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  
•       •       •

16579 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 | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 12:02:03 PM

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?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 320x160]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 320x213]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 320x114]

/I've only used one of those myself


Uzi fires 9mm
SigPro/Sig 2022 fires 9mm
Appears to be an FN-FAL or similar which fires .308/7.62

What is your point?  FYI, both the rifles I showed, fire the EXACT same round.  One of them is considered an "assault weapon" though because it is scary looking...
 
2013-01-20 12:02:37 PM

GoldSpider: 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.


Revolvers are nice, but at most they can hold 8 rounds (and those .357s are more than $500), they also generally kick more than semi-autos because they fire heavier ammunition and there is no slide-action to absorb recoil (.38 special +P typically kicks more than 9mm, due in part to the heavier bullet). In a home invasion or self-defense situation, I don't want "just enough." The police have no obligation to protect you and they are on average at least 10 minutes away, that's if they even bother showing up (Detroit). Their job is to take pictures and look for semen. A modern semi-automatic is going to be nearly as reliable as a good revolver and will have enough ammunition to take on multiple attackers. Most revolvers also won't accommodate tactical lights or lasers, which are invaluable in a home-defense scenario.

Revolvers that are on par with the quality of equivalent modern semi-automatics are by their nature going to cost more, as they require more precise machining and more metal. Modern semi-autos use a ton of polymer. You can't get a good S&W (suitable for home defense) for less than $500, and Colt hasn't made revolvers in forever. And if you're relying on Taurus for home defense then, well, at least you got a free NRA membership to go along with that fine piece of Brazilian engineering. I've heard good things about Ruger though....
 
2013-01-20 12:03:48 PM

The Name: 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.


You just did it again by putting "sane" in quotes.
 
2013-01-20 12:04:05 PM

CADMonkey79: Thanks for proving my point.


I admit, it is pretty hard not to be condescending when talking to Americans about their precious guns.
 
2013-01-20 12:04:42 PM
adragontattoo
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.

I don't completely disagree with you, but how is that an different from the non-answer the NRA provides. It is pretty difficult to prosecute a guy who put a bullet in his own skull.
 
2013-01-20 12:05:52 PM

CADMonkey79: You just did it again by putting "sane" in quotes.


Sorry I hurt your feelings. You know what I meant, now stop your biatching.
 
2013-01-20 12:07:19 PM

Wayne 985: 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?


IF the goal was to reduce the number of firearms related deaths and injuries, one would THINK that we should start with those weapons that are actually related to such incidents.

FBI - Murder Circumstances 2011 - by weapon:

Total murder victims: 12,664
Total Firearm murders: 8,583
Total Handgun murders: 6,220  (73%)
Total Rifle murders: 323 (3.7% - and yes, this INCLUDES "Assault Weapons")

Obviously the reduction of murder rates and gun violence is NOT the primary goal of the gun grabbers. If it were, they'd be going after the weapons that cause the vast majority of the carnage.

So if "Assault WeaponsTM" are actually a minor threat to public safety, there must be some OTHER reason that the gun-grabbers want these weapons taken from the hands of the public, right?

Any thoughts on that?
 
2013-01-20 12:08:30 PM

The Name: No other objects have so much emotional and cultural capital invested in them, even things that have just as much immediacy to people.


Birth control? Books? And I would hardly call it paranoia when there are people like Feinstein who on TV actually said she supported outright confiscation and would have gone with it if she had the votes. Or when confiscation has happened in New Orleans. "I support the 2nd Amendment, but" you should plug your grandfather's Garand because it has an 8-shot magazine and a bayonet lug, turn in your magazines, register all of your semi-autos, wait at least 6 months before we decide whether or not you're allowed to own a handgun, as in New York state, does not mean you actually support the 2nd Amendment.

adragontattoo: Appears to be an FN-FAL or similar which fires .308/7.62


G3 or similar variant.
 
2013-01-20 12:08:51 PM

clambam: because that is the way we have always done it. It's a tradition


Argumentum ad antiquitatem isn't a valid reason for anything.
 
2013-01-20 12:09:24 PM
Slick Willy knows what's good for the Dems. It's extremely frustrating to see them waste all of their political capital on a losing issue like gun control. All it will do is stir up the GOP base and push non-crazy gun owners who vote Democrat into the Republican fold. We're out there, I'm one of them.

Fark this BS, there's still plenty of problems left with the economy and gross income inequality.

Buh buh but
25.media.tumblr.com

Watch you dumb farkers hand the Senate to the GOP in 2016. It's happened before and the Teabaggers have gerrymandered things to hell this time around.
 
2013-01-20 12:09:28 PM

GoldSpider: 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.


Reading his comment again, you might be right. I misunderstood his post.
 
2013-01-20 12:09:28 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: You just did it again by putting "sane" in quotes.

Sorry I hurt your feelings. You know what I meant, now stop your biatching.


So you are retracting your apology?
 
2013-01-20 12:09:32 PM
How about we agree to a standard by which gun-control legislation would be judged? How is this for a start
"A new law intended to fix a problem must be written so that it would have significantly affected the problem if it was in place before the problem started." Can we agree that is a reasonable standard?

So, if the law is there to prevent 'mass shootings' but would not have affected the mass shootings if it was in place already... it fails. These new restrictions would have had no impact on the recent mass shootings if they were in place prior to the shootings.
 
2013-01-20 12:09:39 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: Thanks for proving my point.

I admit, it is pretty hard not to be condescending when talking to Americans about their precious guns rights.


To me this is about rights.
 
2013-01-20 12:09:50 PM

GoldSpider: 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.


Actually if you're going to compare the two it's a perfectly valid point.
 
2013-01-20 12:10:03 PM

Alonjar: 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.


Oh, you're a liar. Okay then.
 
2013-01-20 12:11:33 PM

Fark It: In a home invasion or self-defense situation, I don't want "just enough." ...... A modern semi-automatic is going to be nearly as reliable as a good revolver and will have enough ammunition to take on multiple attackers. Most revolvers also won't accommodate tactical lights or lasers, which are invaluable in a home-defense scenario.


I think this is where we disagree. And that's fine; like I said I won't presume to dictate to anyone their personal needs. I figure if somebody breaks into my house that a load of birdshot doesn't make him think twice, and that I need all that hardware to come out of the confrontation alive, I've probably done something to deserve what's coming my way.
 
2013-01-20 12:11:50 PM
Bill Clinton is right. There is a huge gun culture in this country, tightly wrapped in the culture of religion.

If you've ever had to face down a religious nut, you can now compare this to gun nuts. You have the same chances of convincing the idiot of evolution as you are of saying that you want to regulate certain guns and/or simply restrict clips sizes, etc.

My friend grew up in the south and is a very well-educated man, has a bachelor of science in geology, is an agnostic, and very socially liberal. I was shocked when he wouldn't listen to a damn word I said regarding what goals should be made for guns-- not to get rid of them, not to get rid of the 2nd amendment, but to simply have background checks, restrict guns that are obviously made for killing multiple targets at a very quick rate, etc.

To be fair, the situation made me think differently of him. How could a man so rational, so thoughtful, and so open to things suddenly shut down when I attempted a compromise and an understanding of guns with him? Well, his parents grew up as farmers, and his dad goes hunting as well as the rest of his family. Heck, I've used some of their shotguns before for shooting clay pigeons. To them, this whole debate is a slippery slope, and any sort of compromise with DA LIBS is a death knell for their guns and an invitation for god knows what. It frustrates me to no end, and seriously makes me want to get out of this area and go further north, and leave these damn people behind.

The point is, Bill Clinton is right. Don't trivialize gun culture-- not because I necessarily support it, but because it has a cult-like following, and no one ever won going up against God. Even if it's a false idol.
 
2013-01-20 12:11:58 PM

Wayne 985: 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.


I'm gonna go ahead and call a big pile of B.S. on this one. Care to cite your source?
 
2013-01-20 12:12:05 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: Thanks for proving my point.

I admit, it is pretty hard not to be condescending when talking to Americans about their precious guns.


Same goes for you whacko gun-grabbers that are afraid of inanimate objects.
 
2013-01-20 12:12:14 PM

ramblinwreck: 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.


I agree, but that fact does nothing to advance the argument, as it's being advanced by gun-control advocates in this thread, that we need to outlaw guns they don't like, and/or that we need to license and regulate the free exercise of that right by otherwise law-abiding citizens. Mass murders like the two incidents last year were perpetrated by mentally deranged individuals who consciously, and with malicious aforethought, broke numerous criminal statues on their way to perpetrate their crimes. Their efforts would have been just as murderous with only handguns with standard magazines, since that configuration is the least likely to fail. Demonizing scary black guns or demanding licensing and registration of guns and users is the height of security theater fear-mongering hypocrisy.
 
2013-01-20 12:12:17 PM

Fark It: Birth control?


If your guns have as much immediacy to you as your birth control, then you're doing it wrong.
 
2013-01-20 12:12:21 PM

Amos Quito: So if "Assault WeaponsTM" are actually a minor threat to public safety, there must be some OTHER reason that the gun-grabbers want these weapons taken from the hands of the public, right?


It's obviously a conspiracy by the Illuminati.
 
2013-01-20 12:12:45 PM
And I've had to 'correct' several people I know recently, because they all were given the impression that semi-automatic meant 'pull the trigger to spray bullets.' The news media is constantly talking about 'semi-automatic weapons' but neglects to actually describe what that is.

I tell you what. I'll support these 'magazine restrictions' if they also apply to the police. After all, why should a police officer have more ability to defend himself than I should have to defend my family?
 
2013-01-20 12:13:09 PM

GoldSpider: Fark It: In a home invasion or self-defense situation, I don't want "just enough." ...... A modern semi-automatic is going to be nearly as reliable as a good revolver and will have enough ammunition to take on multiple attackers. Most revolvers also won't accommodate tactical lights or lasers, which are invaluable in a home-defense scenario.

I think this is where we disagree. And that's fine; like I said I won't presume to dictate to anyone their personal needs. I figure if somebody breaks into my house that a load of birdshot doesn't make him think twice, and that I need all that hardware to come out of the confrontation alive, I've probably done something to deserve what's coming my way.


Or the intruder is just on a lot of meth/crack, and you should have foreseen this and went with a caliber with more stopping power if you had been properly informed.
 
2013-01-20 12:13:30 PM

LasersHurt: Amos Quito: o

I'm asking for your constructive ideas, not your complaints.



First: Reduce crime.

First best move: End the War On Drugs.
 
2013-01-20 12:14:09 PM
The ten round mag limitation is a bit much, but most of the rest isn't exactly insane. Though I have never used a full ten round (or more) mag when actually shooting at anything but paper.
 
2013-01-20 12:15:09 PM

Fark It: The Name: CADMonkey79: Thanks for proving my point.

I admit, it is pretty hard not to be condescending when talking to Americans about their precious guns rights.

To me this is about rights.



Indeed, rights that became obsolete about a hundred and fifty years ago. And rights that most other developed countries knew better than to enshrine in their constitutions in the first place.
 
2013-01-20 12:15:12 PM

Gato Blanco: Bill Clinton is right. There is a huge gun culture in this country, tightly wrapped in the culture of religion.

If you've ever had to face down a religious nut, you can now compare this to gun nuts. You have the same chances of convincing the idiot of evolution as you are of saying that you want to regulate certain guns and/or simply restrict clips sizes, etc.

My friend grew up in the south and is a very well-educated man, has a bachelor of science in geology, is an agnostic, and very socially liberal. I was shocked when he wouldn't listen to a damn word I said regarding what goals should be made for guns-- not to get rid of them, not to get rid of the 2nd amendment, but to simply have background checks, restrict guns that are obviously made for killing multiple targets at a very quick rate, etc.

To be fair, the situation made me think differently of him. How could a man so rational, so thoughtful, and so open to things suddenly shut down when I attempted a compromise and an understanding of guns with him? Well, his parents grew up as farmers, and his dad goes hunting as well as the rest of his family. Heck, I've used some of their shotguns before for shooting clay pigeons. To them, this whole debate is a slippery slope, and any sort of compromise with DA LIBS is a death knell for their guns and an invitation for god knows what. It frustrates me to no end, and seriously makes me want to get out of this area and go further north, and leave these damn people behind.

The point is, Bill Clinton is right. Don't trivialize gun culture-- not because I necessarily support it, but because it has a cult-like following, and no one ever won going up against God. Even if it's a false idol.


Amen, brother. Even if people aren't die hard NRA adherents, the NRA has convinced them that the libs are coming for their guns with every single idea of legislation, that each is tantamount to a slippery slope.
 
2013-01-20 12:15:17 PM
 
2013-01-20 12:16:13 PM

CADMonkey79: The Name: CADMonkey79: You just did it again by putting "sane" in quotes.

Sorry I hurt your feelings. You know what I meant, now stop your biatching.

So you are retracting your apology?


Yes.
 
2013-01-20 12:16:22 PM

Fart_Machine: 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.


LOL I'm the loon. Which part didnt you like? Are you saying that you have a legitimate concern that you are going to be murdered by a terrorist?

Or did you just read a lengthy post containing a variety of points.... and zero in on random relatively unrelated baby statistic, and use that as evidence to somehow invalidate logical arguments in your own mind?
 
2013-01-20 12:16:48 PM

Fart_Machine: Actually if you're going to compare the two it's a perfectly valid point.


The comparison is perfectly valid in the context of deaths by each and the emotional response thereto. The fact that one needs a special license to operate a bus has no relevance in context.
 
2013-01-20 12:16:50 PM

heypete: 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?


Legal interpretations change over time. Data doesn't.
 
2013-01-20 12:16:54 PM

GoldSpider: Fark It: In a home invasion or self-defense situation, I don't want "just enough." ...... A modern semi-automatic is going to be nearly as reliable as a good revolver and will have enough ammunition to take on multiple attackers. Most revolvers also won't accommodate tactical lights or lasers, which are invaluable in a home-defense scenario.

I think this is where we disagree. And that's fine; like I said I won't presume to dictate to anyone their personal needs. I figure if somebody breaks into my house that a load of birdshot doesn't make him think twice, and that I need all that hardware to come out of the confrontation alive, I've probably done something to deserve what's coming my way.


Birdshot is an extremely poor choice for home defense. Unless you're in contact range (inside of a few feet) it's doubtful that the shot will penetrate enough to stop an attacker. You also have a LONG long-gun with a limited capacity and a slower rate of fire than even a revolver. If you're using birdshot because you only want to maim then you shouldn't be using a firearm for defense, period. Guns are not for maiming or scaring intruders, they're for killing them. Survivors can sue, and their buddies or relatives can always seek retribution outside of the courts too.
 
2013-01-20 12:17:15 PM
This, "protection from home invasion" talk is interesting if you stop, take a step back, and look at it. To an extent, yes, a weapon can potentially help in such a situation. And I'm sure that having one provides a certain piece of mind. But, is a gun really that great during one?

If one were to be responsible with their gun then it would have a trigger lock and be stored somewhere that's not terribly easy to get to. Right? But in order for it to be an asset during an invasion it would need to be within arms reach at all times. You don't know when and where it'll happen and the element of surprise (you being surprised by someone coming in) is powerful. During a, "woken up by a burglar in the middle of the night and your gun is in your bedroom" situation then it seems great. But anything other than that seems like a crapshoot. It would take seconds to get cornered by a smart invader. It'll take longer to run to the room where your gun is stored, unlock it's case, unlock it's trigger, and run back.

Now, if people aren't that safe with their gun then that's a whole different issue altogether.

Of course, I'd rather have one in the house than not if faced with that situation. But it seems like a placebo more than anything if the average gun owner really is as safe and responsible as they would have us believe.
 
2013-01-20 12:17:20 PM

Zeno-25: GoldSpider: Fark It: In a home invasion or self-defense situation, I don't want "just enough." ...... A modern semi-automatic is going to be nearly as reliable as a good revolver and will have enough ammunition to take on multiple attackers. Most revolvers also won't accommodate tactical lights or lasers, which are invaluable in a home-defense scenario.

I think this is where we disagree. And that's fine; like I said I won't presume to dictate to anyone their personal needs. I figure if somebody breaks into my house that a load of birdshot doesn't make him think twice, and that I need all that hardware to come out of the confrontation alive, I've probably done something to deserve what's coming my way.

Or the intruder is just on a lot of meth/crack, and you should have foreseen this and went with a caliber with more stopping power if you had been properly informed.


000 Buck shot would probably be the best choice.
 
2013-01-20 12:19:12 PM

The Name: CADMonkey79: Thanks for proving my point.

I admit, it is pretty hard not to be condescending when talking to Americans about their precious guns.


localtvwghp.files.wordpress.com

"Dude, try."
 
2013-01-20 12:19:16 PM

Zeno-25: Or the intruder is just on a lot of meth/crack, and you should have foreseen this and went with a caliber with more stopping power if you had been properly informed.


Nice thing about my hypothetical revolver (don't own one, but if I did, that's what I'd probably get) is that I can load slugs after the shot, should the need present itself.
 
2013-01-20 12:19:26 PM

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: So if "Assault WeaponsTM" are actually a minor threat to public safety, there must be some OTHER reason that the gun-grabbers want these weapons taken from the hands of the public, right?

It's obviously a conspiracy by the Illuminati.



Your Fark handle says it all.


/Crack a window
 
2013-01-20 12:20:07 PM

Stone Meadow: ramblinwreck: 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.

I agree, but that fact does nothing to advance the argument, as it's being advanced by gun-control advocates in this thread, that we need to outlaw guns they don't like, and/or that we need to license and regulate the free exercise of that right by otherwise law-abiding citizens. Mass murders like the two incidents last year were perpetrated by mentally deranged individuals who consciously, and with malicious aforethought, broke numerous criminal statues on their way to perpetrate their crimes. Their efforts would have been just as murderous with only handguns with standard magazines, since that configuration is the least likely to fail. Demonizing scary black guns or demanding licensing and registration of guns and users is the height of security theater fear-mongering hypocrisy.


Maybe people will get so disgusted by the amount of hoops they have to jump through to own and use a gun, they'll stop whining about their rights and actually start going after the causes of violent crime instead of being the selfish pricks that they are. Wishful thinking.

Moral of the story: whining about your rights means nothing to the people who want to "grab your guns". So stop being a pussy and start suggesting things that WILL work. As someone who doesn't really care about either side of the argument, and think the extremists on the left need to be practical and the extremists on the right need to stop being selfish paranoid f*cks, I can tell you that moderates like me will start respecting everyone a lot more if they start doing some root cause analysis instead of nuts flexing.
 
2013-01-20 12:20:38 PM

The Name: Indeed, rights that became obsolete about a hundred and fifty years ago. And rights that most other developed countries knew better than to enshrine in their constitutions in the first place.


Horseshiat. People have a right to protect themselves from attackers or people who attempt harm. Self-defense is a natural right. Most other countries don't have rights, they have lists of privileges that can be revoked by their parliaments. Again, if you have such a problem with rights then go about changing them instead of trying to subvert them via legislative fiat.
 
2013-01-20 12:20:41 PM

GoldSpider: Fart_Machine: Actually if you're going to compare the two it's a perfectly valid point.

The comparison is perfectly valid in the context of deaths by each and the emotional response thereto. The fact that one needs a special license to operate a bus has no relevance in context.


Sure it does if you want to compare buses to firearms since buses don't drive themselves.
 
2013-01-20 12:21:29 PM

TotesCrayCray: This, "protection from home invasion" talk is interesting if you stop, take a step back, and look at it. To an extent, yes, a weapon can potentially help in such a situation. And I'm sure that having one provides a certain piece of mind. But, is a gun really that great during one?

If one were to be responsible with their gun then it would have a trigger lock and be stored somewhere that's not terribly easy to get to. Right? But in order for it to be an asset during an invasion it would need to be within arms reach at all times. You don't know when and where it'll happen and the element of surprise (you being surprised by someone coming in) is powerful. During a, "woken up by a burglar in the middle of the night and your gun is in your bedroom" situation then it seems great. But anything other than that seems like a crapshoot. It would take seconds to get cornered by a smart invader. It'll take longer to run to the room where your gun is stored, unlock it's case, unlock it's trigger, and run back.

Now, if people aren't that safe with their gun then that's a whole different issue altogether.

Of course, I'd rather have one in the house than not if faced with that situation. But it seems like a placebo more than anything if the average gun owner really is as safe and responsible as they would have us believe.


Indeed. You'd be better off with a pair of goggles and a can of pepper spray on your nightstand. At least those won't blow anyone's head into a million pieces should your kids get ahold of them.
 
2013-01-20 12:21:32 PM

The Name: Fark It: The Name: CADMonkey79: Thanks for proving my point.

I admit, it is pretty hard not to be condescending when talking to Americans about their precious guns rights.

To me this is about rights.


Indeed, rights that became obsolete about a hundred and fifty years ago. And rights that most other developed countries knew better than to enshrine in their constitutions in the first place.



The Second Amendment is THE right that allows the People to defend all other rights.
 
2013-01-20 12:21:37 PM

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: So if "Assault WeaponsTM" are actually a minor threat to public safety, there must be some OTHER reason that the gun-grabbers want these weapons taken from the hands of the public, right?

It's obviously a conspiracy by the Illuminati.


Your Fark handle says it all.


/Crack a window


I agree he's crazy.

It's obviously something to do with Israel right?
 
2013-01-20 12:21:37 PM

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: So if "Assault WeaponsTM" are actually a minor threat to public safety, there must be some OTHER reason that the gun-grabbers want these weapons taken from the hands of the public, right?

It's obviously a conspiracy by the Illuminati.


Your Fark handle says it all.


/Crack a window


Oh you're making fun of my moniker. I'm crushed. Go hide in your bunker.
 
2013-01-20 12:22:23 PM

Zeno-25: Slick Willy knows what's good for the Dems. It's extremely frustrating to see them waste all of their political capital on a losing issue like gun control. All it will do is stir up the GOP base and push non-crazy gun owners who vote Democrat into the Republican fold. We're out there, I'm one of them.

Fark this BS, there's still plenty of problems left with the economy and gross income inequality.

Watch you dumb farkers hand the Senate and the White House to the GOP in 2016. It's happened before and the Teabaggers have gerrymandered things to hell this time around.


Thank you for pointing this out again. As a guy who's been voting mainly Democratic for the past 40 years, this cannot be repeated too many times. If Democrats insist on pushing this issue to its logical conclusion, we will lose at the mid-terms, and erase all the gains we've made in recent years when the GOP has a unified government in '16.
 
2013-01-20 12:22:34 PM

Alonjar: Fart_Machine: 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.

LOL I'm the loon. Which part didnt you like? Are you saying that you have a legitimate concern that you are going to be murdered by a terrorist?

Or did you just read a lengthy post containing a variety of points.... and zero in on random relatively unrelated baby statistic, and use that as evidence to somehow invalidate logical arguments in your own mind?


When you have to compare 9/11 to abortions it's time to stop posting.
 
2013-01-20 12:22:55 PM

Fark It: 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.


No, where we disagree is that those of us who advocate for some rational regulation of firearms and revere the Bill of Rights recognize that there are reasonable limitations on every one of those rights (i.e. fire in a crowded theater) except the 2nd. It's put on a pedestal and treated as sacrosanct by the NRA, gun rights advocates and all the amateur constitutional scholars who think skipping through the rest of the constitution to the 2nd and then reading that over and over hundreds of times somehow makes them an expert on what the Founders intended.

There have been actual governmental erosions of our rights under the Bill of Rights in the last decade or so. The FISA Bill, Patriot Act, etc dwarf in terms of insidiousness what a 10 round magazine limit would be to gun enthusiasts. Yet many of the same NRA A rated congressmen in both parties voted to support those measures that clawed our right to privacy, speech, illegal search and seizure, etc. My friends who are big 2nd amendment guys either didn't know or didn't care about these issues. Those guys all of us know posting "I love the NRA" stuff on facebook? Not a word when FISA went down. Crickets.

Are there exceptions? Sure. Some of the most paranoid among the right - Beck, Jones - who see black helicopters around every corner have complained as loudly about the Patriot Act as they have about new gun regulations. But those folks aren't rational actors.

Which is ultimately to say I don't trust those complaining about the president's proposals or reasonable restrictions to make an informed, rational argument on the constitutional aspect of this issue. There's no sense of perspective in either direction. They don't recognize that some limitations on our rights are necessary to a functioning society and that other challenges to our rights are much worse than something as bad as having to pass a title to a firearm if you sell it privately or having to reload more regularly.
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report