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  
•       •       •

16575 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 10:02:16 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


What then, in your esteemed opinion, DOES effectively safeguard a given population against tyranny?

Serious question is serious.

Study it out.
 
2013-01-20 10:02:17 AM

Enemabag Jones: 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.


The M14 is hardly an "enhanced Mini-14". It's sort of the other way around: the Mini-14 is derived from the M14, but that's neither here nor there. The military is using M14s in 7.62mm NATO because of their longer reach and higher power compared to the 5.56mm NATO ammo used in the M16 -- the M14 makes a great "designated marksman" rifle.

My interest isn't in "gunning down people". I'm more interested in having a highly-modular rifle for sport and competition. While changing the furniture on the Mini-14 is relatively easy, changing calibers and other features isn't. The AR has a lot more options in that regard, is more modular, and easy to customize and maintain without the need for a gunsmith.
 
2013-01-20 10:02:55 AM

heili skrimsli: It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.


Your whole point and everything else aside - when I see someone talk about the "restriction" of "liberty" because they can't buy a thing quite as big as they want, I get a gross feeling inside.
 
2013-01-20 10:03:14 AM

TotesCrayCray: 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 would have said this same thing until recently. I grew up in the cities where the government has something to say about pretty much everything I do - eating, recreation, sleeping, traveling, working, etc. Most people in the US have certain freedoms - including, importantly, the freedom to change their government - but that's a different type of freedom.

In some parts of the country, you are still (or you feel you are still, I can't speak to the accuracy of it) largely free of the omniscient ubiquitous ever-present government in your daily life. Yes, you still might hunt for food, but more importantly the onus of control of your life is on you and hasn't had half of it outsourced to state, local, and federal governments. Since all freedom is backed by force, you might feel a bit naked and offended having that choice of force stripped from you.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with whether they're right, but it's still a reasonable and rational position.

What I will say is that, as someone who is going to look like an easy target for criminals in remote parts of the country with little government presence for an extender period of time, it bothers me emotionally (more than I thought it would) that I might not have any recourse for protection.
 
2013-01-20 10:04:41 AM

heili skrimsli: 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.


Agreed. Give this man a rocket launcher.

//dude, everything is arbitrary, if you think banning 30 round mags is a restriction of liberty, you obviously have never thought about how much other crap is restricted, like what you can do with cars, alcohol, etc, etc. I.E., you'll get over it.
 
2013-01-20 10:05:58 AM
I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.
 
2013-01-20 10:06:40 AM

CADMonkey79: And those people with an emotional connection to guns are just as baffled by your emotional fear of them (guns).


Daww. Aren't you just a cute little snarker. I'm not afraid of them. I don't own any guns but I've shot them. Lately I do most of my target shooting with my bow, but I'm looking at picking up a rifle for that. Hell, at one point the only reason I didn't take up the offer to visit a coworker at his rural home to fire off a Barrett 50 cal rifle was because I was concerned with him. He was ex military with PTSD and anger issues and he refused to get help for either. I really wanted to shoot that gun, though.

Anywho, I'm not afraid of them. But good job on your strawman and ad hominem there.
 
2013-01-20 10:06:57 AM

jofny: In some parts of the country, you are still (or you feel you are still, I can't speak to the accuracy of it) largely free of the omniscient ubiquitous ever-present government in your daily life. Yes, you still might hunt for food, but more importantly the onus of control of your life is on you and hasn't had half of it outsourced to state, local, and federal governments. Since all freedom is backed by force, you might feel a bit naked and offended having that choice of force stripped from you.


Are you serious?
 
2013-01-20 10:07:28 AM

thisispete: Let's hear from the sportsmen, the hunters, the collectors and those concerned about home security. Let them make their case. And yes, the libertarians too, although even many of them acknowledge there are limits to freedoms articulated in the Bill of Rights, e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech (unless there actually is one).


Plenty of rational gun owners have spoke about what they think might work. I have posted in numerous threads about things I think would be reasonable. At this point I don't think people want rationale gun owners to exist, it's easier to argue against the crazed tea-tard gun-nut.

I think all of Obama's executive actions seem reasonable.

I do not think capacity limits or banning certain types of guns are as easily seen as reasonable. I feel that the AWB type legislation does nothing to address the lethality of weapons, it only address cosmetic features, without banning semi-automatic weapons there is nothing you can do about that. I think banning semi-automatic weapons would be unconstitutional and a reach into infringing on individual rights for a very small gain in social safety.

Capacity limits would address lethality to some degree. I would agree on a mag capacity limit of 30 or even 20. That, to me retains my ability to feel safe having enough ammunition for a home invasion type scenario, although the chance of that is close to zero. But it would get rid of drum mags and surefire mags of 50 and 100 rounds, that to me are only legitimately useful for military use in suppressive fire.

I think there should be a background check for every gun transfer, i.e. closing the "gun show loophole."

I think felons and those with unstable mental conditions should not have access to guns. I think people should be required to keep their guns in a safe when they are not under their immediate supervision or use. ( A gun in the nightstand is in use.) I think a waiting period for new purchases of about a week is reasonable to clear background checks, and allow a cooling off period, etc.

All this comes from somebody that is otherwise what would be considered liberal and has voted for Obama twice now.
 
2013-01-20 10:08:15 AM

macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.



The best slaves are the slaves that don't realize that they're slaves.
 
2013-01-20 10:08:47 AM

macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.


No, I think it was really meant to keep the population armed from foreign invaders in the early years (ie: France, Spain and of course Britain) because we didn't have a national army, it just consisted of state militias.

But that being said, I still think people should be able to own guns even if I think they stand no chance against the US Government.
 
2013-01-20 10:09:28 AM
HindiDiscoMonster ,
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.


I said this before, if the NRA won't give an inch, then all gun owners will loose.

But if someone in control to say no can't see this or that below, then they are smart enough to pass anyway. Short of taking all guns away from everyone.

Then it becomes either people with a specific criminal record can't own guns, or people will be subject to an objective third party, psychologist or lie detector test of some type, to sort out the crazies.

Link

Link
 
2013-01-20 10:09:45 AM

Amos Quito: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.


The best slaves are the slaves that don't realize that they're slaves.


Who are we talking about again?
 
2013-01-20 10:10:54 AM

Mrtraveler01: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.

No, I think it was really meant to keep the population armed from foreign invaders in the early years (ie: France, Spain and of course Britain) because we didn't have a national army, it just consisted of state militias.

But that being said, I still think people should be able to own guns even if I think they stand no chance against the US Government.


I think the best reason for them to own guns is for them to take on the US Government.... and lose.

//I'll take "2nd Amendment as a Darwinian tool" for $400, Bill.
 
2013-01-20 10:11:36 AM

manimal2878: I think a waiting period for new purchases of about a week is reasonable to clear background checks, and allow a cooling off period, etc.


Background checks can be completed near-instantly now. It's not like someone has to go rooting through documents in some archive somewhere, it's all computerized and has been for years.

Is there any evidence that waiting periods have any real effect on reducing firearm-related deaths?
 
2013-01-20 10:11:51 AM

Uncle Tractor: It might be worth pointing out that guns made for hunting (for putting food in your fridge) are not the same as those made for killing people.


Please cite the part of the 2nd amendment that explains that the purpose is for hunting.

GAT_00: And if "gun culture" means kids getting killed for supposed freedoms, fark gun culture.


Since Sandy Hook there have been 8109 deaths... from alcohol. Let us know when you're willing to attack everyone's freedom to drink.
 
2013-01-20 10:12:12 AM

Mr. Right: 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 oursel ...


It would be a breath of fresh air if any of these 2nd Amendment champions had even a tiny bit of fervor for the 4th amendment. or the 1st. or the 6th. Seems to me you phony patriots are really just concerned about maintaining your fantasy of some day getting to kill someone. if its not about hunting and its not about protecting person and property.. and it really is all about defending against tyrrany.. then i need an F-16. oh and an Abrahms tank.. and maybe on of those humvees with a 50 cal machine gun mounted on top. The brilliance of our constitution is that it set up a system of government that effectively allows for the people to defend against tyranny and bring about radical change in the government without there being even a drop of blood shed.
 
2013-01-20 10:14:17 AM

manimal2878: [Good Ideas]


Yup. I'd throw in mandatory recertification and registration for all semi-autos, but that's the only change I'd make.
 
drp
2013-01-20 10:14:39 AM
I'm starting to think that all this gun control hype is the best thing that could possibly happen to the Republican party.

How many times during the election did you hear people say, Obama doesn't want gun control, all you guys who think he's anti gun are just paranoid. How many D voters are going to vote R during the midterms and next presidential election now that Obama's made this stupid aggressive grab at gun control? If he'd done this before the election, he'd have lost.

Clinton remembers that after the 1994 federal assault weapon ban the Democrats lost control of Congress for an entire decade.

Obama's not going to get the ban he wants. He's already failed. At most, they'll pass a law to require all person-to-person transfers to go through a dealer for a background check. But even with that, he's reminded everybody that Democrats desperately want gun control ... and it's going to hurt his party.

How ironic it would be if all this Democrat momentum (fueled by shiatty Republican candidates) the last 4-5 years was pissed away by the Democrats themselves with this stupid, shrill, doomed-to-fail push for gun control. Kind of brings a smile to my face. But then I kind of like watching stupid people shoot their own feet.
 
2013-01-20 10:14:50 AM
heypete,,
The M14 is hardly an "enhanced Mini-14". It's sort of the other way around: the Mini-14 is derived from the M14, but that's neither here nor there. The military is using M14s in 7.62mm NATO because of their longer reach and higher power compared to the 5.56mm NATO ammo used in the M16 -- the M14 makes a great "designated marksman" rifle.
My interest isn't in "gunning down people". I'm more interested in having a highly-modular rifle for sport and competition. While changing the furniture on the Mini-14 is relatively easy, changing calibers and other features isn't. The AR has a lot more options in that regard, is more modular, and easy to customize and maintain without the need for a gunsmith.


I think I had read the mini-14 has been re-introduced in dessert environment for being more robust in specific missions. But I don't know the specifics behind that.

I hope responsible people like you would be able to keep that gun.
 
2013-01-20 10:14:59 AM

heypete: manimal2878: I think a waiting period for new purchases of about a week is reasonable to clear background checks, and allow a cooling off period, etc.

Background checks can be completed near-instantly now. It's not like someone has to go rooting through documents in some archive somewhere, it's all computerized and has been for years.

Is there any evidence that waiting periods have any real effect on reducing firearm-related deaths?


No, it obviously increased the number of deaths, 10-fold.

//if it doesn't solve the problem immediately on its own.... get the f*ck rid of it!
///most firearm related studies are too narrow in scope and don't take into effect all the other variables that could be the cause of trending changes, so some asshole could see an increase in deaths correlated with when waiting periods went into effect, and viola, they actually come to my original sarcastic conclusion, yet they're serious about it.
 
2013-01-20 10:15:45 AM

Dafodude: Uranus Is Huge!: I think it's wrong to trivialize mental illness.

Good.  Now how does that apply to the issue at hand?


I think many people deeply involved in "gun culture" are mentally ill.

Clear enough for you now?
 
2013-01-20 10:15:53 AM

Enemabag Jones: I said this before, if the NRA won't give an inch, then all gun owners will loose.


"Give in inch" in what way?

I have no issues with many of Obama's proposals, with the exception of the proposed ban on "assault weapons" and magazine capacity. Other than those two things, many of his proposals would likely have some sort of beneficial effect.

Is it reasonable to not "give an inch" when one thinks that certain restrictions would be ineffective at reducing violent crime and would instead infringe on the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding people? I think so. Similarly, I think it's reasonable for the ACLU or EFF to not "give an inch" when it comes to protecting free speech or other important liberties.
 
2013-01-20 10:16:14 AM

violentsalvation: vernonFL: Let me quote Lynrd Skynrd


Hand guns are made for killin'
Ain't no good for nothin' else

Same with airplanes, I guess.


Guess again.
 
2013-01-20 10:16:42 AM

violentsalvation: 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.


THIS
 
2013-01-20 10:17:03 AM

drp: I'm starting to think that all this gun control hype is the best thing that could possibly happen to the Republican party.

How many times during the election did you hear people say, Obama doesn't want gun control, all you guys who think he's anti gun are just paranoid. How many D voters are going to vote R during the midterms and next presidential election now that Obama's made this stupid aggressive grab at gun control? If he'd done this before the election, he'd have lost.

Clinton remembers that after the 1994 federal assault weapon ban the Democrats lost control of Congress for an entire decade.

Obama's not going to get the ban he wants. He's already failed. At most, they'll pass a law to require all person-to-person transfers to go through a dealer for a background check. But even with that, he's reminded everybody that Democrats desperately want gun control ... and it's going to hurt his party.

How ironic it would be if all this Democrat momentum (fueled by shiatty Republican candidates) the last 4-5 years was pissed away by the Democrats themselves with this stupid, shrill, doomed-to-fail push for gun control. Kind of brings a smile to my face. But then I kind of like watching stupid people shoot their own feet.


I don't have enough energy to pick apart everything that was incorrect with this post. I put it back on you, poster, to find it in your heart to hate yourself for unleashing such derp on humanity.
 
2013-01-20 10:17:03 AM

TotesCrayCray: CADMonkey79: And those people with an emotional connection to guns are just as baffled by your emotional fear of them (guns).

Daww. Aren't you just a cute little snarker. I'm not afraid of them. I don't own any guns but I've shot them. Lately I do most of my target shooting with my bow, but I'm looking at picking up a rifle for that. Hell, at one point the only reason I didn't take up the offer to visit a coworker at his rural home to fire off a Barrett 50 cal rifle was because I was concerned with him. He was ex military with PTSD and anger issues and he refused to get help for either. I really wanted to shoot that gun, though.

Anywho, I'm not afraid of them. But good job on your strawman and ad hominem there.


How is that a strawman exactly? Are you saying that you don't think there is a large percentage of the gun control proponents that do not have an irrational fear of guns? Also, your frame a reference for your previous email is one wingnut you happen to know that lives in the country?
 
2013-01-20 10:18:30 AM

giffin: 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.


How the hell is a yo-yo meant to kill people? Is there some history of yo-yo yielding gangs roaming the streets? What you're saying lacks even the slightest bit of logic
 
2013-01-20 10:18:45 AM

Mrtraveler01: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.

No, I think it was really meant to keep the population armed from foreign invaders in the early years (ie: France, Spain and of course Britain) because we didn't have a national army, it just consisted of state militias.



And what was the function of a local militia when not fighting France, Spain and Britain? I believe they were voluntary and unpaid, so it wasn't a dole for unemployed men like the National Guard in France.

Their job was to disperse any Indians still around (unless they were armed Indians, in which case Federal troops would be called in) and to supress slave revolts (unless they were armed slave revolts, in which case Federal troops would be called in).

So why didn't the 2nd Amendment disappear after WW2 or WW1 or the Civil War (where a national army was raised to combat armed citizen militias)?

Because how would an unarmed lynch mob work, exactly?
 
2013-01-20 10:19:19 AM

Mrtraveler01: Amos Quito: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.


The best slaves are the slaves that don't realize that they're slaves.

Who are we talking about again?



Ladies and gentlemen, your President has turned off the fasten chains light. You are free to move around the plantation."
 
2013-01-20 10:20:44 AM

Mrtraveler01: jofny: In some parts of the country, you are still (or you feel you are still, I can't speak to the accuracy of it) largely free of the omniscient ubiquitous ever-present government in your daily life. Yes, you still might hunt for food, but more importantly the onus of control of your life is on you and hasn't had half of it outsourced to state, local, and federal governments. Since all freedom is backed by force, you might feel a bit naked and offended having that choice of force stripped from you.

Are you serious?


Quite. Poorly written with one eye still closed from sleep, but there really are large legitimate swaths of culture in the US that strongly differ on the role of government - and where the presence and influence of the government is felt less than elsewhere - and guns are one of the material rights at play in those differences.

Also, to reiterate, if you've ever been in a position in the US, in unsafe circumstances, for a long period of time, where you don't have state power (law enforcement) only a few miles away to assist you or protect you, you would probably feel emotionally different about your gun rights.
 
drp
2013-01-20 10:21:05 AM

LikeALeafOnTheWind: It would be a breath of fresh air if any of these 2nd Amendment champions had even a tiny bit of fervor for the 4th amendment. or the 1st. or the 6th.


Every libertarian in the country just waved.

Republicans like to trample the 1st & 4th, Democrats get excited about trampling the 2nd. Two sides to the same coin.


http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Too bad he didn't win the election.
 
2013-01-20 10:21:19 AM

doglover: Target shooting is a thing in and of itself, and more than enough fun to justify legal firearms.


I'd say "fetishist" is a more accurate term than "gun nut".

Interestingly, the NRA hates video games because they compete with guns.
 
2013-01-20 10:22:15 AM

macadamnut: Mrtraveler01: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.

No, I think it was really meant to keep the population armed from foreign invaders in the early years (ie: France, Spain and of course Britain) because we didn't have a national army, it just consisted of state militias.


And what was the function of a local militia when not fighting France, Spain and Britain? I believe they were voluntary and unpaid, so it wasn't a dole for unemployed men like the National Guard in France.

Their job was to disperse any Indians still around (unless they were armed Indians, in which case Federal troops would be called in) and to supress slave revolts (unless they were armed slave revolts, in which case Federal troops would be called in).

So why didn't the 2nd Amendment disappear after WW2 or WW1 or the Civil War (where a national army was raised to combat armed citizen militias)?

Because how would an unarmed lynch mob work, exactly?


I'm not following your point.

Amos Quito: Mrtraveler01: Amos Quito: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.


The best slaves are the slaves that don't realize that they're slaves.

Who are we talking about again?


Ladies and gentlemen, your President has turned off the fasten chains light. You are free to move around the plantation."


And I have no idea where you're going with that either.
 
2013-01-20 10:22:21 AM
adamgreeney
How the hell is a yo-yo meant to kill people? Is there some history of yo-yo yielding gangs roaming the streets? What you're saying lacks even the slightest bit of logic.


Have you have not heard about the new assault razor yo-yo trend in gangs?
 
2013-01-20 10:22:35 AM

Mrtraveler01: macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.

No, I think it was really meant to keep the population armed from foreign invaders in the early years (ie: France, Spain and of course Britain) because we didn't have a national army, it just consisted of state militias.


Why should we fear "foreign invaders"?

I mean, isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that our form of government is somehow better than that which they would impose on us is?
 
2013-01-20 10:22:37 AM

vernonFL: Every time I've been to a gun range, most of the people there are either current or former law enforcement or military.


Yet another excellent reason to cut military spending.
 
2013-01-20 10:22:51 AM

coeyagi: No, it obviously increased the number of deaths, 10-fold.


I didn't imply that it did. I apologize for any confusion.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if a waiting period had any effect at all.

I'm simply saying that while the intention behind a waiting period may be good, that's no assurance that it would have any effect at all. I'd love to see some meaningful studies done on such subjects, as I think it'd allow people to focus more intently on solutions that would actually have an effect rather than "feel-good" measures that don't really accomplish much -- see New York's recent law that prohibits new magazines over 7 rounds. You can still keep 10-round magazines but are only allowed to legally put 7 rounds into them...as if criminals would really bother with that.
 
2013-01-20 10:23:08 AM
Now that you got the right on the ropes you want to give them an issue to gain traction and reform the base?

Are you shiatting me?

Look ahead people. How much health care reform and other social issues are you willing to sacrifice for a law that won't keep a single gun out of the hand of a single criminal?

This will be a rally point like gay marriage was 9 years ago.
 
2013-01-20 10:23:24 AM

drp: LikeALeafOnTheWind: It would be a breath of fresh air if any of these 2nd Amendment champions had even a tiny bit of fervor for the 4th amendment. or the 1st. or the 6th.

Every libertarian in the country just waved.

Republicans like to trample the 1st & 4th, Democrats get excited about trampling the 2nd. Two sides to the same coin.


http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Too bad he didn't win the election.


Too bad he embraced Paul Ryan's abortion of a budget plan or else more people would've taken him more seriously.
 
2013-01-20 10:23:40 AM

CADMonkey79: How is that a strawman exactly? Are you saying that you don't think there is a large percentage of the gun control proponents that do not have an irrational fear of guns? Also, your frame a reference for your previous email is one wingnut you happen to know that lives in the country?


What in the bloody hell are you talking about? For one, what non owners think about guns is completely irrelevant to the emotional attachment that owners have to their guns. It has NO bearing on the point in hand.

And what? I was saying that I have no problem with guns and even wanted to get my hands on a BFG. But I didn't. Not because the gun was scary but because the owner was scary. Also, show me where I said that all gun owners are like him. Since I also said that I don't personally own any gun then that means that when I shot them in the past I used the ones owned by actual owners. Owners, who I had no problem with.

You seem like you're in full on derp mode here, friend. If you don't make sense in your next post I'm not going to respond anymore.
 
2013-01-20 10:27:49 AM

macadamnut: I'll take "the 2nd Amendment has always been about containing slave revolts" for $200, Bill.


which is why the 2nd was repealed once slavery was outlawed....

oh wait...
 
2013-01-20 10:28:09 AM

heypete: Enemabag Jones: I said this before, if the NRA won't give an inch, then all gun owners will loose.

"Give in inch" in what way?

I have no issues with many of Obama's proposals, with the exception of the proposed ban on "assault weapons" and magazine capacity. Other than those two things, many of his proposals would likely have some sort of beneficial effect.

Is it reasonable to not "give an inch" when one thinks that certain restrictions would be ineffective at reducing violent crime and would instead infringe on the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding people? I think so. Similarly, I think it's reasonable for the ACLU or EFF to not "give an inch" when it comes to protecting free speech or other important liberties.


Unfortunately the NRA is painting all gun owners in a poor light because they're not exactly acting concerned about gun violence, just selling guns. And since they're the loudest voice on the matter, that's all a lot of people hear. While I agree with your point about the ACLU, you'll note we have put limits on free speech. Our rights are not absolute. I, for one, wish the NRA would come forth with reasonable gun-control legislation and encourage its members to get on board. If bans won't work, that's fine, but at least put forth something reasonable.
 
2013-01-20 10:28:10 AM

macadamnut: So why didn't the 2nd Amendment disappear after WW2 or WW1 or the Civil War (where a national army was raised to combat armed citizen militias)?


I think we can thank John Wilkes Boothe for the survival of this and some other antiquated bits of the constitution.
 
2013-01-20 10:29:18 AM

LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.

Your whole point and everything else aside - when I see someone talk about the "restriction" of "liberty" because they can't buy a thing quite as big as they want, I get a gross feeling inside.


So people who haven't harmed anyone being free to go about their business not harming anyone makes you feel 'gross inside'?

Not my problem.

coeyagi: Agreed. Give this man a rocket launcher.

//dude, everything is arbitrary, if you think banning 30 round mags is a restriction of liberty, you obviously have never thought about how much other crap is restricted, like what you can do with cars, alcohol, etc, etc. I.E., you'll get over it.


Wow, people get downright indignant at the idea that they need to prove that banning something is actually necessary. I've thought about all of those things, and I still think that the people who want more laws that ban more things need to prove why those laws and those bans are necessary, especially when they apply to Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
 
2013-01-20 10:29:52 AM

Amos Quito: What then, in your esteemed opinion, DOES effectively safeguard a given population against tyranny?


*Me! Me!*

(raises hand)

The best safeguard against tyranny is an informed population, as opposed to an infromed one.

i560.photobucket.com

/god that font is ugly
 
2013-01-20 10:30:15 AM
heypete
Enemabag Jones: I said this before, if the NRA won't give an inch, then all gun owners will loose.
"Give in inch" in what way?
I have no issues with many of Obama's proposals, with the exception of the proposed ban on "assault weapons" and magazine capacity. Other than those two things, many of his proposals would likely have some sort of beneficial effect.
Is it reasonable to not "give an inch" when one thinks that certain restrictions would be ineffective at reducing violent crime and would instead infringe on the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding people? I think so. Similarly, I think it's reasonable for the ACLU or EFF to not "give an inch" when it comes to protecting free speech or other important liberties.


I disagree with you on magazine sizes. The 'assault weapon', when it comes to crazed fruit-loops gunning down grade schools, they will shift to the next best thing, a mini-14 or an sks with detachable mag, which is meters better then what other have in a school or office.

I guess we don't disagree that much.
 
2013-01-20 10:32:20 AM

heili skrimsli: LasersHurt: heili skrimsli: It's incumbent upon you to prove that this restriction of my liberty is necessary.

Your whole point and everything else aside - when I see someone talk about the "restriction" of "liberty" because they can't buy a thing quite as big as they want, I get a gross feeling inside.

So people who haven't harmed anyone being free to go about their business not harming anyone makes you feel 'gross inside'?


No, escalating every tiny thing to some emotional level of "liberty". It shows a total lack of scale. Don't put words in my mouth.
 
2013-01-20 10:32:29 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Uncle Tractor: It might be worth pointing out that guns made for hunting (for putting food in your fridge) are not the same as those made for killing people.

Please cite the part of the 2nd amendment that explains that the purpose is for hunting.


What part of my post led you to think I was saying the 2nd amendment was about hunting?
 
2013-01-20 10:32:34 AM

heypete: coeyagi: No, it obviously increased the number of deaths, 10-fold.

I didn't imply that it did. I apologize for any confusion.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if a waiting period had any effect at all.

I'm simply saying that while the intention behind a waiting period may be good, that's no assurance that it would have any effect at all. I'd love to see some meaningful studies done on such subjects, as I think it'd allow people to focus more intently on solutions that would actually have an effect rather than "feel-good" measures that don't really accomplish much -- see New York's recent law that prohibits new magazines over 7 rounds. You can still keep 10-round magazines but are only allowed to legally put 7 rounds into them...as if criminals would really bother with that.


I am not advocating for more gun rights or gun control, and I come in here to attack both sides who think that gun laws of any sort are going to solve anything. Again, for the 1000th time, my 4 pillars of reducing gun violence, in no particular order:

1) Deal with sensationalization of these crimes
2) Deal with the gun trade
3) Deal with "gun culture"
4) Deal with mental health

The gun culture piece is actually the toughest of the 4. We glorify guns in this culture. Other countries that use guns for hunting or other legal means do not glorify guns. They don't talk incessantly about guns like it's their wooden / metal / plastic dick. Don't f*cking fool yourselves - guns were invented to kill things, and as long as you accept that awesome power that a gun holds, you understand the awesome responsibility you have as a user of said firearm. Here, though we collect them, we post on Facebook every 20 minutes about them, we go to gun shows every month, we go to gun dinners held by the NRA, we have movies that glorify them, we constantly look through catalogs for accessories. Other places, they respect the gun and use it when necessary, but they don't look upon guns as the f*cking end all, be all of existence.
 
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