300,000 for two speeches, one in Paris. As the bubble peaked, in 2006, Clinton got $150,000 paydays each from Citigroup (twice), Lehman Brothers, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the National Association of Realtors. In 2007, it was Goldman again, twice, Lehman, Citigroup, and Merrill Lynch.


OUCH!

That was a cold slap in the face.

Well done.
 
2013-01-20 09:25:25 AM

dofus: And who puts a bench-rest scope on an AR? Kinda defeats the purpose, no?


Why? What's wrong with a telescopic sight on an AR? The angle's not so good, but it looks like the rifle might have one of the free-floated match barrels so it may be quite well-suited for precision shooting.

AR's are commonly used in all manner of shooting competitions, including the National Matches.
 
2013-01-20 09:25:26 AM

Mrtraveler01: heili skrimsli: He knew he wasn't going to meet any armed resistance

Except campus police.


Who, much like every other kind of police, can't possibly be everywhere. I don't know about where you went to university, but where I did, the university cops were almost never in any building other than the student union.

Enemabag Jones: In the case of critters, a .223/5.56 where you might want multiple rounds without a site required, the round is overkill.


They work great on coyotes and prairie dogs. Also, white tail deer in Pennsylvania are really not that much bigger than a large dog. They don't get much beyond about 170 lbs here. A 200 lb buck would be considered enormous.

Clearly you know as little about hunting as you do about firearms.
 
2013-01-20 09:27:05 AM
dofus,
hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 429x420]
[25.media.tumblr.com image 850x638]
She's doing it wrong.
And who puts a bench-rest scope on an AR? Kinda defeats the purpose, no?


Why not put an 18" barrel on that mug and you have a sniper rifle, which aka, could be called a hunting rifle.

/Not that it couldn't be replaced easily by a remington 700 by any other name.
 
2013-01-20 09:27:34 AM

doglover: mksmith: You don't hunt deer or ducks with a handgun.

You don't hunt people with them either. They're for target ranges and self defense. But self defense is so rare. I know a man who's owned a handgun of one kind or another for defense for 60 odd years and was a long haul trucker. He's never needed to use it. And violent crime rates were a lot higher back in his day. But our families have hung out and put a lot of holes in milk jugs together.

Guns aren't evil, people are.


hotdogprofits.com
 
2013-01-20 09:30:24 AM
heili skrimsli ,
They work great on coyotes and prairie dogs. Also, white tail deer in Pennsylvania are really not that much bigger than a large dog. They don't get much beyond about 170 lbs here. A 200 lb buck would be considered enormous.
Clearly you know as little about hunting as you do about firearms.

OK, I don't know about hunting in all regions of the country. Do you need that 30 round clip to do the job, or should it be done with a single shot?
 
2013-01-20 09:30:38 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: No one talks about the 'alcohol culture'. Why is that? If I own a gun, somehow Liberals think I'm a crazed monster. But it's cool if I go out drinking with friends.
There is a far, far greater greater chance that I could have one to many drinks, and kill someone with my car, then killing someone with a gun.


THIS^(6.02x10^23)
 
2013-01-20 09:30:51 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: 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.

You apparently can't tell the difference between the use of an intoxicant to impair oneself and the use of a weapon to kill other people. Your analogy would be more sensible if you said you wanted to ban CARS because they are used to kill people. That would be stupid, but not as incoherent as comparing alcohol to guns.

And you compare drunk-driving homicide to gun homicide! Drunk driving is criminal even when no ...


And you join the list of fark morons.
 
2013-01-20 09:32:25 AM

doglover: Day_Old_Dutchie: unfortunately, it's going to be pretty near impossible to get rid of the "gun culture"

It's just too ingrained into the heads of the gullible and others lacking critical thinking skills due to lobbying by a business with an extremely profitable business model.

And those in the industry (and their goddamn greedy bastard shareholders!) and the politicians who benefit from the lobbying don't give two shiats about people dying from their products.

Just like the tobacco industry.

Fark these disgusting excuses for humanity with a red-hot poker.

And this is the kind of vitriol that's going to hand the senate back to the GOP.


Why? He's not wrong, and most people agree with him.
 
2013-01-20 09:34:13 AM

Enemabag Jones: 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.


Yes, I'm sure we'll be comforted by the fact that a small percentage of the population can't own guns, due to some arbitrary trait. Also happened in a European country about 80 years ago, where some mustachioed guy made that arbitrary trait practicing Judaism.

/Hey, he already gave up the argument, so it's not a Godwin.
 
2013-01-20 09:35:31 AM

Enemabag Jones: The point .223/5.56, which are comparable except in specific older rifles. These are lesser but have a 'tumble effect' designed to injure people people and take resources of medics. It is argable that these are less effective the ak47 round, except it was replaced in about 1974 with some comparable round with the ak74. [not a typo].


The "tumble effect" is specific to the design of the particular bullet loaded into the cartridge. It is not universal to the .223/5.56 cartridge. The vast majority of .223 ammunition won't tumble unless you've been buying milsurp.

Enemabag Jones: The .22 mag is very specific and not used as much, I don't know that much about it, but it is a lesser common round for self-defense against homo-sapiens in revolvers and semi-autos.


The .22mag is very common in revolvers. It's not common in semi-autos because it's rimmed design makes feeding unreliable... unless your firearm is manufactured by Kel-Tec. It's not common for self defense because it's more expensive than the easier to find 9mm and way more expensive than common .22.

Enemabag Jones: The .22 lr is a cheap critter, fun and target round that is portable and low-powered round that has very little to do with the.223.


Low-powered enough that it's used to kill game animals, including deer, and happens to be one of the most commonly used rounds for criminal activity?

This is the problem we run into when people try to classify firearms base on perceived power. Get shot in the face with a .223 or a .22, you're still dead. Ask the kids at VT about that.

I always have a standing challenge for people that dismiss the lowly .22. Can I shoot you then? Appropriate waivers to be signed ahead of time of course.

Have yet to have anyone take me up on the offer...

Enemabag Jones: The .223 is designed to take out creature in the 150 pound range so it may work against wild boars but was designed to take out other humans. Real hunting rounds blow up skulls and watermelons.

j

A .45-70 will pass clean through a watermelon without causing it to explode, yet I doubt you will find many people that will say the .45-70 isn't a "hunting round". Violent expansion of water filled objects such as skulls or watermelons is a function of the velocity of the bullet and the shock wave it creates in a non-compressible substance (water). Slower velocity bullets won't create a shock wave... but will kill just as well.

BTW: A .223 round will detonate a watermelon just fine... so it must be a "real hunting round".... right?

Enemabag Jones: Did I pass your exam?


Not even close.
 
2013-01-20 09:36:31 AM

Enemabag Jones: Do you need that 30 round clip to do the job, or should it be done with a single shot?


It's irrelevant: most states already impose magazine capacity limitations when hunting.

There's no functional difference between a Browning BAR with a 5-shot magazine or an AR with a 5-shot magazine when hunting. They both fire the same cartridge at the same velocity. The difference is merely one of appearance and ergonomic features (like an adjustable stock or different shaped grip).
 
2013-01-20 09:36:36 AM

abhorrent1: These guns are the same, functionally.

[i184.photobucket.com image 502x393]

Can someone please explain to me why the one on top one is okay but the bottom one is the boogie man?


Well you asked so:

Collapsable stock
Pistol grip
flame suppressor thing (forgot the right name)
magazine too large
 
2013-01-20 09:38:00 AM

Enemabag Jones: heili skrimsli ,
They work great on coyotes and prairie dogs. Also, white tail deer in Pennsylvania are really not that much bigger than a large dog. They don't get much beyond about 170 lbs here. A 200 lb buck would be considered enormous.
Clearly you know as little about hunting as you do about firearms.

OK, I don't know about hunting in all regions of the country. Do you need that 30 round clip to do the job, or should it be done with a single shot?


There are already rules regarding magazine (clip is not the word you're looking for) capacity for hunting. Those are part of the Fish & Game Commission regulations, and have fark-all to do with whether or not I can buy 30 round magazines for other purposes that are not hunting.

Or are you suggesting that the right to keep and bear firearms only applies to those that can legally be used for hunting? Because if so, Article 1 Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the SCOTUS disagree with you.
 
2013-01-20 09:38:19 AM

Alphax: doglover: Day_Old_Dutchie: unfortunately, it's going to be pretty near impossible to get rid of the "gun culture"

It's just too ingrained into the heads of the gullible and others lacking critical thinking skills due to lobbying by a business with an extremely profitable business model.

And those in the industry (and their goddamn greedy bastard shareholders!) and the politicians who benefit from the lobbying don't give two shiats about people dying from their products.

Just like the tobacco industry.

Fark these disgusting excuses for humanity with a red-hot poker.

And this is the kind of vitriol that's going to hand the senate back to the GOP.

Why? He's not wrong, and most people agree with him.


Most gun manufacturers are privately owned, they don't have shareholders. The NRA is a user group, it's the definition of grassroots and is often at odds with the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is the actual lobbying arm of manufacturers. Manufacturing is not "extremely profitable" in this country, even if what you're selling is in demand. Gun shops are profitable at the moment because of an artificial bubble, but they are normally just as profitable as any other specialty retailer.
 
2013-01-20 09:39:23 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.


The stupid...it burns.
 
2013-01-20 09:39:56 AM
All extremism is bad. Gun nuts and anti-gun nuts are both farked.

/later
 
2013-01-20 09:40:17 AM

heypete: Mrtraveler01: So all that being said, why aren't Background Checks unconstitutional then if they are an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights?

My position is that it isn't because the courts have already ruled that it is illegal for people who are convicted criminals or have been adjudicated as being a danger to themselves or others (that is, they've lost their rights after due process) to possess firearms.

The background check is merely an enforcement mechanism for existing laws against prohibited people owning firearms.

You fill out a form, the dealer checks with the background check system, and gets a "PROCEED" (ok to continue with the sale), "DENY" (the person is prohibited from buying firearms and the transaction must not proceed), or "DELAY" (something requires additional checking, such as someone having a similar name and birthdate to a prohibited person or an error with the system) response.

Other than the "DELAY" response, the check takes place in seconds and so doesn't really put any sort of burden on the law-abiding person.

Of course, the barrier imposed by the background check is not insurmountable for criminals, as criminals have demonstrated by illegally acquiring firearms for years, but it does fix the easy problem of "how do we stop criminals from acquiring firearms from licensed dealers" and drives them towards illegal sources like straw purchasers (who should be nailed to the wall) and other such sources, thus allowing the authorities to better focus on the illegal sources.


Makes sense.
 
2013-01-20 09:40:45 AM
Yes, yes, why would we want to trivialize a bunch of pussies. Seriously, please find something better to do, hicks.

//my desire (not demand) for you to do something else is in no way, shape or form a violation of your 2nd amendment rights, and if you think it is, you aren't a pussy, you are a retarded pussy.
 
2013-01-20 09:41:04 AM
IlGreven ,
Yes, I'm sure we'll be comforted by the fact that a small percentage of the population can't own guns, due to some arbitrary trait. Also happened in a European country about 80 years ago, where some mustachioed guy made that arbitrary trait practicing Judaism.
/Hey, he already gave up the argument, so it's not a Godwin.


Believe it or not I want to see the right of reasonable people to keep guns maintained. If assholes keep on blowing away grade schools with guns derived from the footprint of the mp-44 and the NRA is the only organization in the mix not giving an inch assholes in congress will find a way to remove it for a specific random set of people because the NRA would not give a farking inch for good people to keep them.

/If it comes down to say, per your example, Jews locked up in ghettos, or whatever, then the good people use the pistols to blow up our fellow countrymen in the back of their skulls because they chose the wrong side, then take their full auto weapons.
 
2013-01-20 09:41:43 AM

Mrtraveler01: So all that being said, why aren't Background Checks unconstitutional then if they are an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights?


Because they are looking for felons that have by definition lost their rights, therefore the 2nd amendment doesn't apply. If your read my other writing you'll also find that I'm pretty outspoken about the mentally ill on this issue as well.
 
2013-01-20 09:42:00 AM

Click Click D'oh: The vast majority of .223 ammunition won't tumble unless you've been buying milsurp.


It also depends on the velocity of the round in question: .223/5.56mm has significantly lower velocity out of shorter-barreled firearms and doesn't fragment reliably. The M855 mil-spec ammo (which is widely available as cheap target practice ammo) is also considerably less fragmentation-prone than the older M193.

Commercial .223, as you've noted, essentially doesn't fragment at all.
 
2013-01-20 09:42:12 AM

Mr. Right: Politicians' desire to control gun ownership has nothing to do with the mass killings, everything to do with control of the population.


Yep, the 2nd Amendment is the only thing keeping the US from turning into a Tyranny.

/rolls eyes
 
2013-01-20 09:42:45 AM

JRoo: hasty ambush: JRoo: hasty ambush:

Using children to further your political goals?

I've been told that's like something Obama and Hitler would do.

You mean like taking guns

Did the scary man frighten you? Don't worry little one, no one is coming to take your toys. We just have some grown-up things to work out.

Take your guns, go play.


Funny how demmocrats seem to be taking a lot of time dealig with this rather than those "grown-up" things. Obama has managed to fast track action on gun control but still has not acted on the budget, fiscal cliff or unempolyment etc. Suddenly it has become a priority..

Long-Term Unemployment Highest Since WWII

Got ahead and trivialaize:

"An astonishing 25% of all voters voted primarily on the gun issue." --Connie Chung, CBS News, November 10, 1994.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------
"Exit poll show data showed that more than a third of all voters who cast ballots Tuesday said they supported the National Rifle Association -- and two-thirds of those voters cast their ballots for Republican candidates." -- Washington Post, November 10, 1994, p. A33.

NRA Has 54% Favorable Image in U.S.

Obama approval rating at 48%

Poll: Majority of Young People Considering Gun Ownership

So please go ahead and make guns an election issue.
 
2013-01-20 09:42:51 AM

onyxruby: Mrtraveler01: So all that being said, why aren't Background Checks unconstitutional then if they are an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights?

Because they are looking for felons that have by definition lost their rights, therefore the 2nd amendment doesn't apply. If your read my other writing you'll also find that I'm pretty outspoken about the mentally ill on this issue as well.


How would you like to diagnose and manage this prohibition to the Mentally Ill?
 
2013-01-20 09:43:16 AM

adamgreeney: 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?


By that rational, yo-yos are only meant to kill things, despite the fact that an entire economy has sprung up around yo-yos that are less good at killing things.
 
2013-01-20 09:43:48 AM
FTFA: the issue of guns has a special emotional resonance in many rural states

I never understood that. Why? Why it is such an emotional subject? Guns aren't your family members or pets. They're no longer required in the hands of the average person so that the nation can protect itself from invaders and tyrants. Guns are a tool and/or plaything. They're essentially no different than a hammer, although far more deadly.

I find it bizarre that people get to emotionally invested in this. The only explanation that I can think of that approaches a rational one is that they feel that guns are important to their way of life. But they're not. Hunting for food, and not game, can make that argument. But even then damn near no one needs to hunt in order to stay alive anymore.

Some people would say, "It's emotional because people are trying to deny them a constitutional right. Wouldn't you get mad if someone tried to take your rights away." Well, for one, no reasonable person is trying to remove all guns. And for two, although some genuinely do, I don't believe for a second that the majority of people are emotional over their rights as a principle. It's the right of what that is the issue. Guns are the issue, calling it a rights fight is a vehicle to defend it. Like slavery in the civil war.

It's farking weird. People treat guns as a member of their family. The thing that makes the most sense to be is that they love the power rush that holding a gun gives them. They feel badass. They feel as if no one can get in their way. They have fantasies of someone trying to rob them and they'd be able to blow their head off and feel so damn powerful in the process. They love the feeling of walking up to a critter, or tin can, and destroying it with a single trigger press. Being able to put a hole in things makes them squirm with delight.

I can see how the thought of having that feeling removed can illicit an emotional response. But having that as the reason is so damn childish. And dangerous.
 
2013-01-20 09:43:51 AM

BullBearMS: Mrtraveler01: 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.

[dl.dropbox.com image 415x249]

You know how I know you know nothing of history?

Clinton not only led the fight to kill Glass Steagall, he also killed an attempt to regulate derivatives.  Here's the PBS Frontline episode detailing this.

Giving his Wall Street buddies exactly what they wanted has been very lucrative for Clinton.

Over the course of the next ten years after his Presidency, Clinton brought in roughly $8-10 million a year in speaking fees. In 2004, Clinton got $250,000 from Citigroup and $150,000 from Deutsche Bank. Goldman paid him $300,000 for two speeches, one in Paris. As the bubble peaked, in 2006, Clinton got $150,000 paydays each from Citigroup (twice), Lehman Brothers, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the National Association of Realtors. In 2007, it was Goldman again, twice, Lehman, Citigroup, and Merrill Lynch.


And the Republicans had absolutely no role in this. It's all Clinton's fault.
 
pc
2013-01-20 09:45:15 AM

doglover:

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.



media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-20 09:45:36 AM

Mrtraveler01: heypete: Mrtraveler01: So all that being said, why aren't Background Checks unconstitutional then if they are an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights?

...

Other than the "DELAY" response, the check takes place in seconds and so doesn't really put any sort of burden on the law-abiding person.

Makes sense.


It's also worth noting that if the "DELAY" response goes on for more than 3 days, the dealer has the right (if not the obligation) to sell you the gun anyway. That is a mitigation for the possibility of the government(s) in question interfering with due process by just never coming back with an answer.
 
2013-01-20 09:45:44 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.


There's an awful lot of extremists and fundamentalists, and you would agree, that's really what's gone wrong with the planet right now. It's the fundamentalists, whether they're right, left, center, whatever they are, if they're fundamentalists, they're dangerous. -Jane Goodall

This applies just as much to someone like you as it does the NRA.
 
2013-01-20 09:45:49 AM

TotesCrayCray: The only explanation that I can think of that approaches a rational one is that they feel that guns are important to their way of life.


They're afraid that they may need to defend themselves one day, and so they desire the tools to do so.
 
2013-01-20 09:45:55 AM

Mrtraveler01: Mr. Right: Politicians' desire to control gun ownership has nothing to do with the mass killings, everything to do with control of the population.

Yep, the 2nd Amendment is the only thing keeping the US from turning into a Tyranny.

/rolls eyes


I wonder how many of the people going apeshiat crazy about their guns being taken away were fully on board with the Patriot Act and other governmental actions greatly expanding the power of the government to monitor and do surveillance of us without warrants.  Because, you know, War on Terror.

That shiat is far more of an actual attack on our civil rights than the mild gun control measures President Obama proposed.

If you want to protect your rights, start demanding that politicians roll back the police state that they're allowing to be set up.  That'll protect you from tyranny far more than your gun ever will.
 
2013-01-20 09:46:30 AM

heypete: dofus: And who puts a bench-rest scope on an AR? Kinda defeats the purpose, no?

Why? What's wrong with a telescopic sight on an AR? The angle's not so good, but it looks like the rifle might have one of the free-floated match barrels so it may be quite well-suited for precision shooting.

AR's are commonly used in all manner of shooting competitions, including the National Matches.


A bench-rest scope is not the same as your generic telescopic sight. For one thing, a decent one costs more than the rifle. Usually a lot more.

It's had to tell from the picture what the scope really is since there is so much cheap junk made to look like the real thing.
 
2013-01-20 09:46:37 AM
Culture? i guess we can call pork rinds and kool aid culture.. sure, if you want.
 
2013-01-20 09:49:12 AM

Enemabag Jones: If assholes keep on blowing away grade schools with guns derived from the footprint of the mp-44


Ah, that's the thing. Have assholes shot up schools, theaters, malls, and other public places? Yes.

However, with few exceptions (like Newtown and Aurora [until the gun jammed]), most of the mass shooters have used handguns. The use of rifles in any firearm-related crime is very rare, and the use of so-called "assault weapons" is even less common: according to FBI statistics and Senator Feinstein's own numbers "assault weapons" are used in only 0.6% of all firearm-related homicide. This number has decreased year-over-year for decades. Indeed, firearm-related homicides rates are at their lowest level since 1964.

Does that mean that mass shootings should be trivialized? No, of course not. However, claiming that "assault weapons" are somehow more often used in crime (even rare crimes like mass shootings) simply isn't supported by the facts.
 
2013-01-20 09:49:45 AM

LasersHurt: onyxruby: Mrtraveler01: So all that being said, why aren't Background Checks unconstitutional then if they are an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights?

Because they are looking for felons that have by definition lost their rights, therefore the 2nd amendment doesn't apply. If your read my other writing you'll also find that I'm pretty outspoken about the mentally ill on this issue as well.

How would you like to diagnose and manage this prohibition to the Mentally Ill?


A national registry of people who are mentally ill, duh. But there already is one: The NRA member list.
 
2013-01-20 09:52:44 AM

IlGreven: Enemabag Jones: 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.

Yes, I'm sure we'll be comforted by the fact that a small percentage of the population can't own guns, due to some arbitrary trait. Also happened in a European country about 80 years ago, where some mustachioed guy made that arbitrary trait practicing Judaism.

/Hey, he already gave up the argument, so it's not a Godwin.


While on principle I agree with you... there is a vast difference between practicing a faith and a mental disorder that puts society at risk if certain people are allowed to have weapons that can kill allot of people quite efficiently. I think (hope) you are intelligent to know this. The test of one's mental stability would have to be formulated by a panel of both pro and anti gun people and would determine the exact mental disorder(s) to ban from having a gun. Personally, I think anyone who has any of the following conditions should not own a gun:

Intermittent Explosive Disorder
Antisocial Personality Disorder (also called psychopath or sociopath)

The list is not all inclusive or extensive in any way obviously, but this still only accounts for a small portion... it seems that the most prominent trait among all mass murderers, according to what i have read, are actually societal problems, for example:

withdrawal from society, alienation, bullying, lack of emotion and empathy (big one)

That is kind of hard to track... so how do we remedy that? I don't think it's possible without violating damn near every right an individual has.
 
2013-01-20 09:52:58 AM

hubiestubert: Folks might want to listen to the Big Dog on this one.

Conflating the Idiot Brigade with all gun owners is a mistake. It can only alienate a chunk of folks, and at this point, it is a good way to send them into the arms of the Idiot Brigade, and the folks who really want to continue using them...


This is the point I have been trying to make with the gun-grabbers (for lack of a better term), just not as articulate in my argument as Bill. Still amazes me that the left has not learned most of the people in this country don't like extremism one way or the other. All or nothing policy with zero regard for the other sides beliefs (or lack of) does not work anymore.
 
2013-01-20 09:53:07 AM

jake_lex: Mrtraveler01: Mr. Right: Politicians' desire to control gun ownership has nothing to do with the mass killings, everything to do with control of the population.

Yep, the 2nd Amendment is the only thing keeping the US from turning into a Tyranny.

/rolls eyes

I wonder how many of the people going apeshiat crazy about their guns being taken away were fully on board with the Patriot Act and other governmental actions greatly expanding the power of the government to monitor and do surveillance of us without warrants.  Because, you know, War on Terror.

That shiat is far more of an actual attack on our civil rights than the mild gun control measures President Obama proposed.

If you want to protect your rights, start demanding that politicians roll back the police state that they're allowing to be set up.  That'll protect you from tyranny far more than your gun ever will.


I was against those, too.
 
2013-01-20 09:55:18 AM
Let's fully legalize cannabis. (a) More would-be crazies are sedentary instead of acting like Yosemite Sam while high. Reduced carnage. (b) The black market for it is curtailed. For a lot of people, weed is all they'd need, and fewer gang-banging activities would be supported with money. Reduced carnage. (c) I could go to the store on Friday and get pot instead of alcohol to unwind on the weekends. Reduced carnage.

I am convinced that the way to reduce the number of gun deaths and injuries is to reduce existing crazy people from acting crazy. Let them get high. Let me get high, too, without having to enter the criminal arena to obtain it.
/tipping point is near, Nixon-voters are dying off one by one
 
2013-01-20 09:55:47 AM

log_jammin: Hetfield: "Gun culture" is a pretty depressing term.

it's slightly better than "cracker culture".


You should see the amount of non-whites at the shooting range I go to.
 
2013-01-20 09:56:05 AM
heili skrimsli ,
Or are you suggesting that the right to keep and bear firearms only applies to those that can legally be used for hunting? Because if so, Article 1 Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the SCOTUS disagree with you.


I don't know what Article 1, of PA and SCOTUS refer to. I think 30 round mags are legally and ethically in play.

heypete,
There's no functional difference between a Browning BAR with a 5-shot magazine or an AR with a 5-shot magazine when hunting. They both fire the same cartridge at the same velocity. The difference is merely one of appearance and ergonomic features (like an adjustable stock or different shaped grip).


I agree with you, if nothing else get a mini-14. Put new furniture on it if you want to make it more taticool. Little difference between an ar15 and mini 14 when it comes to gunning down people. Hell, some segment of the military went back to an enhanced mini-14 over the m4 recently.

Click Click D'oh,
Low-powered enough that it's used to kill game animals, including deer, and happens to be one of the most commonly used rounds for criminal activity?
This is the problem we run into when people try to classify firearms base on perceived power. Get shot in the face with a .223 or a .22, you're still dead. Ask the kids at VT about that.
I always have a standing challenge for people that dismiss the lowly .22. Can I shoot you then? Appropriate waivers to be signed ahead of time of course.

Let me know when a .22 lr is approved by the hunting community for shooting deer. And assassins love the .22 round. Confused with the .25 and like to bounce around at the proper range.

Don't quote specific exceptions to me.
 
2013-01-20 09:57:55 AM

dofus: A bench-rest scope is not the same as your generic telescopic sight. For one thing, a decent one costs more than the rifle. Usually a lot more.

It's had to tell from the picture what the scope really is since there is so much cheap junk made to look like the real thing.


Fair enough. I generally prefer red dot sights on stuff used for shorter range (e.g. my .22LR rifle, one of my shorter ARs, etc.) and Leupold scopes on the longer-range stuff. Life's too short to deal with cheap crap.

jake_lex: If you want to protect your rights, start demanding that politicians roll back the police state that they're allowing to be set up.


Hi there. I'm a member of the NRA, the EFF, and the ACLU. I routinely write my congressmen about issues relating to individual rights and liberties. I'm all for gay marriage (it shouldn't even need that qualifier, as it should just be called "marriage"), oppose the TSA and their nude-o-scopes, am outspoken against warrantless wiretapping and internet snooping, and think the DHS is a massive risk to liberty. I've been encouraging my congressmen to repeal the PATRIOT ACT and other outrageous laws for years.

/doesn't really fit into any particular political category
 
2013-01-20 09:58:24 AM
I agree with the ex-prez. The guns are already out there, and almost everyone that owns one doesn't go murdering schools of children.
Gun control is a picket fence trying to stop a storm surge.
What we need to do is create more employment, get rid of the crazy war on drug users, and start talking to our kids.
Look at it this way, who's going to invade the US, knowing that every person here will shoot you? I, personally, like the reputation we have around the world. We're the crazy drunk muttering to himself at the end of the bar.
 
2013-01-20 09:58:41 AM

TotesCrayCray: FTFA: the issue of guns has a special emotional resonance in many rural states

I never understood that. Why? Why it is such an emotional subject? Guns aren't your family members or pets. They're no longer required in the hands of the average person so that the nation can protect itself from invaders and tyrants. Guns are a tool and/or plaything. They're essentially no different than a hammer, although far more deadly.

I find it bizarre that people get to emotionally invested in this. The only explanation that I can think of that approaches a rational one is that they feel that guns are important to their way of life. But they're not. Hunting for food, and not game, can make that argument. But even then damn near no one needs to hunt in order to stay alive anymore.

Some people would say, "It's emotional because people are trying to deny them a constitutional right. Wouldn't you get mad if someone tried to take your rights away." Well, for one, no reasonable person is trying to remove all guns. And for two, although some genuinely do, I don't believe for a second that the majority of people are emotional over their rights as a principle. It's the right of what that is the issue. Guns are the issue, calling it a rights fight is a vehicle to defend it. Like slavery in the civil war.

It's farking weird. People treat guns as a member of their family. The thing that makes the most sense to be is that they love the power rush that holding a gun gives them. They feel badass. They feel as if no one can get in their way. They have fantasies of someone trying to rob them and they'd be able to blow their head off and feel so damn powerful in the process. They love the feeling of walking up to a critter, or tin can, and destroying it with a single trigger press. Being able to put a hole in things makes them squirm with delight.

I can see how the thought of having that feeling removed can illicit an emotional response. But having that as the reason is so damn childish. And da ...


And those people with an emotional connection to guns are just as baffled by your emotional fear of them (guns).
 
2013-01-20 10:00:11 AM
jake_lex

I wonder how many of the people going apeshiat crazy about their guns being taken away were fully on board with the Patriot Act and other governmental actions greatly expanding the power of the government to monitor and do surveillance of us without warrants. Because, you know, War on Terror.

That shiat is far more of an actual attack on our civil rights than the mild gun control measures President Obama proposed.

If you want to protect your rights, start demanding that politicians roll back the police state that they're allowing to be set up. That'll protect you from tyranny far more than your gun ever will.


I will patiently await the responses to your question.
 
2013-01-20 10:00:33 AM

jake_lex: If you want to protect your rights, start demanding that politicians roll back the police state that they're allowing to be set up. That'll protect you from tyranny far more than your gun ever will.


Amen!

'Course you could also demand that the politicians start doing their job instead of perpetuating the colossal circle jerk that's been going on for far too long.
 
2013-01-20 10:00:49 AM

Enemabag Jones: I don't know what Article 1, of PA and SCOTUS refer to. I think 30 round mags are legally and ethically in play.


They both state that the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to those that are used for hunting game. You want to make a good case, with actual evidence, as to why banning 30 round magazines is necessary, go for it.

It's not incumbent upon me to prove that I do need them. It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.
 
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 »






Report