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 | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 11:06:00 AM  

Mrtraveler01: You can't blame them though when the crazy seem to overpower the responsible in the gun debate.

If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.


Guess what? That can be said for almost any group. Christians. Muslims. Atheists. Vegans (see article about crazy UK vegan lady.)  Cat hoarders. Whatever.  Usually when someone is obsessively passionate about something, they are pretty nuts.  Most gun owners are likely to not talk much about their guns (unless they're at a shooting range or hunting or it comes up, like someone is thinking of getting a gun and asks someone knowledgeable.) They don't want attention for it. They don't need to talk about it. And they wouldn't know how to go out there and shout down the crazy people, even if they did want to.

And that's the problem. the craziest people in any group are usuallythe loudest, and also (due to the crazy) the most interesting to the media.  Nobody is going to tune into the unspectacular tale of normal Joe, who keeps his gun locked away safely and  is trained in how to use it (and hopes to never have to use it on another human). A ranting and raving maniac, however? RATINGS.
 
2013-01-20 11:06:45 AM  

Mrtraveler01: If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.


What's to say we haven't?

Mr. Jones, even though a crazed nutjob, still has as much right to speak as anyone else. People can (and have) loudly denounced his speech as absurd and crazy, but he still can speak unimpeded.

I wrote a letter to the NRA explaining that I felt, as a member and as a reasonably decent person, that the recent "Obama's kids are protected by armed guards in schools, but he doesn't want your kids to have the same protection" ad they released crossed a line and got personal and they should not have done such a thing. How much they listen to a single member is entirely up to them.
 
2013-01-20 11:07:03 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?


Yes, pretty much.

geekpolitics.com
 
2013-01-20 11:07:36 AM  

Fark It: LasersHurt: Fark It: Ah yes, the old "you can keep your .22s and shotguns, so what are you getting all pissy about? We don't want to make guns in general illegal, just most of them."

They sent to congress a bill that, if passed, would ban a small subset of weapons that everyone agrees are nothing but pointless aesthetics.

There is some wiggle room between that and destroying the 2nd amendment, I think.

A bit disingenuous...

Nearly all semi-automatic weapons will be affected by this legislation, as would many pump-action shotguns.

If it's such a small subset, and if they are pointless aesthetics, why the effort to ban them? You can't on the one hand justify a sweeping AWB while lying about its scope and calling it "pointless."


I'm not justifying anything, I'm just saying what the situation is. This legislation is on the table. It has majority support in the public, for better or worse. Whether or not it passes remains to be seen.

That said, this can't be a huge assault on the second amendment AND "pointless", either. Do you see the irony?
 
2013-01-20 11:08:25 AM  

Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]


Wow, someone needs to read Freakonomics and stop thinking correlation = causation.

Again, i can't stress this enough, you EPICLY FAILED.
 
2013-01-20 11:08:39 AM  

Stone Meadow: If by "great idea" you mean "terrible idea", then yeah. Let's turn this proposal around and start letting people exercise their First Amendment rights only if they consent to a licensing and registration process controlled by the government.


I can't start my own TV or radio station without filing for a license with the FCC.

Obviously this is an infringement of my 1st Amendment rights.
 
2013-01-20 11:08:59 AM  

Alonjar: Thats all a gunshow is... a giant swap meet.


What do they swap?
 
2013-01-20 11:09:18 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.


They are slightly different, but not in the way you imagine. The guns used for hunting are much more powerful than what you would need to kill a human. The .556 used in the AR-15 is nothing compared to a .762 hunting/sniping round.

thumbs.newschoolers.com

I like how you idiots think that people will break out the big guns against other people but use pea-shooters to take down moose and elk. It always makes me laugh because you have no idea how ignorant it makes you look.
 
2013-01-20 11:10:34 AM  

coeyagi: Fark It: Mrtraveler01: If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.

That sounds an awfully lot like what Islamophobes say about "reasonable Muslims" in the wake of terrorist attacks when we discuss things like banning mosques and spying on Americans. There's a narrative being driven here, there's a reason why Piers Morgan had Alex Jones on his show.

Yeah, it's called "calling out the assholes on the right who speaker louder than the reasonable ones", not to paint all gun owners as gun nuts.


Obviously it's a conspiracy.
 
2013-01-20 11:12:33 AM  
adragontattoo,

That is a trick question making the point that all guns that look scary are not as the ar-15 looking thing is a lr22 with a ten round clip.

I accept that point, where as this with an extended clip does not matter to those receiving the bullet.

I get that point.

Link
 
2013-01-20 11:12:59 AM  

Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]


You mean crime tends to go down during good economic times? Nah, that's crazy, it's obviously because there's more guns on the street.
 
2013-01-20 11:12:59 AM  

Alonjar: Gunshows arent even a damn thing... they are a SWAP MEET.


That's the problem, Cletus.
 
2013-01-20 11:13:13 AM  

heypete: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

Why not address the problem of there existing a violent crime-ridden inner city by working to reduce the factors that contribute to such crime (poverty, drug trafficking, gangs, etc.) rather than trying to pass more laws that would only affect law-abiding people?

Away from areas with "hotspots" of violent crime (like DC, New Orleans, Detroit, Chicago, etc.), violent crime rates in the country are quite low and seem to not have any correlation with the presence or absence of firearms available to the general public.


I don't understand how this can be true. The Fark Militia has repeatedly assured me that an armed society is a polite society, and that only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.
 
2013-01-20 11:13:47 AM  

Mrtraveler01: coeyagi: Fark It: Mrtraveler01: If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.

That sounds an awfully lot like what Islamophobes say about "reasonable Muslims" in the wake of terrorist attacks when we discuss things like banning mosques and spying on Americans. There's a narrative being driven here, there's a reason why Piers Morgan had Alex Jones on his show.

Yeah, it's called "calling out the assholes on the right who speaker louder than the reasonable ones", not to paint all gun owners as gun nuts.

Obviously it's a conspiracy.


Alex Jones is in on it because he created the petition to have Morgan deported.
 
2013-01-20 11:14:12 AM  
We should outlaw black people. Can you imagine how much violent crime would go down?
 
2013-01-20 11:14:23 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Missouri was one of the first states to allow CCW and look at how safe St. Louis has become.


St. Louis has been a cesspool of crime for a hell of a lot longer than the CCW permits. And the crimes in STL are committed by people who don't have CCW permits. Your strawman is burning.
 
2013-01-20 11:15:07 AM  

coeyagi: Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

Wow, someone needs to read Freakonomics and stop thinking correlation = causation.

Again, i can't stress this enough, you EPICLY FAILED.


That's not even a correlation.

geekpolitics.com

Between 1970-1980, crime still went UP even as more people were owning guns.
 
2013-01-20 11:15:10 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

You mean crime tends to go down during good economic times? Nah, that's crazy, it's obviously because there's more guns on the street.


That, and the fact that sh*tty kids who would have been born in 1973 or later DID NOT come of age in the early 90s because of Roe v. Wade.
 
2013-01-20 11:15:24 AM  

coeyagi: Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

Wow, someone needs to read Freakonomics and stop thinking correlation = causation.

Again, i can't stress this enough, you EPICLY FAILED.


Relax, Francis...you'll strain something. Nobody claimed causation. By the same token, however, the implied claim that more guns leads to more crime is demonstrably fallacious.
 
2013-01-20 11:15:52 AM  

Alonjar: We should outlaw black people. Can you imagine how much violent crime would go down?


And if it will save the life of one child, it's worth it.
 
2013-01-20 11:16:50 AM  

shotglasss: Mrtraveler01: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Missouri was one of the first states to allow CCW and look at how safe St. Louis has become.

St. Louis has been a cesspool of crime for a hell of a lot longer than the CCW permits. And the crimes in STL are committed by people who don't have CCW permits. Your strawman is burning.


That's kinda my whole point, we don't have strict gun laws in St. Louis and we're still a crime-ridden hellhole.

So it's stupid to blame Chicago's gun laws for it's crime either. It certainly doesn't help the crime situation, but it's foolish to think it's resulted in more crime than there already would be if gun laws were not so strict.
 
2013-01-20 11:16:58 AM  

macadamnut: ilambiquated: I think we can thank John Wilkes Boothe for the survival of this and some other antiquated bits of the constitution.

What's this all about? John Wilkes Boothe saved the 2nd Amendment?


He saved the constitution in its older form, I think.I don't actually have any evidence of his opinion of the 2nd amendment, but he was more interested in the DoI than the constitution, as the Gettysburg Address and many other quotes show. He would have been hugely powerful after the war. Also before the 1970s people thought of the 2nd in terms of "orderly" local militias, and that is an issue that would have been very interesting to a president that had just won a nasty civil war.
 
2013-01-20 11:17:00 AM  

The Name: Alonjar: Gunshows arent even a damn thing... they are a SWAP MEET.

That's the problem, Cletus.


... so whats your proposal, smart guy? How are you going to alter the current laws to close the "loophole"? Outlaw private gun sales?

Whats your objective? Are you trying to prevent mass shootings? How would preventing the private sale of guns stop a guy who has decided to sacrifice his life in order to murder a bunch of people?
 
2013-01-20 11:17:06 AM  

TotesCrayCray: Fart_Machine: Meh, I can understand why people like whatever hobby they might have. I just never understood the fetishism about it.

Pretty much that.

As for the previous guy, wow. You're avoiding addressing the point by trying to shift the focus to a different group. A group which exists only as you imagine them and has no connection to the origin of the question asked, me. So you avoid that in question by trying to shift the focus back on the questioner while simultaneously misrepresenting the questioner's viewpoint as illogical, and thus irrelevant, by pulling said viewpoint out of your ass. Strawman.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

You also tried the ad hominem attack of trying to discredit me with a, "you're just afraid of guns, so there."

So, goodbye.


Funny I have never seen the "its a stawman so goodbye" argument work in a debate or court of law. You wrote a multi-paragraph post belittling gun owners because of their emotional tie to guns. I point out most proponents of gun control have just a strong emotion as well, theirs just seems to be fear. Your post implied that you think this applies to all gun owners. I own guns and have zero emotional connection to them. Your post assumes a group of people that exist only as you imagine them, No?
 
2013-01-20 11:17:35 AM  

Fart_Machine: LasersHurt: They sent to congress a bill that, if passed, would ban a small subset of weapons that everyone agrees are nothing but pointless aesthetics.

Yup, the AWB was a joke the first time. Manufacturers just made cosmetic changes to get around it.



Any "Assault Weapons Ban" is a joke.

If your goal is to significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by gun violence.

That IS your goal, isn't it?
 
2013-01-20 11:17:49 AM  

Stone Meadow: coeyagi: Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

Wow, someone needs to read Freakonomics and stop thinking correlation = causation.

Again, i can't stress this enough, you EPICLY FAILED.

Relax, Francis...you'll strain something. Nobody claimed causation. By the same token, however, the implied claim that more guns leads to more crime is demonstrably fallacious.


Relax, Francis... no one claimed that either. We're too busy debunking non-sensical derp from the right to make outrageous claims of our own.
 
2013-01-20 11:18:09 AM  

coeyagi: not to paint all gun owners as gun nuts.


Bullshiat. That's exactly what the point is. The NRA has a bit more than 4 million members. There are 80 million gun owners in this country. The goal is to paint all gun owners who don't agree with Bloomberg, Cuomo, and the Brady Campaign as nuts. The NRA helps because they are also a GOP advocacy organization, at least at the national level, whose board has been hijacked by Republicans and is lacking in marketing-savvy and PR. Nobody can speak for all gun owners, that's impossible. People who are advocating anti-gun legislation look at the NRA because they have the loudest bullhorn, pretend to care what gun owners think, then dismiss everyone who objects to them because they've assigned all objection to the NRA. To them, it's impossible to object to Obama's congressional proposals if you're anything other than a small-penised, racist, tea party republican with an NRA bumper sticker on their pickup. It's an echo chamber, being amplified by a clueless and irresponsible media establishment for which this is yet another in a decades-long string of issues that the American public is kept ignorant and emotional about by a handful of media conglomerates who desire arguments and advertiser dollars above elucidation and education.

The two sides have already been decided. There's no such thing as a constitutional argument because the Supreme Court was wrong and/or the 2A doesn't rule out UK-style gun control (the notion that anything short of an outright ownership ban is perfectly constitutional). The argument is between the NRA (which for narrative purposes represents the entire gun industry and all gun owners, not just the 4 million end users) which hates cops and children and is on the side of lunatics (despite supporting enforcement of laws which they advocated that bar the mentally ill from owning weapons) and reasonable, commonsense proposals emanating from places like New York and California that won't infringe on anybody's right to hunt, which is the only reason to really own a gun.

We can forget discussing the drug war, the police state, and our growing income inequality.
 
2013-01-20 11:19:16 AM  
coeyagi

That, and the fact that sh*tty kids who would have been born in 1973 or later DID NOT come of age in the early 90s because of Roe v. Wade.

The switch to unleaded gasoline may also have been a factor.
 
2013-01-20 11:19:32 AM  

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: LasersHurt: They sent to congress a bill that, if passed, would ban a small subset of weapons that everyone agrees are nothing but pointless aesthetics.

Yup, the AWB was a joke the first time. Manufacturers just made cosmetic changes to get around it.


Any "Assault Weapons Ban" is a joke.

If your goal is to significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by gun violence.

That IS your goal, isn't it?


I think that is the goal we're all working on, yes. What things do you support to that end (before you misunderstand, I'm not under any impression the AWB is good for this)?
 
2013-01-20 11:20:21 AM  

LasersHurt: That said, this can't be a huge assault on the second amendment AND "pointless", either.


Why not? Banning a commonly-owned, legal group of firearms that is used extremely rarely in crime is indeed "pointless" when it comes to the stated purpose of reducing violent crime.

At the same time, such a restriction can indeed infringe on people's rights.
 
2013-01-20 11:20:28 AM  

Mrtraveler01: doglover: Only, switch out gay rights for gun rights and suddenly it's not some contemptible heel like Santorum talking out of his ass, it's you verbatim.

Really?

I don't know about anyone else but that doesn't sound like me. I'm not banning people owning guns like Santorum wants to ban people getting married. Unless someone wants to ban guns completely, then the comparison doesn't work.

What an idiotic comparison, you should be ashamed of yourself.


What the hell are you talking about? Marriage isn't completely banned either. The comparison is spot-on.
 
2013-01-20 11:20:45 AM  

Stone Meadow: coeyagi: Stone Meadow: Uranus Is Huge!: I bet if we flooded our violent crime-ridden inner cities with more guns, there would be less crime.

More guns = less crime, right?

Yes, pretty much.

[geekpolitics.com image 250x295]

Wow, someone needs to read Freakonomics and stop thinking correlation = causation.

Again, i can't stress this enough, you EPICLY FAILED.

Relax, Francis...you'll strain something. Nobody claimed causation. By the same token, however, the implied claim that more guns leads to more crime is demonstrably fallacious.


Seemed to imply that between 1970-1980.

/Just sayin'
//Honestly believes there's no relation between the two
 
2013-01-20 11:20:49 AM  

Fark It: coeyagi: not to paint all gun owners as gun nuts.

Bullshiat. That's exactly what the point is. The NRA has a bit more than 4 million members. There are 80 million gun owners in this country. The goal is to paint all gun owners who don't agree with Bloomberg, Cuomo, and the Brady Campaign as nuts. The NRA helps because they are also a GOP advocacy organization, at least at the national level, whose board has been hijacked by Republicans and is lacking in marketing-savvy and PR. Nobody can speak for all gun owners, that's impossible. People who are advocating anti-gun legislation look at the NRA because they have the loudest bullhorn, pretend to care what gun owners think, then dismiss everyone who objects to them because they've assigned all objection to the NRA. To them, it's impossible to object to Obama's congressional proposals if you're anything other than a small-penised, racist, tea party republican with an NRA bumper sticker on their pickup. It's an echo chamber, being amplified by a clueless and irresponsible media establishment for which this is yet another in a decades-long string of issues that the American public is kept ignorant and emotional about by a handful of media conglomerates who desire arguments and advertiser dollars above elucidation and education.

The two sides have already been decided. There's no such thing as a constitutional argument because the Supreme Court was wrong and/or the 2A doesn't rule out UK-style gun control (the notion that anything short of an outright ownership ban is perfectly constitutional). The argument is between the NRA (which for narrative purposes represents the entire gun industry and all gun owners, not just the 4 million end users) which hates cops and children and is on the side of lunatics (despite supporting enforcement of laws which they advocated that bar the mentally ill from owning weapons) and reasonable, commonsense proposals emanating from places like New York and California that won't inf ...


tl;dr

But I did skim, and you didn't provide any facts. So, yeah, pure conjecture on your part, bro. Just like I could say you think that all liberals and Dems are gun grabbers, although, if I let you go long enough, you'll probably insinuate it.
 
2013-01-20 11:22:53 AM  

Mrtraveler01: CADMonkey79: You lump all guns owners (crazy and responsible) into one group

You can't blame them though when the crazy seem to overpower the responsible in the gun debate.


If the responsible ones would just tell the crazy ones (Alex Jones, etc.) to STFU and go sit in a corner, then maybe we could have a serious debate about this for once.


I agree, but I think it applies to both sides.
 
2013-01-20 11:23:04 AM  

LasersHurt: That said, this can't be a huge assault on the second amendment AND "pointless", either. Do you see the irony?


Of course. Gun control advocates and people who believe in gun rights don't think this legislation is pointless. Where we differ is on the Constitutionality front. I think it is unconstitutional, and if this kind of ban is allowed, then there really is no limit to how much further the disarmament advocates will push things. If we end up mimicking countries where gun ownership is a privilege then how can it be called a right? How can we square that with the Constitution? What other rights do we put on the chopping block in the name of safety?
 
2013-01-20 11:23:07 AM  

Alonjar: Outlaw private gun sales?


Yup. Or regulate them by requiring the buyer to submit to a background check.


Alonjar: How would preventing the private sale of guns stop a guy who has decided to sacrifice his life in order to murder a bunch of people?


By making it such that he would have to use a knife or a hammer to murder those bunches of people, thereby making him easier to stop in the course of his rampage than he would be if he had a gun. The same rationale applies to bans on high-capacity clips.
 
2013-01-20 11:24:10 AM  

coeyagi: Relax, Francis... no one claimed that either. We're too busy debunking non-sensical derp from the right to make outrageous claims of our own.


"Debunking" implies that you have some sort of evidence. What is that evidence you have that shows more guns leads to more serious crime? The US Dept of Justice has voluminous amounts of data showing that there is no correlation between the two, and in the years since the data I showed earlier the trend has become only more clear.

Show me your data. Otherwise it's just your whiny opinion.
 
2013-01-20 11:24:13 AM  

Fark It: 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.


I think you've made a lot of great points in this thread about why people are skeptical and suspicious of gun control advocates, and have favorited you as such.

However I do have to wonder why you would choose to live in a place where you believed such hardware was required to protect yourself. Personally if I lived somewhere where I felt a 410 revolver was inadequate defense, I'd probably find somewhere else to live.
 
2013-01-20 11:24:45 AM  
You can tell American hunters aren't really interested in getting food, because hunters interested in food always collect mushrooms as well. Hunting without mushroom collection is trophy hunting.

For example, mushroom sauce is chasseur in French, Jaeger in German and cacciatore in Italian. In Murkin it's Campbell's soup.
 
2013-01-20 11:25:34 AM  

OscarTamerz: Please Chimpbama, repass the "assault" weapons because it did absolutely nothing the first time around, would have done nothing at Springhook and won't do anything this time but give us the senate back. Or in Brer Rabbit tar baby terms you may be familiar with, "Please don't throw us in that briar patch!"


Just lowering the artificially enhanced testosterone permeating our culture would make a bit of difference. Nobody wants to take everyone's guns. Just the fantasy pieces.
 
2013-01-20 11:26:08 AM  

Fart_Machine: CADMonkey79: It seems that is what you are implying. It goes back to what Clinton is saying. You lump all guns owners (crazy and responsible) into one group and trivialize their way of thinking and there will be push back probably resulting is some significant election loses for the democrats.

So I didn't. You're just overly-sensitive.


I might be over-sensitive to the fact that most gun owners that I know are not crazy, yet that seems to be the gun-control proponents assertion. The NRA only has 4.3 million members, how many people own guns.
 
2013-01-20 11:26:35 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 children who die to diverse forms of domestic violence every year totally support your argument that's its all because of guns.

/the sarcasm is because you're being foolish
 
2013-01-20 11:26:38 AM  
I am in favor of keeping the Second Amendment. Not because it is a God-given right, or because it stands as the last bastion of liberty from a tyrannical government, or because the Founding Fathers wanted it that way, or because people have a right to defend themselves in their homes or on the streets; but because that is the way we have always done it. It's a tradition, we've been doing it for 225 years. We Americans put up with a whole heck of a lot in the name of tradition.

The Constitution is our version of the Crown Jewels. We don't mess with it lightly. We'd rather put up with clumsy, out-dated provisions like the Electoral College than go to the trouble of, or take the chance, of actually fixing things. We're sentimental about it. So long as a provision doesn't interfere with the proper administration of the nation, it is tolerated. The Second Amendment, or rather the improper and self-serving manner in which is now being interpreted, is starting to interfere with the proper administration of the nation.

Accept some reasonable restrictions in the types of guns you can own, the process you go through to purchase one, and the size of the magazine you can use with it. The American people want you to keep your gun rights, but the insanity must stop.
 
2013-01-20 11:26:53 AM  

shotglasss: Says guns are the problem and that the citizens don't need them.

[webpages.charter.net image 420x320]

Sends his kids to school protected by lots of guns. Has a vacant house in Chicago protected by guns. Owns guns.


Is POTUSA,

upload.wikimedia.org

...which makes him and his family a favored target for nutters of all flavors, unlike your average Joe nobody's ever heard of.

See the difference?
 
2013-01-20 11:26:59 AM  

Fark It: LasersHurt: That said, this can't be a huge assault on the second amendment AND "pointless", either. Do you see the irony?

Of course. Gun control advocates and people who believe in gun rights don't think this legislation is pointless. Where we differ is on the Constitutionality front. I think it is unconstitutional, and if this kind of ban is allowed, then there really is no limit to how much further the disarmament advocates will push things. If we end up mimicking countries where gun ownership is a privilege then how can it be called a right? How can we square that with the Constitution? What other rights do we put on the chopping block in the name of safety?


Car ownership? You can't drive til you're 16, or when you're drunk.
 
2013-01-20 11:27:58 AM  

zenobia: Nobody wants to take everyone's guns. Just the fantasy pieces.


You mean the ones that are overwhelmingly used for sporting and competition use, and which are used extremely rarely in crime? Why?
 
2013-01-20 11:28:24 AM  

clambam: It's a tradition, we've been doing it for 225 years.


Yeah, so was slavery.
 
2013-01-20 11:28:25 AM  

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: LasersHurt: They sent to congress a bill that, if passed, would ban a small subset of weapons that everyone agrees are nothing but pointless aesthetics.

Yup, the AWB was a joke the first time. Manufacturers just made cosmetic changes to get around it.


Any "Assault Weapons Ban" is a joke.

If your goal is to significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by gun violence.

That IS your goal, isn't it?


wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com

I think you are overfitting.
 
2013-01-20 11:28:48 AM  

coeyagi: Fark It: coeyagi: not to paint all gun owners as gun nuts.

Bullshiat. That's exactly what the point is. The NRA has a bit more than 4 million members. There are 80 million gun owners in this country. The goal is to paint all gun owners who don't agree with Bloomberg, Cuomo, and the Brady Campaign as nuts. The NRA helps because they are also a GOP advocacy organization, at least at the national level, whose board has been hijacked by Republicans and is lacking in marketing-savvy and PR. Nobody can speak for all gun owners, that's impossible. People who are advocating anti-gun legislation look at the NRA because they have the loudest bullhorn, pretend to care what gun owners think, then dismiss everyone who objects to them because they've assigned all objection to the NRA. To them, it's impossible to object to Obama's congressional proposals if you're anything other than a small-penised, racist, tea party republican with an NRA bumper sticker on their pickup. It's an echo chamber, being amplified by a clueless and irresponsible media establishment for which this is yet another in a decades-long string of issues that the American public is kept ignorant and emotional about by a handful of media conglomerates who desire arguments and advertiser dollars above elucidation and education.

The two sides have already been decided. There's no such thing as a constitutional argument because the Supreme Court was wrong and/or the 2A doesn't rule out UK-style gun control (the notion that anything short of an outright ownership ban is perfectly constitutional). The argument is between the NRA (which for narrative purposes represents the entire gun industry and all gun owners, not just the 4 million end users) which hates cops and children and is on the side of lunatics (despite supporting enforcement of laws which they advocated that bar the mentally ill from owning weapons) and reasonable, commonsense proposals emanating from places like New York and California that ...


A straw-man and an ad hominem, while proving my point about the assumptions that are being made about gun ownership and the nature of this debate. I'm impressed. I didn't see any facts in your posts either.
 
2013-01-20 11:29:01 AM  

CADMonkey79: I might be over-sensitive to the fact that most gun owners that I know are not crazy, yet that seems to be the gun-control proponents assertion.


That seems to be the assertion you have in your mind, yes.
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | 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