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  
•       •       •

16576 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 | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 11:29:19 AM

serpent_sky: 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.


heypete: 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.


Vaild points.
 
2013-01-20 11:30:12 AM

The Name: 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.


How does a criminal history check tell you someones intent to murder people in the future?

Oh, it doesnt.

Thats my whole point here... this is a giant show being put on to pander to peoples illogical and over-emotional responses to sensationalized events.

If I wanted to murder a bunch of people in a hail of glory murder/suicide rampage, and I failed a background check... I wouldnt really care. I'd break into your house and steal your guns... or id spend a grand total of 3 seconds breaking into the trunk of a cop car to steal his AR-15.

If I couldnt purchase extended magazines from the store, I would just fabricate my own. A gun magazine is just about the simplest device on the planet.. you can build one with tin snips.

These things might sound unreasonable to a normal person, but we arent worried about normal people, are we?
 
2013-01-20 11:30:56 AM
Fark It: What other rights do we put on the chopping block in the name of safety?

RIP, Habeas Corpus 1789-2006
 
2013-01-20 11:32:19 AM

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


This is ample evidence that to gun fetishists, guns are more important than people. Another example is "guns don't kill people, people kill people". The message is "Guns are perfect godlike objects above every form of criticism, and people are inherently evil".

www.nachtkabarett.com
 
2013-01-20 11:33:33 AM

Fart_Machine: 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.


And there is no evidence of that in this thread? Come on.
 
2013-01-20 11:33:53 AM
How come just about every response the pro-gun crowd offers is an unironic endorsement of stricter gun control?

Except for 3D printers. That's the intersection of gun-fantasy and trekkie.
 
2013-01-20 11:34:19 AM

clambam: 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.


We do. There's already restrictions on full-auto guns, artillery, explosives, etc. Pretty much nobody has any objections to background checks.

Where people do have issues with is when there are proposals to ban semi-auto guns that look scary but are otherwise functionally identical to other semi-auto guns. People have issues when these guns are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes and are one of the least-used types of guns in crime. Why should people accept restrictions on the most common rifle in the country (the AR-15) when such restrictions would have essentially no effect on crime, as demonstrated by previous federal and state level restrictions?

Why should people accept restrictions on magazine capacity (which only ever seem to ratchet lower and lower, as evidenced by the recent New York law reducing the limit from "10" to "7") when such limits haven't been shown to be effective at reducing violent crime rates or the effectiveness of mass shooters? (Nobody's saying that they need to be 100% effective, but so far there's no real evidence that it would have any effect.)

Simply calling a restriction "reasonable" does not make it so.
 
2013-01-20 11:36:38 AM

heypete: 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.


Well, you put them in THEIR place. Your now totally on the side of the angels.

3.bp.blogspot.com
/send them your cut up membership card or STFU.
 
2013-01-20 11:37:44 AM
i.imgur.com
What Democrats enforcing gun control laws might look like.
 
2013-01-20 11:37:48 AM

adragontattoo: Do tell me what exactly is the difference between the two?
How is THIS
Different from


I do not know those guns. I wonder which of these you'd find most useful for hunting?

upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org

/I've only used one of those myself
 
2013-01-20 11:39:10 AM

ilambiquated: Car ownership? You can't drive til you're 16, or when you're drunk.


That's a terrible analogy for several reasons. I'll give you a few minutes to figure out why.
 
2013-01-20 11:39:35 AM

GoldSpider: 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.


Not everybody has the luxury to choose to live in crime-free utopias. A Glock 19 is $500. Moving, let alone some place safer, is much more expensive and just not an option for many people, most of them poor. As a LIBERAL, I believe in standing up for these people by preserving their safety net, reforming our ridiculous drug laws, and not questioning their choices when it comes how they feel they need to protect their lives, families, and livelihoods. I believe in protecting women, the infirm and elderly, and the disabled. Most "reasonable" gun control laws I have seen proposed fly completely in the face of my beliefs as a liberal. Yes, women, you're equal in the eyes of the law. You are not the physical equal of the lawless, and relegating them to unwieldy shotguns that can crack the shoulders of grown men is not my idea of a reasonable, commonsense gun control idea.

I think you may be letting your privilege give you the idea that people really have a choice (at least economically) of where to live.
 
2013-01-20 11:39:37 AM

CADMonkey79: 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.


What bugs me about gun owners (and yes, I think this CAN be broadly applied) is the way they wrap so much of their identity up in these objects. They invest so much of themselves in the protection and veneration of these things that they expect gun-control advocates, if not to stop supporting gun control, then at least to tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities about their inanimate chunks of metal. Even gun owners that aren't crazy per se expect to be coddled whenever gun control comes up in conversation. Every time someone comes out for strong, meaningful gun control, they always have to preface it with, "Now, I support the second amendment . . ." because they know a majority of gun owners will drag their feet on supporting such control if their egos aren't sufficiently inflated.
 
2013-01-20 11:40:07 AM
So, all the derp and executive action over AR-15 style sporting rifles, and the murderer at Sandy Hook never used a rifle. He used 4 handguns.
 
2013-01-20 11:40:29 AM

Uncle Tractor: I do not know those guns. I wonder which of these you'd find most useful for hunting?


D. None of the above.
 
2013-01-20 11:41:21 AM
When it comes to Assault Weapons, the pro-gun crowd likes to cite statistics and data for their counter-argument.

When it comes to handguns, the pro-gun crowd doesn't like statistics and data anymore, so they cite legal decisions.

Which argument is more logically sound?
 
2013-01-20 11:41:25 AM

CADMonkey79: Fart_Machine: 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.

And there is no evidence of that in this thread? Come on.


Also, if this is not the case then why did Bill Clinton make a speech about that very topic?
 
2013-01-20 11:42:29 AM

Blathering Idjut: send them your cut up membership card or STFU.


Sarcasm aside, that's something I considered and mentioned it in the letter.

Still, they've been reasonably effective in the last few years at protecting people's rights to keep and bear arms, as well as promoting safety, training, and range management. I support those things and my membership dues further those purposes (I don't contribute money to the NRA-ILA, their lobbying arm). Additionally, I think that people can change a system for the better by working within it.
 
2013-01-20 11:42:37 AM

Alonjar: Thats my whole point here... this is a giant show being put on to pander to peoples illogical and over-emotional responses to sensationalized events.


What sensationalized events?
 
2013-01-20 11:43:07 AM

GAT_00: kids getting killed for supposed freedoms


Possibly the most brain dead thing I've ever seen you post. You would rightly mock the retorts like "so why dun't whee ban carsss?" but them you go and post something that says you think about as deeply before you type as they do. A post that is exactly as rich and nuanced as the cars ban retort.
 
2013-01-20 11:43:42 AM

umad: 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.


May I hazard the guess that guns used for hunting are accurate and not so suitable for filling the air with bullets? Perhaps also not so easily tucked in a belt?

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.

Nice strawman. "umad" alright.
 
2013-01-20 11:43:58 AM
Uncle Tractor,
adragontattoo: Do tell me what exactly is the difference between the two?
How is THIS
Different from
I do not know those guns. I wonder which of these you'd find most useful for hunting?


Depends on what your favored game is and where. The top one would be pretty good for hunting homo sapien in an urban environment through ambush methodology. Although any one of the tools listed would be moderately successful.
 
2013-01-20 11:44:00 AM

Alonjar: Jim_Callahan: And by point of contention I mean it's the actual arguable one. Closing the gun-show loophole basically everyone agrees is a good idea, it's like 99% likely to happen, the one-test AWB basically everyone agrees is a stupid idea worth opposing, it's kind of a snowball in hell. Magazine size limits are sort of the part that can go either way without much trouble.

Aaaaaaarrrrgh

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE.

How many farking times does this have to be explained. You have zero knowledge on gun laws, or why the laws are the way they are. Therefore, you should shut your mouth about things you have absolutely no knowledge about, and leave decision making to people that bother to be diligent.

Gunshows arent even a damn thing... they are a SWAP MEET. Thats all a gunshow is... a giant swap meet. You want to outlaw too many people from congregating together in the same place? Because thats all you would be doing.


40% of gun sales are without a background check. That sounds like a pretty big "loophole", regardless of the semantics you want to use.
 
2013-01-20 11:44:06 AM

MylesHeartVodak: So, all the derp and executive action over AR-15 style sporting rifles, and the murderer at Sandy Hook never used a rifle. He used 4 handguns.


It turns out that's not true. That was in the original State Police report, but was later corrected. The murderer took the Bushmaster and 2 handguns into the school, and used them all. It was a shotgun the police found in the truck of the car.
 
2013-01-20 11:44:12 AM

LasersHurt: 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.



Then why target Assault WeaponsTM?


"On average, 19 bus occupants die annually on U.S. roadways. Over the 10-year period between 1999 and 2008, there were 54 fatal motor coach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities."

Total highway fatalities in 2011: 32,367


Like buses, Assault WeaponsTM  are big and scary, and when things go badly, the news makes national headlines, and emotions run high.

But the fact is that very few people are killed by either buses or Assault WeaponsTM.

Banning Assault WeaponsTM to reduce gun deaths would make about as much sense as banning buses to reduce highway fatalities.

Anyone with a lick of sense understands this - INCLUDING the hand-wringing politicians.

So what is their agenda?
 
2013-01-20 11:46:26 AM

Amos Quito: So what is their agenda?


To sell all of our national interests to Israel.
 
2013-01-20 11:47:01 AM

The Name: What bugs me about gun owners (and yes, I think this CAN be broadly applied) is the way they wrap so much of their identity up in these objects. They invest so much of themselves in the protection and veneration of these things that they expect gun-control advocates, if not to stop supporting gun control, then at least to tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities about their inanimate chunks of metal. Even gun owners that aren't crazy per se expect to be coddled whenever gun control comes up in conversation. Every time someone comes out for strong, meaningful gun control, they always have to preface it with, "Now, I support the second amendment . . ." because they know a majority of gun owners will drag their feet on supporting such control if their egos aren't sufficiently inflated.


I can say the same thing about the 4th Amendment and torture when this was the ACLU fighting the Bush administration and predominantly conservatives. To most people, guns, things that they own, that has more immediacy to people than something abstract like the 4th Amendment, which only applies if you've been fingered by the government, and mostly to those scary brown people. It's unfortunate, but an assault on the 2nd Amendment garners fiercer opposition than the erosion of other Amendments because it has immediacy to people who have guns or even rely on them for protection. There's no such thing as a "user" of the 4th Amendment, if you catch my drift.

And your point about having to preface gun control arguments with "Now, I support the second amendment," is dishonest because it leaves out the "...but" and gun owners mostly don't believe you.
 
2013-01-20 11:47:11 AM

Amos Quito: LasersHurt: 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.


Then why target Assault WeaponsTM?


"On average, 19 bus occupants die annually on U.S. roadways. Over the 10-year period between 1999 and 2008, there were 54 fatal motor coach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities."

Total highway fatalities in 2011: 32,367


Like buses, Assault WeaponsTM  are big and scary, and when things go badly, the news makes national headlines, and emotions run high.

But the fact is that very few people are killed by either buses or Assault WeaponsTM.

Banning Assault WeaponsTM to reduce gun deaths would make about as much sense as banning buses to reduce highway fatalities.

Anyone with a lick of sense understands this - INCLUDING the hand-wringing politicians.

So what is their agenda?


You need a special license to operate a bus. If you're making that comparison, is it safe to assume you support a special license or some level higher standards to be allowed to own and fire a semi-automatic rifle?
 
2013-01-20 11:47:23 AM

Enemabag Jones: 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


So now its a matter of caliber and NOT whether it is an "assault weapon" or not?  Interesting, so what calibers are now evil and should be banned? 

Fine, ban extended magazines, limit them to 10 rounds!  Here is the kicker though, either make your escape, or tackle the lunatic with the gun in the ~.5 to 1 second it takes him to drop a magazine and insert another one.  It isnt hard to learn to do it in that timeframe with simple practice.  This does of course assume that the crazy person who is shooting at living people has bothered to make sure that he is following the law and only using 10 round magazines though.  Dont want to break any laws based on the number of rounds in the magazine while he is commiting murder!

Here is a better idea, enforce the already existing laws.  Stop treating mental illness as something that if we whistle loud enough. will go away.  Stop giving the lunatic with the gun the front page.  Stop glorifying them, stop admitting that some people are broken mentally, stop using the victims as a banner in order to change what you dont like, stop trying to blame the numbers of rounds in the magazine, the furniture on the gun, the video games, movies, tv or books.
 
2013-01-20 11:47:45 AM

One Big Ass Mistake America: [i.imgur.com image 570x381]
What Democrats enforcing gun control laws might look like.


You mean you're going to burn yourself up based on Armageddon theology?
 
2013-01-20 11:48:49 AM

Amos Quito: LasersHurt: 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.


Then why target Assault WeaponsTM?


"On average, 19 bus occupants die annually on U.S. roadways. Over the 10-year period between 1999 and 2008, there were 54 fatal motor coach crashes resulting in 186 fatalities."

Total highway fatalities in 2011: 32,367


Like buses, Assault WeaponsTM  are big and scary, and when things go badly, the news makes national headlines, and emotions run high.

But the fact is that very few people are killed by either buses or Assault WeaponsTM.

Banning Assault WeaponsTM to reduce gun deaths would make about as much sense as banning buses to reduce highway fatalities.

Anyone with a lick of sense understands this - INCLUDING the hand-wringing politicians.

So what is their agenda?


So you're saying we don't regulate busses?
 
2013-01-20 11:49:21 AM

heypete: Blathering Idjut: send them your cut up membership card or STFU.

Sarcasm aside, that's something I considered and mentioned it in the letter.

Still, they've been reasonably effective in the last few years at protecting people's rights to keep and bear arms, as well as promoting safety, training, and range management. I support those things and my membership dues further those purposes (I don't contribute money to the NRA-ILA, their lobbying arm). Additionally, I think that people can change a system for the better by working within it.


The NRA is not responsible for Heller or McDonald, they rode on Alan Gura's coattails.
 
2013-01-20 11:50:02 AM

MylesHeartVodak: So, all the derp and executive action over AR-15 style sporting rifles, and the murderer at Sandy Hook never used a rifle. He used 4 handguns.


That's factually untrue. There's ample evidence that you're wrong.

Uranus Is Huge!: When it comes to Assault Weapons, the pro-gun crowd likes to cite statistics and data for their counter-argument.


True. Rifles are rarely used in crime. They are overwhelmingly used for perfectly lawful purposes.

When it comes to handguns, the pro-gun crowd doesn't like statistics and data anymore, so they cite legal decisions.

While it's true that handguns are more frequently in crime than rifles, that doesn't mean that pro-gun-rights people "don't like" the statistics. The vast majority of handguns are used for lawful purposes and are quite suitable for self-defense both in and out of the home. They are also more frequently targeted for restriction than rifles, so mentioning the legal aspects is a reasonable counter-argument.

Which argument is more logically sound?

Both.

What's your point?
 
2013-01-20 11:50:12 AM

Lost Thought 00: 5 shot dead at the gun checks at 3 different gun show on "Gun Appreciation Day".

Another example of the 99% making the 1% look bad.


There was a picture in this morning's paper of yesterday's local pro-gun rally -- including several fat, redneck women showing off their grinning six-year-olds who are decked out like Rambo (head rags and all) and waving toy machine guns. The next generation's crop of sociopaths.
 
2013-01-20 11:50:25 AM

GoldSpider: ilambiquated: Car ownership? You can't drive til you're 16, or when you're drunk.

That's a terrible analogy for several reasons. I'll give you a few minutes to figure out why.


Wow that's generous of you big guy.
 
2013-01-20 11:50:52 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: When it comes to Assault Weapons, the pro-gun crowd likes to cite statistics and data for their counter-argument.

When it comes to handguns, the pro-gun crowd doesn't like statistics and data anymore, so they cite legal decisions.

Which argument is more logically sound?


[citation needed]

The problem is that most people are not able to properly comprehend statistics. 10,000 people only sounds like a lot to someone who doesn't have a proper frame of reference.

I mean hell, look at how the world changed on 9/11 because less than 3000 people died. More babies than that are aborted every single day in America. Statistically, 9/11 shouldn't have mattered at all... but its the same illogical, emotion-based thinking which results in horrible decisions like a bajillion trillion dollars spent blowing up sand in a desert.

How many more people were harmed by the response to 9/11 vs the event itself?

Gun advocates are just looking at the situation the same way. The response to a statistical anomaly like Sandy Hook is seen as having the potential to cause more long term harm to our rights and safety than its worth.
 
2013-01-20 11:50:55 AM

Fark It: A Glock 19 is $500.


The revolver I mentioned costs about the same. I would expect (correct me if I'm wrong) an AK would be somewhat pricier.

Fark It: As a LIBERAL, I believe in standing up for these people by preserving their safety net, reforming our ridiculous drug laws, and not questioning their choices when it comes how they feel they need to protect their lives, families, and livelihoods.


On board with all of that as well. And I wouldn't dictate to anyone how he or she would protect their family. Though I might offer that a semi-auto rifle isn't their safest/most effective option.
 
2013-01-20 11:50:59 AM

The Name: CADMonkey79: 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.

What bugs me about gun owners (and yes, I think this CAN be broadly applied) is the way they wrap so much of their identity up in these objects. They invest so much of themselves in the protection and veneration of these things that they expect gun-control advocates, if not to stop supporting gun control, then at least to tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities about their inanimate chunks of metal. Even gun owners that aren't crazy per se expect to be coddled whenever gun control comes up in conversation. Every time someone comes out for strong, meaningful gun control, they always have to preface it with, "Now, I support the second amendment . . ." because they know a majority of gun owners will drag their feet on supporting such control if their egos aren't sufficiently inflated.


When you say it like that it seems you are implying most gun owners are crazy. And that is exactly what Clinton was getting at in his speech. That approach from the gun-control crowd is not helping and probably will not result in any "meaningful" changes due to resistance from the sane and crazy alike.
 
2013-01-20 11:53:44 AM

Wayne 985: You need a special license to operate a bus. If you're making that comparison, is it safe to assume you support a special license or some level higher standards to be allowed to own and fire a semi-automatic rifle?


Wow. "Completely Missing the Point" on Wayne 985. 15 yard penalty AND loss of down.
 
2013-01-20 11:54:02 AM

Amos Quito: o


I'm asking for your constructive ideas, not your complaints.
 
2013-01-20 11:55:06 AM

Alonjar: I mean hell, look at how the world changed on 9/11 because less than 3000 people died. More babies than that are aborted every single day in America.


OK, you're a loon. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-01-20 11:55:19 AM

Fark It: The NRA is not responsible for Heller or McDonald, they rode on Alan Gura's coattails.


I never said they were. There's more to "defending rights" than two specific Supreme Court cases.

Wayne 985: 40% of gun sales are without a background check. That sounds like a pretty big "loophole", regardless of the semantics you want to use.


How many of guns transferred (not necessarily sold) in that manner were used in crime, or were transferred to criminals? The oft-published 40% number is interesting in its own right, but is of limited usefulness without more context. What if most of the private transfers were from parent to a child (presumably of legal age and responsibility to own a firearm)? How many transfers were between good friends who knew that the recipient was not a criminal?
 
2013-01-20 11:55:35 AM

Wayne 985: 40% of gun sales are without a background check. That sounds like a pretty big "loophole", regardless of the semantics you want to use.


So call it what it is. You want to ban the private sale of firearms.

Calling it a gunshow loophole is disingenuous... if you asked ANYONE "Would you support closing X loophole" they will almost always say yes, because using the term "loophole" automatically suggests that they are getting away with something that they shouldnt be, which isnt the case.

Its a disgusting form of manipulation that I wouldnt support in ANY argument.
 
2013-01-20 11:55:40 AM

Fark It: gun owners mostly don't believe you.


Right, which I think speaks to a certain streak of paranoia that often causes people to become gun owners in the first place.

Fark It: I can say the same thing about the 4th Amendment and torture when this was the ACLU fighting the Bush administration and predominantly conservatives. To most people, guns, things that they own, that has more immediacy to people than something abstract like the 4th Amendment, which only applies if you've been fingered by the government, and mostly to those scary brown people. It's unfortunate, but an assault on the 2nd Amendment garners fiercer opposition than the erosion of other Amendments because it has immediacy to people who have guns or even rely on them for protection. There's no such thing as a "user" of the 4th Amendment, if you catch my drift.


This is absolutely correct, but I don't think it goes far enough. There's just something about guns or gun people that makes even "sane" gun owners a little . . . weird . . . about the gun thing. No other objects have so much emotional and cultural capital invested in them, even things that have just as much immediacy to people. In any case, I think this is a cultural problem compounded by a legal problem. We're fixated on our guns to a point that is self-destructive, and the problem is virtually impossible to fix because of some archaic amendment to the Constitution and the power of the gun lobby.
 
2013-01-20 11:56:08 AM
Shut up Bill Clinton.

Southern Rednecks don't have rights.

/wondering if Obama is just posturing or is really determined on wrecking his second term over this
 
2013-01-20 11:57:36 AM
mksmith

There was a picture in this morning's paper of yesterday's local pro-gun rally -- including several fat, redneck women showing off their grinning six-year-olds who are decked out like Rambo (head rags and all) and waving toy machine guns. The next generation's crop of sociopaths.

Like the Big Dog said "don't trivialize gun culture."
 
2013-01-20 11:58:00 AM

Fart_Machine: One Big Ass Mistake America: [i.imgur.com image 570x381]
What Democrats enforcing gun control laws might look like.

You mean you're going to burn yourself up based on Armageddon theology?


1999 is 666 upside down
 
2013-01-20 11:58:36 AM

CADMonkey79: When you say it like that it seems you are implying most gun owners are crazy. And that is exactly what Clinton was getting at in his speech. That approach from the gun-control crowd is not helping and probably will not result in any "meaningful" changes due to resistance from the sane and crazy alike.


Sorry, I honestly didn't mean the part you bolded to come off like that. I just meant, as I just said in another post, that gun owners are in general a little weird about gun control, even if they're not necessarily NRA-grade crazy.
 
2013-01-20 12:01:34 PM

The Name: Fark It: gun owners mostly don't believe you.

Right, which I think speaks to a certain streak of paranoia that often causes people to become gun owners in the first place.

Fark It: I can say the same thing about the 4th Amendment and torture when this was the ACLU fighting the Bush administration and predominantly conservatives. To most people, guns, things that they own, that has more immediacy to people than something abstract like the 4th Amendment, which only applies if you've been fingered by the government, and mostly to those scary brown people. It's unfortunate, but an assault on the 2nd Amendment garners fiercer opposition than the erosion of other Amendments because it has immediacy to people who have guns or even rely on them for protection. There's no such thing as a "user" of the 4th Amendment, if you catch my drift.

This is absolutely correct, but I don't think it goes far enough. There's just something about guns or gun people that makes even "sane" gun owners a little . . . weird . . . about the gun thing. No other objects have so much emotional and cultural capital invested in them, even things that have just as much immediacy to people. In any case, I think this is a cultural problem compounded by a legal problem. We're fixated on our guns to a point that is self-destructive, and the problem is virtually impossible to fix because of some archaic amendment to the Constitution and the power of the gun lobby.


Thanks for proving my point.
 
2013-01-20 12:01:41 PM

Mrtraveler01: 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 image 250x295]

Between 1970-1980, crime still went UP even as more people were owning guns.


Seen or read Freakonomics? There's correlation between unwanted children and crime. Let's see, what happened 23 years before 1995 (the year where crime really started to drop)? Peak crime age is 20-25. Those unwanted children simply just didn't exist to commit those crimes.
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report